Verizon CEO in favor of AT&T + TMo merger

According to the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...573418910.html
..

The article might be paywalled. Here is how it starts:

Lowell McAdam, who as chief executive of Verizon Communications Inc.
oversees the country's largest wireless carrier, has waded into the
debate over whether AT&T Inc. should be allowed to buy competitor
T-Mobile USA.

Unlike many companies in the industry, Verizon has maintained a
neutral posture on the deal. But on Wednesday, Mr. McAdam said "that
match had to occur" and cautioned the government that if it chooses
to block such mergers, it needs to come up a clear plan for getting
the industry the spectrum it needs to meet growing demand.

I did not read the whole article because I think it is ********. If
Verizon is in favor of the merger, it is because the merger would
eliminate a low cost service provider. Only one such service provider
would be left: MetroPCS.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com {{ }}
^^

In article <j5e0mh$949$1@reader1.panix.com>, David Arnstein says...
>
> According to the WSJ:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...573418910.html
> .
>
> The article might be paywalled. Here is how it starts:
>
> Lowell McAdam, who as chief executive of Verizon Communications Inc.
> oversees the country's largest wireless carrier, has waded into the
> debate over whether AT&T Inc. should be allowed to buy competitor
> T-Mobile USA.
>
> Unlike many companies in the industry, Verizon has maintained a
> neutral posture on the deal. But on Wednesday, Mr. McAdam said "that
> match had to occur" and cautioned the government that if it chooses
> to block such mergers, it needs to come up a clear plan for getting
> the industry the spectrum it needs to meet growing demand.
>
> I did not read the whole article because I think it is ********. If
> Verizon is in favor of the merger, it is because the merger would
> eliminate a low cost service provider. Only one such service provider
> would be left: MetroPCS.

Well, no, Cricket and Revol would also be around, but none of them are
truly nationwide.

Sprint, AT&T and VZ would be the only three truly nationwide carriers.

If you can't read the WSJ article, check out Cnet:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...-ceo-talks-up-
spectrum-downplays-sprint-iphone/

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:43:29 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:

> In article <j5e0mh$949$1@reader1.panix.com>, David Arnstein says...
>>
>> According to the WSJ:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...573418910.html
>> .
>>
>> The article might be paywalled. Here is how it starts:
>>
>> Lowell McAdam, who as chief executive of Verizon Communications Inc.
>> oversees the country's largest wireless carrier, has waded into the
>> debate over whether AT&T Inc. should be allowed to buy competitor
>> T-Mobile USA.
>>
>> Unlike many companies in the industry, Verizon has maintained a
>> neutral posture on the deal. But on Wednesday, Mr. McAdam said "that
>> match had to occur" and cautioned the government that if it chooses
>> to block such mergers, it needs to come up a clear plan for getting
>> the industry the spectrum it needs to meet growing demand.
>>
>> I did not read the whole article because I think it is ********. If
>> Verizon is in favor of the merger, it is because the merger would
>> eliminate a low cost service provider. Only one such service provider
>> would be left: MetroPCS.
>
> Well, no, Cricket and Revol would also be around, but none of them are
> truly nationwide.
>
> Sprint, AT&T and VZ would be the only three truly nationwide carriers.
>
> If you can't read the WSJ article, check out Cnet:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...-ceo-talks-up-
> spectrum-downplays-sprint-iphone/

What I see in the statement is a description of how T-Mobile customers
will suffer as their spectrum gets used to support at&t customers instead:

"AT&T buying T-Mobile is like gravity," he said. "T-Mobile has spectrum,
but no capital. And AT&T has the capital but needs the spectrum.

See it? AT&T is buying T-Mobile's spectrum for the use of AT&T,
and T-Mo customers can lump it, like it or not. Not my idea of a good deal.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 2011-09-22, David Arnstein <arnstein@panix.com> wrote:
> Unlike many companies in the industry, Verizon has maintained a
> neutral posture on the deal. But on Wednesday, Mr. McAdam said "that
> match had to occur" and cautioned the government that if it chooses
> to block such mergers, it needs to come up a clear plan for getting
> the industry the spectrum it needs to meet growing demand.

That's a bit ironic. The second biggest bidder for 1700 MHz AWS
spectrum was Verizon Wireless, buying about 20% of what was sold
by value (T-Mobile bought about 30% of it), yet Verizon (unlike
T-Mobile) sells no phones which support 1700 MHz and has apparently
done nothing at all with their $3 billion investment beyond raising
spectrum prices for everyone else by spending at the auction
and keeping anyone else from making use of what they bought.

Dennis Ferguson

arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote:

> Lowell McAdam, who as chief executive of Verizon Communications
> Inc. oversees the country's largest wireless carrier, has waded
> into the debate over whether AT&T Inc. should be allowed to buy
> competitor T-Mobile USA.

Of course!

I suspect about 3 minutes after the AT&T/T-Mo deal is closed VZW will
buy <insert carrier's name here> and it's very important to them that
the feds butt out of any merger deals.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

In article <slrnj7mrh2.9b7.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
Ferguson says...

> That's a bit ironic. The second biggest bidder for 1700 MHz AWS
> spectrum was Verizon Wireless, buying about 20% of what was sold
> by value (T-Mobile bought about 30% of it), yet Verizon (unlike
> T-Mobile) sells no phones which support 1700 MHz and has apparently
> done nothing at all with their $3 billion investment beyond raising
> spectrum prices for everyone else by spending at the auction
> and keeping anyone else from making use of what they bought.

Oh, like AT&T, who is *****ing about not having spectrum but is actually
sitting on a lot more than they're using?

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net