Reply With Quote
This is terrible for the consumer because its less compe ion. ty.
Just read a company email and cannot post link but should be announced shortly...what do yall think? personally I like compe ion and dont think this is good for the consumer..
This is terrible for the consumer because its less compe ion. ty.
Actually, no.
http://www.businessinsider.com/att-buys-t-mobile-2011-3Compe ion and Pricing
The U.S. wireless industry is one of the most fiercely compe ive markets in the world and will remain so after this deal. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where a large majority of consumers can choose from five or more wireless providers in their local market. For example, in 18 of the top 20 U.S. local markets, there are five or more providers. Local market compe ion is escalating among larger carriers, low-cost carriers and several regional wireless players with nationwide service plans. This intense compe ion is only increasing with the build-out of new 4G networks and the emergence of new market entrants.
The compe iveness of the market has directly benefited consumers. A 2010 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) states the overall average price (adjusted for inflation) for wireless services declined 50 percent from 1999 to 2009, during a period which saw five major wireless mergers.
monopoly?
Are you an idiot? When one company merges with another the compe ion just got worse because there is fewer compe ion. Whether or not there are more companies is irrelevant because there is now one less.
I know its a hard concept but 5-1 = 4 and 4 is less than 5. Very complex math here.
There were four national carriers before this with ATT, Verizon, Spring and TMobile. Now there are 3. How in the is that good for consumers? Its not like ATT all of a sudden significantly upgraded its network. All it did was gain a few million customers.
T-Mobile sucked anyway. I understand the need for compe ion, but they weren't getting any better, so one could reasonably assume they never felt the need to compete. Sure, they were a LITTLE cheaper, but their products/service were a LOT tier.
better coverage for ATT customers soon. i approve.
actually they did.
added cell towers = upgrade of network.
Where is tmobile that ATT wasn't already? Its not a significant improvement and you're assuming they're going to operate all those towers after the merger which isn't going to happen. They're not going to keep every Tmobile tower. I'm sure there has been some expansion of the network but I really doubt its significant by any means.
AT&T was growing at an enormous rate before the merger (8000% increase in data usage in 4 years). But what you didn't read was that local and regional carriers are making huge inroads in the mobile market and really giving the national carriers fits.
If you live in San Antonio, think HEB vs Walmart. You don't want a national carrier, you can still go with a regional carrier. There are plenty of alternatives that cost less and still work well in the city. Also, it did say that rates dropped 50% in the last 10 years (adjusted for inflation of course).
Again, before you shoot your mouth off, actually read. I know you love being right, but when the damn article not only says that the compe ion is fierce, but then backs it up, it's okay to concede that you were wrong.
Anyway, since you'll just continue, I'm done with you but will discuss what this could mean for future phone technology.
Another big winner is Apple. They just gained access to 46.5 million customers without having to lift a finger.
The big loser is Sprint, as I'd imagine they'd have the smallest network (I could be wrong though), and have to fight off Verizon and the new AT&T. Also, I bet AT&T can do the LTE thing while still carrying T-Mobile's HPSA+ as a backup plan. A lot of speed is coming to AT&T customers.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/...ion/?src=buslnThe transaction, which requires approval from regulators, is expected to be heavily scrutinized in Washington. The deal would leave only three major cellular carriers in the nation: AT&T, Verizon and a much smaller Sprint, which may now be forced to find a merger partner.
Already, some critics say the deal will result in higher prices for consumers. T-Mobile had offered some of the lowest rates in the county. While AT&T is expected to honor current T-Mobile contracts, it is likely that once those contracts expire, T-Mobile customers would be expected to pay AT&T’s higher rates.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382267,00.asp
For stockholders, this all sounds great. With reduced compe ion and the efficiencies of a combined network, the new company will probably be quite profitable.
For phone owners, tech lovers, and American consumers, this is a total disaster.
Rates Will Rise, Customer Service Will Drop
Let's start with a basic fact: less compe ion always results in higher prices than you would have had otherwise. T-Mobile has always been a value leader, offering low prices and some innovative plans, such as its Even More Plus plans which gave monthly discounts in exchange for paying the full up-front price for phones. These plans will go away and the combined carrier will normalize at AT&T's higher rates.
In AT&T's press release for the merger, the company doesn't bother to rebut this idea. Rather, the carrier says there's already plenty of compe ion and implies that prices are so low that Americans shouldn't be too concerned. AT&T also shows a disingenuous chart explaining that prices dropped when carriers merged over the past ten years. Of course, it doesn't show what would have happened to prices if those carriers hadn't merged.
This merger also means less phone choice for US consumers. Unlike in most other countries, the American phone market is dominated by the carriers; the carriers have to approve and sell most phones. The process of making it through approval labs, and the space on carrier store shelves, limit the number of phones each carrier can handle at once. I'm pretty sure that the number of phones carried by AT&T/T-Mobile will be less than the current number carried by the two carriers separately, because they will want to create efficiencies and unify their product lines.
This doesn't mean T-Mobile's phones will go away - I see the merged carrier cherry picking an iPhone here, a MyTouch 4G there. But it means that there will be fewer choices overall for American consumers, and fewer chances for new manufacturers or ideas to appear in the marketplace.
From a customer service perspective, make no mistake, AT&T will subsume T-Mobile. The merged carrier will not have T-Mobile's friendliness, nimbleness, or level of customer service. Just like in the horrifying Sprint-Nextel mess or during the long, slow, grinding AT&T/Cingular merger, the merged carrier will sink to the minimum customer service level of its parts.
You really need to read and not just talk.
Improves service quality for U.S. wireless customers
AT&T and T-Mobile USA customers will see service improvements - including improved voice quality - as a result of additional spectrum, increased cell tower density and broader network infrastructure. At closing, AT&T will immediately gain cell sites equivalent to what would have taken on average five years to build without the transaction, and double that in some markets. The combination will increase AT&T’s network density by approximately 30 percent in some of its most populated areas, while avoiding the need to construct additional cell towers. This transaction will increase spectrum efficiency to increase capacity and output, which not only improves service, but is also the best way to ensure compe ive prices and services in a market where demand is extremely high and spectrum is in short supply.
So when are they going to account for the drop in rates that was quoted in my article?
Also, the PC Mag link is an op-ed piece. BIG difference compared to an unbiased article.
You're a complete ing moron. Of course rates have dropped, but THAT DOESN'T"T MEAN THEY WOULDN'T"T HAVE DROPPED MORE WITH MORE COMPE ION. They've dropped because the advance of technology and not because of mergers. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read.
I'm actually glad that you brought up stores in San Antonio, because when Albertsons pulled out HEB got way worse. Why? Less compe ion!
Its laughable that you think I'm wrong about one of the most fundamental principles of economics.
LOL @ a lot of speed. ATT customers gained worse customer service and the exact same speed they were going to get before.Anyway, since you'll just continue, I'm done with you but will discuss what this could mean for future phone technology.
Another big winner is Apple. They just gained access to 46.5 million customers without having to lift a finger.
The big loser is Sprint, as I'd imagine they'd have the smallest network (I could be wrong though), and have to fight off Verizon and the new AT&T. Also, I bet AT&T can do the LTE thing while still carrying T-Mobile's HPSA+ as a backup plan. A lot of speed is coming to AT&T customers.
So much for being done.
Let me get this straight. You think mergers make rates go down? I just want to be absolutely clear on this.
You honestly think they're going to keep operating all of those towers? They'll operate them until they integrate the companies but as soon as that process is underway those towers aren't going to all stay in service.
Running cell towers isn't free and they're not going to keep redundant towers for the sake of redundancy. They're going to operate a minimum of towers they need.
Nathan, I'd love for you to explain to me how this merger will result in lower rates.
I'd love to see At&T try T-Mobile's $10 unlimited Data plan. I'd sign up for that. Unlikely though
I don't have either, but what happened when Cricket and Pocket merged?
I thought of this when I was told about the buyout:
Regardless how you feel about the whole thing, you have to admire at&t's ability to expand.
Does this mean that there will be a new set of commercials where the T-Mobile girl and the AT&T guy get married? And then they can share carrying the 'slow network' guy.
They have a little more leverage with Apple for negotiations, that is probably what this is about.
Not really excited at all about this as a T-Mobile customer. I'll likely loose cheap unlimited data, reasonable phone planes, and awesome customer service for AT&T's offering.
You're forgetting one thing. While AT&T exists in name, it's actually the old SBC as SBC bought out AT&T. The former CEO Edward Whitacre stated that he was going to make SBC so big and powerful he'd buy AT&T. Then he went out and did it.I thought of this when I was told about the buyout:
Regardless how you feel about the whole thing, you have to admire at&t's ability to expand.
Anyway, in reference to the Cricket remark, I know a lot more people who have Cricket these days than ever before, so I'd say their doing something right. They also have the broadband cards for internet.
And Cricket is bringing affordable Android phones to the market. They may not be the fastest, have the nicest screens or can compete with the Galaxy S and Evo's of the world, but they do everything those phones can do and at a cheaper price (both phone and service plan), so people are finding it to be a cheaper alternative while still getting a smartphone.
And most people don't realize it's actually a nationwide network covered in all the major markets. so you can travel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
