Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1.    #1  
    Hi all,

    If Canada is an example, the merger may well raise rates for all of us. I'm also concerned over anther trend in post merger Canada....that is to try to tie subsidize pricing of smartphones to a 3 year contract...A 2 year contract is bad enough, but 3 years in the smartphone business is the difference between tin cans and string and the next hot smartphone, yet to be put on sale.

    If this is happening in Canada, will 3 year phone contracts become the norm here? I hope not?

    Please use the link for the rest of the article.

    Take care,

    Jay

    For AT&T-T-Mobile merger, fairness to Sprint is in the details
    By Andrew Nusca | June 2, 2011, 5:03am PDT

    For AT&T-T-Mobile merger, fairness to Sprint is in the details | ZDNet

    On Tuesday, Sprint — the third-largest wireless carrier in the nation — filed a motion to block the pending merger between T-Mobile and AT&T, Nos. 4 and 2, respectively.

    Among other things, the company fears that the merger would allow Verizon (No. 1) and AT&T a duopoly of sorts, giving them more power to set prices (which is indeed illegal) and “rule the air[waves],” as Verizon’s ads aptly put it, occupying 76 percent of the wireless market.

    Moreover, Sprint says the two will increase rates — including on backhaul services, which allow carriers to hand off traffic to each other’s networks — and, through exclusivity agreements with handmakers, restrict its access to them and their flagship devices.
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #2  
    I'm no fan of this merger, but Sprint can easily combat their competitors raising rates by... not raising their own! If Sprint really wants to protect Verizon & AT&T's customers, offer them an alternative that makes them want to be served by Sprint. No need to get the government involved. Instead, Sprint appears to be trying to get the government to block a merger so that it can come in and buy T-Mob at a lower price than AT&T is offering.

    To me, this looks like the very definition of crony-capitalism.
    Twitter: dullgeek
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by mu7efcer View Post
    Instead, Sprint appears to be trying to get the government to block a merger so that it can come in and buy T-Mob at a lower price than AT&T is offering.

    To me, this looks like the very definition of crony-capitalism.
    Hi,

    Sprint already went down the road of buying a cell phone provider that didn't use the same tech as they did and it was a disaster that blew up in their faces. I will be surprised it they would want to try it again...but of course I have been wrong many a time....

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by mu7efcer View Post
    I'm no fan of this merger, but Sprint can easily combat their competitors raising rates by... not raising their own! If Sprint really wants to protect Verizon & AT&T's customers, offer them an alternative that makes them want to be served by Sprint. No need to get the government involved. Instead, Sprint appears to be trying to get the government to block a merger so that it can come in and buy T-Mob at a lower price than AT&T is offering.

    To me, this looks like the very definition of crony-capitalism.
    I doubt Sprint wants T-Mob. One uses CDMA and the other uses CSM and last time Sprint merged with a company that had a different Tech (Nextel), it was a total mess.

    As for combating "AT&T-Mobile" and Verizon with price, well thats what they are already doing and it isn't working that well.
  5. #5  
    This merger is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done, IMO.

    The FTC and SEC and DOJ should be investigating options to break up all carriers that have over 50m subscribers, to insure that the environment is always competitive.

    Just the possiblity of this merger is a commentary of the sad state of how much corporate control is present in today's governing policies via lobbying power - you KNOW AT&T thinks that they can get this through based on thier own private preliminary feedback from their lobbyists in DC... that's what the real issue is here... (and the implications of this should literally scare every single US citizen, I believe)

    Call your congressmen, senators and state legislators if you oppose this deal.

    Sprint, like them or not, is actually helping the average citizen here as a byproduct of ther efforts to try to survive in the market they are in.
    Last edited by LCGuy; 06/02/2011 at 03:27 PM.
    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  6. #6  
    I think that all users should be their own cell carrier. That way if I choose to pay, somone can leech off the system.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovedessert View Post
    Sprint already went down the road of buying a cell phone provider that didn't use the same tech as they did and it was a disaster that blew up in their faces.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evorgleb View Post
    I doubt Sprint wants T-Mob. One uses CDMA and the other uses CSM and last time Sprint merged with a company that had a different Tech (Nextel), it was a total mess.
    I agree with both of you, except for one thing. Sprint was in talks with T-Mob about a merger when AT&T swooped in with a better offer:

    Now, Sprint wants to block the AT&T&T merger on grounds that would preclude Verizon swooping in, leaving only Sprint as a viable option.

    Just my opinion.
    Twitter: dullgeek
  8. #8  
    sprint isn't concerned for at&t or vzw customers, they are concerned about their own. If at&t and vzw raise the cost of network sharing and hand-offs, sprint will have to raise rates to stay profitable. The rates could be raised to the point where sprint is unable to undercut the other two on price. sprint relies on network sharing agreements to have coverage outside metro areas.

Posting Permissions