Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1.    #1  
    Hi all.

    FYI.

    Take care,

    Jay

    Sprint’s Hesse Launches ’Nukes’ in 18-State Push to Stop AT&T Acquisition
    By Greg Bensinger - Jun 28, 2011

    Sprint

    Dan Hesse’s White Room is closely guarded even within Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) The chief executive officer carries the only key and draws black curtains over his scribblings before leaving. This is where Hesse retreats to map out “nukes” in red, blue and green ink, lately his tactics for stopping AT&T Inc. (T)’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA.

    “Clearly, purely, we want to win and block the merger,” said Hesse, during an interview at the company’s Overland Park, Kansas headquarters. “This one poses real risks.”
    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  
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovedessert View Post
    This is where Hesse retreats to map out “nukes” in red, blue and green ink,.....

    This automatically reminded me of this

    http://thumbnail.image.rakuten.co.jp...mg40111570.jpg


    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  3. #3  
    From TFA:
    Hesse’s company stands to lose if the deal goes through because, with less than half the revenue of AT&T or Verizon Wireless, Sprint would struggle to offer competitive pricing and the most cutting-edge phones.
    This part I don't understand. How does AT&T acquiring T-mobile cause Sprint's consumer prices to increase or AT&T&T's to go down? And if the merger means lower consumer prices, then what's bad about that? At this point, Sprint seems to be arguing that nothing should change so that Sprint doesn't have to figure out how to offer cheaper prices.

    But isn't that exactly the opposite of what happens when you get monopolization? Doesn't the lack of competition almost always result in higher consumer prices for those that hold the monopoly pricing power? If that's the case, shouldn't Sprint be arguing to go ahead with the merger, because they're going to be able to swipe AT&T&T customers by offering lower prices?

    I'm not sure where I stand on this merger. After reading Tim Lee, I *think* I'm opposed to it. But I really don't understand Sprint's position.
    Twitter: dullgeek
  4. #4  
    "This part I don't understand. How does AT&T acquiring T-mobile cause Sprint's consumer prices to increase or AT&T&T's to go down? And if the merger means lower consumer prices, then what's bad about that? At this point, Sprint seems to be arguing that nothing should change so that Sprint doesn't have to figure out how to offer cheaper prices."

    More areas that are leased to other carriers in "roaming" territories will fall under one of the two major duopoloy carriers, and rates for them will soar, because there will be even less carriers to lease them from, now (1 major carrier less, to be concise).

    Literally.

    We need MORE carriers, and not less - this is a very, very dangerous merger, for the wireless cell phone market and their consumers.

    I have suggested, myself, a breakup of any carrier that has more contract/long term customers than 1/6 the population of the US at any given point in time.

    "The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I really do know!" -Albert Einstein

  5. #5  
    Less carriers, will mean higher prices in the end. More carriers mean more competition and lower prices.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by LCGuy View Post
    "This part I don't understand. How does AT&T acquiring T-mobile cause Sprint's consumer prices to increase or AT&T&T's to go down? And if the merger means lower consumer prices, then what's bad about that? At this point, Sprint seems to be arguing that nothing should change so that Sprint doesn't have to figure out how to offer cheaper prices."

    More areas that are leased to other carriers in "roaming" territories will fall under one of the two major duopoloy carriers, and rates for them will soar, because there will be even less carriers to lease them from, now (1 major carrier less, to be concise).

    Literally.

    We need MORE carriers, and not less - this is a very, very dangerous merger, for the wireless cell phone market and their consumers.

    I have suggested, myself, a breakup of any carrier that has more contract/long term customers than 1/6 the population of the US at any given point in time.

    Hi all,

    If Canada is any example expect prices to go up, & up & up....as well as the cost of of phones or contracts tied to phones to go up, & up & up....

    Canada had a similar situation to what we have here in the USA...several small cell providers and several large providers....One of the large providers gobbled up a small provider...prices on ALL CELL PROVIDERS PRICES ON SERVICES AND PHONES SHOT UP!

    In addition at least one of the providers Rogers now is trying to tied subsidized smartphone pricing to 3 year contracts not 2 year as is what is routine here....

    By the time my 2 year contract ended on my Centro in Oct 2010....Palm dumped PalmOS for webOS & they dumped the Treo line for the Pre line...Palm was sold and HP came in as a white knight.

    If this was a 2 year contract on a Nokia in that period of time, Nokia would have dumped Symbian, went with Meego, dumped Meego and are now going with Windows....in addition Nokia went from being the largest phone manufacturer to at this point most financial sources think that either Nokia is bought up, merges or fails....

    Imagine a three year contract with Palm...three years for smart phones is very, very old...my Centro is now 2 years and 7 months old, (I'm waiting on the Pre3), in this period of time not did they dump Treo for Pre..... the Pre, the Pre +, the Pre2 and the Veer have all been introduced...I assume that by three years the Pre3 was out....

    I'm afraid we will all pay & pay & pay if AT&T buys T-mobile...

    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
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by mu7efcer View Post
    From TFA:

    This part I don't understand. How does AT&T acquiring T-mobile cause Sprint's consumer prices to increase or AT&T&T's to go down? And if the merger means lower consumer prices, then what's bad about that? At this point, Sprint seems to be arguing that nothing should change so that Sprint doesn't have to figure out how to offer cheaper prices.

    But isn't that exactly the opposite of what happens when you get monopolization? Doesn't the lack of competition almost always result in higher consumer prices for those that hold the monopoly pricing power? If that's the case, shouldn't Sprint be arguing to go ahead with the merger, because they're going to be able to swipe AT&T&T customers by offering lower prices?

    I'm not sure where I stand on this merger. After reading Tim Lee, I *think* I'm opposed to it. But I really don't understand Sprint's position.
    Creating AT&T-mobile would reduce competition, particularly when negotiating cross-carrier and spectrum agreements. On top of that the merger would kick AT&T-mobile well over even Verizon for subscriber levels, giving the one company a LOT more negotiating power AGAINST all the other carriers. Sprint is struggling as it is, if AT&T-mobile comes to be, I doubt it would be long before Verizon eats Sprint as well. Once that happens those two will proceed to jack up rates negotiated with regional carriers and eventually eat them too.

    And this will result in consumer prices going up and service going down even faster than they are currently attempting to pull off.

Posting Permissions