AT&T to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion

By Emil ยท 27 replies
Mar 20, 2011
Post New Reply
  1. AT&T has announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom in a cash-and-stock transaction currently valued at approximately $39 billion.

    Read the whole story

    OUTLAWXXX TS Rookie Posts: 51

    This is bullshit!! Hopefully the deal is shutdown...
  3. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    Agreed, I guess I'll be switching to Verizon if this happens. AT&T is WHACK.
  4. vipor231

    vipor231 TS Rookie Posts: 27

    t-mobile sucks..ive had bad dealings with them and the fact ATT is getting them spells bad news for customers
  5. Damn. I've been with T-Mobile since they were VoiceStream. This totally blows. One of the main reason's I chose them was because they weren't AT&T, Verizon or Sprint.
  6. This is so coool. AT&T are the best possible people to take over T-Mobile.,
  7. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    Yep, Verizon is not whack...
  8. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Evangelist Posts: 510   +152

    Great... less competition in an already anti-competitive market. Just what we need.
  9. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    Hahaha, and the AT&T bashing continues. Because, you know, Verizon is amazing.

    If, and only if, people TRIED products, they would really realize what they're missing out. All this internet belief (because that's what it really is) that AT&T's signal is the worst, is all but a belief. Just like in some states Verizon is absolutely horrible, AT&T is equally horrible.

    But in competitive states, out of the two, AT&T is usually superior, mainly because it owns most of the cell towers than any other network, in most of the metropolitan areas. Because, you know, AT&T has the most telecommunication-based government contracts.

    Now, I do hate some of their business practices, such as the CEO treating that customer so bad through e-mail last year, the stupid data caps, or the exuberant prices of some of its services. But when people talk trash about AT&T's reliability (or speed) on states/cities where rival companies have a common ground, I just find it insulting because these allegations are always unsupported, and always based on what X person said on X forum or X website. Which is OK, because people are always going to complain about bad service, and rightfully so. But don't take the bad things 10 or so people (out of the 95 million) said about AT&T, and use it as irrefutable facts.
  10. howzz1854

    howzz1854 TS Evangelist Posts: 611   +94

    i hope this doesn't go through..... what kind of circus is this!!. the government needs to step in and break this shyt up. this is exactly the opposite of what people want... more monopoly will only drive up the prices and lower the quality of products. watch they put a cap on everything, pretty soon you won't be able to do anything on your phone without bustin out your credit card. there's already lack of competition in the market place which enable these companies increase prices whenever they want, and now everything is going to be ATT!!? please uncle sam.. do something.
  11. cardriverx

    cardriverx TS Rookie Posts: 82

    I was really hoping for sprint and tmo to merge.... my dreams have been dashed!
  12. Nima304

    Nima304 TS Guru Posts: 365   +81

    Great. Less competition in an already competitive market. I know someone already said this, but this is truly bullshit. I'd be more supportive if AT&T and Verizon were more concerned about their customers and less concerned about assets.
  13. thewind

    thewind TS Enthusiast Posts: 77

    The fact that prices may increase is true, because competishion brings prices down. But not quality, quality usualy goes up. Take europe for example they have had a better network than the US for years but its all a monopoly. They also have faster internet. AT&T taking over is good for people on AT&T but not good for everyone else due to the cost may increase. I'm on sprint mainly because they are cheaper than Verizon, and WAY cheaper than AT@T. (Verizon may be cheaper on a family plan idk, but for just me Sprint saves me around $300 a year.)
  14. Lokalaskurar

    Lokalaskurar TS Enthusiast Posts: 544

    Honestly, I fail to see where this statement makes sense. Or as some would say: bullsh*t. (Technological) Monopoly in Europe (or in the U.S.) *does not* / *never has* resulted in increased quality - but rather the opposite. In fact, the very reason for Europe having a better Internet-connection speed and network in general is because most (almost all in fact) European countries had a free market regarding network-services within a state-run system, thus Europe quickly adopted cellphones upon invention for instance. A head start you might say. As with network and other technological advancements.

    Monopoly had no part of Europe's success in either networking or Internet connectivity. Try getting technological support from a stubborn goat, that's more or less easier than standing up to the big guy who's running the joint.

    What if the US. cellular system was like the train system of my native European country? - one big monopoly. Well, first of all: a simple service like charging your cellular account would cost 10x what it's really worth, be 50x as slow as it should and have 50% increased monthly fees for a random stupid reason like "cellphone-button-pressing-tax". Try to oppose this fact and the company ruling supreme would simply laugh and tell you to go someplace else. Not as easy as they are the only ones around. Monopoly has not done Europe any good at all.

    Trying to compete with one each other is what makes us better in the long run. AT&T acquiring T-Mobile is probably not going to improve the current situation in the US. And thus, I definitely oppose AT&T acquiring T-Mobile, monopoly will only do the customers bad and in the end; fill AT&T's coffers.
  15. Relic

    Relic TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,379   +16

    Definitely not happy about this, as already pointed out less competition is not what the US mobile market needs. I'm currently a very happy T-Mobile customer and have little interest in being with AT&T, especially considering they are dead last in customer satisfaction. I have a feeling we all will be on the losing end of this deal if it gets approved.

    @lawfer I'd disagree with that, while yes they may be superior in some areas multiple survey's over the years has shown AT&T consistently at the bottom from customer satisfaction to dropped calls. That on-top of all the shenanigans they partake in does not instill any confidence that this merger will be good for us.
  16. Wendig0

    Wendig0 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,136   +131

    Well, customer service is gonna go in the tank now... AT&T is made of fail and aids. I was just planning on switching back to T-Mobile again too :(

    @lawfer, I've waffled before, and gone back to AT&T 3 times (because the salesman was the devil), and all 3 times I realized why I hated AT&T to begin with. They have the absolute WORST customer service (a title they have held since dinosaurs roamed the earth), the call quality has always been horrible in my opinion, and I always found unsolicited erroneous charges on my bill (try getting a rep to fix them, that doesn't make you want to go on a shooting spree, and I'll buy you a beer). AT&T might have "more towers" than any of the other companies, but that DOES NOT make them the more reliable company.
  17. tengeta

    tengeta TS Enthusiast Posts: 612

    When are pirate cell networks going to get here? I can't stand any cell provider.
  18. On some other posts people said that given that the combined company would control something like 50-55% of the market and thus is not a monopoly, but when you filter in the fact that both ATT and T-Mobile use GSM, which is in world-wide use, then this means that the combined company will own 95% or more of the GSM market in the country -- THAT is a monopoly...

    As for the poster who said that a monopoly works in some European countries, it is because the govt actually regulates and at least tries to think of the people, whereas here (U.S.) it takes only a $200,000 campaign contribution for the regulator to look the other way while proclaiming that it is good for the market and ultimately the consumer to have a single company controlling everything.
  19. matrix86

    matrix86 TS Guru Posts: 843   +38

    Really? I've nothing but good experience with T-Mobile. When I first got them, they were unable to give me a number within my area code but said they would call back when one became available...2 weeks later they called and gave me the right area code. I was surprised they actually called. And they've never tried talking me into getting more stuff that I don't need. They listen to my questions and to everything i'm saying. They always know what they're doing when I need any help. I go in, tell them my problem, and in a few minutes i'm out. I think the problem is with the people. There are people with bad customer service in every company.
  20. Zilpha

    Zilpha TS Enthusiast Posts: 319

    I'm disappointed. Tethering without extra costs is about to go out the window, as is the customer service that T-Mobile customer have grown to expect. AT&T was a joke when they were a landline monopoly, and they are a joke now. I recently renewed my T-Mobile contract - hopefully this will qualify as a significant enough change to the terms that I can get out of it and into Verizon.

    If I am going to pay more and have crappy customer service, I may as well be on the better network.
  21. howzz1854

    howzz1854 TS Evangelist Posts: 611   +94

    This has to be the most illogical logic ever. simply lumping Monopoly, and Europe has faster network together doesn't mean Monopoly equals faster network. any economist with a half sense will know that monopoly does NOT equal to faster or better product and services. look back into history, every monopoly cases have always resulted in poorer services, and higher prices. you'd be a fool to believe the opposite. the reason Europe and Asia has a faster network with better coverage is due to other reasons like government incentive + fiscal policy. the moment you let a monopolized companies do whatever they want, is the day you can kiss your money goodbye. if you're buying into the whole bull of ATT&T promising better coverage and rural services by combining with T-mobile, you just drank up their cool-aid, the whole bottle. they proclaim that to get the regulators to pass the bill, or to look the other way.
  22. DarkCobra

    DarkCobra TS Rookie Posts: 79

    So let me make sure I've got this right. AT&T is already having a hard time providing really good service to their existing clients on an already overtaxed network . . . and their solution to that is to suddenly add millions of more users to that same overloaded network. Have I got this right?
  23. DarkCobra

    DarkCobra TS Rookie Posts: 79

    Before the responses come in . . . yes, I realize they're gaining more infrastructure as well. However, the T-Mo folks are going to hate the new ridiculous rates and the AT&T folks know the problem really isn't MORE cell sites, it's the poor service WITHIN the cell sites themselves. Having more cites will merely spread the problem even further. Before AT&T acquires tons of more infrastructure to maintain, they first need to clean up the mess within what they have now!
  24. stbecker

    stbecker TS Rookie Posts: 32

    VzW shored up their national coverage by acquiring Alltel last year. As a former architectural engineering lead on a tier 1 application for VzW, I studied the network layouts for both companies in detail. Yes, AT&T might have some densely populated areas with better coverage, but VzW focused on the broader picture. When your marketing teams hype the network at every available opportunity, you can imagine that the capital expenditures are focused on backing up that claim. Conversely, AT&T generated some bad publicity through network congestion and call quality. VzW was the clear front runner through strategic and calculated maneuvering. AT&T counteracted by nixing unlimited plans. Sure, those of us who hog bandwidth are not happy. But believe it or not, but the "average" customer actually pays less than when they had to be part of the unlimited plans. All carriers saw this coming as unlimited plans are no longer justifiable in terms of maintaining the bottom line when you factor in the infrastructure that has to support it. AT&T just made the first move in that sense. So now it comes back to subscriber base. And now the wireless carrier leap-frog game has AT&T as the front runner. If the TM acquisition includes enough physical towers, which I'm guessing it does, you can bet that those commercials about the bigger/better network are going to thrown right back in the face of VzW. In the background there will be lawsuits about who is allowed to say what. It's funny how the government ruled that a monopoly is illegal but the wireless carriers are just toppling the dominos back in that direction. In a free enterprise, more options always benefits the consumer. So consolidation will only mean higher prices down the road.
  25. DarkCobra

    DarkCobra TS Rookie Posts: 79

    I agree with stbecker. It's like the old "Ma Bell" is reassembling only this time in cellular form. I predict Verizon will now go after Sprint (similar systems) and eventually there will be two giant behemoths standing. Competition will be radically reduced and WE will all be the losers. This merger is going to set something in motion that is going to be bad for everyone. Just watch.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...