Sprint sues AT&T and DT

[AnthroMatt]

I guess word that AT&T was developing a plan to appease the DOJ didn't sit well with Hesse & Co?

Sprint Newsroom | Sprint Files Suit to Block Proposed AT&T and T-Mobile Transaction

Sprint Nextel [NYSE:S] today brought suit against AT&T, Inc., AT&T Mobility, Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile seeking to block the proposed acquisition as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

[awj223]

It shouldn't sit well with Hesse & Co. Not surprising. I really hope this buyout deal is stopped by the DOJ. I've always thought it was anticompetitive from day 1, and I also dislike AT&T's arrogance in its TV ads claiming that the combination with T-Mobile will provide x and y to people. They think they can get away with anything, and the DOJ is about the slam the door in their face.

Ever watch baseball? It's kinda like when a batter has a 3 ball count on him, takes a close pitch, and then (without the umpire having called it a ball) tosses the bat aside and begins walking to first base. And then the umpire calls the pitch a strike. Sometimes, you wonder if the umpire would have done that if the batter would have just stayed put until AFTER the umpire called it either way.

[whitetigergrowl]

It'll be awesome watching T-Mobile disintegrate without the merger anyways won't it? Watching as it slowly starts closing it's doors and another large competitor is lost anyways. Or watching as it's network goes off rails and people continue leaving it in droves. Or watching as it's pricing structure changes and gets worse. That's what makes it great competition!

It'll make for awesome competition when it's gone anyways won't it. lol. Which will still put AT&T and Verizon as a duopoly. At best all the lawsuit by Sprint and the DOJ is doing is delaying the inevitable. Regardless of the outcome with AT&T. Anything else is just very good optimism.

[milan03]

It'll be awesome watching T-Mobile disintegrate without the merger anyways won't it? Watching as it slowly starts closing it's doors and another large competitor is lost anyways. Or watching as it's network goes off rails and people continue leaving it in droves. Or watching as it's pricing structure changes and gets worse. That's what makes it great competition!

It'll make for awesome competition when it's gone anyways won't it. lol. Which will still put AT&T and Verizon as a duopoly. At best all the lawsuit by Sprint and the DOJ is doing is delaying the inevitable. Regardless of the outcome with AT&T. Anything else is just very good optimism.

Absolutely false. There are way too many billion dollar corporations that would love to invest in T-Mobile USA, why should we allow AT&T, the only other GSM carrier? What choice would domestic and international customers if AT&T was to buy T-Mobile?
T-Mobile might be the smallest, but their customers LOVE their network and customers service. Besides you, I don't think any AT&T user can say that they love AT&T dearly. The network is known to be the absolute worst in all reviews, their CEO is known for lying and manipulating PR statements to stay competitive. T-Mobile has the smallest footprint, but it's network performance is rated second to only Verizon's LTE network. In most metro areas they already have 42mbps DC-HSPA deployed, maxing out at the speeds faster than what we see on AT&T's LTE that's not even loaded. The amount of jobs that people will lose if the merger goes through is ridiculous, no matter what AT&T is saying.
Noone in their right mind should support the merger

[AnthroMatt]

What choice would domestic and international customers if AT&T was to buy T-Mobile?

A CDMA/GSM combo phone? You know, like the kind sold by Sprint and Verizon.

If by international customers you mean customers living in other countries that may be visiting or working in the USA, that doesn't matter. They don't dictate the US market...just like there aren't CDMA networks all over Europe for the convenience of foreigners with CDMA devices.

The argument that only one GSM carrier to choose from is somehow anti-competive is patently stupid. There has always only been one national iDEN carrier in this country, and I have never heard anyone complaining about a Nextel monopoly.

[veriztd]

A CDMA/GSM combo phone? You know, like the kind sold by Sprint and Verizon.

Don't forget that none of those devices allows the use of GSM while in the US while active on SPRINT or VERIZON, only if the phone is unlocked using a SIM from a GSM carrier.

[AnthroMatt]

Don't forget that none of those devices allows the use of GSM while in the US while active on SPRINT or VERIZON, only if the phone is unlocked using a SIM from a GSM carrier.

What does that have to do with anything? If you are a Sprint or VZW customer with a normal CDMA phone you can't use it on a GSM carrier, whether there be 1 or 100 GSM options, either.

[bigsnake49]

It'll be awesome watching T-Mobile disintegrate without the merger anyways won't it? Watching as it slowly starts closing it's doors and another large competitor is lost anyways. Or watching as it's network goes off rails and people continue leaving it in droves. Or watching as it's pricing structure changes and gets worse. That's what makes it great competition!

It'll make for awesome competition when it's gone anyways won't it. lol. Which will still put AT&T and Verizon as a duopoly. At best all the lawsuit by Sprint and the DOJ is doing is delaying the inevitable. Regardless of the outcome with AT&T. Anything else is just very good optimism.

Why do you think they will disintegrate? Sprint has not been doing so great, but they're still around. T-Mobile can and will survive. DT can do an IPO or totally spin them off. Let's face it, DT just wants out of this market and wants a premium. This merger is not in the best interest of us the consumers. The DOJ is there to protect us, not to the protect the big corporations.

[awj223]

The argument that only one GSM carrier to choose from is somehow anti-competive is patently stupid. There has always only been one national iDEN carrier in this country, and I have never heard anyone complaining about a Nextel monopoly.

Some of us refuse to buy phones from providers, either because the providers install crapware, bloat the software, or cripple features. Since GSM/UMTS is the only system that REQUIRES providers to issue SIM cards, and since SIM cards are the only way you can be sure that you can buy a phone directly from the manufacturer and have the thing work, it IS anti-competitive to have only one GSM/UMTS carrier. For people who don't care about SIM cards and only want use one phone at a time (until they buy a new phone), GSM and CDMA and iDEN are essentially equal. They can just never swap the SIM. But for people who do care about SIM swapping, GSM/UMTS is the only choice.

Had VZW and Sprint actually implemented R-UIM cards, I would agree with your argument, but given that they have too much of a Nazi control attitude toward handsets, your argument doesn't hold water.

As far as CDMA/GSM combo phones for int'l travelers, seriously? VZW/Sprint already have a crappy handset selection as it is (nearly EVERY phone they sell is crippled in some way, even the Android models are programmed to not let you tether unless you pay extra). And now you're talking about further limiting handset selection to a small subset of something that's already crappy.

[whitetigergrowl]

Why do you think they will disintegrate? Sprint has not been doing so great, but they're still around. T-Mobile can and will survive. DT can do an IPO or totally spin them off. Let's face it, DT just wants out of this market and wants a premium. This merger is not in the best interest of us the consumers. The DOJ is there to protect us, not to the protect the big corporations.

And let's not forget the 4 other carriers TMO talked to before they chose ATT. It doesn't matter if one of them would have merged. It still would have eliminated competition. And the TMO you know today would still be history.

So remember even if the merger doesn't go through it still doesn't mean the end result will be in the best interest of the consumer or competition.

If they want out there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing so. Regardless of what the consumer wants or thinks.

[AnthroMatt]

Some of us refuse to buy phones from providers, either because the providers install crapware, bloat the software, or cripple features. Since GSM/UMTS is the only system that REQUIRES providers to issue SIM cards, and since SIM cards are the only way you can be sure that you can buy a phone directly from the manufacturer and have the thing work, it IS anti-competitive to have only one GSM/UMTS carrier. For people who don't care about SIM cards and only want use one phone at a time (until they buy a new phone), GSM and CDMA and iDEN are essentially equal. They can just never swap the SIM. But for people who do care about SIM swapping, GSM/UMTS is the only choice.

Had VZW and Sprint actually implemented R-UIM cards, I would agree with your argument, but given that they have too much of a Nazi control attitude toward handsets, your argument doesn't hold water.

As far as CDMA/GSM combo phones for int'l travelers, seriously? VZW/Sprint already have a crappy handset selection as it is (nearly EVERY phone they sell is crippled in some way, even the Android models are programmed to not let you tether unless you pay extra). And now you're talking about further limiting handset selection to a small subset of something that's already crappy.

So let me get this straight...because Sprint and Verizon have chosen to have crappy handset selections (in your opinion) and because they have chosen not to implement R-UIM cards and to be "Nazis", that is a part of a valid overall arguments as to why AT&T should be prevented from buying T-Mobile? HA!

If that is not what you are saying, then I just don't get the point of anything you just posted. Consumers don't have a "right" to use unlocked phones. That is a choice. You don't have to use a GSM carrier in the USA. That is a choice. If AT&T said they would no longer sell you a SIM card unless you bought a phone from them, then take your business to Verizon. Or buy a phone from them and then take the SIM out and stick it into your unlocked phone.

To use an example such as not being able to tether without an appropriate plan on a VZW Android phone is laughable. Your beef is with VZW then, not with AT&T. I get it...CDMA is not an option for YOU. But because you have made the CHOICE to avoid CDMA carriers, doesn't make them any less of a choice for the consumer as a whole.

I fail to see how anything changes if the GSM "duopoly" becomes a GSM "monopoly."

[BuffaloTF]

Why does nobody question Sprint's motives in this? It's no secret Sprint wants to buy out the remaining shares of Clearwire. Right now as we speak, Sprint has warehoused Clearwire's spectrum and is no longer rolling out WiMax. As a result, Clearwire's value is dropping and will continue to do so until they buy them out at pennies on the dollar. If AT&T's planned acquisition of T-Mo USA is approved, then resources in spectrum become even more finite as less players are involved in the resale of it. As an end result, Clearwire's value shoots back up.

[AnthroMatt]

Why does nobody question Sprint's motives in this?

No one questions someone that is their ally. Just like AT&T's motives for buying TM are less wholesome than they would ever publicly acknowledge, Sprint is not some "Hero of the People." Sprint doesn't care about competition or low prices or the consumer. Sprint cares about Sprint.

[xs11e]

Don't forget that none of those devices allows the use of GSM while in the US while active on SPRINT or VERIZON, only if the phone is unlocked using a SIM from a GSM carrier.

Correct and that's a HUGE advantage of a "World Phone." When I had my 9630 I unlocked it, got a "Pay as you go" card from T-Mobile and was able to use the phone in an area I visited frequently that had zero VZW bars and worked very nicely with T-Mobile.

I liked that 9630, I'd probably still be using it if it hadn't been mistaken for a chew toy by a puppy with jaws of steel...... Not much brain but a ton of jaw muscles! <sigh>

[awj223]

If that is not what you are saying, then I just don't get the point of anything you just posted. Consumers don't have a "right" to use unlocked phones. That is a choice.

It isn't a right YET (but it damn well SHOULD be). In the landline business, AT&T (yes, the monopoly AT&T) once prohibited customers from connecting any device that wasn't sold by AT&T to their landlines. Then came a landmark decision by the FCC, essentially telling AT&T to go to hell and that as long as the device did not cause harm to the network, consumers ought to be able to use it. The only thing that the FCC has done even remotely similar on the wireless side is with a single block of SMH spectrum (which VZW bought).

You don't have to use a GSM carrier in the USA. That is a choice. If AT&T said they would no longer sell you a SIM card unless you bought a phone from them, then take your business to Verizon. Or buy a phone from them and then take the SIM out and stick it into your unlocked phone.

I CHOOSE to use AT&T because AT&T uses the technology that lets me use unlocked phones. Although I have few doubts that if AT&T was not FORCED to allow the use of SIM cards by the GSMA, AT&T would be just as bad as Verizon and Sprint.

To use an example such as not being able to tether without an appropriate plan on a VZW Android phone is laughable. Your beef is with VZW then, not with AT&T. I get it...CDMA is not an option for YOU. But because you have made the CHOICE to avoid CDMA carriers, doesn't make them any less of a choice for the consumer as a whole.

I hate AT&T and VZW's phones about equally (VZW's phones a little more though). But with AT&T, I have the escape hatch of not using their crappy phones AT ALL.

I fail to see how anything changes if the GSM "duopoly" becomes a GSM "monopoly."

People who want to use SIM cards but don't want to put up with AT&T won't have another choice. Either people who only stay in urban areas, or hate AT&T so much due to past occurrences that they won't spend another dime of money on its services. Loss of choice = higher prices.