Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Colorado Democrat State Attorney General has Pulled out of lawsuit with T-Mobile

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    476
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus 64GB and iPhone 11 PRO Max 64GB
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0

    Colorado Democrat State Attorney General has Pulled out of lawsuit with T-Mobile

    https://coag.gov/press-releases/atto...bile-10-21-19/

    Dish Network will locate its new wireless headquarters with at least 2,000 full-time employees in Colorado and T-Mobile will significantly build out a statewide 5G network, particularly in rural areas, under agreements the Colorado Attorney General’s office announced today. The companies agree to pay up to a total of $100 million if they fail to meet these commitments.

    In a separate agreement with T-Mobile, Coloradans will benefit from improved 5G coverage in the state, especially in rural areas. The New T-Mobile has agreed to the following commitments:

    Statewide Network Build Commitment:

    1.Within three years of the closing date of the merger, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network in Colorado with at least 68 percent of the Colorado population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps, and at least 76 percent of the Colorado population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps.

    2.Within six years of the closing date, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network in Colorado with at least 92 percent of the Colorado population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps, and at least 93 percent of the Colorado population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps.
    Rural Network Build Commitment

    3.Within three years of the closing date, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network in Colorado with at least 60 percent of the Colorado rural population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps, and at least 63 percent of the Colorado rural population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps.

    4.Within six years of the closing date, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network in Colorado with at least 74 percent of the Colorado rural population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps, and at least 84 percent of the Colorado rural population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps.




    Low-Price Mobile Plan Commitment:
    For at least five years following the closing date, New T-Mobile will offer new low-priced plans in the state that are available to all customers and provides:
    Unlimited talk, text, and 2GB of data for $15 or less per month; and
    Unlimited talk, text, and 5GB of data for $25 or less per month.


    Down to 16 (including DC). 15 Democrat state AGs and 1 Republican State AG still apart of the lawsuit

    1. California
    2. Colorado now out of the lawsuit
    3. Connecticut
    4. District of Columbia
    5. Hawaii
    6. Illinois
    7. Maryland
    8. Massachusetts
    9. Michigan
    10. Minnesota
    11. Mississippi now out of the lawsuit
    12. Nevada
    13. New York
    14. Oregon
    15. Pennsylvania
    16. Texas
    17. Virginia
    18. Wisconsin
    Last edited by trees12; 10-21-2019 at 04:51 PM.
    Manners cost nothing, and also have the added benefit of making a man. You know, it is entirely possible to rise above others, without stooping to pushing them under, and putting them down.
    My Sister is a supervisor at T-Mobile's Salem Oregon Call center. Loyal T-Mobile customer of 15 Years.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,816
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Midnight Green
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Always adding “Democrat”... ok lol


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

    Chicago, IL
    2+46+46+46+4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    200
    Feedback Score
    0
    I would not be shocked that they cut deals with all of them and the December 9 lawsuit never happens.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,008
    Device(s)
    iPhone Xs Max, Essential PH-1
    Carrier(s)
    Xfinity Mobile, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    This appears to be fairly clear evidence that the states aren't actually objecting to the merger, it is more they are looking for handouts, since the Verge is reporting that Dish has promised to build their network HQ in Colorado -- which likely closed the deal more than the promises by T-Mobile.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    718
    Device(s)
    Current: iPhone, Moto X
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T, T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    It is all it has ever been. Not even sure the AGs know what they are trying to negotiate with. That the coverage mentioned in the press release for Colorado is expressed in POPs and not square miles...

    Those in most need of Internet coverage are way outside the core population centers in Colorado and this will benefit them zero.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,291
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    Looking at this list, I don't know about northeastern states and district (DC, Massachusetts, Maryland) and possibly California, but quite a few of these states would historically have had rather poor T-Mo and Sprint coverage.

    That said, I think this'll be a piece of cake if most states just want a pledge of some percentage coverage and that couple price plans. Areas T-Mo or Sprint already have service, adding 600 and 700mhz to those sites will fill in those weak spots nicely and extend the coverage a fair bit. A lot of rural areas are frankly uneconomical to build out well with the 1900 (band 2) and 2100 (band 4) that Sprint and T-Mo have historically had, it would take too many sites. 600 and 700mhz (and the 800 going to Dish) will work fine on the 850mhz-spaced sites many rural areas already have (and of course the other bands to offload traffic of people nearer the site).

    For example, here in Iowa (not a lawsuit state but just example) there are many rural sites spaced for 850, it'll be on some hill top not that near the highway or town or two it covers, so like 1 bar of signal and "0 bars" in low spots along the highway. But since there's not that high of load on these sites, still will get (on Verizon on 850 and 700) good 1x voice, 3g, and 4g service off these sites despite the low signal. 1900 or AWS would be unlikely to even reach the highway from a site like that. Historically, AT&T and Sprint did "spaghetti" coverage here (1900); IWireless (who T-Mo recently bought) had coverage covering a lot of the state but rather swiss cheese coverage, probably 1900 on existing 850-spaced sites (including in town having service fade out in buildings etc.). Well, T-Mo being able to run 600mhz here means they will go from having rather poor coverage to being very close to VZW and USCC coverage-wise without having to add any sites. (Of course this can happen here whether they get Sprint or not.) T-Mo here will be seriously more competitive than IWireless was , I'm all for a competitive wireless market.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,093
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hwertz View Post
    Looking at this list, I don't know about northeastern states and district (DC, Massachusetts, Maryland) and possibly California, but quite a few of these states would historically have had rather poor T-Mo and Sprint coverage.

    That said, I think this'll be a piece of cake if most states just want a pledge of some percentage coverage and that couple price plans. Areas T-Mo or Sprint already have service, adding 600 and 700mhz to those sites will fill in those weak spots nicely and extend the coverage a fair bit. A lot of rural areas are frankly uneconomical to build out well with the 1900 (band 2) and 2100 (band 4) that Sprint and T-Mo have historically had, it would take too many sites. 600 and 700mhz (and the 800 going to Dish) will work fine on the 850mhz-spaced sites many rural areas already have (and of course the other bands to offload traffic of people nearer the site).

    For example, here in Iowa (not a lawsuit state but just example) there are many rural sites spaced for 850, it'll be on some hill top not that near the highway or town or two it covers, so like 1 bar of signal and "0 bars" in low spots along the highway. But since there's not that high of load on these sites, still will get (on Verizon on 850 and 700) good 1x voice, 3g, and 4g service off these sites despite the low signal. 1900 or AWS would be unlikely to even reach the highway from a site like that. Historically, AT&T and Sprint did "spaghetti" coverage here (1900); IWireless (who T-Mo recently bought) had coverage covering a lot of the state but rather swiss cheese coverage, probably 1900 on existing 850-spaced sites (including in town having service fade out in buildings etc.). Well, T-Mo being able to run 600mhz here means they will go from having rather poor coverage to being very close to VZW and USCC coverage-wise without having to add any sites. (Of course this can happen here whether they get Sprint or not.) T-Mo here will be seriously more competitive than IWireless was , I'm all for a competitive wireless market.
    Spaghetti Coverage? Swiss Cheese coverage? Getting hungry.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,483
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mogelijk View Post
    This appears to be fairly clear evidence that the states aren't actually objecting to the merger, it is more they are looking for handouts, since the Verge is reporting that Dish has promised to build their network HQ in Colorado -- which likely closed the deal more than the promises by T-Mobile.
    I'm not sure "handouts" is fair, though. If you assume (and yes, I know what happens when we ***_u_me!) that the AGs objected in the first place because they thought the merger would harm consumers in their state, why wouldn't they drop the objection if New T-Mo guarantees to "fix" the potential problems the merger threatens?

    The anti-merger folks (me included!) have two primary worries about the merger: increased wireless costs from less competition, and redundant job elimination. If T-Mo guarantees to hold (or reduce) costs and protect jobs through agreements like this one (as opposed to vague unenforceable promises via Legere's tweets!), why wouldn't that satisfy the AGs (or us anti-merger folks!)

    The problem with these individual deals, of course, is that they selfishly deprive the other states of the benefits the individual states negotiate, while weakening the remaining states positions.

    For that reason, although I live in Colorado and look forward to the promised $15 rate plans, I'm still anti-merger unless T-Mo extends these low rates and some job protection guarantees nationwide.




    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    --
    Todd Allcock, Microsoft MVP: Mobile Devices 2007-2011

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    200
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    I'm not sure "handouts" is fair, though. If you assume (and yes, I know what happens when we ***_u_me!) that the AGs objected in the first place because they thought the merger would harm consumers in their state, why wouldn't they drop the objection if New T-Mo guarantees to "fix" the potential problems the merger threatens?

    The anti-merger folks (me included!) have two primary worries about the merger: increased wireless costs from less competition, and redundant job elimination. If T-Mo guarantees to hold (or reduce) costs and protect jobs through agreements like this one (as opposed to vague unenforceable promises via Legere's tweets!), why wouldn't that satisfy the AGs (or us anti-merger folks!)

    The problem with these individual deals, of course, is that they selfishly deprive the other states of the benefits the individual states negotiate, while weakening the remaining states positions.

    For that reason, although I live in Colorado and look forward to the promised $15 rate plans, I'm still anti-merger unless T-Mo extends these low rates and some job protection guarantees nationwide.




    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    The individual deals that these AGs are cutting is more clear evidence that the AGs don't care about you, the consumer. They want a cut of the pie. If they really cared about consumer protection they would all band together and negotiate as a single entity. Single, large entities can negotiate far better than some small, isolated party.

    As for your job losses or less competition, sprints poor financial performance would lead to those job and competition losses in the long term if left on their own. Their balance sheet is more than sufficient evidence of this.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,483
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    The individual deals that these AGs are cutting is more clear evidence that the AGs don't care about you, the consumer. They want a cut of the pie. If they really cared about consumer protection they would all band together and negotiate as a single entity. Single, large entities can negotiate far better than some small, isolated party.

    As for your job losses or less competition, sprints poor financial performance would lead to those job and competition losses in the long term if left on their own. Their balance sheet is more than sufficient evidence of this.
    How do you figure that the AGs don't care about their consumers? I'd say getting T-Mo to concede a custom set of concessions for each state is more consumer friendly than rubber stamping a deal that a NY and/or California AG put together.

    And what "pie" are the AGs trying to get a cut of? It's not like they are collecting money personally from Legere!

    Also, do you think the New York and California AGs give two sh*ts about the needs of Mississippi or Colorado? (Not should they- they represent the consumers of their state- not those of the other 49!) There may be strength in numbers, but the concerns of a state like Mississippi aren't the same as New York's. Coverage and access to high speed broadband in rural areas is more important to a state like MS that needs it, than to a state like NY that has it. NY might be more concerned about losing hundreds of retail stores (and the employees that man them), for example.

    I'd like to see the states band together and stop the merger, but it's going to happen, and it's probably in the best interest of the smaller states to settle separately. I haven't read the Colorado settlement, but the Mississippi one contains language that basically says if the multi-state settlement gets better concessions, Mississippi gets those too, so they had nothing to lose settling separately.

    But I get it. The big, bad, inefficient, corrupt government is trying to interfere with those little angelic corporations that are simply acting in the best interests of their consumers, because that's how corporations work.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    200
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by elecconnec View Post
    How do you figure that the AGs don't care about their consumers? I'd say getting T-Mo to concede a custom set of concessions for each state is more consumer friendly than rubber stamping a deal that a NY and/or California AG put together.

    And what "pie" are the AGs trying to get a cut of? It's not like they are collecting money personally from Legere!

    Also, do you think the New York and California AGs give two sh*ts about the needs of Mississippi or Colorado? (Not should they- they represent the consumers of their state- not those of the other 49!) There may be strength in numbers, but the concerns of a state like Mississippi aren't the same as New York's. Coverage and access to high speed broadband in rural areas is more important to a state like MS that needs it, than to a state like NY that has it. NY might be more concerned about losing hundreds of retail stores (and the employees that man them), for example.

    I'd like to see the states band together and stop the merger, but it's going to happen, and it's probably in the best interest of the smaller states to settle separately. I haven't read the Colorado settlement, but the Mississippi one contains language that basically says if the multi-state settlement gets better concessions, Mississippi gets those too, so they had nothing to lose settling separately.

    But I get it. The big, bad, inefficient, corrupt government is trying to interfere with those little angelic corporations that are simply acting in the best interests of their consumers, because that's how corporations work.



    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    How is that consumer friendly? If the AGs come together and all bring their own concerns on the table from each state they represent, they can get out far more from the company than case to case basis. Something always slips through the cracks and 16 AGs in one room is going to be better than one AG. No one said about rubbing stamping anything with what NY or CA wants. I agree that the needs of NY could and likely are different of Mississippi, but in all pro consumer spirit I'm sure AGs would do their do diligence to make sure the consumers get the best deal in all states under the lawsuit. That is if they do their job, hence listen to their fellow AGs needs and insert them in their overall demands. So far with two AGs dropping out, I'm not convinced that's the case because when the states jumped on the lawsuit bandwagon it was all tribal now all of sudden singular when they're settling on case by case basis.

    What pie? Uhh I dunno the one where there is a 26B stock transaction going on? Surely they can afford to donate to their campaign or "foundation" to get their approval? Its not the first time a politician was called out on having "pay to play" policy. Recent presidential candidate comes to mind but I do not want this to get political so I will cease now. There is no proof of this going on but all options are on the table, I surely would not be shocked if it were to happen.

    Big bad government? Oh so saving a failing corporation that is already irrelevant for a decent majority of people due to having coverage equivalent of zero outside of metro area makes the company bad, AGs good? The AGs are the butt of the joke here simply because they're preventing a company who can take resources of another failing entity and utilize them properly in the commercial space? No one said these coronations are angelic, you coined the term. This merger is the necessary evil in the given time and current situation.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,483
    Device(s)
    Any Windows Phones!
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    How is that consumer friendly? If the AGs come together and all bring their own concerns on the table from each state they represent, they can get out far more from the company than case to case basis. Something always slips through the cracks and 16 AGs in one room is going to be better than one AG. No one said about rubbing stamping anything with what NY or CA wants. I agree that the needs of NY could and likely are different of Mississippi, but in all pro consumer spirit I'm sure AGs would do their do diligence to make sure the consumers get the best deal in all states under the lawsuit. That is if they do their job, hence listen to their fellow AGs needs and insert them in their overall demands. So far with two AGs dropping out, I'm not convinced that's the case because when the states jumped on the lawsuit bandwagon it was all tribal now all of sudden singular when they're settling on case by case basis.

    The problem is, when you negotiate a settlement, there's going to be give and take, and neither side will get everything they ask for. Mississippi may be willing to concede things NY wouldn't, and vice versa. If the 16 (or however many it was) tried to settle together, it'd never happen, and it would almost certainly go to trial. There'd be 17 vested interests needing to agree (16 states plus T-Mo!) to make the trial go away.

    By picking off the herd one by one, starting with the sick and weak, T-Mo has a better chance of a settlement before trial. Plus, T-Mo probably will have a better chance of winning at trial if they can show they were able to satisfy the concerns of most of the states before trial, and that they offered similar terms to the remaining states that refused to settle, so the remainder are simply being unreasonable...

    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    What pie? Uhh I dunno the one where there is a 26B stock transaction going on? Surely they can afford to donate to their campaign or "foundation" to get their approval? Its not the first time a politician was called out on having "pay to play" policy. Recent presidential candidate comes to mind but I do not want this to get political so I will cease now. There is no proof of this going on but all options are on the table, I surely would not be shocked if it were to happen.
    Oh, so nothing, then. (It's not like a corp. as large as T-Mo doesn't already contribute something to everyone running for anything already...)

    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    Big bad government? Oh so saving a failing corporation that is already irrelevant for a decent majority of people due to having coverage equivalent of zero outside of metro area makes the company bad, AGs good? The AGs are the butt of the joke here simply because they're preventing a company who can take resources of another failing entity and utilize them properly in the commercial space? No one said these coronations are angelic, you coined the term. This merger is the necessary evil in the given time and current situation.

    Sprint has been on the imminent verge of collapse for how many years now? At least since the Nextel merger as I recall... If Sprint was truly in that bad of shape, this wouldn't be a "$26 billion" merger. Sprint is one good cash infusion and a change of leadership away from being a perfectly viable carrier, just like our good friends at T-Mo were not too long ago. If you'll recall, it was the one-two punch of a huge bailout from AT&T (a penalty clause from the AT&T/T-Mo merger attempt that required a $6 billion combination of cash and AT&T roaming for T-Mo customers if it failed for *any* reason) and John Legere taking the reigns, that pulled T-Mo back from the near dead.

    Keep in mind that Job One in any merger coming under anti-trust scrutiny is convincing the powers that be that both companies will be up Sh*t's Creek without the proverbial paddle unless the merger happens. T-Mo won't possibly be able to compete without this merger (despite they've been gaining market share steadily under Legere without it so far, but competing with 5G is apparently nothing like competing with 4G was. Or 3G. Or 2G...) and of course poor Sprint will be bankrupt and out of business by the day after tomorrow unless Something Is Done Now. (If I had a nickel for every time in the last few years I've heard Sprint was about to go belly up, *I* would be able to bail Sprint out!)

    I still remember DISH and DirecTV telling the feds with a straight face nearly two decades ago, that without their proposed merger (that was denied) neither would ever have the bandwidth or resources separately to offer local channels or HD nationwide. Last time I checked, they both miraculously managed to find both the bandwidth and resources to do both those things separately (and within a year or so of the merger denial!)






    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    476
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus 64GB and iPhone 11 PRO Max 64GB
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    The individual deals that these AGs are cutting is more clear evidence that the AGs don't care about you, the consumer. They want a cut of the pie. If they really cared about consumer protection they would all band together and negotiate as a single entity. Single, large entities can negotiate far better than some small, isolated party.

    As for your job losses or less competition, sprints poor financial performance would lead to those job and competition losses in the long term if left on their own. Their balance sheet is more than sufficient evidence of this.
    Your response not much to say: A+

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    slc ut
    Posts
    1,342
    Device(s)
    IPhone Xr
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint, AT&T Mobley
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by L33 View Post
    The individual deals that these AGs are cutting is more clear evidence that the AGs don't care about you, the consumer. They want a cut of the pie. If they really cared about consumer protection they would all band together and negotiate as a single entity. Single, large entities can negotiate far better than some small, isolated party.

    As for your job losses or less competition, sprints poor financial performance would lead to those job and competition losses in the long term if left on their own. Their balance sheet is more than sufficient evidence of this.
    Seems your internet rage should be addressed to the AG's who did not join the lawsuit to obtain leverage to make deals like this. Those are the ones who don't care about consumers.
    Paul Thurrott:
    Not now mom, somebody's wrong on the Internet

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,816
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Midnight Green
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    From what I can tell these AG’s are asking certain coverage, speed, and pricing deals. Am I missing something? How are these not benefiting the consumer?


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-23-2019, 08:58 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-01-2013, 04:40 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 05:55 PM
  4. McCain pulls out of Michigan which state is next?
    By Wolverine! in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 10:40 AM
  5. Get out of ETF with T-Mobile??
    By Cronaldo in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 10:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks