By 
Looks like the United States Department of Justice opened the floodgates for perhaps the biggest non-governmental opponent to AT&T and T-Mobile’s proposed merger. Sprint has announced their intent to sue in order to block the AT&T-proposed purchase of T-Mobile for $39 billion.
In the official press release, Sprint stuck to their guns as to why they would like to see the merger block. They mainly cited stifled competition (and the direct negative result it may have on workers and consumers) as reasons why it should be blocked. Nothing new there.
But now that Sprint is actually taking this thing to court they actually have an opportunity to directly reflect the outcome. Let’s see if the hand they just played will be enough to get AT&T to fold. Read on for full press details.
Sprint Files Suit to Block Proposed AT&T and T-Mobile Transaction
WASHINGTON (BUSINESS WIRE), September 06, 2011 – 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. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia as a related case to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) suit against the proposed acquisition.
“Sprint opposes AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile,” said Susan Z. Haller, vice president-Litigation, Sprint. “With today’s legal action, we are continuing that advocacy on behalf of consumers and competition, and expect to contribute our expertise and resources in proving that the proposed transaction is illegal.”
Sprint’s lawsuit focuses on the competitive and consumer harms which would result from a takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. The proposed takeover would:
- Harm retail consumers and corporate customers by causing higher prices and less innovation.
- Entrench the duopoly control of AT&T and Verizon, the two “Ma Bell” descendants, of the almost one-quarter of a trillion dollar wireless market. As a result of the transaction, AT&T and Verizon would control more than three-quarters of that market and 90 percent of the profits.
- Harm Sprint and the other independent wireless carriers. If the transaction were to be allowed, a combined AT&T and T-Mobile would have the ability to use its control over backhaul, roaming and spectrum, and its increased market position to exclude competitors, raise their costs, restrict their access to handsets, damage their businesses and ultimately to lessen competition.
About Sprint Nextel
Sprint Nextel offers a comprehensive range of wireless and wireline communications services bringing the freedom of mobility to consumers, businesses and government users. Sprint Nextel served more than 52 million customers at the end of 2Q 2011 and is widely recognized for developing, engineering and deploying innovative technologies, including the first wireless 4G service from a national carrier in the United States; offering industry-leading mobile data services, leading prepaid brands including Virgin Mobile USA, Boost Mobile, and Assurance Wireless; instant national and international push-to-talk capabilities; and a global Tier 1 Internet backbone. Newsweek ranked Sprint No. 6 in its 2010 Green Rankings, listing it as one of the nation’s greenest companies, the highest of any telecommunications company. You can learn more and visit Sprint at www.sprint.com or www.facebook.com/sprint and www.twitter.com/sprint.
Block, Block, Block… D-Fense
FUCK AT&T!
FUCK THIS MERGER!
I know, why doesn’t Sprint get a large chunk of the Tmobile and ATT consumer base to sign with them instead? What’s that? Sprint sucks? Hmmm, well then in that case Sprint should definitely use the government to protect themselves from the success of their competitors.. that is the American way after all isn’t it?
Some Europeans called, they want their jealousy back.
Yes, AT&T never uses the courts or lines the pockets of politicians to get what they want.
So far I have the tea bagger buzz words for you at (2). Keep them coming. I know you can get them all in before you clock out.
Evidence please.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439×241614
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2010/db20100930_601883.htm
There ya go Capt. D Nozzle
Oh, I thought you had some actual evidence showing misconduct or that some actual laws were broken. I seem to have misunderstood your original point. What was your original point about ATT donating to campaign finance? Something about manipulating the court system to get what they want.. etc.
BTW, there are plenty of companies who exercise their free speech rights, perhaps to even help ensure their liberty is not limited by the left. Imagine that.
Hell, you should side with me when I say there should be a division between the state and the economy because then those donations wouldn’t matter would they?
Also, haven’t you learned yet that hurling insults only serves as motivation for me?
I think we’ve all learned what motivates you.
Orion is a tool, enough said. Go Sprint.
Yeh, I think he proved himself to be quite the tool. Actually clicked this topic to see if he would post more stupid rants
Did the exact same thing. Got exposed as an underling sent to the internet to stoke fear of government iintervention and silence criticism of the deal. Sure enough he shows up here. Go away James T Mullen of Bell Mobility.
The company I work for has absolutely nothing to do with the Bell company in the Telecom industry.. please get your facts straight before you start running your mouth. Hell, I’m a VZW customer and have been for years.
No one cares dude, seriously
Then why are you clicking to see if I post.. and then because you care so little you actually make a post in reference to me? Yep, sounds like you don’t care at all.
There is a difference between caring about what you have to say and caring about who posts and caring about seeing you come to your senses.
My initial “no one cares” was in regard to where you said you worked.
Because you think that swinging around inflamed rhetoric is a constructive way to add to the community. You only post in these posts across the community to try to convert people to your point of view. You’ve posted under numerous pseudonyms for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people and fear mongering without much of an argument at all. We all wish you’d just leave.
I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate, but “Yeh, I think he proved himself to be quite the tool. Actually clicked this topic to see if he would post more stupid rants.”
Don’t feed the trolls. Seriously. Right or wrong, this one LOVES to be fed, and everyone seems all to happy to oblige. He is absolutely a troll on the same scale as Richard Yarrell, only in a different way. The person with the Akkadian-sounding name (don’t remember – don’t care enough to go back and look) hit the nail on the head when (s)he stated that he is a passive-aggressive über-troll. Stop feeding it, ignore it, and eventually it will go away (or at least talk to itself).
Remember kids: Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded.
That is all.
The funny thing is that none of you actually try to counter the points but, instead, resort to personal attacks. How mature. Everyone’s a hero on the internet aren’t they.. all quick to name-call. Grow up.
Go re-read some of the responses in a previous article. There are lots of counterpoints that you have either forgotten about or are choosing to ignore.
All of which I have countered with logic and then instead of debating further, many decided to just fling poo.
Logic? You’ve just repeatedly used the long version of “nuh-uh!”. “The gov’t should stay out of it” over and over.
and why is that? Go ahead, use my words… there are plenty of them to choose from. When you answer, realize that you will have just contradicted your previous statement.
Why is what? The statements in quotes are examples of what you are saying… not my position.
huh? “Why is what?”.. not sure what you mean by that…
You said:
“and why is that? Go ahead, use my words…”
I was asking what you were referring to.
I’m not sure if tool is the right word, but it’s clear you’re not willing to consider any side other than your own. I’ve tried discussing with you on a previous article, and you threw so many strawmen and ad-hominems that I just couldn’t see the point anymore.
I’m fully ready to consider other points… and respond to them as well. I’m not ready to accept any position that allows for violating ATT’s right to be able to enter in a voluntary agreement to purchase another company. I have been very consistent across all of my points. That someone else’s point attempts to destroy that axiom and is then rejected is not a bad thing… that is unless you don’t believe in liberty.
Another god-damned straw man. This is why we can’t have nice things.
Oh really? Whose positions have I specifically misrepresented and then attacked?
If you can’t even identify your own strawman, then continuing to attempt discussion with you is even more pointless than I had previously concluded.
Im so tried of Sprint sucks well were i live its great no drop calls fast 4g all I ever here from people on att is how bad it is and they drop calls all the time.Ive tried T-mobile it was okay but Sprint is much faster in my area. To many carrier fan boys sure I like Sprint but its not the end all greatest the one thing they still do right is unlimited data only company you can get that with right now att Verizon t-mobile all have caps for new customers
Edit please
Then why does Sprint have such crappy market share?
I never thought I would really live to see a true AT&T fanboy on this site. I personally am a Sprint and Google fanboy.
Tell me, what is it specifically about AT&T you like most?
Again, I don’t like ATT. What’s important to remember here people is that not liking a carrier is no reason to justify using government force against them whey they make a strategic business move designed to strengthen themselves in the marketplace.
Because (thank God) we don’t yet live in a world where people like Donald Trump and Bill Gates rule the world in such a way to benefit only themselves. There are laws to avoid a Monopoly/Monopsony from being created so that small businesses are not put on the wrong side of a gulf so large that it would be impossible for them to break into the upper echelon of capitalism. The government is there to enforce said laws. I, for one, am glad of it…. When they actually do their damn job, that is.
IMO, GSM carriers and CDMA carriers are two closely related, yet separate, businesses. If AT&T absorbs the last remaining competing GSM carrier, that creates a Monopoly/Monopsony. They will be in sole possession of the GSM spectrums which is a monopoly.If you argue that the gov’t owns the spectrum, and AT&T buys/leases it, then they will become the only Leasee/Buyer for said service, making it a monopsony.
Either way, it’s wrong. The majority that have knowledge of the situation do NOT want it. We supposedly live under democratic law: Majority rule.
haha seriously, what is it about ATT that you like SO MUCH that you would just LOVE to have forced on the rest of us… i don’t give a rats ass if you like sprint or not, where i live, sprint is amazing, and i like choices, i will never go to ATT
I don’t *like* sprint or ATT.. I really like VZW though and that’s why I have a contract with them… to each their own. My question was simply if Sprint is so good then why do they have crappy market share?
Further, ATT can’t force anything on you.
because sprint doesn’t advertise as much as att? and they dont have a catchy phrase like reach out and touch someone?
I just wish their 3G didnt suck horribly.
ironic, considering Sprint merged with Nextel and all.
Nextel was never half the company T-Mobile is.
yea cause one small company buying another small company to create actual competition is the same as the largest company buying out a decently sized company to ELIMINATE competition
Yes, because the larger you are the less freedom you should have. Makes perfect sense.
yes, the more power you have, the more restricted it should be… it is the only way to protect the consumer. if ATT were to be the ONLY cell carrier again… do you think they would stick to the pricing they have now? no, they would screw us over like they have already proven to do in the past.
Protect the consumer from what? Their own decision to purchase the product? Last time I checked, ATT doesn’t have the power to force anyone to buy anything they don’t want to…… If you can’t get a GSM phone anywhere else (which clearly you can) then simply don’t get a phone.. you still have a choice. Not having the plan you want at the price you want does not violate any of your rights does it?
Like I and others have said. If they are the only GSM carrier, there is no other choice.
There are plenty of GSM carriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers
Do you have a right to have a GSM phone? Are you entitled. If ATT switched to CDMA would you cry foul because you couldn’t get a GSM phone?
@orion111000 Most/if not all of them are renting connection from one of the big 4.
“A Right”? No. I was talking about fair competition and the emergence of another monopoly. Do we have a “right” to own a car? no. But that doesn’t mean Ford should be allowed to control the entire market for subcompact through fullsize cars. You could always choose to drive an SUV if you don’t want to buy from Ford, right?
On your third point; no, I wouldn’t cry foul. It would leave that market wide open for new players, as opposed to completely blocking them, as this merger would.
Rights come into the conversation because that’s the only rational excuse for getting the government involved in limiting the freedom of one company to take action on their own behalf.
Monopolies are not bad per se. Monopoly as the result of government induced barriers (artificial) are all bad.
Who actually believes this purchase will lead to a monopoly on the part of ATT? Are they that good of a carrier that consumers would declare them the ultimate winner? I think not… but even if consumers made this decision then so be it… I don’t have a right to force a company to give me what I want.
The only way Ford can control an entire segment of the auto industry is if consumers allow them to (because Ford creates the most value) or if Ford somehow colludes with government to create artificial barriers to entry for competitors enticed into the marketplace by noticing the existence of disgruntled customers.
This merger does leave the field open. Don’t go on about bandwidth or whatever.. you only have to look to the government for the cause of that problem.. not ATT.
“Rights come into the conversation because that’s the only rational excuse for getting the government involved in limiting the freedom of one company to take action on their own behalf.”
Well, see, this is where our fundamental argument stems from. I believe that the government, in this situation should act as a compact and organized vessel for the choice of the consumer because 200+ million people have a hard time organizing as a single organism. That is why these commissions/depts/etc exist.
“Monopolies are not bad per se.”
We’ve already seen what AT&T does with a monopoly. They jack up prices, ignore customers, and take away options. Which is why nobody wants AT&T taking the first step to a Cell carrier duopoly with Verizon which will very likely turn into Ma Bell 2.0 down the line.
“…is if consumers allow them to (because Ford creates the most value)”
Then how are AT&T/VZW #1 and 2? They do not provide the most value. People as a group are easily distracted by shiny shit. For some reason, paying more makes them think they are getting more. This is obviously not the case with AT&T who has terrible customer service and phone service, but lots of people are stuck under a contract from their first iPhone purchase, which was only available on the deathstar. The market is not correcting the way you think it does. Sometimes it needs a helping hand to avoid collapsing in on the consumer from becoming so top-heavy.
“Don’t go on about bandwidth or whatever.. you only have to look to the government for the cause of that problem”
Which is why I mentioned “Monopsony” (a single buyer for a given service). If AT&T is the only company buying GSM spectrum and distributing to smaller carriers, they’d have a stranglehold on half of the market, with VZW gaining traction in a bid to buy out the only remaining competitor on the CDMA side. They could just jack up prices back and forth without worrying about anyone else standing up to challenge them.
It’s funny, you claim to not like this company for which you are so passionately commenting to defend, yet you still defend it. Most “average” working people see this merger as another way a large company can become larger, gain a strangle hold on the mobile landscape, and eventually shaft the “average working consumer” (not you obviously). My question is, why would you even care about the right of one company to swallow another? What benefit are you receiving? Because the “average working consumer” can see that this does NOT benefit us at all. This merger would just give AT&T more leverage to charge even more than it already does, which the last time I checked was way to much for me. At&t has already swallowed other companies, the most immediate coming to mind being cingular, now you tell me, did their prices go down after those mergers? Did customers actually benefit?
I’m defending their right to make decisions that better them as a company (according to them) so long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights in the process. I would just as passionately defend TMobile, Sprint, or VZW if they were the ones under fire. Most people are missing the point here.. I don’t even like ATT or Sprint as a company.. I like VZW for my own reasons but I don’t think that just because I don’t like them or their business decisions that I should be able to stop them from buying a company. If I were an ATT or Tmobile customer I would do what any independent consumer does and simply not buy from those companies.
ATT has the right to charge whatever they want.. just like your local auto dealership does… go somewhere else or walk if you don’t like what they are charging. It really is that simple.
And what I don’t understand is why you would even want to defend the right of a large corporation like that. Again I ask what benefit do you receive from it? Unless you own a large company, or sit on the board of the company in question. Because I know as well as you should that the bottom line for any large company is profits. Therefore, the steps are simple enough that a child could understand them. 1 gain biggest market share, 2 charge the most after gaining the biggestmarket share, 3 enjoy record profits.
Those are the goals of EVERY business even the one you work for (and if it weren’t for this motive you may not even have a job right?) Hell, even non-profits want to get as much capital as they can for their cause and there’s certainly absolutely nothing wrong with profit. What benefit do I get from defending liberty regardless of the size of the entity in question? Do you really need to ask that?
You, as the consumer and regardless of your income, has the ability to think and consider whether you see the value in the products/services the company is offering. If you do not, and assuming you are free to say NO, then you simply say no. If the activities the companies engage in cause you to question their ehtics and etc then simply don’t buy from them. That’s why I own a Ford and not a GM product.
Again, ATT can’t force anyone to buy anything from them can they? Why can’t you just say no if you think you are getting screwed?
I could just say no if I feel like I’m getting screwed. But imma tell you something. If you think that defending a companies right to merge with another company regardless of the effects it would have on the landscape surrounding it is “defending liberty”, then you might want to check your definition of it. Fighting for your country is “defending liberty” as you put it. What your doing is trolling on a tech website. And probably for the company that wants the merger. You definitely have some kind of invested interest in this personally.
What if your country is communist and you fight for it.. are you defending liberty? Nope. One may choose to fight for their country in the interests of defending liberty but that is certainly not the only way to do it. Additionally, you have no idea what I might be doing away from this board to “defend liberty” but if assuming helps you to get your point across, well then that says more about you then it does me.
I am a VZW customer.. I run a DX as my phone and hope to be ugrading to the Bionic through Costco on Thursday for the free acc. bundle and the 90 day return policy just in case VZW loves us and released the Prime as a nexus device in the next 3 months.
Additionally, ATT is not “swallowing” another company. DT is voluntarily selling TM to ATT.. Your assertion implies force of which there is obviously none. When you can show me where being average gives someone a right to goods and services at a certain price then you might have a point. Until then, consumers (yes, even the ones with average income) can simply vote with their purchasing decisions.
Yes DT is voluntarily selling their company. That still doesn’t negate the fact that they would together with VZW control 90% of market share. So, we would have to vote with our wallets, but in a roundabout way there is still a limitation on our so-called choices. And if the choice to be made is garbage our trash, what would your choice be?
Affording me the choice of nothing I want is essentially affording me no choice.
You don’t have the right to the choices you demand if it means forcing someone else to provide them for you.
you have a right to services when those services become standard and then an entity tries to hinder that standard. if shell gasoline tried to buy out all the remaining competition they could make gas cost whatever they want, would that be right? acording to you yea it would be. but it is unethical and since it has become a standard in many lives we should not have to pay the price because one company decided to buy out another
No you don’t. Please show me the law that makes cell phone service (or gas for that matter) a “right”.
Who owns the gas? You? Nope. Can I tell you how much you can sell your property for or to whom you may sell it?
Why do we keep feeding the troll? He won’t go away if he knows this is where he gets his food.
Your right. I’m done now.
Hey… why not let Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and T mobile all together? I think, they should…. lol
this has happened before… it was called AT&T and is was a horrible monopoly
Wow… This is getting crazy. No merger is goin go through, Tmo will be bought by Google, and Google will use Motorola and make a phone called the Motorola Mofo and it’ll be awesome and Stock Android and I’ll be happy since next October all that would be happening and I’d be able to get it since my contract expired.
…And then I wake up.
What options does T-mobile have?
A. Merge with at&t. Increase coverage for most at&t customers, but remove competition that T-Mobile provides.
B. Merge with sprint. Not only would buying tmo put sprint deep in the red, but they would also have to spend millions more to make the 2 systems work together.the competition that tmo provided would still be gone and sprint would have to raise their prices on par with att and vzn just to stay afloat. Plus side is that sprint would finally have some real coverage.
C. Some other provider buys tmo and you get the same result as( b)
d. A private party buys tmo and things would most likly stay the same as they have been.
E. T-mobile stays as they are, losing money every quarter unless they choose to raise prices to pull themselves out of the red.
F. T-mobile closes their doors, the competition they provide is
This seems a bit ridiculous, though I’m sure we all saw it coming. Sprint making a civil case out of it kinda takes some of the legitimacy from the anti-merger side of the house. Once it’s a civil case, it becomes pretty clearly about money. I for one, hope the FCC blocks the merger (simply for selfish purposes), but I feel Sprint should do about the same. Don’t sue. Just provide the FCC and DOJ with statements or evidence you think they’ll need. The last thing we need right now is another mobile vs mobile lawsuit gumming up the courts.
Lol…again I say , Sprint its ok you can always get a pretty penny from selling to Verizon if the deal goes through…
While I am personally against the merger since it means one less player on the field and means less competition as well as companies having the ability to put prices where ever they please, I still think Sprint needs to do more than just file this suit. I’ve been on Sprint for about 2 years now and while I have a lot of good things to say about Sprint, I also have had my negative moments.
1) They shouldn’t have charged a 4G fee for anyone not living in a 4G area unless they were doing quick rollouts which they didn’t. They have taken their sweet time with rolls outs as well as even deciding whether they are using Wiimax or LTE.
2)They need to solidify their service nationwide. There’s something wrong when I’m receiving the same signal strength in one location as another and there is a drastic speed difference between the two. In addition to this, fix the service. Here in Tallahassee, they have been having network issues for the past 2 weeks and never told customers.
3) They need to fix their customer service. While it has apparently gotten better and is somehow rated better than the other carriers (which scares me), they still have a ways to go. Over the phone you end up going back and forth with someone only to be called back later by a manager who fixes the issue that should have been taken care of in the first phone call.
I also tend to have either a horrible or completely chaotic experience. This past week I took my Epic in because it was behaving erratically (reception constantly dropping and the phone turning off randomly). I dropped it off without them giving me a ticket or anything and they simply told me to come back in an hour. When I came back they asked for my ticket which I didn’t have. After taking my info they handed me back a device and told me they switched the lcd on it which completely confused me since it had nothing to do with the problem I brought it in for. The tech told me that it was behaving strangely and every time he pressed a capacitive button, it performed a different action then what the actual button was. I have never had a problem with this in my year with the phone and part of me thinks the tech was just used to his own phone and didn’t know that not every android phone has a same configuration (a very stupid mistake). He told me he ordered a new lcd as the one he put on my phone was just a temporary one.
I didn’t put up a fight because it was being done for free and I plan on selling my phone within a month or two. Making it look brand new will help since I can simply reformat the phone and hopefully have the issues go away. A few days later when I went in, they handed me a new (refurbished) phone. While it wasn’t what they told me, it was nice to get a new phone. The whole experience, however, was not what it should have been.
While a lot of these things are minor, Sprint already has a bad reputation with a lot of people out there. Instead of simply trying prevent their competition from getting stronger, they need to strengthen themselves. Overall, I love Sprint and phones they offer. I sincerely want them to continue to grow and maintain their values while never stopping ways to improve themselves.
Check out my blog: Broke Man’s Tech (Google it please).