FCC Wants Your Input on the T-Mobile Buyout


If you’re one of the few with a real bone to pick over the proposed T-Mobile sell-off, now is your chance to tell the FCC what you think. Did you leave AT&T for T-Mobile? Are you not interested in a data network that has the reliability of France mid-battle? Would you rather something something of an alligator in a phone booth? If for any reason you’re ready to vent your side of the story to the FCC, now is the time to do it. How to?

  • Visit the FCC ECFS System
  • Look for Proceeding Number 11-65 entitled “In the Matter of applications of AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG for consent to assign or Transfer Control of licenses and Authorizations. ”
  • Fill out the information requested
  • Follow the additional prompts

We know there are more than a handful of T-Mobile or AT&T customers to fill the spectrum of emotional responses just begging for their soap box to the FCC. Now is the time to make your opinion heard.

[via Engadget | Image as well]

Tyler Miller

AirPush Sends Ads to Your Notification Pane (And Why I Think It’s Horrible)

Previous article

CyanogenMod 7 Coming to the T-Mobile G2x; Nightlies Available

Next article

You may also like


  1. Submitted.

    1. +1

  2. We need EVERYONE to protest this… Submitted

    1. submitted

      Hi I am completely against the idea of a merger between T-mobile and AT&T.
      For one I am a T-mobile customer and I would hate to lose the great customer service and affordable plans that T-mobile is always providing. They made it affordable for me to have great service at a price I could afford. Verizon and AT&T have high rates on all their plans, and I would not be using any additional Data or Texting features if it wasn’t for T-mobile’s affordability. Also a major role is if the merger is allowed to go through it will create a GSM Monopoly. I love the idea of easily swapping out the sim card and having worldwide service, T-mobile is really understandable and great at providing Unlock Codes for Phone if a customer is traveling overseas. I would rather have a Company like Google buy them out but not any sort of Merger.
      I would hate for the merger to go through and leave sprint with roughly less than 17% of wireless industry. Eventually it would lose most it’s customers and go out of service or possibly get bought out by Verizon, They may say now that they have no intentions of buying sprint now but it can happen one day and if you guys allow this merger what reason would the FCC have to stop a possible Verizon-Sprint merger in the future.
      So please don’t allow less competition in the market, it is already tough out there and I don’t want it getting tougher.

    2. Done!! This has nothing to do with liking or disliking AT&T or T-Mobile.. This merger will reduce competition and most likely hurt Sprint in competitiveness. If Sprint starts to go under, we will be left with two wireless companies in this country, that is a lose-lose situation.

      1. are you nuts? It’s lose lose even with 3 carriers, since they are not all competing on the same level. We also lose an international competitor (GSM), which means the united states has even less choice for International phone use.

        Yes, Tmobile exists outside the US, but we would lose a choice of a company with which to buy phones that can support a non-US sim for overseas use.

  3. Time to let my voice heard on how much I dislike this!

    Key reasons
    -Will hurt consumers
    -Eliminates choices
    -Starts Putting the monopoly of Bell back together
    -Gives at&t too much power in terms of control of the market by subscriber count.
    -Makes a GSM monopoly.
    -AT&T has been known to screw consumers, a bigger at&t will result on more people being screwed.

  4. If you’re going to submit an opposing comment, here’s a good point to raise: This merger would result in ONE GSM carrier in the US. GSM is a requirement for international travelers. Thus, international travelers would have zero choice, aka a monopoly in GSM service.

    Saying “I hate ATT, their service sucks” is not going to carry weight with the FCC. If anything, it will make them more likely to approve the merger (as one good network and one bad network merging would result in one mediocre network, which the FCC tends to be OK with.) Focus on anti-competitive implications.

    1. Well that is neither really true nor relevant.
      There are other option for the traveler and really T-mobile’s special sauce of GSM was largely incompatable with international GSM (at least 3G) to begin with Regardless, it’s the Federal (as in United States) Communication Commision. If they were really that concerned with international standards they would have followed them when doled out the spectrum to begin with. Now if you made an argument that the competative market in the US would be changed they’d probably take a look at it, but odds are they’re just going to end up forcing AT&T to divest markets where they’re left as the sole provider.

      1. also nearly all cdma carriers offer global phones which work better then trying to force a usa gsm phone to work overseas

    2. It doesn’t make any difference what technology (GSM, CDMA, eventually LTE or WiMax) is being used because ultimately, they all do the same thing… allows calls and can send data. Most consumers could careless how it works, as long as it works.

      What needs to be said is why taking a competitor out of the market and/or why allowing AT&T to get so large is a BAD thing. Sorry to say, what technology/protocol is being used isn’t it.

      For me, I don’t like this merger because AT&T has proven they don’t benefit anyone, but themselves, when they buyout/merge with other companies. I had Cingular when they merged with AT&T and there was no benefit to us. Coverage, prices, nor customer service got better. All it did was allow AT&T to increase prices, by taking a competitor out, and layoff employees to fatten then wallets over time.

      Normally, a company getting larger wouldn’t bother me, but when a company is using public resources, it does. All wireless companies use wireless spectrum so when there is a merger/buyout, there’s needs to be a benefit to the general public. Yes, they bought the spectrum, but it’s more like a rental fee since non-usage can cause it to be returned and it was sold to benefit everyone. And everyone includes the general public, not just the company and their stock holders.

  5. Submitted with pride.

    (on a side note fuck AT&T)

  6. Am I the only one that is for this?

    1. Nope, I’m 100% for it.

    2. Are you the only pussy on phandroid

    3. Why?

    4. Totally for it. If anyone really understands it, it’s the only position to have. If you’re against it, you are going to hide behind hyperbole.

  7. Done =)

  8. I liked t mobile not ATT. I currently have Verizon and gotta say great service

  9. Submitted my comment against the deal. AT&T is the worst and I don’t want any part of them.

  10. Submitted my comment against the deal. AT&T is the worst and I don’t want any part of them.

  11. Submitted my comment against the deal. AT&T is the worst and I don’t want any part of them.

  12. Chairman Reed E. Hundt ,
    “In the long and tragic history of inequality between races and gender in America, today we are creating the greatest single opportunity ever made fairly available to small businesses, women and minorities. For the first time in our nation’s history, the federal government is creating opportunities in a new industry in which all Americans will have a fair chance to compete from day one”. “entrepreneurs’ C Block” is established, which is designed to fulfill the statutory mandate to ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies and businesses owned by minorities and /or women (referred to as “designated entities”) have the opportunity to participate in providing broadband PCS.

    C & F “Entrepreneurs” Block Auctions.
    Congress required the Commission to “promote economic opportunity and competition and ensure that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small business, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.”

    Designated Entities
    The FCC determined that setting aside certain blocks solely for bidding by designated entities for each auction might be necessary to ensure their opportunity to acquire licenses. For the broadband PCS auction, the FCC found that set-asides would be necessary for designated entities due to the ability of large competitors with extensive financial capabilities to outbid those without sufficient access to capital. Blocks C and F were set aside as the “entrepreneurs’ PCS spectrum licenses .”

    AT&T & T- Mobile
    In 1995 AT&T (“Humpty Dumpty”) was not allowed to bid on the C & F “entrepreneurs” blocks licenses auction No.5 and for good reason the auction was set aside for small business only. If the FCC allows this proposed merger request between Humpty Dumpty and T-Mobile Humpty Dumpty will end up owning over 95% of all the original C & F Block “entrepreneurs” blocks spectrum licenses that was set aside for by the Commission and Congress for small business only. “It’s an outrage that this proposed merger request is even being considered by the commission. The FCC “entrepreneurs” designated entities auction’s and it’s auction rules was a monumental failure from day one. Approving this proposed merger request between Humpty Dumpty and T-Mobile would be appalling and would be virtually nailing the last nail in the coffins of small business, the life blood of America. Small business was the ones that started the whole cell phone business and now you want cut off any real opportunity for small business to compete in the wireless market. And to made a bad situation worse Humpty Dumpty is asking the FCC not to mandate interoperability so that small carriers can have access to new 4G network equipment, phones and devices that are able to work on the various 700MHz spectrum bands as well as having voice & data roaming at fair prices which Humpty Dumpty claim is extremely complicated and not possible. This kind of practice by a company dominating the wireless business is abusive behavior and must be viewed as anti-competitive. What happen to the Antitrust Laws in this country did it go the way of the Glass Steagall Act ? Bailing out AIG only cost the tax payers $700 billion. The bottom line is no interoperability in the 700MHz. spectrum band then no merger. Humpty Dumpty can not have it’s cake, and eat it to. Humpty Dumpty was not allowed to bid on the C & F “entrepreneurs” blocks licenses back in 1995 so why should the FCC allow them to own and control 95% of all the small business PCS spectrum licenses now. The FCC should mandate Humpty Dumpty to divest of all C & F blocks licenses and hold a new “entrepreneurs” auction for true small business ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the wireless market on a level playing field. The fact of the matter is this proposed merger request between Humpty Dumpty and T-Mobile will give two companies control of 80% of the wireless business. I ask you, how can that be good for competition? The decision the Commission must make is to deny the proposed merger between Humpty Dumpty and T- Mobile. Did you say Humpty Dumpty has no clothes on? Vincent D. McBride

  13. submited 100% for this merger. Someone needs to kick Sprint and Verizon in the ass

  14. I really have yet to figure out why I, or anyone else for that matter should actually oppose this.

    Warp speed, nationwide LTE rollout? Yes please!

    The only reason people seem to be up in arms about this is because peole some how think it equates to a monopoly. Nation wide it really changes the picture little. AT&T gets a bit of a jump on VZW on paper but after markets get divested and what not the actual impact will probably be a lot smaller.

    1. You can’t possibly be that ignorant about business can you?

      1. I’m pretty sure I’m not the one that you need to worry about here.

        Although if you care to enlighten me with whatever sound economic principles you think are going to be shattered here I’d *love* to hear it.

    2. Well, for one, I like being able to install apps that aren’t from the market without rooting my phone. I also don’t feel like paying $45.00 for 4gigs of data, which is the most expensive out of any carrier in the U.S.
      The way At&t operates reminds me of China. There will be thousands of employees that lose their jobs because of this. There will be many store locations shut down, which means empty store fronts and lost revenue for the people that own the buildings and surrounding businesses due to less traffic. It goes far beyond “Oh, it will make my network better.”
      If At&t was serious about wanting a better network, they would have already built it themselves.

      1. AT&T can’t build it themselves. They need a major acquisition lik tMobile in order to keep up with their current demand for spectrum as well as expanding it and trying to implement lte at the same time. AT&T needs spectrum bad which is why they have been frced to charge exorbitant prices for data and other services, laws of supply and demand.

        As for Sprint, in many ways this could be just what they need. They are strategically positioning themselves now to become the new alternative to the big 2. Many people will switch to sprint if the merger goes through and as their customer base grows, so will their ability to expand coverage. If you subtract the major debt they paid back this year, sprint is back in the black and with no big debts coming to be paid in the next couple if years this could be great for them.

        Bottom line is tMobile was losing too much money to stick around. Unfortunately, AT&T happened to be the ones who jumped into to help bail water.

        1. So, At&t can’t take the money they are using to try to but T-Mobile and use it to build new towers etc.?

          Quoted from free2allnew:
          “Just remember, AT&T purchased spectrum in the 700mhz band, just like Verizon for 4G. Verizon is using it, AT&T is sitting on it and now they say they need T-Mobile’s spectrum to do the rollout; which is a lie based on what Verizon is doing.”

          1. You could put 1 tower up for every human, dog and cat in America… it won’t solve the problem of spectrum. This acquisition is about spectrum… and all the towers in the world don’t magically create spectrum. Notably, this is about AWS spectrum, which is the worldwide standard for LTE… which T-Mobile owns nationwide coverage in…. and is, literally, WASTING on its HSPA. You want national coverage? You want international roaming? Want phones that don’t come out in America but will still work here? Want to be able to hot-swap a SIM and not lose an ounce of service? Then you want this merger.

          2. AT&T would like us to believe it’s spectrum, but it’s NOT. International roaming is a non issue because of 2 things….

            1. If it was for roaming internationally, does this mean AT&T will give up the spectrum in other frequency bands?

            2. AT&T already has phones that work on their current frequency and can roam internationally. It’s just a matter of them getting phones that support more radio bands.

            Back to spectrum and number of towers… If you did have a tower for every human, dog and cat in America, there wouldn’t be any spectrum issue. The reason is the same spectrum can be used over and over again per tower.

            It’s just like when cable modems or home routers that use 192.168.x.x for their private network. It can be used over and over again. This is also the reason that AT&T and Verizon paid billions of dollars for the spectrum int he 700mhz band. They know that they can put a few towers up and get great coverage and when their available bandwidth gets saturated, they can add additional towers to increase bandwidth. Why do you think all the cell companies bring in mobile cell sites when there are large events? What the additional cell sites do isn’t give them better coverage. It’s gives them increased capacity.

  15. I’m in full support of this.

    At least in my area the service has been just as well as Verizon and in some (like one, or two) area’s a little better. The 3G is also much quicker here than Verizon.

    I realize a lot of people will disagree, but hey that’s why I submitted my voice at the FCC. ;)

    Have been happier since AT&T bought out my provider.

  16. I wrote my mind… I hope they read it.

  17. WooHoo!!! Supported :)

    Let’s get this deal done for the masses!!!!!

    1. Seriously? How can it be good for the masses?

      1. How can it not be good?

        You don’t want an expitited nationwide LTE rollout? I do!

        1. At the cost of what? No I’d rather there actually be some competition.

          1. So what does that have to do with this?

            OIC! You’re calling t-mobile “competition.” I guess you could call them that in some text book definition of competition. Only in the same way that you could say I would be “competing” in a slam dunk contest against LeBron James.

            The only competition that has and will matter to AT&T is VZW and nothing about turning this 2 +2 horse race into a 2 +1 horse race is changing that.

          2. Not quite. Perhaps TMO isn’t a huge threat, but they do offer options that ATT does not. In that sense, TMO is able to do what ATT is not able (or is unwilling) to do. By swalling TMO, they will likely get rid of the value plans, and swallow up plenty of customers, thus ending with owning much more of the market. In that way, they just bought out the competition. Any company that is potentially taking away profits from you is competition in business, which is why, IMO, the sports analogy doesn’t really work.

        2. What does a buyout have to do with a LTE rollout? Verizon, who has less spectrum then AT&T, has started their rollout with more and more places being added.

          Just remember, AT&T purchased spectrum in the 700mhz band, just like Verizon for 4G. Verizon is using it, AT&T is sitting on it and now they say they need T-Mobile’s spectrum to do the rollout; which is a lie based on what Verizon is doing.

          1. Apples to oranges.

            Smiply adding up licenses and using that number to say that AT&T should have what they need isn’t going to work. Yes they’ve got a lot but they are also seeing tripple digit growth in mobile broadband and need somewhere to expand to.

    2. So, I see you’re also for people losing their jobs.

      1. I don’t know that job loss is a very good argument. Under those terms, any merger EVER should be stopped because someone, somewhere is bound to lose a job as a result of it.

        1. It’s not the only argument, but at a time like now when jobs are harder to come by, it would put more people in the unemployment lines which would cost the gov’t money to support while also losing tax revenue from those workers.

  18. I say nay to the purposed t-t&t merge because gsm monopoly in at&t’s hand would contribute more to usa’s down fall in terms of less choices, tiered bs addon services, and all around more restrictions for the customer. Plus Verizon already has the monopoly on nickling & diming their customers, who needs a gsm version of verizon. T-mobile has a good/fair and competitive pricing structure. At&t just wants to kill their main threat (t-mobile).

  19. Submitted. In addition to the consumer choice and monopoly issues, I pointed out AT&T’s position on side loading and root access privileges (which, obviously, doesn’t matter to most consumer), which prevents amateur developers from competing in the marketplace.

    I complained about AT&T’s positions on free speech too, which I think is the MOST troubling aspect of a potential nation-wide dominance of AT&T, but probably isn’t considered relevant enough for any consideration (and that’s even assuming anyone will read, analyze, and consider every comment posted to the website)

  20. I hate ATT! But I HATE government and I HATE people that want to get government involved in everything involving business!

    Suck my Woodie!

    There is no such thing as a monopoly in the comms business unless government makes one, like the original ATT.

    Want government involved? ESAD MoFo!!!!!!!

    1. lol, maybe you should go back school and take some business courses.

      1. Maybe you should get your money back for yours.

        Although the wording isn’t *exactly* what I would have used he is correct. The only reason that the orignial AT&T monopoly was allowed in the first place is because it was considered a “natural” monopoly and was thought to be in the best interest of the consumer at the time.

        Besides everyone pointing to the old AT&T as some kind of precident really doesn’t understand what was going on. Its nothing like what is going on in this case.

        1. Did your Mommy tell you that?

          1. Well we’ve clearly exceeded your zone of expertise. Come back when you’ve got something other than school yard insults.

  21. If any meger should take place. For the love of God don’t let sh@%$ at&t monopolize, it should be sprint and tmo.

  22. I am just going to point this out, I laughed at the data reliability being compared to France at war. Good comparison, I must say.

  23. As an AT&T employee I’m afraid to post my name and personal info for public record. However, I will share with you my concerns.

    As a consumer my main concern is competitive prices. My T-Mobile contracts have always been cheaper than that of AT&T and that is while including my AT&T employee discount.

    My other concern will be the fewer choices of handhelds. With fewer carriers, fewer models will be available. Mid price models will take the biggest decline availability. This will not only force higher prices but will also slow technical advancement in handheld devices and Operating Systems development.

    1. Those were the exact concerns I submitted. With a near duopoloy, VZW & AT&T can raise costs to whatever they like. Sprint may have competitive prices, but their coverage is really lacking. Especially in rural areas.

      1. But VZW & AT&T can do that now. The question is why would they. T-mobile wasn’t exactly licking at their heels with their “competative pricing” which is now back to round about the same BTW.

        VZW and AT&T were the only thing keeping the other in check in the first place and I don’t really see how this is going to change that.

    2. I’m confused and befuddled by your comment.
      What about that would change in a world without an AT&T T-mobile buyout?

      Its not that different from where the US was a couple of years ago in the automotive industry. Some people were asking “where are the mid-range” economy cars. You know why there weren’t any? Because everyone was buying SUVs Low end/ midrange handsets are pretty much the same now. Regardless of any buyout there is going to be decline because no one is buying them.

      Nothing about this is going to change any of the realities of where the technical and operating system development is heading now.

      1. I really don’t see the comparison to the automotive industry. But the technology will be hindered by buy the decline of major carriers. Improvements to current technology will come at a slower rate by decreasing it’s field of growth.

        An example would be the Android operating system. T-Mobile played a major part introducing this platform, when most were eying the apple OS that was the AT&T exclusive Iphone. Even the exclusiveness hindered progress and pricing.

        Manufacturers Samsung, HTC, Apple, Motorola, and others will less opportunity to get their products to the public.

        As for changes I would make? ( If I had the power. ) I would start with making service carriers sell service not cell phones.
        Manufactures should make phones that will work with any provider I choose. You shouldn’t have to by a new phone to switch to Verison. This would spur growth in phone sells and more competitive contract prices.

        How would you like to buy a new TV because you switched to DirecTV over Dish? And I’m sure I could think of more but it’s past my bedtime. Good night all.

        1. Well damn, I thought the auto industry parallel was pretty good.

          Eitherway… I’ve generally got to disagree with your stance on t-mobile and android. While I would applaud them for their initial step with launching the G1 it pretty much festered over there until VZW made android a major player in the market and they they just jumped on the bandwagon.

          Even then as you point out it’s the cellphone manufactures that are pushing the inovation. T-mobile has given lots of them a home but really nothing drastically different from AT&T’s current or future offerings.

          I personally think that the whole thing is largely mooted by the realities of the current phone market in the US. The average person is switching phones every 2 years as it is. It really makes no difference if you switch carriers at the sametime.

          1. How can you disagree with the stance “that T-Mobile played a major part in introducing the platform?” Its less editorial and more generally understood fact.

            What Verizon did was rebrand the phones featuring Android. The marketing team that developed the Droid brand and marketing campaign (to be specific) are only responsible for expanding an audience already established by T-Mobile.

          2. I don’t think that I disagreed with that. In fact I’m pretty sure I said the same thing.

            If you really think that VZW only “expanded” an audience that t-mobile creative you’re kidding yourself. Is that why so many people ask if I’m using a droid?

          3. Verizon did a great marketing job on the “Droid” brand without a doubt. People now thing that all Android phones are “Droids” but in reality only a few phones have got that branding and its been a major roll in Android’s growth.

            FYI, I used to work for Verizon during the time the HTC Droid Eris and Motorola Droid (OG) came out.

          4. Phillip Cun, I believe what Jon is saying and I tried to say is that Android was introduced with the Nexus One. This came out a long time before the Droid. And while both AT&T and T-mobile sold the Nexus One, the marketing and advertising was done by T-Moblie.

    3. I’m an AT&T employee and I’m protesting it. Nothing about being employed by AT&T precludes us from exercising the rights and privileges afforded us as United States citizens.

      That’s what sickens me the most about this generation… no one is willing to put themselves on the line for something they believe in. Armchair protesters and activists… supporting a cause so long as it doesn’t interfere with the mundane, banal ultradian rhythms of work, eat, sleep, pay bills.

      1. LOL. Jonathan Summers I like you. You can do my sister.

        1. Neat.

          In all seriousness, though, I agree with you on every single point you made. There are enough oligopolies utterly ignored by the FCC… ISPs and TV providers, for example. Hell.. I work in Uverse, and I think its ridiculous that we cant offer more than 24Mbps… at about $60/month, no less.

          Sweden is laughing at us right now.

          1. Agreed! We may work at the location!

  24. +1 filed against!

  25. Nothing good can come from a GSM monopoly. Think of other industries that are controlled by monopolies and how much they such. The cable industry for example, or utlities, where there is no choice, competition, with high prices and price fixing. Think of all the android phones that will no go on sale in America because AT&T wan’t to protect the iPhone market share.

    Again, nothing good comes from monopolies. There needs to be competition on GSM, just like there is on CDMA.

  26. The iphone has been a huge part of AT&T’s success the past few years. And it’s no secret that Verizon has a far superior network. What’s going to happen when many of these AT&T iphone contracts begin to expire in the near future?

    As far as the AT&T/T-Mobile thing goes… From what I understand, there is a fairly large percentage of T-Mobile customers that are not under contract. If that’s true, how many T-Mobile customers are going to leave when AT&T takes over? T-Mobile is generally considered the cheapest carrier in terms of price while AT&T is the most expensive.

    Verizon is the one I would worry about becoming to large. Not AT&T!

  27. Urrzffjjuf

  28. +1 against.

    As a current t-mo customer, i’m very sad about this. I’ve been an AT&T customer previously, and was not happy with the customer service then, and am not now. They’ve admitted (very recently) that their network currently cannot support the current userbase, let alone adding another one. What about the jobs? What about market overlap? Take a look at how the AllTel buyout from VZW is going, where VZW has to sell off stores in certain markets to ATT already where VZW would have a “monopoly” in the area. The same thing will happen here, i promise.

    Also, the GSM monopoly thing, not entirely true, VZW, Sprint, and ATT have “world-band” devices, both GSM and CDMA. (blackberry 8830 comes to mind) It would be a US GSM monopoly however, and then ATT could strong-arm the global market into whatever they wanted. (ATT is a global company after all)

    Nope, not a good deal all around.

    1. So according to you, TMO is the entity keeping ATT from “strong-arming the global market into whatever they want”?

  29. summited! 100% NOT FAVOR! Loving T-Mobile right now, not looking forward not looking foward for any changes.

  30. I’m not for the merger, but your comment has no place here.
    Learn to not be an ignorant, bigoted asshole.

  31. “the reliability of France mid-battle” LOL epic.

  32. “Any information that you submit will be available to the general public.”

    Well, this gets my pile of fail award for this week. No, you may not have my name address and phone number on a public forum where the topic has nothing to do with my dox. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy to give the FCC my address- I just don’t see why they have to share it with everyone who visits their site.

  33. Just posted my comment to the FCC. Hopefully this merger can be derailed.

  34. Submitted fuck the dictatorship that is at&t.

  35. Submitted:

    As a former AT&T customer, I switched to T-Mobile because I was able to get better network coverage, phenomenally better customer service, and much more competitive prices than AT&T (or Verizon) could offer. I sincerely doubt that an AT&T takeover would preserve any of the customer-centric practices that have allowed T-Mobile to become the better choice in mobile service for so many US consumers.

    Allowing this merger would also effectively form a GSM monopoly, making them the ONLY major carrier for that specific cellular technology. The main advantage of GSM — interoperability of any GSM device across any GSM provider by swapping out a SIM card — would be rendered moot if there is only one provider controlling 95% of the GSM market. Not to mention that with fewer carriers, there will be fewer devices available.

    If ever there were a market that NEEDED strict government oversight, it is telecommunications, *including* mobile telecom. More choices for consumers means more competition and more consumer-friendly pricing. All good things, coming from the position of a consumer.

    If AT&T’s main argument for the merger is building a better network for their customers, then ask them why they wait until their network is strained to the point of outages to begin expanding capacity. And why they cannot simply subcontract additional network capacity through T-Mobile instead of buying them out.

    Last of all, let’s address the many T-Mobile employees that will be out of a job should this merger go through. The last thing our economy needs at this point is more unemployment.

  36. tande04 is a looser that will continue to argue-let her believe her own Communistic ideals and at&t inspired misconceptions of what the future holds if we entrusted at&t to hold it to choose for us as a US GSM monopoly.

  37. Totally against and submitted. Also, forwarding to T-Mobile employees that i know, to help spread the word and to give to their customers who are against this, as well. Ha!

  38. & to start it all off, at&t is choosing to not use all of TMO’s bands so the only current data phone that’ll work on at&t above Edge, is the G2X. Thanks, but NO THANK YOU. SUBMITTED and also, spreading the word.

    1. androidess err check your facts, the g2x is only 1700/2100mhz not the 850/1900 att uses.

  39. I have a feeling that tande04 is really Randall Stephenson…

    1. Catch, you sir have been reading my mind. Get out of my head. LOL

    2. Lol. That would be awesome.

  40. Im always against people losing jobs

  41. Most of the reasons people are giving here as why this shouldn’t happen are probably just going to be laughed at.

    “I don’t want to lose TMO’s great customer service”
    “I don’t like ATT”

    Are you people kidding? Those aren’t valid reasons for the FCC to consider declining the merger. Being able to prove that this merger will stifle competition is about the only hope there is to keep this from happening. This has to be more than an inconvenience people. It has to be damaging to the economy…

  42. The merger will go thru. Do you think the FCC will approve Verizons merger with Alltell so they could gobble up frequency and increase their customer base and then turn around and deny the same request from ATT.

  43. To the few people who support the merger.. think long term for a moment. You think your phone is going to be the only thing using mobile data 5 years from now? All you can eat data should be rewarded and tiered data punished now while we have the choice.

    If T-Mo merges into AT&T, sprint will be the only major provider for all you can eat data. They will now get 100% of the highest end data users while at&t and veriozon will sit tight with their casual bimbo iphone users who don’t know jack all about what is at stake. Sprint will not be able to keep the most expensive customers while the bigger companies get the easy to please most lucrative customers and sprint will have no choice to follow suit with tiered data.

    What happens years from now when the rest of the world is steaming netflix on their tablets and playing World of Warcraft on their docking stations… the US will not be able to afford it as AT&T will be charging heavily for the data and netflix will be blocked compleatly because it competes with AT&T UVerse.

  44. AT&T will ruin tmobile. If i were on TM I’d fight the merger anyway i could. The extra towers would be fine, but AT&T businesses practices will ruin them.

  45. Just submitted mine, Please keep in mind that a 14 yr old wrote this.

    I am currently a customer of T-Mobile and I am completely against this deal happening. The merger of these two large companies would have a devastating impact on the market and drastically reduce competition. Furthermore, This could result in Sprint becoming bankrupt, which could leads to there being only 2 major phone companies in America.This can not be allowed. This will make prices sky-rocket. Its common sense. This is the opposite of T-Mobiles goal of providing affordable plans. Another issue is customer service. T-mobile is renowned for having amazing customer service, something AT&T is infamous for lacking in. Also, the removal of T-Mobile would mean hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed which is the opposite of what America is trying to accomplish. If this deal goes through, AT&T will have a monopoly on GSM services in the USA. This can not be allowed, as it is illegal. GSM is used the most frequently in the entire world. Allowing one company to control all GSM phones in the USA is ridiculous. My biggest concern with this is the least known one. T-Mobile is Americas most Android-friendly carrier. They launch Android with the G1 in October 21 2008, which is the day i got my G1. I love Android and am incredibly proud of how superior it is to the Iphone. AT&T is the least Android-friendly carrier. Common sense dictates that will decrease the number of android phones made and sold. Android is the most used mobile OS in the world at the moment. This is expected to increase for years to come. By allowing this deal to go through, you will be upsetting every single person who uses an android phone in the U.S. In my opinion, Google buying out T-Mobile would be a MUCH better solution. It is publicly supported by many. I hope this will help you make your mind when you make your decision.

  46. I oppose, and submitted against the deal. this will lead to nothing but negative outcomes for US wireless consumers, including increased wireless costs.

  47. The last thing we need in this country is another duopoly. If this buy out goes through we will have
    Pepsi/Coke… Apple/Microsoft … AT&T/Verizon. It wont be long before Sprint bleeds to death. Sprints been losing customers for a while now.. with this situation it will only get worse. The industry will be less competitive and this will no doubt end up hurting consumers.

  48. Done and done! I pray this doesn’t happen but should it they had better give us current T-mobile customers an out on our contracts. I want nothing to do with ATT…I hate that they may be allowed to screw me out of cell service that I have loved for over 8 years now.

  49. Good decision by FCC!!..


  51. Anyone notice the response tallies? At the time of my submission there were over 2200 other submissions in comparison to the 5-400 responses to each of the other topics. Go internet politics!

  52. DONE!! Hope it doesn’t happen!!

  53. well,l hate att,because they are a really bad company!!!

  54. Please don’t do this…..

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *