Sprint Rebukes Claims that AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Will Create Jobs


One of the main selling points AT&T has been touting for its merger with T-Mobile has been the creation of new jobs, a point reiterated in their response to a Department of Justice complaint against the proposed deal. It’s easy to understand why AT&T would throw around the J word in light of our current economic situation. Jobs are at a premium, and as the US government scrambles to address unemployment issues a proposal that puts new jobs on the table should, theoretically, gain some support. But Sprint, one of the main forces working to squash the deal, has independently researched AT&T’s claims and concluded that the merger will destroy more jobs than it creates. The final figure worked out by David Neumark, directed of UC Irvine’s Center for Economics and Public Policy, amounts to some 34,000 to 60,000 jobs lost.

Sprint and Neumark point towards reduced capital expenditures, which AT&T hopes to lower by $10 billion in the wake of a merger with T-Mobile. His logic? Less money equals less jobs. Makes sense, right? Even with additional investments arising from the deal, the sort of money needed to create jobs rather than cut them simply wouldn’t be there. Senior vice president of Sprint Government Affairs remarks, “the DOJ and FCC should not be fooled by additional false claims, and neither should the American public. This deal is bad for consumers, bad for competition, and bad for the economy.”

The verdict is still out on whether the proposed acquisition receives approval, but the tide seems to be changing in recent weeks, and not in AT&T’s favor. Read the full report below.

New Study Debunks AT&T’s Job Claims

Study by Noted Independent Labor Economist Reveals AT&T’s Planned $10 Billion Cut in Total Capital Expenditures, in Addition to its Own History as a Job Reducer, Would Result in Thousands of Job Losses

Editor’s note: Sprint will host a media briefing via conference call with the study’s author on Thursday, Sept., 1, 2011 at 11 a.m., Eastern Time. Members of the media may dial (866) 225-8754, and, when prompted say, “Sprint Conference Call,” to join.

WASHINGTON & IRVINE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–A new study, commissioned by Sprint (NYSE:S), was released today by David Neumark, professor of Economics and director of the Center for Economics and Public Policy at the University of California at Irvine. This independent analysis debunks assertions made by AT&T that their proposed takeover of T-Mobile would be good for American jobs. The study reveals that this acquisition will almost certainly lead to the elimination of thousands of American jobs as the company works to lower its capital expenditures by $10 billion.

“This study shines definitive light on yet another false premise that AT&T is using to try to sell this damaging deal to regulators and the American public, and offers evidence that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile could have a negative impact on the overall American economy”

The study directly refutes claims made by AT&T, based on a memorandum by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), that the merger would be a net job creator. The EPI analysis, Neumark notes, is groundless.

“EPI’s claim that the AT&T/T-Mobile merger would create jobs is completely unfounded,” Neumark concludes. “It ignores potential reductions in capital expenditures that T-Mobile would have undertaken. Indeed, AT&T has told the federal government and its investors that the merger would lead to reduced capital expenditures – which by EPI’s own logic would lead to fewer jobs. And AT&T has acknowledged there would be other job reductions resulting from the merger.”

In his analysis, Neumark notes the EPI memorandum bases its job projection on AT&T’s claim that the merger would result in an increase in capital investments of $8 billion. However, Neumark observes that this $8 billion figure is not an estimate of the net effect of the merger. It ignores the capital expenditures that would otherwise have been made by T-Mobile (an average of nearly $3.4 billion in each of the last three years.) Moreover, AT&T has been promising cuts in capital expenditures to Wall Street.

“There may be some new investment generated by the merger, and this may be reflected in the $8 billion figure that AT&T has cited in the press. But this is just a gross figure. There will also be diminished investment elsewhere, and the only thing that matters for job creation from changes in investment that would result from the merger is the net change in capital investment. It is a glaring distortion of the effects of the merger to count only increased sources of investment in projecting employment effects, while ignoring sources of decreased investment,” the study says.

Assuming AT&T’s net capital investment falls by $5 billion, it would result in job destruction of 34,000 to 60,000 using EPI’s own analysis, Neumark concludes.

Further, Neumark noted that creating jobs through mergers would be completely inconsistent with AT&T’s own history. The study reports that, since 2002, AT&T has been responsible for the elimination of more than 107,000 job-years relative to what would have happened had AT&T’s employment simply grown by the number of employees acquired through several acquisitions. This is also consistent with what AT&T has been sharing with the investment community; that the merger would entail employment reductions from rationalizing operations.

“This study shines definitive light on yet another false premise that AT&T is using to try to sell this damaging deal to regulators and the American public, and offers evidence that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile could have a negative impact on the overall American economy,” said Vonya McCann, senior vice president, Sprint Government Affairs. “The DOJ and FCC should not be fooled by additional false claims, and neither should the American public. This deal is bad for consumers, bad for competition, and bad for the economy.”

Sprint retained Charles River Associates to analyze the competitive effects raised by AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile, and their analysis was subsequently submitted to the Federal Communications Commission on May 31, 2011, as part of Sprint Nextel’s Petition to Deny. Neumark is a professor of Economics with a focus in Labor, director of Graduate Studies, and director of the Center for Economics and Public Policy at the University of California, Irvine. He is also a senior consultant to Charles River Associates. While funding for the economic study was provided by Sprint Nextel, the analysis and conclusions were independently done by Neumark.

Kevin Krause
Pretty soon you'll know a lot about Kevin because his biography will actually be filled in!

Phillips Introduces Fidelio Universal Speaker Dock for Android Phones and Tablets

Previous article

Toshiba’s AT200 Tablet Announced: 10.1-inch Display, Only 7.7mm Thick

Next article

You may also like


  1. It’s pretty well established and understood that there are NO, NONE, ZERO benefits to anyone but corporate suits with this proposed merger.

    Please do everyone a favor, if you hear a friend or family member talking up the merger, point them to the facts about anti-competitive practices. This merger is ALL bad.

    1. The corporate suits run the company so of course the deal should logically benefit them. That it doesn’t benefit you is no rationale for legally blocking their freedom to buy and sell what they want to.

      What anti-competitive practices have you already convicted ATT of? Perhaps you are trying to convict them of something they haven’t even done yet?

      ATT is poising itself to be even more competitive in the industry. How can anyone blame them for that?

      1. Maybe this is just a coincidence…. and maybe you are related to this guy
        *Jim Mullen:*

        Current – Team Lead; Mobility Pricing at AT&T Mobility

        Past – Litigator at Cotter & Cotter*

        (via LinedIn)

        1. Clicking on his name links him to a facebook page that seems to corroborate this. He was trolling and fear mongering all day yesterday at D-L.

          1. Oddly, when he first posted, his posts were under a different ID. No idea why he felt the need to change. Find it rather odd.

        2. If this was me do you honestly think I would use my real name knowing it would be so simple to link me to this person? For the record, I’ve never heard of the person you referenced. Hell, I work in sales.

          1. I know. You work for (Ma?)Bell Industries. That’s why I suggested “Related to”. You also seem to think everyone else is too simple to get what’s happening, so I wouldn’t put it past you to assume no one would make the connection.

          2. Wrong Bell.. keep trying though.

          3. if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Just seems like a lot of coincidence that you have the minority opinion that this merger should be unopposed.

          4. you’re wrong

      2. So by your reasoning that corporations should be able to do whatever they want, accountable to no one but themselves. The government is their to protect the consumer from unfair practices. You want to elminate that. The problem is for our system to work, it all has to be in balance. Too much gov’t cannot happen, just as too much big business cannot either. Like our gov’t there needs to be a system of checks and balances, lest one group has too much power. If it weren’t for the gov’t you’d have 12-16 hour work days with probably half the pay there is now & child labor.

        Individual freedom is not absolute either. I cannot drive drunk and runover pedestrians and it’s all ok. There are consequences to my actions, to anyones. But you say corporations should not have those consequences? Why is that.

        It is a gov’t by the people, for the people. It’s not by the corporation, for the corporation.

        1. Nice straw man argument by trying to redefine my position and then attack it.

          Corporations, like individuals, should have the freedom to do what they want so long as they are not initiating force against someone else. They can’t just force you to buy something any more than you should be able to force them to sell you something any more than you should be able to force them to not buy another company. With me so far?

          The system of checks and balances you refer to is provided by the marketplace. If ATT buys TMobile and the TM customers don’t like then they are FREE to go elsewhere or simply not have a cell carrier. Simple. You don’t have the right to a cell phone no matter how much you want to have one.

          Morally speaking, individual freedom is absolute insofar as the person’s actions don’t infringe on the individual rights of another. Hitting someone with your car is a violation of another person’s right to not be hit by your car (force). I have not once said or even implied that corporations shouldn’t be punished when the use force to violate rights.

          The larger question is, again, whose rights are ATT violating by buying TM? Until someone can intelligently answer that we will continue to just go round and round.

          I get that some consumers don’t like the deal. So walk if you don’t like it.

          1. Yet another screed showing your ignorance of business law (hint: “rights” have nothing to do with it). You should be reading rather than trolling.

          2. lol, that a law exists doesn’t make it objectively defined or consistent with a morality of individual rights. I refuse to be backed into a corner simply because bad laws exist.

          3. Your refusal is noted by the DOJ and denied. Back to the corner for you ;)

          4. “whose rights are ATT violating by buying TM”

            My right to *choose* a GSM cell carrier. If only one GSM provider exists, that is a monopoly/monopsony.

          5. That right isn’t violated.. you can still buy one from ATT right? If you think there is a market for another GSM cell carrier then you are welcome to prove that to investors, start your own company, and kill it. Good luck!

          6. I couldn’t reply to orion11100, so I’ll reply to you. He just proved the point with his reply:

            “That right isn’t violated.. you can still buy one from ATT right? If you think there is a market for another GSM cell carrier then you are welcome to prove that to investors, start your own company, and kill it. Good luck!”

            That’s why this deal is anti-competitive. By allowing ATT to buy T-Mobile you’re making it impossible for any new player to play ball in the mobile spectrum. If the merger doesn’t go through and T-Mobile is facing bankruptcy, some other company will purchase T-Mobile to try and succeed where they failed. Maybe no one does, maybe T-Mobile does go bankrupt and their towers get sold off, but that’s still better then letting the #2 wireless provider become #1 without anyone else being even close to competing. Right now Verizon is barely a few million subscribers ahead of ATT, if they bought T-Mobile, that would launch ATT so far ahead of the pack that they could seriously leverage things. This deal benefits no one but orion11100.

          7. Like I said yesterday on DL, not every one has another option to go to another carrier. Maybe you do and that”s great for you, but this will affect everyone, regardless of choice or not. Some people need the items that these corporations are offering are selling. So the statement just cancel your service is not an option.

            The system of checks and balances you describle is what’s supposed to happen in theory, but that’s just it, theory. Again, look at Verizon & AT&T. Those 2 businesses should be the ones who can afford to undercut one another, but they don’t. Instead they follow each other step for step. So tell me how the checks & balances work when they seem to have an unspoken rule that they won’t try to seriously undercut each other?

            There is a thing in business called fair market price. You hear it alot when one corporation is purchasing another. It also applies to the consumer. Right now, our cell bill is the second highest bill we have, after electric.It’s more than our heating costs, vehicle insurance, and health insurance. Does that seem right?

            At this point I’d be willing to buy phones outright if they cut the monthly bill, but they won’t. The carriers insist that the subsidized price has nothing to do with equipment costs. They have told me that they take a sharp loss even selling phones at full retail. That’s because they treat the two as separate entities according to the books. But they are not and cannot be separate. You can’t have service without a phone, just as you can’t have a phone without the service (and use it for calls). Basically when you press them on it, their “boo hoo” story is they’re losing so much on equipment sales, but what they don’t say is how much they make on slaes of the service. If like you say they should be able to sell their service for what ever they want, why do they spin this sotry?

            It won’t be too long (if it’s not already) that mobile phone service will be more a necessity than other services like landline telephone, tv, etc. Just like with what has happened with digital tv service (which was brought about because of the need for wireless spectrum by the cell carriers). If you don’t move to the newer service, you get left behind. So what happens when landlines go away? How do you contact 911?

            Also, why are you now orion11100? Didn’t you used to be James T. Mullen? Oh that’s right, you weren’t using your real name. Maybe someone should contact him and let him know you’re using his name on the web.

          8. We are not free to leave. Many of us are on contract. If the merger releases us from our contracts (which I’m not so certain of), then am I now free to change to another GSM carrier? There simply is no way to argue that intentionally forming an oligopoly is anything but anti-competitive behavior. AT&T themselves have already had an internal document leaked that showed that the expansion they are hoping to get from this would be achievable for less than 1/5 of the cost of the buyout. So why go with the buyout instead of the much cheaper expansion? Because it removes the competition and forms an oligopoly. If you believe an oligopoly is perfectly acceptable, and should not be regulated, then you are missing basic american economic understanding. The market can’t correct a merger like this because of the massive barriers to entry into the industry. I simply can not open up a countrywide cell phone company. If you had $100B in the bank, you still could not do it.

            If you believe that an unregulated market with libertarian freedoms will self-regulate and lead to the greater good, then you haven’t studied what happened just a couple years ago with the financial crisis and housing bubble. Libertarianism simply doesn’t work in an ecomony of this size. The proof is all around you.

          9. You are free to leave. You agreed to pay an early cancellation fee.. so pay it, and leave. You’re not free to change to another GSM carrier beyond the few that are out there anyway.. are you crying about that? What, do you think you have a right to a GSM carrier? Nope.

            If the market can’t correct it then it’s not something that needs correcting… that’s the whole point. Less competition is not a good reason to prevent one company from buying another.. to limit their right to buy and sell their assets that THEY OWN.

            What happened with the housing bubble has nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with failed Keynesian economic theory. The proof that this approach to economics fails in every sense of the word is all around us.

          10. Those “failed” Keynesian economics are the exact reason why we’re not in another great depression. The banking system in america was very co-dependent between firms. Their unregulated, unchecked ability to engage in reprehensible (at best) practices such as “bidding” against other peoples’ investments with credit default swaps led to a crisis. Then Keynesian economics came along and prevented that disaster from destroying the country. The fact that the CEOs and board members of these businesses continued to give themselves huge bonuses and pay raises were again the result of insufficient regulation. In other words, Keynes saved your ass from becoming the proud new member of a third-world country.

          11. Wow, drink the cool-aid much? Keynesian economics is exactly what is preventing the market from correcting and through its constant reinflation of the macro bubbles is responsible for making each round of bubble bursting more and more painful. Loose credit, the encouragement of drunken-spending, fiat money, redistributing of wealth, the out of control war-machine, devaluation of our currency, hyper-inflation, increased taxation are all the results of your beloved economic theory. Congrats. Why don’t you go spend some time on mises dot org and learn some non-liberal economics.

          12. I’ve read a few of their articles in the past. However, the ideals behind libertarianism are based on competition. The market isn’t a free market without unbridled competition. As soon as a market becomes one with limited/no competition, it ceases to self-correct. The cell phone carrier market is already very limited in terms of competition, and this takeover would put the theoretical last nail in the coffin of the “free market” you seem to put so much faith in.

          13. No, the ideals behind libertarianism are based on liberty, not competition which means the rest of your point is based on a false premise as well. Competition is one of the natural byproducts of liberty in a free market. In other words, everyone is free to compete however doing so with success is not a guarantee. The fallacy of your thinking is that a monopoly is guaranteed to exist in a truly free cell phone carrier market. In a free market, monopolies exists only where “corrections” are not needed. In other words, a monopoly can only be gained if a company figures out how to not require correction and if the monopolistic company screws up and pisses their customers off the correction comes in the form of competitors being enticed into entering the market to better meet the demands of disgruntled consumers. What are the chances of any single cell provider can actually obtain a monopoly in a free market? Probably next to none because we, by nature, like choices and no one provider can be everything to everyone. Make sense?

          14. You are correct. That is exactly how it would work in a free market. However, the nature of the cell phone carrier market prevents it from being a free market. There are huge barriers to entry that prevent competitors from being able to enter the market to better meet the demands of disgruntled customers. You have to understand that technology changes the game. If we were dealing in simpler commodities, it could indeed be a free market. However, a person with a few billion dollars in capital (an amount that in itself would constitute a MASSIVE barrier to entry) simply would not be capable of buying the spectrum, land, towers, lawyers, etc required to run a competing firm. As it stands right now, the consumer’s choice amounts to: Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile, or a local carrier that can not afford to offer anywhere near the service offered by these 4 giants. That list is about to get one option smaller, and the barriers to entry inherent in this kind of market prevent anyone else from adding to it.

          15. There are plenty of entities with the resources to enter this market.. don’t fool yourself into that line of reasoning because the reality disagrees with you.

            Additionally, your position would, logically, sanction propping up any one of these companies should they begin to fail all in the name of keeping competition. Do you really want to go down that road because that’s exactly what is happening here.. one of these three companies (ATT/Sprint/TM) are in trouble (or foresee trouble soon)which is the real root of each of their actions. It’s not the governments proper role to save one of these companies from the better positioned other. If consumers want to prevent this sale then they will jump ship but until then it is simply a matter of consumers picking the winners and losers not the government.

          16. additionally, the typical response will be something like.. “but we don’t have a free market so you can’t view this intervention by the DOJ through the lens of free market capitalism.”

            To that I say you may have a point, but the fact that we don’t have a free market is only further driven home by supporting liberty cancelling interventions like this one… in other words, let’s not give up because it’s not to say we can’t all get behind making it free and we don’t really need to fear the big bad businesses because in a free market those businesses fear us, the consumer and that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

          17. I’ll admit that the fact that spectrum needs to be purchased from the government is part of the problem. However, there are other factors causing this not to be a free market. The nature of the technology required simply doesn’t allow a free market to exist. One can not simply open a cell phone carrier, because they basically need the permission/cooperation of the currently existing cell phone carriers in order to connect the phones they carry to the phones verizon and att customers use. I know this is an over-simplification, but can you see where the free market is being destroyed by more factors than just the government here?

          18. Why do they need the permission from them? Says who? If the market can support another carrier (which means investors will do what they do (give you money) then you are off and running. Perhaps there are too many carriers in the market already? Hmmmm….

          19. Oh, and to be clear, if the market had self-corrected from the housing bubble, it would have destroyed our financial system. When one huge bank files for bankruptcy, the banks it owed money to can no longer afford to pay their debtors, and then file for bankruptcy. The people who have their money saved, invested, etc in those banks then can no longer get that money back. The middle-class starves to death in this scenario. All transactions revert back to cash (in an ideal scenario) or bartering (more likely), and we find ourselves literally unable to compete in the global economy. That’s what keynesian economics prevented.

          20. You can’t possible know for sure that our financial system would have been destroyed. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to support quite the contrary. You simply drank the cool-aid of the fear mongering politicians who have now doomed us to continue to relive this macro economic boom and bust cycle. Notice how each one gets worse and worse?

            Again I reference the culture of non risk aversion we have which has been propagated by this idea that we need the government to protect us.. so no one looks at investments as risky when they absolutely should. All investments are risks so I don’t feel sorry for those who lost it taking that risk. Fraud is different though but we already have laws for that.. nor do those laws preclude the risk taker performing their own due-diligence to uncover deception.

            Who cares about classes.. I don’t and nor should you.. we are all just people in different circumstances where those circumstances should not make us any less or more important..

          21. Stop with the ridiculous cool-aid analogy. It’s an assumption, and it’s not correct. I did not listen to a damned thing a politician or fear-monger has said about the incident. Honestly, I didn’t give much thought to it at the time that it was happening. I studied it after the fact. While I do agree with limiting the amount of keynesian economics our country engages in, I feel that this situation explicitly required them. They simply didn’t go far enough. The bailout should have punished the CEOs who let their companies nearly go bankrupt instead of rewarding them.

            Also, the only reason I mentioned the middle class was to show how much of an effect it would have had. If I had said “some people would be starving” it wouldn’t be any different than it is right now. However, the point was to show that people who currently would never dream of struggling to get their hands on food, would be.

          22. Sorry, the cool-aid comment is simply a way to point out your appetite for the status quo economic theory. Anyway, nothing personal ok? I’m not sure how anyone can conclude that this situation specifically required sacrificing our future for the present because that’s what they did. Would failure have been painful? Yes.. to the degree you assume… that’s debatable… are we experiencing the fallout of those decisions now and for decades to come? Absolutely!

            You can’t punish the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie unless you are ready to punish the government as they are, of course, government entities. They are massive culprits in the whole scheme just in case you missed that in your research… and guess what, they are being propped up once again for another epic fail.

            I have prepared myself for disaster in the economy.. that others have not and might have a hard time finding food is not my fault nor am I obligated to help them any more than the government if justified in taking my money to help ensure their survival. Sorry if that sounds cold, but that is the reality of the situation.

            One thing you should consider is whether people have too much confidence in the economy.. I think the answer is yes and we need the market to correct to where it realistically should be so there isn’t as much risk of losing it all…

      3. The real question is why you troll these forums with a line of “It’s not anti-competitive!!1!!” but never address the actual concerns of people against the merger.

        AT&T has the worst service for the highest prices. T-Mobile has decent service for decent prices. A merger can only lead to a decline in service across the industry.

        Also, this is retarded: “That it doesn’t benefit you is no rationale for legally blocking their freedom to buy and sell what they want to.”

        Corporations aren’t monoliths run by their board; they are their stockholders. As a T-Mobile stockholder, I believe this merger weakens my interests in the long term. It’s a decent trade, but a terrible investment. It’s also shockingly lopsided in favor of AT&T’s investors.

        The fact that it seriously depletes competition, and can only lead to poorer consumer choice and service, is just a big dollop of $h!t on this already moldy cake. You can try to justify it with a groundless libertarian argument all you want, but we don’t live in a libertarian country; that’s why you have roads to drive on (for free!) and an internet (created entirely through government financing) to spout off on.

        1. By your rationale, letting any company go out of business or sold could also be considered anti-competitive. Do you really want your competition to claim this as the rationale for limiting your freedom every time you go to make a strategic business move?

          Um, corporations are run by their boards, not the stockholders, that is, unless the board happens to own most of the stock. If you are a stockholder and don’t like the purchase then simply sell your stock. It’s pretty simple right?

          To say that the *only* reason we have the net or even ways to travel around the country were only made possible as the result of the government limiting the freedoms of one company to enter into a voluntary sale/purchase of another is, well, just dumb. Don’t confuse the context here.

          We do live in a libertarian country (think framework) many of it’s inhabitants just choose to support socialism instead.

          1. How does a new competitor come in if all the spectrum is owned by the incumbent players? Can’t wait for the answer

          2. The spectrum is “owned” by the government and, btw, they are sitting on so much of it as to make your head spin.

            Innovation is the other part of the answer. Researchers are already figuring out ways to make usage much more efficient.

          3. Do you really believe boards of directors actually run their corporations anymore?? All they do these days is make sure the stock price stays up so the stockholders are happy, then pay the CEO huge amounts of money for “doing a good job”. And that’s why the economy is in the mess it’s in. If we stopped pegging the economy to the buying and selling of imaginary pieces of paper, maybe we’d get out of this mess.

          4. I never said “all corporations”.. but yes, there are many where the BOD is involved in the big picture decisions. The economy is in this mess because some people make “too much money” huh? There’s a refusal to accept reality if I have ever seen one.

      4. The are rules against monopolies for a reason. A “free” market is hypothetically good, and sort of what exists, loosely, but standards have been put in place for the empirical and historic reasons that a lack of competition is bad for the consumer, and especially bad for the economy. When a company streamlines and is able to save money, cut jobs, etc. They keep the money. It goes to top execs and it never, ever trickles down into some type of utilitarian dream-like rainstorm. People are inherently selfish, rightfully so, so the government shouldn’t coddle and embrace them. We don’t have a fully laissez-faire government because we want a semblance of equality, however slim.

        1. How can a company who is able to produce the best possible products or services by the most efficient means possibly be bad for an economy?

          If you don’t like monopolies then you should also be against all those currently propped up government barriers to entry.

          Hell, the government is the reason we have airwave crowding which is just another barrier to entry (competition).

          Of course people are inherently selfish but who in their right mind would consciously screw over all of their customers (in a free market) knowing that doing so would only serve to entice other competitors into the marketplace?

          1. So how is AT&T, rated the worst in the industry able to be the second largest carrier? The “market” should have gotten rid of them long ago.

            The airwave crowding was created by the gov’t? No. The problem is too many services wanting to use the airwaves. The problem is interference. If spectrum wasn’t awarded to a certain group in a certain region, and left completely open for use, none of it would work. Radio would interfere with cell phones, which would interfere with TV, which would interfere with Wi-fi, which would interfere with emergency radio, etc., etc.

            So you actually think that no company has intentionally screwed over their customers, because they are so worried about competition? Thanks for that. BTW, what the color of the sky in your world?

          2. Obviously the polls don’t match the reality then do they… either that or people actually enjoy buying from the company with the worst customer service and etc. Otherwise what do you want to hear? They only exist because the government gives them money? Proof?

            No, the problem is too many services wanting to use what little airwaves have actually been released to broadcast on.

      5. ATT is poising to be the most anticompetitive company in the mobile industry, and guess what? They’ve got prior history on this. Not everyone has the memory of a goldfish or forgot why we did the Ma Bell split in the first place.

        This merger wouldn’t even expand coverage, and everything claimed is 100% lies.

        “creating 5000 jobs” = not after they lay people off from redundant jobs
        “covering 97% with LE” = When? 2050? It’s not even statistically possible with ATT’s far less than 30% marketshare.
        “enable better coverage” = how? Frequencies don’t even cross, and the broadcom chip will not do ATT and Tmobile’s spectrum at the same time.

        Note that no part of the above is even a guarantee from ATT in any form. It’s just thinly veiled lies, with nothing on paper. Let’s see them guarantee every part of the above on paper PLUS an actual recourse for the inevitable failure, and then we’d be talking. They’ve already shown that it would cost less than the acquisition to be competitive if they were willing.

        This is a takeover + shutdown.

        1. It’s not a takeover. The parent company is willingly selling it to ATT.

      6. I can tell your libertarian horseshit is essentially wound up into the fabric of your soul, so it’s a waste of time to even argue with you.

        A GSM monopoly in this country is bad for consumers and anti-competitive.

        Look at cell pricing in Europe (I know, the infrastructure is more convenient for them). There is one of a dozen GSM carriers, all competing in a market on the same spectrum. Prices are driven down , value is increased for the consumer, and I assume most of the competition comes in the form of customer service levels.

        That is the market working properly. US carrier choice is already a huge fucking joke. Consolidating them further is absolute insanity.

        1. Yeah, liberty.. what a crock of poop right?

          A GSM monopoly is bad for which consumers? All of them?

          You shouldn’t have the right to use force to obtain lower prices. Using the government to limit ATT’s freedom is an obvious use of force against an action that clearly violates no ones individual rights. It really is that simple.

      7. phandroid needs a down vote system so we can grey out the comments of idiots like this.

        1. Yet you can’t seem to provide any rational rebuttal to any one of my points. Bravo!

      8. Let me make this clear: A person may profit and benefit from all sorts of ‘legal’ but unethical decisions; does it make it right? No.

        Fact is, With AT&T, Verizon and Sprint being the only major national chains in site and being the only game in town, they can tell you to go f*ck yourself if you don’t like their service.

        Dude, were you around in the 80’s??? Monopolies suck and when something like this doesn’t benefit the economy, reduces jobs, competition, and potentially innovation…The majority outweighs the minority, and the majority is everyone else but the suits.

        Moderate regulation is a good thing and it’s about damn time the govt did something ‘right’ for once and this is definitely something ‘right’. Now, to stop Capital One from buying ING and dirtying my money as well as sucking fees right and left, eh, heh.

        1. They can already go tell you to F yourself if you don’t like their service… why would that change? Even if they had a monopoly, telling people to go F themselves is not good for the bottom line.

          What natural monopolies (that weren’t created by government) existed in the 80’s?

          Telling a company they can’t buy or sell an asset is definitely not right.. that is if you believe in freedom.

      9. They may end up “more competitive” in the industry as a whole, but there are anit-monopoly laws for a reason. And some of them may apply here, as it would make AT&T pretty much the sole GSM carrier in the US. And limited semi-public commodities such as communications are regulated even more carefully. Also for a reason.

        1. not for any “good” reasons though.

  2. Sprint is really impressing me with all of the work they have done to fight this merger. I almost want to switch to Sprint just to support them.

    1. Yeah, Sprint is fighting the merger just to benefit you and your friends. Please. They are just afraid of becoming even more irrelevant in the marketplace should the sale go through.

      Sprint is just one more company attempting to appeal to government force to help them survive because they probably don’t think they can do it on their own… boo hoo. If you have to use the government to solidify your position in the market they you deserve to fail.

      1. lol. I like people like you.
        Even when theres no need you create friction.

      2. Yes, Sprint has its own reasons for this but its also bad business for the little guys like us. I see this as a Win/Win for both Sprint and the little guy

        1. The success of the little guy is no more important than the success of the big guy. They are all just people trying to be successful. Let them do it without regard to how little or big they are.

          1. Agreed. The big guy (Sprint) and the little guy (me) should both be allowed to succeed. That is a much better outcome than allowing the merger which would destroy Sprint’s chances at the market and destroy the consumers’ ability to choose between more than two carriers.

          2. You are allowed to succeed. Build a better product and get more customers.. you will have success. What, you think success should be guaranteed or something?

          3. What are you talking about? You seriously expect someone to be able to open a successful new competing cell phone carrier business? Do you know what the barriers to entry are like in that market? Nobody’s asking for a handout. The idea of capitalism is that if they work hard, anyone can make it big. Duopolies are anti-capitalist at best.

          4. Yawn… Duopolies are anything but anti-capitalist. What entity do you think is providing the barrier to entry? Hint: It’s not ATT.

          5. What barrier to entry are you referring to? Because there are a few dozen large ones preventing you and me from entering the market. Many of which are indeed provided directly by AT&T.

          6. Duopolies are not anti-capitalist and neither are monopolies. Go do some research. It sounds like the mixed economy is your real enemy here, not capitalism (think barriers to entry).

          7. Part of the definition of a monopoly is the existence of insurmountable barriers to entry. The destruction of competition with the end goal of removing consumer choice is indeed anti-capitalist. It destroys a market’s ability to self-correct. What else would it be if not anti-capitalist?

          8. That’s certainly one of many circumstances that might lead to a monopoly. How would you define an insurmountable barrier? Give some examples so we can determine the nature of the barrier. It matters.

            So long as you have the freedom to say “no” to a product or service, the market always has the ability to correct.. you just choose not to.

          9. The problem is.. That common sense does not prevail.. When the little guy can no longer be a consumer of the big guys products because they are no longer “successful”, because “big guy” is exercising his freedom to use slave labor in a 3rd world country, and could give a crap what the unemployment rate is in the country he is selling his products is, and just doesn’t seem to understand that maybe having a stable economy might be the better for his business, then maybe pushing the scales more towards the little guy is needed.. The big guy sure isn’t going to get a clue any time soon.

          10. lol.. yes, they FORCE those people in impoverished countries to come out of the fields to work in factories where they can hope to someday be able to save enough money so their children will not have to live the crap-tastic life they did.. yep, that’s slave labor all right. Please. Newsflash, those people willingly work for less and under conditions most spoiled Americans would scoff at because the alternative is much much worse.

          11. Besides, if you don’t like their practices then please pay more somewhere else.

          12. what’s stopping the little guy from using that same labor?

          13. Actually, the little guys success is more important. You can have the little guy without the big guy, but you can’t have the big guy without the little guy.

            You keep saying we don’t have the rights for this or that. So what rights, according to you, do we have?

            You say that ethics and morals do not belong in business or government. So where do they belong?

            People don’t have the right to be saved when they get in trouble or when a disaster strikes, but we help them. Why? Because it’s morrally the right thing to do.

            Corporations are made up of people, each with their own morals. Some with less than others. Are those the ones to be applauded simply because they have succeeded at the cost of others? And I don’t mean jsut competition, but engaging in practices that affect there ability to live and make a living.

            As to what’s stopping the little guy from using cheap labor, I’d say 2 things. First, they probably don’t have the resources to do it. Second they may not have the stomach to use it.

            I’ll leave you with this. Since you are so keen to say if we don’t like a company, we should leave, I put the same to you. If you don’t like how this country is run, why don’t you leave and go somewhere else? People do it all the time.

          14. You are referring to companies versus consumers. This is a symbiotic relationship whereby both parties need to have success. You can’t place more importance on one over the other if both are to survive.

            Where did I say ethics or morals don’t belong in government or business? I’ve certainly said that some forms of morality are absolutely destructive to things like liberty and freedom, but not that they don’t belong there.

            No one is saying you shouldn’t help people if you think it is within your own rational self-interest to do so. I’m saying you shouldn’t be able to take my money to pay for your desire to help other people who you think need it. I’d rather use my money to help the people I think need it and for my own selfish reasons, not for you or the government. That’s all. BTW, sacrificing yourself to help others is highly irrational behavior and is the exact philosophy behind communism. It goes against our very nature which is to be free from the chains of bondage.

            I work in sales and “engage in practices that affect others’ ability to earn a living” every day. I compete for sales and when I win it takes food of someone else’s table but it puts food on my table and further solidifies my survival. The beauty is that I don’t do this by force. I simply use my mind to convince my clients they should buy from me instead of someone else. I don’t lie but i might embellish or get exited when I am really not but that’s ok because the client still interacts with me on their own accord. The very nature of competition is that, in the end, one side will do a better job closing deals (for whatever reason) and this always leaves some of the competitors with a smaller piece of the pie. That’s not immoral at all because force is not used to compete.

            When Sprint, or angry T mobile customers, laud the government for using force to limit ATT when ATT is only entering into a voluntary sale then that is the epitome of supporting force to help vanquish your competitors.

            I don’t need to leave. I think there is still some hope left for this country to rediscover most of the very ideals that it was founded on.

      3. Doh! wrong reply button sorry :(
        Edit: Hey! they deleted the other guys comments!
        way to shift all other comments onto someone else.

        1. To be honest, when I clicked into my Disqus dashboard it asked me if I wanted to merge profiles so I did… apparently my screen name on DIsqus is different and it switched all my posts over.

          1. Youre a fuc*ing douche bag

          2. That’s the spirit!

      4. Just gonna quote you here: “The success of the little guy is no more important than the success of the big guy. They are all just people trying to be successful. Let them do it without regard to how little or big they are.”

        And this: “If you have to use the government to solidify your position in the market they you deserve to fail.”

        Sprint is doing something that would likely benefit customers and themselves. ATT is doing something that will most likely only benefit ATT executives.

        Saying that Sprint is afraid to become irrelevant in the marketplace is your assumption. I can assume that Sprint does what it does because it, unlike ATT, cares about their customers. Neither are based on facts.
        So why are you so aggressively fighting assumptions that Sprint is standing up for the little guy, when you yourself make baseless assumptions of your own?

        1. If Sprint wanted to “stand up for the little guy” why not make 0 profit and lower rates even further?

          To think they are not looking out for their own welfare (just like ATT is) is to be intellectually dishonest.

          1. He just friggin said:
            “Sprint is doing something that would likely benefit customers and themselves”

          2. Great…so what? Now they can further benefit customers by providing free cell service!.. they would if they really cared right?

          3. I hate to resort to this kind of `arguing` but I guess, I have to stoop to your level to make you understand:

            I wrote: “Sprint is doing something that would LIKELY benefit customers AND THEMSELVES.”

          4. Whose customers? Theirs? nope. Why would they care about Tmobile customers?.. if anything they should want the merger to go through so angry Tmobile customers will switch to sprint.

          5. TMO customers. And L2READ!!!! I never said they CARED….I said it would BENEFIT them, you know? win/win situation…they only do it because its best for them, but I support them because it also BENEFITS me. Don’t put words in my mouth, I enver said Sprint CARED for the customers.
            My argument that your ignorant still stands, as getting angry ex-TMO customers doesn’t weigh against the pressure ATT would be able to put against them.

            Let’s assume Sprint cared about their customers. still all your arguments are invalid. Just because they care, doesn’t mean they would recuce prices to 0$ profit and that they would be happy with ex-TMO customers. They still need profit to invest in their company so that they can compete with bullies like the merged ATT. The ex-TMO customers would be a temporary boon, but would mean nothing when looking at what ATT would be able to do after its merger. They could drive Sprint, the caring company, out of business and then all of Sprint’s customers would be worse off. Sprint, as the caring company that it is, doesn’t like that, so they OPPOSE this merger because they care about THEIR customers and want to be able to provide service to them for a long time. (that is assuming, Sprint actually cared, like YOU said I was implying initially, which I didn’t)

          6. There’s a problem with that statement.. any company that makes zero profit in a competitive market cannot further their company, and will eventually fail.

            Notice that I said “in a competitive market”. I know that non-profit organizations exist, but they are not in a competitive market and trying to further their business. They just need enough to stay alive, because most of the time, their whole purpose for existing is to help “the little guy” that has been talked about so much here.

            Therefore, if sprint made zero profit, they would fail in an instant, and it would do nothing for “the little guy” except eliminate one more option.

            Learn a little about economics before you try to debate on the internet.

          7. Wait… what am I doing!? I’m violating rule number 14 – “Do not argue with trolls”.

          8. lol.. you missed the point. I get a kick out of the people who think Sprint cares any more about “the little guy” than ATT does… it makes a cute story though.

  3. Thank you Sprint!
    Maybe with that 3 billion tmobile can up its services and gain new customers.

  4. So, once again, politics trumps liberty. Sad, just sad.

    No, NONE, ZERO people except for those who actually call the shots for ATT and DT should get a say in whether this deal goes down.

    You don’t own either company and the government damn sure doesn’t own them. So much for the right to sell and buy property without having to ask permission first. What a joke.

    You are blind if you can’t see that Sprint has every incentive in the world to oppose this deal.

    1. WE, the consumers, have every incentive in the world to oppose this deal. BTW, What promotion do you get if this deal goes through?

      1. None hes just running his mouth.
        Nobody cares that Sprint is happy that it doesnt happen.
        Tmobile customers just dont want ATT raping them. You missing that?

        1. I’m not so sure. Look above at my reply to another of his pro-merger comments

    2. We can see that Sprint has incentive to oppose this. And we oppose it as well for our own reasons(more competition).

    3. So we shouldn’t post comments from a consumers point of view? I think the blind would be the fools that can’t figure out that less compatition means higher prices and less jobs. Please stop with the “No, NONE, ZERO BS. If you want it that way build yourself a time machine and go back to the 1920’s. I’m for capitalism but this total free market BS is like listening to the amateur hour at a nursing home.

      1. Post all you want, it still doesn’t give you (or anyone to include the government) the moral authority to limit the freedom of ATT to buy whatever assets they think will help make them more competitive in the marketplace.

        You are for some watered-down and philosophically inconsistent version of capitalism

        1. Things a TeaBagger would say for $1000 alex.

          1. That’s a $200 answer at best

          2. Pot calling the kettle black much? Think back to your comment earlier about creating friction….

        2. History have proven that monopolies are never good, especially for the customer, ATT having a monopoly on GSM would lead to unfair practices, with no recourse for the customers that are on the network.

          The statement that no one has the moral authority to limit the freedom of ATT is akin to the thoughts of a greedy “corporate suits” who is seeing a huge cash cow being opposed by the people who are their to ensure (wherever they can) that corporate suits who lack MORALITY are not given free reign to create a market in which the customer would suffer due to a lack of choice.

          So the argument about morality should be left off the table when we are dealing with companies that we all know have none.

          The move by the DOJ is the right one as it would be the greater good to ensure that ATT has competition in the GSM market to ensure that the corporate suits have a leash (in this case T-Mobile) to reign them in when all they see when they look at customers are $$$$$$$

          1. Show me an example of a company that was able to achieve monopoly status in a free market without government assistance. You’re going to be looking forever.

            There are plenty of choices in the cell phone carrier market. No? If you think you can do it better then please step up, get some investors, and start your own company. No one’s stopping you are they?

            The argument for morality should never be left off the table. Maybe we should just shoot the ATT board? How about the board at DT for selling their asset (AKA TM)?

            The greater good does not trump individual rights. Proponents of slavery made the same argument as you.

          2. “Show me an example of a company that was able to achieve monopoly status in a free market without government assistance. You’re going to be looking forever.”

            Ma Bell….Oh thats right…AT&T of old.

          3. Fail. Who do you think was directly responsible for solidifying their supposed status of a monopoly? Yep, good ‘ol uncle sam.

          4. Epic Fail chump. Uncle sam started the restrictions in the early 1900’s chump. Know your history. besides….this is a different world today.

          5. Huh?

        3. You can’t speak about freedom in a market where telcom companies are subsidized to expand their networks by the government. This is why they are forced to go through this process because without the government (AKA CUSTOMERS) they wouldn’t have any networks to profit from.

          1. Subsidization does not = ownership and ownership is supposed to = the freedom to buy or sell that property as they see fit.

            I agree though, subsidization is not a good thing. No taxes for businesses would be a great thing.. but let’s not give them a dime.

        4. Laws are generally based on morals.. So yes there is “moral authority” given to the government.. That you don’t agree with these morals is the issue.. buying the competition also does not make you “more” competitive, it reduces the competition.. Your idea of freedom from government, may sound good but the small taste that corporations have had for the last decade have not had very good results..

          1. The government enforces the laws on the books. This doesn’t mean all of the laws are decided based on objective facts. There are plenty that use a subjective morality instead and yes, I disagree that the government should enforce the latter.

            If buying the competition strengthens my position in the market then it allows me to be more competitive with the other remaining entities in the market. Of course it does.

            Oh, you mean from the consumers perspective? Oh, well of course more competition is a good thing.. but it should exist naturally, not because some company got government protection from their own bad decisions or from simply a lack of consumer support (Sprint)

        5. So how many times can you get the word freedom in? That’ll show us all that you love this country more than we do. Is that what they taught you at bagger summer camp?
          I find it funny that a guy who changes his screen name so many times would use a word like “inconsistent”. If watered down means not getting ass rammed by every major corp than yes that’s me. At least I’m not a puppet for the Koch brothers while thinking I’m some kind of Capt America.

          1. Funny. Just FYI, I don’t love this country any more than I love my car. I prefer to remain objective on topics like patriotism and etc. One thing’s for sure though, I love freedom and liberty.

            My screen name changed once from JamesTmullen to what you see currently because when I logged into Disqus it merged my facebook-sourced posts to this profile on Disqus. I didn’t know it would do that but I can see how it might make it appear as though I was being coy.

            How many major corporations have ass-rammed you by forcing you to buy their products? What’s that? None? I didn’t think so.. wait, so you ass-rammed yourself by buying those products from those evil corporations? Now that’s more accurate isn’t it?

          2. Well Mike, or James.. I mean orion. That’s the part you don’t get. You don’t have to be a customer of either one of these companies to get ass rammed by this deal.
            Let’s run down a few words so far that you’ve used.
            Social security
            Keep them comin’. You’re proving my every point.

          3. Not sure who Mike is.. James and orion are one in the same as I explained earlier. All you have to do is simply explain to me what rights you think you have that are being violated by DT voluntarily selling its asset (TM) to ATT. If there are no rights being violated then you cannot justify getting the government involved with the transaction.

          4. additionally several of the words you listed were first used by the person I was responding to.. perhaps you need to actually go back and read what was posted instead of just trying to look smart.

        6. What morality are you referring to? The idea of government preventing a corporation from taking an action that will cause a massive increase in suffering across the populace IS the very definition of utilitarian morality. If you are referring to intuitionism or common sense ethical pluralism, then the duties of the government (and AT&T) to beneficence and non-injury far outweigh any level of justice that is being denied to AT&T. You claim that corporations have unalienable god-given rights because morality dictates it as such. However, is there an established form of moral philosophy (because that’s all morality is: philosophy) that supports this claim?

          1. The very definition of utilitarian morality would also allow for slavery so long as the ends justifies the means. No, I am referring to a morality that places the rights of the individual to live. Property, and the ability to act with it assuming you don’t initiate force with it, is an extension of life itself. What good is the food you own if you can’t eat it?

          2. You’ve proven again that you do not understand morality at all. Utilitarianism would never allow for slavery, as the suffering caused to the slaves would always far outweigh any pleasure caused by that slavery.

            Your idea of morality allowing property and the freedom to do whatever one wants with that property so long as they don’t initiate force is merely a half-baked interpretation of Locke’s philosophy on property.

            The fact of the matter is that this proposed duopoly would cause large amounts of suffering for everyone, while producing a moderate amount of pleasure for the very few people who run the company. This may not be “exercising force,” but it is “causing suffering.” I personally am a firm believer that people should have the right to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t cause undue suffering to others. The definition of “undue” is debatable, but the fact remains that there is currently no thought-out form of morality that supports your stance. Trying to articulate your half-thought-out ideals (which I’m willing to bet you haven’t sufficiently challenged with hours of contemplation yet), will never hold a candle to the works that already exist. The only way to establish your newly-decided code of morality would be to either use already established systems or to spend years of your life contemplating, debating, publishing, and defending your stance. Let’s be honest. You’re not even familiar enough with utilitarianism to realize that it would expressly prohibit slavery. You’re not going to win an argument based on your half-assed idea of morality.

          3. If it can be argued that allowing slavery benefited a large part of a society then, yes, a utilitarian can very well justify their morality. Slavery sucks for the slaves but it’s great for the society as a whole.. free labor. Of course any morality that places individual rights as an axiom would never accept slavery.

            undue Suffering?? lol… Oh no, I just can’t stand the thought of not having my pink cell phone.. oh the injustice!

            Newly-decided? Assume much?

          4. Study utilitarianism for a bit and you’ll see that it does not allow for slavery. One could misuse it to attempt to justify slavery, but could only do so through logical fallacies like your “free labor” example.

            Undue suffering in the form of 60,000 lost jobs, a huge economical dip for the entire country, and the decrease in the standard of living combined with the increase in crime that always comes with that. Don’t be such a twat as to assume that I would complain over something so trivial as which cell phones are available.

            Of course your idea is newly-decided. At the very earliest, you might have conceived this idea the first day you were capable of thought, but that would still be terribly new. Unless you have completely dedicated your life to the pursuit of refining this idea of morality for the last 20 years, then you simply can’t claim it as a proof of your earlier statements that rely heavily on it as the definition of morality.

            And since we’re throwing sarcasm and emotion around in this debate:
            You must be one of the most conceited pricks I’ve ever met. You think you can overthrow the entire concept of Utilitarianism by making a fallacious comparison to slavery? Really? You don’t think anyone’s ever thought to try that before? How do you suppose it went? I’ll give you a hint, asshole: Utilitarianism still hasn’t been disproven as a logical approach to morality. You haven’t managed to accomplish in 5 minutes what the philosophers, teachers, and students of the world have been attempting to do for hundreds of years. Get a fucking education.

          5. Odd, I don’t remember meeting you..I’m sure I’d remember.

            Anyway, It doesn’t take a genius to see that utilitarianism is not consistent with an ethics that places an objective reality at the core of its epistemology. To say utilitarian morality is somehow more relevant/accurate simply because it’s philosophers thought of it first is, well, retarded.

            Besides, I never said my version is the definition of morality, just that it is the only one based in rational thought. Of course there are many more versions of morality out there.

            Utilitarianism has been proven to be irrational by anyone who places the individual as the standard of value over the collective. Perhaps you would be better served trying to explain how might makes right even when the standard of value is maximizing happiness? Talk about a highly subjective morality (read: bad).

            Further, there’s no need to stoop to vulgarity is there?

          6. You just heavily overused a few buzzwords there. Look up the definition of epistemology.
            Another strawman by the way. I never said that utilitarianism is right because it was first. I never even came close to saying anything like that. What I said, if you’ll remember, is that the hundreds of years behind the thought surrounding the concept gives it substantially more weight than an idea that you came up with and likely have not spent years and years refining. The idea that (as you stated)”Property, and the ability to act with it assuming you don’t initiate force with it, is an extension of life itself.” You will never be successful attacking utilitarianism with such newborn ideas. You certainly haven’t made any kind of a case against it yet, aside from unexplained assertions that it somehow is not based on objective reality.

            The idea that your definition of morality is the only based in rationality is in itself the definition of narcissism. You have provided no rational basis behind your idea, so unless you are sitting on a gold mine of understanding that you somehow refuse to share with the world, I feel it’s safe to label your definition of morality as untested, unexplored, and therefore not based on rational thought.

            Utilitarianism has never been proven irrational. You can not simply choose to place your values somewhere and say that because you have done so, it proves anything. The entire point of philosophies such as Utilitarianism is to explore logically where the priorities and values should be placed. Utilitarianism provides a firm, logical basis behind its assertion that the net good of all is better than the net suffering of all for the sake of the good of one. They don’t just claim that and call it self-evident (like you are choosing to do here). They support it with reasoning and logical proofs. Seriously, study it a bit. I’m willing to bet you’ll be very surprised how much actually goes into establishing such a deep philosophical model.

            And again with the strawmen. Nobody’s saying that might makes right. If might made right, then those with might would do what was best for themselves at the expense of the net good. In other words, with no regulation in the market, might would indeed make right. This is the very reason I brought up Utilitarianism to begin with. The fact that you were able to twist my argument a full 180 and still expect the straw man to hold is just baffling.

          7. We could go on for hours… and doing so wouldn’t please me so I would concede that your grasp of the morality of utilitarianism is probably greater than mine. I will just say that from what I know from reading about it now and in the past is that it is definitely inconsistent with rational egoism/structural individualism. The problem, for me, is the idea that value judgments must be made not by my values but, rather, by everyone else’s values. So when I judge an action, I must not only judge it according to my values but also everyone else’s. This is a denial of structural individualism which invalidates the system because the reality is that each individual is a separate moral agent, not part of some collective like the Borg from Star Trek.

            I’m sure you will say you understand structural individualism but you still think I should consider other people’s values when making a decision but I think you would be missing the point because to a structural individualist failing to consider how my actions affect others could result in dire consequences for me so it behooves me to do this..but for my own happiness, not theirs. I do not deny, however, that other people’s values influence my own. I take issue with the utilitarians desire for everyone to be as important as I am (to me). This is counter-intuitive to the reductionist view that benefit arises from the interaction of individual units by harmony of interests, not by curtailing these interests.

            I also see certain absurdities like reducing a persons life to a statistic dependent on other individuals, a view I reject as statist and anti-man. No one’s life is unimportant to himself yet the utilitarian seems committed to a view of society that is very democratic and where it is morally acceptable to sacrifice individuals to please the majority. You cannot deny that the potential for this to occur given the right circumstances exists. In this view, a utilitarian can justify killing a thief because he takes away resources from the community and therefore takes away slight values from millions of people. It is interesting to note that utilitarian philosophers have tried very hard to evade this problem and have appeared to amend the basic utilitarian premise (like, to a certain extent, barring coercion) but by doing so they tend to look more and more like a structural individualist all the time….

          8. Here’s an interesting read if you have time:


    4. Mr Mullen is obviously tied to AT&T.

      1. And/or a Teabagger

        1. hes a teabagger, checked his facebook

          1. Stereotype much? Tsk tsk

      2. How do you figure? You’re wrong of course, but I’m still curious.

    5. I’ve posted this before, but all you have to do is look at the banking industry to see how well things do when businesses do whatever they want. It’s your thinking which has led to the economy we now enjoy.

    6. You sir are either ignorant or playing ignorant.
      If only the shotcallers in companies would have a say in it, what would stop the shotcallers from forming ILLEGAL cartel agreements?
      What would stop them from forming monopolies and exploiting customers?
      That is right, the government!

      So maybe you would like to live in this LIBERAL world where you are OWNED by a company when you make your first purchase (because that is what a company would like if the government didn’t prevent it)
      But we, the sane people, like a bit of governmental control when it comes to greedy self-serving mediocre-service-providing, lying, cheating, stealing commercial companies.

      1. Wrong. The free market stops that.. the government only ends up propping up those types of arrangements in the end…

        If I was worried about being owned then I simply wouldn’t buy the product.. assuming I still have that freedom in your liberal world… (think obamacare mandate)

        1. Again, this isn’t the free market. If telecom were the free market then these companies wouldn’t receive huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to build their networks and we wouldn’t have to go through this process. The fact that they receive this taxpayer money means this is not a free market sector of the economy.

          This is more akin to building roads than running a legitimate business. I.E. the government can intervene because of the subsidies. If Wal-Mart wants to buy Target that would be an example where the government shouldn’t be allowed to step in as both companies operate without government subsidies.

          You are right that government creates monopolies in a free market but this isn’t one, which is why there are only four competitors and they are working quickly to make a duopoly.

          1. Your argument is with corporatism, not whether or not a company should have the right to buy and sell the assets it thinks will help strengthen itself in the marketplace.

            I’m for a complete separation of government and business. Only bad things end up happening when they decide to collude.. it’s like getting in bed with the mob.

            In keeping with your comment though, I’ll bite. What law do we have that says if a company receives a subsidy to build their infrastructure that they are subject to the whims and notions of some political agenda? That they have to sacrifice their own survival for the supposed greater good?

          2. Ah see? That’s a strawman. He never said that they should be subject to the whims and notions of some political agenda. He said that they should be prevented from forming duopolies. As there are clearly laws against that already, would you like to provide a case in favor of this proposed duopoly?

            Also, without government assistance and regulation, there would be no internet, and there would be no cell reception across this country. Because of the nature of cell phone bandwidth, the free market by itself would progress MUCH more slowly and with much more fragmentation than the current system. The world would be a very different place. I’m not saying it would be a worse place. However, it would be a place where you would not be able to access a network of nearly every computer across the globe.

          3. First, Duopolies are not illegal nor are oligopolies. In fact, there are several examples of each that exist in our economy. Do some digging.

            Second, you cannot possibly know for a fact that there would be no internet if it were not for government investment.

          4. Actually, that is what a subsidy is. I grew up on a farm. We didn’t receive subsidies, but some of our neighbors did. When you received them, you were subject to stipulations, how you farm, where you can farm, etc. Subsidies are not a no strings attached loan.

            Now since subsidies are generated by taxpayer money, why are we not able to have a say in what happens? If that corporation has taken that money then why wouldn’t they be subject to the one who has supplied it? Maybe if they want to do whatever they want they should stay out of the public coffers.

            When I get money from someone, I do so knowing that their are certain obligations that need to be met, whether how it’s paid back, when, what it’s used for, and so on. So if they take money why are businesses exempt?

          5. Do you own ATT? Did ATT legally sign something giving over their rights to sell or buy assets. Nope.

          6. The only duopolies and oligopolies that exist in this country are government sponsored and heavily regulated. I challenge you to find one that is not subject to heavy regulation. Tacit collusion is nearly unavoidable in an oligopoly, so while the concept of an oligopoly might not be expressly illegal, it is subject to hefty regulatory laws: the kind which the DOJ cited when issuing their most recent statement.

            Also, the internet was designed, built, and established by the US military. It then expanded into most of the country by way of subsidies and government sponsored monopolies (comcast was freely given land and infrastructure in many areas). This is the same as the government sponsored monopolies for natural gas and electricity, though it has yet to be sufficiently regulated as those are. Without government assistance, the internet simply could not exist. At least not in the year 2011.

          7. Ok, you said they were illegal, not me but thanks for changing your position. IS Coke and Pepsi regulated? One could easily make an argument supporting the idea that they operate as a duopoly.

            I never claimed it would be here in 2011.. regardless though, to say the concept of the internet was created by the “military” is wrong. It was created by “people” who could have just as easily gained funding (god, what investor in their right minds would fund that start-up) and taken the net to where it is today.. or even further for that matter.

        2. Yes you are right, I now see the light…if only the government and all its employees and advisers would see the light too. If only they would disregard all the theories/models stating how bad the world would be if the government would cease to oversee acquisitions. Yes, I can see the free liberal Utopian world of the free market. You sir are a God among men, you know it all better than EVERY OTHER HUMAN who has ever lived!!!


          So how does the Free market exactly stop monopolies from being formed and exploiting customers? How does the free market stop child labour, because the government has no right over children nor the wages paid to them, so why should it even be assumed illegal right? The government is only meddling and making everything worse. Minimum wage is a bad thing, right? Social security is also bad right? the government doesn’t own my paycheck, they don’t own the products that ATT sells so they shouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes right?

          1. Too easy.

            Don’t buy from them. They only get to have a monopoly because people continue to buy from them. If they suck then just don’t give them your money.. simple as that! Guess what, all of those customers leaving in droves creates a new market which entices competition!

            Some families required child labor. Just remember, capitalism didn’t create poverty, it inherited it. As the wealth of the middle and lower classes grows (which is undeniably the result of capitalism) so has the need for younger family members to work. They can now get an education instead.

            Minimum wage is a bad thing. Who are you to tell me what I can take as a wage when I really need a job and the business I want to work for can’t afford to hire me because the government mandated minimum wage is too high. Oh well, I’ll just go on unemployment for 2 years anyway.

            I have social security.. I saved for it.. now there’s a novel concept.

            Do they own your paycheck? Well who gets paid first, you or them? Yep, them.

            Don’t you think we pay enough taxes? Perhaps you’re one of those people who think we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem here.

          2. You really believe that a free market could work….how cute….yet so stupid at the same time.

            My notion of your ignorance beams with renewed light!

          3. Why do you fear freedom so much? Why do you want/need the government to do anything more than protect you from the force of others? Do you need a baby-sitter to protect you from your own decisions?

    7. And the consumer has every incentive to want it blocked as well, so waht’s your point. I’m sure Sprint doesn’t want to possibly get forced out of business. And if you think this merger can’t do that look at Sprint’s foray into 4G. In a year or two Wimax probably won’t be around. Mostly because of all other carriers going to LTE. So when both Verizon and AT&T end up with twice the market share that Sprint has, they will be able to leverage that against Sprint for things like devices, agreements, etc.

      Here’s a little thought for you as well. The reason these companies have to abide by the rules and regualtions of the govenrnent is because they operate in the country of said gov’t, same as with any place in the world. We, the individuals, have to abide by the rules set forth by that gov’t also, because we reside in the country of said gov’t. You keep saying the market should pollice itself, and sometimes it does. But lately, there has been little of that. Look at the housing market. It went unchecked until the bubble burst. Now you’d say that those companies who went under deserved to because of how they ran their business. But what about the individuals who were ruined by it? Now their credit is in the crapper, they may have no place to live, and are financially ruined. And why, because that market went unchecked. Same as with the banking industry. If the evil gov’t hadn’t stepped in and pulled them from the brink, we’d be the United States of China right now.

      Your theory of the market policing itself doesn’t factor in a few things, absolute greed and unfair business practices that go unpunished. If businesses priced their goods using their costs plus a reasonable profit, your system would work. But when these businesses engage in things like price fixing, deceptive practices, sending jobs out of the country, and importing workers who work for a fraction of the price, that is where it falls apart. Those people employed by these companies usually have one thing in common. The money that they earn goes out of the country and doesn’t come back. So where does the market police this?

      1. My point is, again, regardless of whether or not you, as the consumer, want it blocked does not justify actually forcing ATT to not go through with the sale. It’s their company and they should be able to fail or succeed by consequences of their own decisions.

        If Sprint wants to be more competitive then perhaps they should have made a bid for Tmobile? Not everyone in the industry (or life) can produce the best combination of products/service/price so, naturally, many will fail trying.. and they should be allowed to fail. If sprint is truly failing, as you imply, then why should ATT as well as the parent company to TMobile be made to suffer as the result?

        The housing market bubble was created for reasons directly related to the fact that we don’t have a free market in the housing industry.. that’s the problem!!!
        The (un)free housing market did not go unchecked.. in fact it was the failure of the very regulators you laud to identify problems that allowed the bubble to get so big in the first place. It was a political philosophy of doing whatever it took to entice people to buy and banks to lend to unqualified people that created the bubble in the first place.. guess what, they are trying to reflate the thing again with loose credit standards!!

        Absolute greed and unfair business practices get punished in a free market by consumers choosing to take their business elsewhere.

        1. And no comment about sending jobs out of the country and the like. One of AT&T’s enticements to the gov’t to push this merger through is they will bring back 5,000 currently outsourced jobs. In other words they are holding those potential jobs hostage to force the merger through. Now the market were like you said it was, wouldn’t they want more people employed in this nation so they could potentially buy their goods, giving them more profit? It sounds more like they are willing to sacrifice some profit so they can make a higher margin of profit using foreign workers.

          Look at Apple, one of, if not the most profitiable companies in the world. They have no debt and recently had more cash on hand than the gov’t. And how did they do it. Partly great marketing, but another is shady business practices. Look at Foxconn’s worker conditions, look at how of the companies found to be polluting the envrionment there, Apple is the only one who has not responded with any form of solution.

          Now I’m sure you’ll say a situation like that is a moral one and you have said morals have no place in business or gov’t. Alright fine, what about ethics. I know it’s just morals for business, so it should apply there. Now I’d be willing to be that the most profitable companies are the least ethical. And the reason why a lot of people don’t vote with their wallets is that these shady practices never make it to the light of day.

          1. because my point all along is that they shouldn’t have to come up with BS to “entice” the government to begin with. Shame on anyone who actually believes ATT cares about creating jobs for the “greater good”… and I don’t judge them for only wanting to be as successful as they can be without regard to something as lame as the “greater good”.

            So present some evidence showing who’s rights Apple violated and let’s go from there. Part of the problem is ill-defined property rights which is how many companies get away with their abuses. Fracking anyone?

          2. Dude, you should move to Somalia where there is no government to interfere with business. That would be your paradise.

          3. Not true at all. Government has a purpose and a well defined one. Read your constitution some more.

        2. As far as the housing market, what you’re trying to tell me is that the only reason that businesses got greedy and people lost everything is that there were regualtions in place? So if there were nothing to police these corporations, this would not be the case? That’s like saying if we didn’t have any laws or police that there would be less crime.

          Also, weren’t the housing/bank industries allowed to grow to this point during a gov’t tenure that favored less gov’t involvement in business?

          1. If you want to get technical, greed had nothing to do with it and people not paying their mortgages (that they agreed to fruad not-withstanding) had everything to do with it.

            My point was that regulation has a way of lulling people into a false sense of security and it creates a culture where everyone relies on the government to think for them.. as evidenced by the housing crisis. These people had no business taking these loans just like the government had no business pressuring banks to make these loans. Most banks had no interest in making these loans either but they knew, in the end, the end-owner (Fannie/Freddie) would just get bailed out in the end.

          2. I agree that individuals share responsibility in the mess that is the housing market, but the way you sound is the poor companies who offered the loans had no choice in the matter. They could have turned the loans down. The gov’t is not forcing them to give out money and run themselves into the ground. Basically you sound like everyone is responsible except for businesses.

            As to earlier who’s rights did apple violate, I’d say the workers who endure the abuse. You’d say why don’t they go somewhere else to work. China ain’t the USA. There are less available jobs there than here. And there if you don’t work, you starve, you don’t have any saftey nets like here. They have no choice if they want to live. Using that to get lower costs to me is extremely unethical. As far as the poisoning, that affects more than just the factory employees. It’s destroying where the workers & others live.

            As to your last point, most banks had no interest in making the loans, but they knew that they’d get bailed out. If anyone else ran up a bill and then expected someone else to pay for it, they’d be subject to legal action. But as you said, only the people to blame are the ones receiving the loan and the gov’t.

  5. T-Mo, in the end, will be a better company when this deal is scrapped. They will be ripe for the pickin’ from some company that might not have such a clear hand in wireless yet. I’m thinking Dish Network would be a perfect match.
    On a side note, if that picture is to represent an AT&T exec on the steps of the dept of Justice then I love it. If it’s some dude who lost his job… not so funny.

    1. If the deal doesn’t go through, this whole ordeal may be enough publicity to actually boost T-Mo’s business a little. It may help them out without someone needing to buy them.

  6. That is probably the biggest lie AT&T has spit out. As soon as the ink is dry on the proposed buy out (if it goes thru) The T-Mobile employees will be handed their pink slips and locked the fuck out of the building. If you don’t believe that then you belong with AT&T.

  7. I posted a comment about this yesterday, props to Sprint for finally making it a big point- it’s all clever use of words, for example, when AT&T says it will create 5,000 call center jobs, it is not lying directly, it is just glossing over those 34,000 other, better paying jobs that would be cut. What the DoJ and others need to ask AT&T out right is NET jobs created. That number is negative, and not pretty.

    If you believe AT&T that somehow, even though there will be almost total redundancy between TMo and AT&T employees, AT&T will magically come out with more NET jobs out of this, I have a wireless carrier to sell you.

    1. As soon as having a job is a right in this country then you will have made a valid point concerning the DOJ.

      1. As soon as spewing out crap is a valid method of arguing, you will have made valid points

      2. What that I said implied that I thought having a job was a right? I am merely pointing out that one of the things the DoJ is worried about is jobs. They are not basing the decision on jobs alone, but in general, more jobs means better quality of life in the US.
        If the T-Mobile workers would be laid off either way, you’d have a point, but that’s not the case- there is no point to laying off this many people and concentrating AT&T’s power into a duopoly with Verizon so they can tag team consumers’ wallets. Only AT&T stands to benefit from this, and judging by comments above, that’s why you’re so worked up about it, you’re worried ’bout that bonus from AT&T.
        Are they paying you by the comment? Because if so, they aren’t getting their money’s worth.

        UMAD BRO?

        1. It’s not the DOJ’s job to save jobs… insert my comments about the DOJ bending to the whims of political agenda’s.

  8. Right now, att and tmo got employees already. How can it create more jobs?

  9. Even though I think the governments actions may be uncalled for I have to agree that any claims from AT&T that this merger will create a net jobs gain is BS. Even if the LTE network buildout created a net jobs gain after Tmo layoffs, the jobs created would only be temporary jobs, unlike the ones lost from Tmo.

    1. Just for the record, I’ve never once implied that anyone should purchase cell phone service from ATT, just that not liking their practices is not a good enough reason to limit their liberty.

  10. I think Sprint should focus more effort on not sucking instead of trying so hard to block this deal. I’m sure they can see that once the merger goes through it will be AT&T vs. Verizon and they will be totally left out of the equation. If we can allow Microsoft to virtually own the computer world with only one serious competitor, which until recently couldn’t even be taken seriously (sorry apple but you know it’s true). Why can’t AT&T do the same in the mobile world?
    I think we’ll all be a little bit surprised what happens to the price of great mobile coverage once to great carriers are in direct competition.

  11. Its insulting to the DOJ for AT&T to claim that this deal will create jobs.

    1. Indeed, it’s insulting to anyone with more than one digit in their IQ.

  12. So, lets see here. “So, once again, politics trumps liberty. Sad, just sad.” When did Corporate America care about liberty? It doesn’t make you, or AT&T, look good when you go to a forum stating “No, NONE, ZERO people except for those who actually call the shots for ATT and DT should get a say in whether this deal goes down.

    You don’t own either company and the government damn sure doesn’t own them” We now see how AT&T looks at their customers. Honestly, this is whats wrong with Corporate America, the amount of BS. You could fuel the entire world three times over with it.

    1. except I don’t work for ATT and am in no way even affiliated with them. FAIL.

  13. I agree with you Orion. The problem with convincing people of this is that America today has a poor me mentality. What has happened to the days of playing Monopoly, devouring your opponents riches to win the game? I don’t like that ATT is buying out the smaller competition and may be on its way to be TO BIG TO FAIL but that’s America. Why is it the governments job to say who can and cannot prosper? Mr. Williams shows exactly what is wrong with so many Americans today. If you don’t have an argument resort to name calling. I am a registered Democrat Mr. Williams and agree with Orion. I may not like the situation but that’s the system. You being in the same situation I would be willing to bet you would devour your competition in order for you to gain wealth. The problem is your on the poor me end of the deal.

    1. So the ideal is to let one group slowly build up wealth this way until they cannot be challenged, because they own all the wealth, right? Because that’s how you win in your scenario.

      Methinks you should do some research on what happens when you let companies get “TO[sic] BIG TO FAIL”, and shrug it off. I think once you realize what unchecked corporate greed allows when taken to extremes, you might find why some of us aren’t big fans of this merger.

      1. How are they building wealth? Who is supporting them in this assention and why? If they are so sucky of a carrier then why do people sign cell contracts with them?

        Thinking any company in any industry can even begin to get close to “owning all the wealth” is ridiculous. You can’t really be serious about that comment are you?

        Is unchecked corporate greed the same thing as theft or fraud? If so then it should be prosecuted as we already have laws to redress those crimes. Until then what is wrong with trying to make as much profit as possible? What kind of a company do you work for? Don’t they have this thing called a profit motive that you like to refer to as greed?

        Lastly, Too big to fail is a myth propagated by scared politicians vying for votes. The too big to fail mentality is nothing more than an invocation of the moral hazard that ends up rewarding failure and punishing the people who achieved success by making the right decisions in their industry.

    2. Comments like this are so thoroughly disappointing. Where are you people getting these opinions?

      1. Oh I don’t know, probably the realization that the reality of human nature is that we are all driven by self interest and that there is nothing wrong with that so long as you follow through on what you agree to (contracts) and don’t initiate force against others. Can you provide a rational counter argument to those ethics?

  14. This is again a sign of government getting to involved we the US economy thrive on buying and trading freely to the sprint people either step up your game or be stepped on sheesh this is Att being competitive and doing what your suppose to do if you can buy your competition out if its for sale the economy has been working like this for ever seriously

  15. Aside from the whole “The Government has/does not have the right” argument, I’m going to comment on the jobs issue. Even at the most basic of levels, this merger is going to end up cutting jobs instead of creating them. Think about it, if the merger goes through, what do you think is going to happen to all the Brick and Mortar T-Mobile stores that are within a close radius of an AT&T store? More importantly, what do you think is going to happen to all those employees?

    Looking at the issue at large, while a merger (buy-out) between these two companies would increase coverage throughout the nation, the costumer is going to get screwed over in the end. You can sure believe that AT&T will continue to use its currently high priced and tiered plans once the deed is done. How often do you hear of a company that has actually improved its ways and passed that down to the consumer when it came to contracts and subscriptions?

    With less competition, companies can decide they can do what ever they want to do. With one less player in the field (which was already a small field), AT&T is will be able to further decide to do what ever it pleases. Ma Bell is back .

    Check out my new tech blog: Broke Man’s Tech (Google search it please, sorry Phandroid does not let me post the link).

  16. Orion, I think you should consider moving to Somalia, there they have no working government and you can do whatever you want.

  17. I am really surprised that so many of you are actually wasting your time arguing with the idiot. There is no debating a subject with people like that – no more than trying to talk to a creationist who thinks the world was created in 4004 BC – the more logical you make your argument, they’ll just twist it, ignore it, claim that you’re twisting their words, or inserting your own argument into theirs, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    1. Lol, newsflash: the world was created in 4004 BC!!!! Everyone knows this….what rock have you been living under? Besides that, the rest of your point is valid though


    2. Hahaha kinda reminds me of the arguments I had here with Dick Yarrell… except on a MUCH smarter level because these people are actually (at least somewhat) educated. :P

    3. I don’t think you can accuse me of ignoring anyone’s points. In fact, I have responded to pretty much all of them with logic. I haven’t twisted anyone’s words either.

      It’s simple, whose rights do ATT violate by buying TM from DT? Consumers need to learn to rely on their ability to think and choose versus relying on the government’s monopoly on force to protect them. If you don’t like ATT then simply don’t use their service. They will get the message eventually assuming enough of you act rationally.

      1. I didn’t see him or her mention your name even once, yet you are justifying yourself? Do you always automatically answer when someone says “idiot”?

        1. Are you that dense so as not to realize who he was referring to? Then again, maybe that’s the case but since I don’t even know you I won’t jump to those conclusions about you.

          1. No, not at all. It is quite obvious that you are the idiot in question and are obviously as dense as a neutron star. You go too far out of your way to try to come off as logical and intelligent, must always have the last word, and if someone doesn’t agree with you, you come back as a condescending asshole. You’re a little too vehement in defending AT&T, and I’m 97% certain that your aren’t working for Bell labs or Bell avionics. You troll (yes, you’re trolling BIG TIME) like Nlsme or Talking Moose, you have to spend half your day on a comment board arguing with people and trying (quite vainly) to see your side for whatever screwed up personal reason, and it seems to me that you would rather saw off your own head before refraing from getting the last supercilious word in. For the record, I accidentally touched the “like” button on the above comment.

          2. Thank you for reinforcing in your post below this one, what I’ve already stated, you’re a whiny, condescending, passive-aggressive, little bitch.
            You are a troll to the 20th power. Try looking up the definition of ‘internet troll’. If you still believe that you’re not a troll, then you’ve been in sales for too long because you’re actually believing your own bullshit now. I’m done, if you choose to edit your post so you can “have the last word” so you can sleep at night, you’ll be the only one to see it because I’m not coming back to a 3day old comment thread to further feed a troll. I never should’ve never started in the first place.

          3. So, by your own admission, you admit it was obvious the poster was referring to me so the point you attempted to make in your first post was pointless. My point in referring to you was that it’s not cool to just make assumptions about people. Speaking of that, you accuse me of being condescending yet you resort to name calling. In fact, you will find (assuming you have actually read many of the posts) that I have remained quite cordial with everyone even as they have resorted to name calling.

            Odd how coming off as logical and intelligent apparently solicits those types of responses here.

            I like having the last word. Deal with it.

            I’m not defending ATT per se, rather I’m defending the concept of liberty as it applies to the ATT’s situation. There is a difference. BTW, I rather dislike ATT which is why I am a VZW customer.

            I’m a troll? nope.. I’ve made other posts on this website. Nice try though.

            Why are you worried about how I spend my day? Is that your business too?

            Thanks for liking the post though.. I appreciate that. :^)

  18. Sprints scared to go under …thats all. I remember Richard would say things like “I support Sprints stance on ATT alllllll the way” As if Sprints number one reason for not Wanting the deal to go through is because they care for “the customers” Yeah …ok that may hit on their many reasons why they don’t want the ATT and T deal to go through list at number 10…if even that alol…

  19. In corporate history mergers have rarely created more jobs. Usually folks are laid off in positions that are duplicated such as accounting, sales, HR, tech support, etc. We really need to turn off merger mania which must be the fallacy taught at Harvard Business School.

    I know execs that thought the goal was acquisitions to be the “king of the hill.” Such nonsense is destroying society. Corporations should be limited in size and when they start getting to big broken off. But I guess too many lame ass CEOs want to play the “king of the hill” game. You’d think that if they blew that game that would be the end of their careers but apparently not these days. You can be a dumb ass and still get a generous severance pay and golden parachute. That encourages criminal behavior.

  20. I believe govt regulation in cellular companies is mandatory. ATT knows its cheaper to build out their network rather than purchase tmo. The doj is not blind. ATT’s position is almost insulting everyone’s intelligence. Cellular phones are a public utility in my opinion. I depend on my phone/coverage for my living. More and more people are going without landlines, and just using cellphones. As a Sprint customer I am proud of their stance. Doing what’s right and just is a rare thing to see. As the saying goes, the only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Remind me again on Verizon’s stance when this merger was annouced? If I remember right i think Verizon said they could care less. And these are supposed to be the two companies left standing ? Great.

    1. USCellular is not another GSM carrier. It’s a CDMA carrier, so get your facts straight before you start blabbing. The article you linked even states that they are a CDMA carrier.

      1. There are lots of other GSM carriers though.

  21. Hey Orion, STF up!

    1. Yeah, censor the truth right?

  22. DAMN!

    Never thought a thread could provide me so many hours of fun.

Leave a reply

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

More in News