FCC approves ATT's aquisition of Cricket

[bigsnake49]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-atts-acquisition-leap-handing-over-cricket-brand/2014-03-13

 

and right on cue, the rich get richer

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

I don't get it.

 

If the FCC wants more competition in the wireless industry, why have they allowed the Duopoly to continue to get larger through mergers and acquisitions such as this?

 

Death by a thousand cuts.

[bigsnake49]

APPENDIX D

 

Spectrum Divestitures by AT&T

 

 

 

Market

Market Name

Amount and Type of Spectrum

CMA 101

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX

20 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 109

Spokane, WA

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 112

Corpus Christi, TX

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 128

McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 162

Brownsville-Harlingen, TX

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 171

Reno, NV

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 197

Lake Charles, LA

20 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 281

Laredo, TX

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 432

Kansas 5 – Brown

10 megahertz AWS-1 (Atchison, Doniphan and Leavenworth counties)

10 megahertz PCS (Brown and Jackson counties)

CMA 545

Nevada 3 - Storey

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 669

Texas 18 - Edwards

10 megahertz AWS-1

CMA 671

Texas 20 – Wilson (Aransas, Bee, Refugio, Karnes and Wilson counties only)

10 megahertz AWS-1 (Aransas, Bee and Refugio counties)

10 megahertz PCS (Karnes and Wilson counties)

 

 

Would Sprint be interested in any of these?

[MacinJosh]

I don't get it.

 

If the FCC wants more competition in the wireless industry, why have they allowed the Duopoly to continue to get larger through mergers and acquisitions such as this?

 

Death by a thousand cuts.

Bribes. There were conditions placed on this merger, like buildout requirements no more than 18 months. On Leaps unused spectrum, they have 3-12 months to build it out, or they lose it. So AT&T will have plenty of capex this year and next year. They aren't out of the doghouse.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[MacinJosh]

APPENDIX D

Spectrum Divestitures by AT&T

Would Sprint be interested in any of these?

Maybe the 2 PCS licenses. But I'm sure the AWS will go to T-Mobile.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[S4GRU]

 

Would Sprint be interested in any of these?

 

 

Mostly AWS.  And the PCS is pretty unstrategic.  I say no.

 

Robert

[Destroyallcubes]

Maybe the 2 PCS licenses. But I'm sure the AWS will go to T-Mobile.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

And they should make sure Tmobile gets charged a good premium.

[WiWavelength]

I don't get it.

 

If the FCC wants more competition in the wireless industry, why have they allowed the Duopoly to continue to get larger through mergers and acquisitions such as this?

 

Death by a thousand cuts.

 

Hey, you plagiarized my "death by a thousand cuts" line.

 

But, seriously, I have made the same argument.  That the duopoly has been allowed to slowly but surely erode competition by buying out dozens of smaller operators over the last 15 years but Sprint-T-Mobile will not be allowed is creeping normality at its worst.

 

AJ

[CaryTheLabelGuy]

Hey, you plagiarized my "death by a thousand cuts" line.

 

But, seriously, I have made the same argument. That the duopoly has been allowed to slowly but surely erode competition by buying out dozens of smaller operators over the last 15 years but Sprint-T-Mobile will not be allowed is creeping normality at its worst.

 

AJ

Lol, it was a term worth ripping-off.

 

It blows my mind. There is zero reason this sort of thing should be allowed to go on for so long, regardless of what they say about the Sprint and T-Mobile merger. Do they (the FCC) think we're all stupid? Like we don't see what's really going on? Oh, but we need to increase competition........ So, let's slowly allow the two biggest players to get larger and larger, but let's do it over a long period of time - because then nobody will notice.

 

"Sprint and T-mobile, we can't allow you to truly compete against the big two (that we continue to allow to grow) through a merger that would still keep you the smallest player, because we need more competition.............."

 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[AJC1973]

I don't get it.

 

If the FCC wants more competition in the wireless industry, why have they allowed the Duopoly to continue to get larger through mergers and acquisitions such as this?

 

Death by a thousand cuts.

because the politicians that run them get kick backs from companies 

[kg4icg]

Cricket Customers are going to have to get new handsets eventually which mean there are going to be some customer loses, because some of Crickets customers don't like AT&T.

[MacinJosh]

Cricket Customers are going to have to get new handsets eventually which mean there are going to be some customer loses, because some of Crickets customers don't like AT&T.

Agreed. I have a friend who has Cricket. I may just convince him to join as the last member of my Framily because of this merger.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[Sprke]

Bribes. There were conditions placed on this merger, like buildout requirements no more than 18 months. On Leaps unused spectrum, they have 3-12 months to build it out, or they lose it. So AT&T will have plenty of capex this year and next year. They aren't out of the doghouse.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

Does this mean ATT has to buildout in area's they got Leap spectrum but currently have no ATT or Cricket network?

[floorguy]

Cricket Customers are going to have to get new handsets eventually which mean there are going to be some customer loses, because some of Crickets customers don't like AT&T.

Some????

 

why do you think they are on Cricket....I think it will be a lot more then some...

 

Tmo, and Sprint, should reap the rewards here....

[lordsutch]

Personally, I have no issue with most of how the "duopoly" grew their networks to get nationwide coverage: buying out or merging with regional or local carriers (many of whom were incompetent and/or couldn't afford the capex to move beyond TDMA or even AMPS) that have and continue to have geographic buildout requirements on cellular. Having national cellular and PCS networks are good for consumers through "long tail" effects; while most customers are in core coverage most of the time, most customers occasionally need some remote coverage (and usually different remote coverage than others). The more carriers that can cater to more of the long tail, the better.

 

The two real problems I see:

• The cases where any carrier was allowed to obtain both Cellular A and Cellular B in a single market. In North America at least, the propagation characteristics of lower-band spectrum outweigh noninterference issues in making 850 valuable for ensuring basic coverage, including 911 access.
• The more recent mergers or attempted mergers that have been designed more to eliminate low-end competitors and increase incumbent market power (AT&T/Leap, T-Mobile/MetroPCS, AT&T/T-Mobile) than to broaden native footprints.

That said, forcing AT&T to properly invest in South Texas rather than just cherry-picking the border cities and Corpus is a positive benefit of this settlement, particularly since Cricket was not going to do it once it took over Pocket.