Jump to content

utiz4321

S4GRU Premier Sponsor
  • Content Count

    1,688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by utiz4321

  1. This is what ATT promised regulators. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1I10SP "And Petrocelli argued that an arbitration offer given by AT&T would take away much of the power to raise prices. In hopes of preventing a court fight, AT&T proposed that for seven years it would submit to third-party arbitration any disagreement with distributors over the pricing for Time Warner's networks and promise not to black out programming during arbitration."
  2. It can't be that one because the government didn't approve that one and that's any deal AT&T made with them would have been voided. The Government Sued to stop it and Time warren content prices have not risen (they did not buy time warrener cable) to distributors. So, it cant be that one.
  3. No. Sprint can not. Also, you cant lie to regulators that is illegal. So, if regulators charge sprint or Tmobile with a crime you might have a case but if they don't you are just making stuff up.
  4. Sprint can't build a 5g network and an overloaded tmobile 5g network isn't any good to anyone. Sprint will probably die and definately will die as a national carrier if the merger doesn't go through. We are going to 3 national carriers. Take your pick on how.
  5. Prices are going up anyway. Tmobile merge is the best way for Sprint customers to keep your plan.
  6. It is the merger or sprint becomes a regional player. We will have three national carriers, better to have three strong players than the duopoly and T-Mobile. The regulators are insane if they don't let the deal happen.
  7. Why would you think Dems. Are for the "little guy"? Why are we F... In the long run if the merger goes through? What do you think would happen if we get to three carriers though bankruptcy and VZW and ATT snatch up most of Sprint's spectrum? What does the industry look like then? Are we not F with two strong players and a weak third? Dems raise more money from billionaires than Rs, seem weird they are for the little guy or weird that stoping this merger would un F us. If you want to have a understanding of the world that explains more of reality that Dems are for the little
  8. So a justice department under obama started an anti-trust investigation because trump wanted it? Weird. Did i hurt you feels, i am sorry but grow up. You are making wild and dumb claims. Both Dems and Rs are for and against this merger and two admins tried to stop it and you want to blame Trump because "orange man bad". Any insults you feel you earned.
  9. That doesn't make any sense and you are confusing what you see in the media with reality. The DOJ under Obama stared the process of stoping the Time warner/ATT merger. The Trump admin merely continued this policy. Your paraniod and basely claims are why we can't have nice things on the internet. Unless, you have proof Trump personally intervened in this case? I mean I doubt a random person on the internet does but you never know.
  10. Trump isn't invovled in the approval process, no president is. So, it is completely a non issue. And your "orange man bad" comments have no place here.
  11. I don't understand why people don't seem to understand the concept of ROI. Not one penny is or is ought to be spent unless you can believe with a degree of certainty that spend will maximize ROI. They pay people good saleries to make these assessments and they manangment alot more to make capital allocation decisiona based on the assessment they are given. Istead of asking why sprint (or really any company) doesn't do X, given that as part of their decision making process they have more expertise and information that any of us has, you should ask what their actions tell you about
  12. They didn't. What he is saying technically true but misleading. They could have spent money on more spectrum but given the can't afford to put all their current spectrum to use i don't think they could have spent billions on spectrum and billions deploy it and billions deploy massive MIMO. So yes, they could have bought some but that isnt the end of the story.
  13. I think Califonia challenging the merger would fail. The Constitution is very clear that the Federal government has Primacy with interstate commerce. I think it is rather obvisious that both Sprint and Tmobile fall under that category.
  14. All that is baseless libel. Evidence of wrong doing? Nope! Then don't accuss people of crimes or disparage their reputation without evidence
  15. I don't know if you noticed but the sited Dish's reply to T-mobile, not the T-mobile or sprint filings. Click the embedded link, in downloads Dish's reply.
  16. 5g is a bit different than 3.5g. Nationwide coverage isn't regional coverage. That is the point. There is alot more to pricing and an efficient market than number of producers.
  17. High fixed cost means fewer players make for lower prices!!. Prices would be retarded high and we would still be on early 3g tech if the maket kept its 8 major players it had in the early 2000s.
  18. How does the merger get to a monopoly? There woukd still be three players?
  19. Your individual example means absoulute zero to the general point he was making. You might has well said the second planet from the sun is Venus in response.
×
×
  • Create New...