utiz4321

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."

23 minutes ago, jakeuten said:

Probably AT&T/Time Warner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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. 

4 hours ago, Trip said:

Please demonstrate what consequences AT&T is facing for raising prices twice in the year after their merger, despite representing to regulators that permitting the merger with Time Warner would permit them to lower prices.

- Trip

Which merger are you talking about?

Just now, Brad The Beast said:

Still shows that the "We can't make a nationwide 5G network" is a lie. They've been saying Sprint is going to die since the Nextel merger so I don't know if I believe that.

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. 

9 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

"We can't make a nationwide 5G network". T-Mobile can. It won't be the fastest but it'll be nationwide. Sprint could with their 2.5GHz spectrum but this initial rollout would need to be spectacular. "Sprint will die if the merger fails". They've been saying that since the Nextel merger and they're still here. 

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. 

8 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

They've been lying to them tons. They can lie all they want.

Oh, really. Go on and give an example. I'll wait. 

Just now, Brad The Beast said:

They aren't going to keep Sprint plans. 

That is what they told regulators and it isn't a good idea to lie to them. 

10 minutes ago, Brad The Beast said:

The only thing I worry about is that I'm going to lose my awesome plan and prices are definitely going to go up. 

Prices are going up anyway. Tmobile merge is the best way for Sprint customers to keep your plan. 

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. 

On 3/10/2019 at 11:04 PM, runagun said:

I agree with Robert.  Typically, Democrats tend to focus on helping the little guy.  And with this merger, which ironically I want to happen for Sprints sake-It's going to fuc* all of us in the long term tho.

Now the D's are grabbing on to that platform . I can see some trouble for the merger.  I guess we'll just see what happens.  

Giving back to what I said a few weeks ago. About TMobile team staying @ Trump's place of business is smart. They wash his back. He washes their back.  Pay for play my friends.  

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 guy and Rs are for the rich you might want to think about the fact that both parties need money and get most of their money from billionaires. Once you do that you can ask which billionaires give to which parties and that leads you the fact that telecom tends to spend more with Rs and content (like google) spend more on Ds. This way of viewing the world allows one to understand why each party takes the position it does much better that D are draped in light and good and Rs are the exploiters. 

14 hours ago, tommym65 said:

1. I recognize the site rules regarding political discussion.  This political topic is directly relevant to the pending Sprint/T-Mobile merger.

2. The previous administration was known to be broadly opposed to large corporate mergers, including AT&T/Time Warner, a fact well known and not germane to this discussion.

3. The reality is: Many sources (including, but not limited to: The New Yorker, The Washington Post, Market Watch, Slate, CNN, PolitiFact, NBC News, Politico . . .) have reported that the President personally instructed Gary Cohn, formerly director of the National Economic Council, to contact officials at the Department of Justice to attemp to intervene in the merger, reportedly because of the President's extreme antipathy toward CNN.

4. The US House of Representatives is reportedly investigating this interference, which certainly lends credance to the whole story..

No, I don't have "proof".  My "paranoid and basely claims" (I can only assume you meant "baseless") are, in fact, neither paranoid nor baseless, but are widely substantiated.  Moreover, insulting me, however vaguely you do so, is inappropriate on this forum.

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. 

On 3/6/2019 at 5:50 AM, tommym65 said:

Actually, it is a real issue. While presidents are not supposed to be involved in merger approvals, this one has already (so far unsuccessfully) tried to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger (for apparently personal reasons), and who can predict where he will go next. 

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.

18 hours ago, Bob Newhart said:

Far from a non-issue.

It is how the Trump org works, greasing palms.

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. 

22 hours ago, greenbastard said:

Am I the only one that feels like these maps are a huge letdown? Sprint holds the spectrum advantage with their EBS/BRS spectrum. They have the ability blanket most markets with wideband 5G.

Yet they aren't. Why? Why not go scorched Earth on their competitors and widely deploy 5G? That DFW map is a joke. 

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 their outlook on the company, what that means for their future growth and profitability. 

On 2/20/2019 at 3:51 PM, RedSpark said:

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-cfo-robbiati-600-mhz-spectrum-past

According to the prior CFO (Date: November 30, 2016):

“We did not participate in the 600 MHz (auction) not because we didn’t have money at the time, or we were under-resourced for it,” he said. “It is simply spectrum that is spectrum of the past. The world is moving toward high-capacity wireless data networks, and in that world the best and most efficient spectrum that is needed for that… is mid-band spectrum, the spectrum that we have, the 2.5 GHz spectrum.”

Assuming he's being truthful here, Sprint's non-participation in the auction wasn't due to a lack of money.

Robbiati also noted that the TV broadcasters’ airwaves currently up for grabs may not be available for several years. The FCC has issued a 39-month repacking plan for that spectrum, enabling the broadcasters to move to other airwaves while their former spectrum is reshuffled for wireless use.  

“Why invest in 600 MHz spectrum if that spectrum doesn’t really cater for the future, and also it’s spectrum you cannot deploy for four years?” Robbiati asked rhetorically. “And it doesn’t have an ecosystem in support as widespread as 2.5 spectrum, which is the largest ecosystem in the world.”

Based on T-Mobile's progress on 600 MHz to date, he seems like he was incorrect on this.

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. 

On 2/11/2019 at 1:49 PM, S4GRU said:

There will have to be sufficient grounds and California law to be able to deny it and let it stand (or any state for that matter).  California has courts too.  And something like this would be unprecedented and could end up in the Supreme Court pushing the bounds of the 10th Amendment.

Robert

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. 

7 minutes ago, runagun said:

I know the guy.  DO YOU?  I have Family/Friends In the New York Real Estate Market. DO YOU?  I don't care if you support him or not.  Its smart what T-mobile did and will do.  That's How you gain favor. 

All that is baseless libel. Evidence of wrong doing? Nope! Then don't accuss people of crimes or disparage their reputation without evidence

On 1/21/2019 at 10:03 PM, JThorson said:

I thought one of the big things in the merger was to lower prices?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gonzalez-sprint-t-mobile-merger-20190121-story.html

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. 

On 1/18/2019 at 7:41 PM, runagun said:

What you guys think this president is about?  He wants to line his pockets that's it.  Smart move by the T-Mobile group.  

Baseless allegations that qualifies as libel. 

13 minutes ago, though said:

8 is a bit different than 4.

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. 

12 hours ago, though said:

Less competition, higher rates, no thanks.

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.  

On 12/15/2018 at 3:02 PM, danlodish345 said:

I want to see what happens I don't want a monopoly.

Sent from my Moto Z3 Play using Tapatalk
 

How does the merger get to a monopoly? There woukd still be three players?  

15 hours ago, NYC126 said:

With the current administration, all you need is a nice bribe, but I don't want to get political on this forum.

And yet you did. And stupidly.

22 hours ago, danlodish345 said:

Has to do with the cellular data consumption

Sent from my BBE100-5 using Tapatalk
 

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. 

1 hour ago, danlodish345 said:

I actually don't use Wi-Fi a whole lot I'm Verizon prepaid I've used over 40 gigs this month

Sent from my BBE100-5 using Tapatalk
 

What does that have to do with the comment you quoted?