Slashdot Mirror


Leaked AT&T Letter Damages Case For T-Mobile Merger

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday a partially-redacted document briefly appeared on the FCC website, accidentally posted by a law firm working for AT&T on the $39 billion T-Mobile deal (somewhere there's a paralegal looking for work today). While AT&T engaged in damage control, telling reporters that the document contained no new information, a review of the document shows that's simply not true. Data in the letter undermines AT&T's primary justification for the massive deal, while highlighting how AT&T is willing to pay a huge premium simply to reduce competition and keep T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands."

30 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing new here by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, really there isn't. Corporate takeovers to stifle the competition is normal practice ( hell its the primary reason they exist ), so nothing 'new' was really released here.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Nothing new here by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right, anyone who is surprised by this is, well, lacking in foresight, to put it diplomatically. The merger was obviously about anti-competition, especially given that T-Mobile is one of only two contract companies (Sprint is the other) to undercut Verizon and At&T prices and data caps. This deal should not only not go through, the attempt should result in massive penalties against AT&T (splitting the company? Forced regulation of prices or removal of data caps? Ah, one can dream.) More likely, this will be brushed under the table, the right people will get "campaign donations", and everything will go smoothly. For AT&T. And the customers will get screwed. More screwed, that is. But, in the wireless provider business in America, that's pretty much how these things go.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Nothing new here by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Probably because we ALL know that the days of the DoJ having any teeth at all are long gone friend. I mean if Intel didn't even get smacked down after CEOs admitted that their kickbacks were "like cocaine" and it came out that for several quarters during the price wars the ONLY profits coming into Dell were kickbacks? Or the fact that several programmers showed that the Intel compiler was rigged not only against AMD but their own P3 chips so they could push the Pentium 4 and that STILL didn't get them busted?

      Lets face it, nowadays a corporation could set the competition's offices on fire and as long as they bribed...err I mean "campaign contributed" to the right people they would probably not only not get busted for it, hell they'd probably get a tax break for the gas and matches!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Merger will still happen by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    So can anyone name a merger that the government has successfully stopped?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Merger will still happen by loganljb · · Score: 2

      The Honeywell / GE Merger in 2001, for one. That was stopped by the EU, not the FCC, but the idea is the same.

    2. Re:Merger will still happen by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FCC stopped EchoStar from merging with DirectV. Otherwise Dish and DirecTV would be the same company. But that did allow NewsCorp to step in and buy DirecTV instead. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/echostars-directv-bid-blocked-by-fcc

    3. Re:Merger will still happen by SpanglerIsAGod · · Score: 2

      Don't forget CheckPoint and Sourcefire.

      http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11382

      --
      War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
  3. 'Acceidentally'? No. by microcentillion · · Score: 2

    'Leaking' a statement of that magnitude was 100% intentional by someone who didn't want it 'going down without a hitch'. You know it's true.

    --
    But clearly you have something better to say...
    1. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Believe it or not, there are people who would do that, even in this economy. The may come as a shock to you, but someone people will die for other people.
      You surprise belays an undertone of selfishness that is beneath you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a recent visitor to the USA and was astonished at the 3rd world nature of its cell system. I had never imagined it was so bad, before visiting. Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me. They seem intent on defending the very thing that makes their lives miserable compared with most developed nations.

    This was also the impression I had of its subway system. I've ridden subways in Moscow, Tokyo, London, and other major cities. All were clean, safe, and the sort of system a developed nation can be proud of. The subways in the US smelled of urine (!!), were infested by RATS (!!), covered with trash, and had the feel of a thing you'd only want to use if you do not value your personal safety. This was my first exposure, and really changed the view I used to have of the USA as an advanced nation. It really is on par with some very poor and undeveloped countries in terms of civic infrastructure.

    1. Re:US cell system by Macrat · · Score: 2

      I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?

      You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?

    2. Re:US cell system by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      Are you serious? Yeah, letting AT&T do and charge what they please when they are 1 of 3 soon to be 1 of 1 cell phone carrier will solve all the problems. Good call Rush.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:US cell system by stalky14 · · Score: 2

      Your Phone experience was probably AT&T, since it has the frequencies that most foreign phones roam to the US on. You're absolutely right about the (lack of) regulation here, but it's too late to change all of the non-interoperable systems the phone companies use.

      As for the subways, they are paid for by local governments. You must have been in NYC or Boston, because those are old and decrepit systems. Washington DC, San Francisco, and Atlanta have very nice systems. I'm in Portland and we have a top-notch surface rail/streetcar system. Don't base your opinion of the entire country's commuter rail on one municipality.

    4. Re:US cell system by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?

      You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?

      Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic. I mean, the EU and the US are roughly the same size and in theory the EU is a unified trading area.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:US cell system by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Ahahaha! You had me going for a moment there... I guess there's no way you could be serious. I know there are the supply and demand things that the market runs on, but the demand for communications, power, fuel and healthcare among others are limitless. As alternatives of choice lower, the race to the bottom begins as they lower quality and raise prices knowing that you have nowhere else to go if you don't like it.

      In the case of the telecoms, they are in default on their agreements to the US people and it's about time the US government called them to task on it. What agreement would that be? They paid for the right to use the radio frequencies they use in exchange, they are supposed to provide a net benefit to the people while building out infrastructure all over. What we get in return is fraudulent charges such as cost for text messaging which literally occupies no additional data load and mysterious charges that people frequently ignore and of course cherry-picking infrastructural improvements leaving poor areas with limited to no service.

      All of this is probably common knowledge to someone like you and so I can only surmise you are pulling a Stephen Colbert gag saying the opposite of what you mean.

    6. Re:US cell system by Oceanplexian · · Score: 2

      Sorry you had a bad experience, but the US is nearly as large as the entirety of Europe, so that's a terrible comparison considering that outside the metro areas cell service quality is pretty decent. Also, I don't see how the "US Subway System" (never heard of that one...) is in any way related to the discussion of mobile regulations.

      The United States is a huge place, so picking out faults as a whole are pretty ignorant. If anything, I'd say regulations on spectrum use should be relaxed so more carriers can get in on the game.

    7. Re:US cell system by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I'm not an American, but I live here for several months now.

      And you know what? It's a big country. Bigger than Europe, in fact. And it is also a federation - state borders are not just lines on the map, there really is a difference when you cross them. Some parts of US are, indeed, decidedly third-world. Others have all the infrastructure you could possibly ask for. It makes zero sense to try to average that out - it'd be like averaging, say, Finland and Albania, just because they're both in Europe.

    8. Re:US cell system by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      The Tokyo subway system no longer reeks of urine??

    9. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      to be fair you were likely in NYC which makes that NYC's problem, not the rest of the country. In fact, living in a different city I would say that NYC as a whole is dirty, smells of urine(and trash) and has lots of rats. While my city only has above ground trains, they are far cleaner and well maintained compared to those in NYC.

      if you visit one place in the US, you do not have a good idea of how the US is run. each state runs things differently, we are not all LA/NYC.

  5. Ma Bell seeking to reduce competition?! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    No, say it isn't so! My reality is crashing down on me. I suddenly feel so disillusioned and jaded. I'm either going to go write emo poetry, or kill myself.

    No, wait, that would just be a huge overreaction. Suicide it is, then.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Ma Bell seeking to reduce competition?! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, wait, that would just be a huge overreaction. Suicide it is, then.

      Can I have your UID then?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Capitalism at its best by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's no new information because we knew it already.

    Law of Capitalism #1: Customer value directly conflicts with corporate income. If more value goes to the consumer, less value will go to the corporation.

    Mergers are never for the benefit of the consumer.

    AT&T is willing to pay a huge premium simply to reduce competition and keep T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands

    Law of Capitalism #2: Monopolies win.

    But the problem isn't with our understanding of these laws. It's with the FCC not doing it's job, and everyone involved being paid off.

    1. Re:Capitalism at its best by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      All regulators are being captured. Captured regulators don't do their job. Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.

    2. Re:Capitalism at its best by immakiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      Law 1: not true. In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself. What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments. In this case, however, the market is pretty much an oligopoly. That's why the government has to step in to determine if this merger is something that allows AT&T to compete better and provide more value to the customers or if it's something that will altogether transfer more value from customers to AT&T.

  7. This may result... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

    ...in the paralegal getting an "involuntary career path adjustment". But I doubt much will come of this. The only way anything significant will happen is if someone in congress latches on and runs with it. But that will only happen if they're from the district of a competitor and can count on their "support" in the upcoming election.

  8. Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sprint had (has?) a substantial problem when they bought Nextel, since it meant that they had to maintain two incompatible networks: CDMA and IDEN. Now they're going to buy a GSM carrier too? Seems silly.

  9. Re:I don't think much will come of it by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you have any idea how hard it is to make ends meet on a one-time 165 million dollar payout? Because the CEO will be toxic if he resigns over this, he'll never work for more than maybe 10 million a year again.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  10. I'm a TMo Customer... by milbournosphere · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...and this merger won't be good for me. I went to my local public dialog forum here in San Diego, and found quite a few others like me. Yet, we weren't able to talk because AT&T had lined up minority group after minority group after interest group after volunteer group talking about how "good AT&T is for the community." I shit you not, one lady even came up and spoke for her whole two minutes about how her pregnant 14-year old daughter wouldn't be able to function without this merger.

    The sad thing? Almost every person who stood up disclosed that they had received grants, money or deals from AT&T. Two hours later, I walked of the forum disgusted. I've been an ATT customer before, and I don't want to be again, and people must agree with me, because 50k people jumped ship from T-Mobile last quarter.

    I'm bummed because T-Mobile has historically been a great company to work with. Any company that rings you up to make you aware of and retroactively pay for an overcharge is okay in my book. For some reason, I couldn't see ATT doing that kind of thing. Oh well, at least I'll be able to jump ship to Sprint when ATT officially acquires T-Mobile. I don't trust the FCC or the FTC to lift a finger to stop this merger.

  11. Deal will still probably go through by Immerial · · Score: 2

    It's funny, I read some where AT&T had announced that they predicted that they would have to divest $8 billion in various stuff to make the deal go through. The funny part is that I read it as "we need $8 billion to buy off the politicians for the deal to go through".

    1. Re:Deal will still probably go through by quarterbuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The story pretty much says the same thing.
      AT&T has said that it will cost them $39 Billion to buy TMobile. It has also claimed to investors that it will save them $10Billion.
      The justification is that it will enlarge Wireless coverage in USA.
      The leak now claims that the expanded network coverage will cost only $3.8 Billion http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2011/08/unredacted-ATT-filing-shows-high-price-tag/
      So AT&T Pays $39 Billion, saves $3.8 Bilion in network costs and $6.2 Billion in non-network costs (say closing and selling stores/laying off duplicated jobs). Assume that Sprint is worth the same as TMobile intrinscially - which is approx. $10B. The remaining $19 Billion premium paid must then be the cost of eliminating competition or the cost of keeping sprint from expanding.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2