Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Issues Scathing Response To FCC Report
An anonymous reader writes "AT&T has issued a scathing letter in response to the FCC's decision to release a staff report on its findings surrounding AT&T's planned $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA. 'We expected that the AT&T-T-Mobile transaction would receive careful, considered, and fair analysis,' Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs, said. 'Unfortunately, the preliminary FCC Staff Analysis offers none of that.'"
I'm pretty sure that AT&T's response is simply a toddler's temper tantrum with a midlife crisis and an expensive suit.
at this point, i wonder if AT&T has actually bought its own story, or if they have to practice keeping a straight face in the mirror every morning.
AT&T buying T-Mobile is a bad thing for consumers. The original cell phone plan was that there would be two providers, the local Ma Bell and a start-up. AT&T as SBC bought up the East Coast start-ups, Verizon bought the West Coast ones, and T-Mobile and Sprint came to the party as national big-city carriers on at the time open space adjustments.
AT&T of the 1980s was busted up as a monopoly. If AT&T is allowed to have T-Mobile, what's stopping Verizon and Sprint from joining up? Less competitors always leads to higher prices. Anybody remember what cellphones cost in the early 1990s?
Lol - I just love this whole thing. ATT is like the giant internet forum troll, throwing a temper tantrum because they got banned from the forums, and sprint is like the even keeled bystander, explaining to the banned individual why trolling is wrong.
They should break that company up again, it seems the first time wasn't enough to curb their arrogance.
AT&T can use that money to upgrade and expand their broadband circuits. I'm in south Texas and AT&T openly admits that our lines are over subscribed. Every Tech sent to check low signal strength has confessed to over subscription. Well use that money to improve the service they are collecting for and not providing!!
ATT: "We didn't get our request rubber stamped like we expected it to be after we spent all that money to get the current crop of legislators and executives elected. We spend money on campaign contributions for a reason people! The FCC's review of our proposed acquisition of T-Mobile totally neglects to take these facts into account, and instead harps on things like abusive monopoly paractices and leaked memos from our executives. Obviously the FCC is not doing its job as a captured regulator, and we are voicing our displeasure publicly so as not to oust our purchased politicians. We fully expect them take action against this FCC ruling, and further insist that they take the DoJ to task on the pending antitrust case, if they want any more of our money; we understand that elections are just around the corner. Just a reminder guys. We don't get what we want, you don't get what you want."
Sprint: "We applaud the FCC for finally doing what it was really supposed to do, and appreciate its dedication to fact finding and for ensuring a balanced economic foundation for the telecom industry. We strong urge everyone to read the FCC's report."
No, but I can imagine silence. Or a one-sentence 'we respectfully disagree'.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Notice that every rebuttal made by AT&T is simply a statement by AT&T that they PROMISE not to do what is in their own best interest!
For example, if there is 1 fewer wireless company, there WILL be less total job positions needed. That is an obvious truth of economics : one fewer company means more consolidation, fewer independent cell towers needed, etc. Yet AT&T PROMISES to hire more Americans as CSRs, despite the fact that it would be cheaper for them to keep outsourcing.
AT&T will find it easier to raise prices with the merger because with 1 fewer competitor, the Nash Equilibrium inches closer to monopoly prices. AT&T PROMISES to do otherwise.
AT&T has no competitor to fight for rural broadband market share, yet they PROMISE to build the wires anyway.
And so on and so forth. Every rebuttal basically says "well, maybe it doesn't make market sense, but we have plans to do X if we get our way".
Think about who made this report : some lawyers and marketing folks in AT&T's executive branch. Those people are not going to be unbiased.
Of course not.
The firmly worded letter is for appearances.
The bribed senators and congressmen are the ones that will actually move things for them.
The main problem I see with what you say is this: very few people believed the AT&T-T-Mobile merger was a good thing before the Analysis. I only skimmed it briefly, but it seemed to approach the issue from the point of view that the onus is on AT&T to show that the merger is in the public interest, and not just AT&Ts (which they seem to grant.)
The "commitments" of a company with AT&T's history are worth less to me then the photons my screen used to display them to me. It should come as no surprise that the report is unbalanced: the truth is this merger is a bad idea, at many levels. If AT&T wants it to go through, they basically need to show that both companies absolutely needed it. The report seems to say they didn't show that, but only made broad claims.
In other words, the FCC is calling AT&T liars, and I agree. AT&T doesn't like that, and their response is laden with innuendo and falsities. For example, "The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece..." So if you don't agree with AT&T's interpretation, you clearly aren't "fair minded." Yeah, that sort of language is only going to make me like you even less. If they really have valid points, fine. But even if they do, using that language is going to make me discard it as manipulative marketing.
Add in the fact that AT&T tried to withdraw the merger application so the report wouldn't be made public, and it really is a poor showing overall for AT&T.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I disagree. I'm no lover of AT&T, I got screwed by them once on international calls and had to fight for a couple of months to get my money back. This was at a time when money was in really short supply, and the $500 or so that I had to get back would have made a big difference. If you actually read FCC's Analysis, and look at what AT&T disagrees with, you can't but agree with AT&T. Their rebuttal is backed by facts, and an hour of googling later you will see for yourself that they are certainly right in the issues they have enumerated. I would have personally really wanted AT&T's response to turn out to be made up shitty troll, but it turns out not to be so.
Sprint's "short and sweet" response turns out to be completely unfounded. It essentially translates to "yeah, yeah, we don't like AT&T either, kudos to FCC for sharing in our dislike". FCC did a pathetic job in their Analysis, that's all there's to it.
Calling AT&T's response "scathing" is uncalled for. We have a saying in Polish: the truth stings you in the eyes. As far as I'm concerned, the submitter takes "factual" for "scathing". It's silly. People often take a defensive stance when presented with facts that clearly contradict whatever they previously claimed, so I can at least understand the psychology in the mostly negative reaction to AT&T's rebuke to FCC. What I don't get is why people side with FCC without spending the time necessary to verify the sources. It only takes a couple of hours.
It sounds like you only read the rebuttal and didn't consider the context. In this case the context is reality. The assertions AT&T makes and the way they try to cherry pick their issues just don't jive with reality. Even if they can factually tell us that they'll create N jobs in the U.S., that doesn't mean it's a good thing when independent analysis done months ago (and common sense) concluded that in addition to creating those N jobs they'll be eliminating 3N jobs.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)