x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • AT&T finally gives up plans to acquire T-Mobile

AT&T finally gives up plans to acquire T-Mobile

Posted: , by Michael H.

Tags:

AT&T finally gives up plans to acquire T-Mobile
AT&T has finally realized what the government has been trying to get through for a while: the T-Mobile acquisition just isn't going to happen. So, AT&T is paying the breakup fee and looking to strike a roaming deal instead. 

AT&T didn't go down quietly though. In the press release concerning the company dropping its bid to buy T-Mobile, AT&T went after the US government saying that the block by the FCC and Department of Justice "do not change the realities of the U.S. wireless industry". That reality, in AT&T's view, is that there isn't enough spectrum to go around, and although AT&T called its bid to buy T-Mobile an "interim solution" to the problem, AT&T asserts that something must be done or else "customers will be harmed and needed investment will be stifled." AT&T goes on to urge lawmakers to approve its bid to acquire spectrum from Qualcomm.

Of course, had AT&T been able to sufficiently prove that theory to be true, the deal may have had a better shot of going through. As is, AT&T will pay the $4 billion breakup fee, and will enter into a roaming deal with Deutsche Telekom. 

source: BGR

69 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:12 2

1. GeekMovement (Posts: 1497; Member since: 09 Sep 2011)


gasp!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:13 14

2. downphoenix (Posts: 2235; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


Hip Hip Hooray!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:19 5

25. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5649; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


Hooo!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:17 4

3. vvelez5 (Posts: 623; Member since: 29 Jan 2011)


A blow for capitalism. Well I do hear Dish network is interested in buying TMO maybe DT can still sell it.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 18:04 2

29. ph00ny (Posts: 565; Member since: 26 May 2011)


Wait until Dish Network buys T-Mobile. Everyone on TMO is going to wish that AT&T bought them instead

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:11 9

33. corporateJP (Posts: 1290; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)


Nothing is worse than AT&T.

Nothing.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:24

40. ph00ny (Posts: 565; Member since: 26 May 2011)


I'm not sure which will be worse.

Mediocre satellite service provider with 0 experience in mobile communication business who wants to bundle voice service on top of their tv service

or

At&t who has continuously blamed their network failures/deficiencies on number of excuses on time.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 20:01 4

41. Baseballer (Posts: 126; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)


umm stop. att is pretty good. at least they dont do outrages prices like verizon

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 20:10 6

42. iblackdroid (Posts: 67; Member since: 19 Jul 2011)


There is like a 5 dollar difference... and with the quality you get from verizon compared to att its 5 dollars well spent...

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 20:34 7

44. medicci37 (Posts: 554; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)


@ Baseballer Are you serious??? AT&T does have outrageous prices! they also had the nerve to tell customers who are in the top 5% of bandwith users they could be throttled cause they are usin 2 much data,at 2 gigabites! pathetic! people like you are why the companies get away with this sht,

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 10:28 1

61. Baseballer (Posts: 126; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)


actually it depends on your area for when you get throttled. As was told, in some ares, people used up to 6gb before they were throttled so please read up on facts. they dont have outrges prices like verizon am i right? i think AT&T's highest prices for a phone is 250 for the skyrocket. i respect your opinion, but in my experience with them, AT&T isnt bad

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 21:42 3

46. belovedson (Posts: 821; Member since: 30 Nov 2010)


verizon is probably just as bad. they avoided paying taxes to our government. if that's not crooked i dont know what is

here read this

http://files.cwa-union.org/national/verizon/20111114-vz-bills.pdf

verizon is probably the worst out of the 4. rich, profitable, greedy, corrupt, and undeniably powerful

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 02:07 2

56. mctcm (Posts: 204; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


tax avoidance is entirely legal. everyone should practice in avoiding taxes.

idiot

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 02:12 1

57. mctcm (Posts: 204; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


i came back to lol at you and your union propaganda again

"they avoided paying taxes!"

lol

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 23:21

48. ILikeBubbles (Posts: 286; Member since: 17 Jan 2011)


i'm pretty sure capitalism is NOT a monopoly/duopoly...

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 23:40 2

49. vvelez5 (Posts: 623; Member since: 29 Jan 2011)


No capitalism is businesses competing with one another and you have winners in losers.

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 07:16 3

59. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 108; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)


I'm seriously tired of people talking about how this goes against Capitalism. No one ever wants to acknowledge the fact that we have a modified version of Capitalism in this country... and for good reason. Capitalism in its true form is a horrible system. It allows for Monopolies and only ends up hurting the poorest of citizens. This is why we have a psuedo Capitalism here with regulators and regulations. Without regulations and organizations in place to protect us as americans the businesses would just reap our pockets dry and make us slaves. Do we all forget what happened when we allowed the banking system to function without any regulations? Oh thats right... it put us in the economic state that we are in today. Anyone who believes that this merger should have happeend and thinks that Capitalism without regulation is the way to go is either a CEO of a giant company or just plain retarded. Get over it.

A.I.

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 12:03

65. vvelez5 (Posts: 623; Member since: 29 Jan 2011)


I disagree with your whole statement. We do have a mixed economy in this country and the reason are economy is in a downturn is because government gets involved in business when it shouldn't.
Also I am getting sick of people saying our economic downturn was because of derugulation when they forget to realize that freddie mac and fannie may were government run institutions as well as the government pushing for banks to lend out money to people even if they didnt qualify.
Also it's great when people resort to name calling especially when they hear another's opinion that differs from their own.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:21 4

4. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


woo hoo!!! long live monthly4g!!! good for magenta, and me also xD.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:22 5

5. davecann2 (Posts: 460; Member since: 15 Mar 2011)


I think we all saw this coming.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:22 4

6. jamrockjones (Posts: 345; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)


Haha, that's a lot of money to lose.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:33 10

15. Giggity (Posts: 147; Member since: 17 Nov 2011)


Nah, AT&T will just reach deeper and harder into their customers pockets and wallets for that $4B

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:22 6

7. bluechrism (Posts: 99; Member since: 09 Sep 2011)


Absolutely so happy about this. I know many will question what may happen to t-mobile now and if someone else will buy them (Dish perhaps), but even if not, they are still profitable and ultimately, the US needs 4 national wireless carriers. T-Mobile have some great devices, some low prices and I will now be talking with my other half about renewing our contract, something we would never have done while this deal was in the works.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:24 2

8. aztaxia12295 (Posts: 264; Member since: 22 Nov 2009)


can someone help me out here, if the government puts his hands in business, isn't that partially communism? idk can someone help me out here

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:30 6

11. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


no, its slightly socialist; more like capitalism with restrictions. i dont mind at all, b/c those restrictions at the very least hinder monopolies from forming.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:14 5

35. robinrisk (unregistered)


i agree completely, full blown capitalism without any restrictions from the government would only end in authoritarism first, monopolies of industries second, and finally one corporation that controls pretty much everything in the world.

It might sound kind of crazy, but if companies do not have restrictions they would rape customers worse than Attila raped everybody else.

They would merge and merge and buy and buy until they have a monopoly.

So government-regulated capitalism is not perfect, but its a lot better than capitalism without restrictions.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 23:58 1

51. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


there has to be rules on how the game is played otherwise everyone would cheat and bully. There has to be a referee. But that referee cant be too powerful or too weak... there in lies the conundrum.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:10 3

32. corporateJP (Posts: 1290; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)


No, it's called "consumer protection" in this instance.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 20:37 2

45. medicci37 (Posts: 554; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)


@ aztaxia I doubt you can be helped.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:28 7

9. JeffdaBeat (unregistered)


I don't know who said this, but someone recommended that instead of companies being able to buy spectrum, they could simply lease it. If AT&T needs more, they could lease more from the Government instead of having to find ways to buy it.

Still, I think more work needs to be done in fitting more customers into smaller amounts of spectrum. At some point, there will be more people than current spectrum combined can handle. That's a problem for everyone.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:12 3

34. corporateJP (Posts: 1290; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)


I don't necessarily agree with the first part of your arguement, but the second part I most definitely do.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:17 2

36. robinrisk (unregistered)


I really like that idea, that way also the standards would be better implemented. For example: 2G on 800Mhz Band, 3G on 900 Mhz Band and 4G on 700Mhz band.

As they get over capacity and outdated, the spectrum could be used for newer technologies.

Thats a very nice idea, but impossible to implement for current technologies sadly.

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 11:36

63. corporateJP (Posts: 1290; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)


The government can't implement anything it has NOW properly, there's no way that the ball wouldn't get dropped on something like this.

That's where my issue lies.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:29 6

10. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


Hooray.. finally a win for the consumer!!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:32 1

13. WirelessCon (Posts: 309; Member since: 11 May 2010)


Please explain how the consumer wins. I see the opposite happening.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:34 3

17. WirelessCon (Posts: 309; Member since: 11 May 2010)


Let me elaborate. T-Mobile is not in a competitive position. Yes they have cheap plans, but they are losing their capacity to keep such plans feasible. As they lose contracts, they will dwindle. The consumer must go elsewhere.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:53 8

21. TheInfamousCJ (Posts: 20; Member since: 24 Nov 2011)


The consumer wins because the market will not have a duopoly. If the merger had happened you would have had VZW with 107.7 million subscribers and At&t with over 130 million plus. Phone manufacturers would sell their product to VZW and At&t because of the number of potential buyers for their goods; with no incentive to go to the smaller carriers including sprint they could control they market based on selling goods that are not on any of the smaller carriers, once that happens they dictate the market by raising their prices to maximize profit. In this case its called competition and competition drives capitalism

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:19 1

38. ph00ny (Posts: 565; Member since: 26 May 2011)


There are certain "uncertain" future associated with T-Mobile USA whose parent company is not really pouring any funds into saving it. If it survives, it's a win for its customers. If not then it's a big loss for its customers as well as at&t customers who could have benefited greatly from the merger

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 00:02

52. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


ATT customers wouldnt have had a "big benefit" from the merger as 98% of their networks overlap. You might see slightly stronger network signals, but nothing that couldnt be done by popping up a few towers for 1/100th of the cost of buying T-Mobile. The "big benefit" was actually to T-Mobile customers who were promised to keep their plans while getting expanded coverage.

As long as T-Mobile is around, it will continue to exert downward force on the market prices. The moment Tmobile dissapears the market loses one of its biggest downward pressures.

That said, if T-Mo wants to stay competitive, they need to rethink their advertising strategies.. or lack there of. We had a huge sale over the weekend and unless you were in the know, you probably didnt know.. lol.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:31 2

12. WirelessCon (Posts: 309; Member since: 11 May 2010)


T-mobile (USA) doesn't really want to continue, so those jobs will be lost anyways.

T-Mobile is a lost cause either way. At&t could have been in an innovative position. Now, not so much.

Someone needs to threaten the Verizon empire.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:18 3

37. robinrisk (unregistered)


now another company will be in position.

Att, Verizon, Sprint and X company will be on the market.

Better than ATT and Verizon, since they would essentialy have a duopoly.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:32 1

14. gallitoking (Posts: 4630; Member since: 17 May 2011)


now that they would not be bought.. is LTE and option because with every major carrier switching... their 3.5G (outside buildings) speed will not cut it...

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:33 5

16. GALAXY-S (Posts: 701; Member since: 07 Jun 2011)


Yea soo happy now!! im glad i didnt have to move to cricket or even sprint!! :) !!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:38 2

18. WirelessCon (Posts: 309; Member since: 11 May 2010)


AT least the T-Mobile girl will still have a job in 6 months! At least until T-Mobile cuts back their marketing to a turtles pace.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:51 2

19. joseg81 (Posts: 154; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)


question for me is if at&t roams on t-mobile spectrum will t-mobile be able to roam on theirs??? that would be fkn awesome for me :D

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 16:52 1

20. erikg26 (Posts: 7; Member since: 11 Apr 2011)


Oowww... I was waiting for the purchase !! :S

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:04 4

22. MorePhonesThanNeeded (Posts: 616; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


Oh boy, some people on here talk too much. Challenge the Verizon empire? Exaggerate much? AT&T is only slightly smaller than Verizon, not sure what kind of stupid juice you have been drinking though good one! You must be mad if you thought that AT&T acquiring T-Mobile would have meant better prices, how would less competition equal better prices for the customer? More competition drives the fight for our money, since you people don't seem to understand how competition works in the capitalist system. We need 4 big boys in the Telcom space to take care of major metropolis areas that way we can have them fight over our dollars. Even if we go down to 3 major telcoms at least one doesn't get swallowed up by another big telcom. T-Mobile needs a partner to help them out and I hope Dish gives them a hand.

AT&T needs to work on their network, they cry about spectrum but it's their own fault for not acquiring spectrum when it was up for bid. Don't come crying now about it, get your stuff together and build your network right. These guys charge as much as Verizon yet their network isn't as large nor as efficient, so what are you paying so much for? I seriously hope AT&T doesn't pull a Sprint and start charging extra for 4G, that would be character suicide. Verizon is run by some pretty savvy guys, they split off from their Vodaphone bosses and became self sufficient and are now viable. Expensive but you get the best(arguably) network in the US, they did what they had to, went after the technology, implemented it and where are they now?

Come on Verizon like the rest of the telcoms are here to make money, so why is it Verizon is the only one pushing the envelope. Sure they aren't the nicest guys, but heck they do know how to keep customers happy. Now if Verizon FioS would go down in price I would get that so I can get synchronous internet, tired of the split up and down speeds.

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 00:53

54. Forsaken77 (Posts: 542; Member since: 09 Jun 2011)


TMo is not a "big boy." They're a budget carrier for people who can't afford or don't want to pay higher cell phone bills and settle for sh!t service. AT&T is about $25 cheaper per month than Verizon when you combine a $10 savings here, $5 savings there ect... I know, I used to have Verizon and Sprint, and then landed at AT&T because I get the same exact coverage as Verizon in my area, NY, and pay $25 less per month. Yes, AT%T F'ed up with acquiring spectrum in the past but it doesn't make the fact invalid they they need it now. I wish they did get rid of TMo and adsorb all their spectrum/frequencies into one carrier. Everyone who has AT&T/TMo would have better signals all around the country. And gimme a break with the "throttling the top 5% bs." For you to actually be in the top 5% out of millions of people you have to be one serious burden on the network. These are people that are taxing the hell out of the network by doing things like letting their phone/access point feed half an apt. building. That's what a guy in my complex was doing. He was leaving his connection open to anyone in range, meaning next to him and above/below him got very good reception. So don't make it seem like the top 5% is anyone going over 2GB, because that's FAARRR from the truth.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:04 3

23. taz89 (Posts: 1948; Member since: 03 May 2011)


t-mo wants to leave the US and they will eventually,all the gov have done is delayed it and the US will end with only 3 big carriers even though this deal did not go through...so they should have just allowed it....

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:18 1

24. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


Cant you just let me enjoy it while it lasts lol?

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 23:46

50. ILikeBubbles (Posts: 286; Member since: 17 Jan 2011)


not if they're bought out by Google. :)

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:19 1

26. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5649; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)


Thank goodness. just hope AT&T WON'T JACK UP THEIR PHONE PRICES

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 17:20 7

27. Alantef (Posts: 278; Member since: 14 Sep 2011)


PARTY TIME.....NOW GOOGLE STEP UP AND DO WHATS RIGHT!!!!!!BUY T-MOBILE!!!!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 18:01 2

28. GALAXY-S (Posts: 701; Member since: 07 Jun 2011)


that would be sweet!!

posted on 20 Dec 2011, 00:03 2

53. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


LOL, that was the first thing i said to myself. "OK Google, now is your chance!!"

If we become google wireless, does that mean we get free nexus's too?? heck yea!! :)

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 18:28 1

30. Carlitos (Posts: 265; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)


Not trying to be a spoiler, but not everything good comes from this. Few bad things actually. At&t customers could possibly experience an increase in prices. As for slower slower speeds, because not much spectrum. Also T-mobile better put that money to good use, because if they dont, bye bye tmobile USA very soon. (unless someone else buys them, but dishnetwork, is the only one so far)

I'm an AT&t customer and even i know whats going on. No need to hide the facts, all aT7t said was probably not a lie, i do find it believeable that they are running out of spectrum, but oh well.

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 19:23 3

39. robinrisk (unregistered)


yes, att customers will experience the same network that they have. They can switch to T mobile, Verizon or Sprint.

With better prices (Tmobile and Sprint) or a better network (Verizon and possibly sprint with the network vision)

Better prices or a better network. How´s that not a win for consumers?

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 18:50 2

31. rigo (Posts: 8; Member since: 13 Jan 2010)


glad it did not go their way..... AT&T's... they are always ripping people off, with their break downs on options...they charge for just about everything and get away with it,
text .......extra, pictures extra, tether extra, unlimited data extra...........paper bill, extra...haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hear this from my dumb ass frien who wanted to have an Iphone"............. now he is sorry but would have to pay a lot of money to get out of it........
thank youuuuuuu uncle sam

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 20:33 1

43. DOGIEFRESH (Posts: 302; Member since: 15 Jul 2009)


Tmo will desapear anyway they wanna leave the US so rather than getting purchace with right value the goverment is forcing DT to go bankrupt and sell out for cheap....!!!!

posted on 19 Dec 2011, 21:58 2

47. networkdood (Posts: 5562; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


Meanwhile, verizon is allowed to add more spectrum - guess who has the politicians in their back pocket....lol.
At least I am on the right network.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories