AT&T finally gives up plans to acquire T-Mobile
25. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
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.
29. ph00ny (Posts: 1246; 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
40. ph00ny (Posts: 1246; 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
At&t who has continuously blamed their network failures/deficiencies on number of excuses on time.
41. Baseballer (Posts: 132; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)
umm stop. att is pretty good. at least they dont do outrages prices like verizon
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...
44. medicci37 (Posts: 1282; 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,
61. Baseballer (Posts: 132; 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
46. belovedson (Posts: 988; 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
verizon is probably the worst out of the 4. rich, profitable, greedy, corrupt, and undeniably powerful
56. mctcm (Posts: 204; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
tax avoidance is entirely legal. everyone should practice in avoiding taxes.
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!"
48. ILikeBubbles (Posts: 525; Member since: 17 Jan 2011)
i'm pretty sure capitalism is NOT a monopoly/duopoly...
49. vvelez5 (Posts: 623; Member since: 29 Jan 2011)
No capitalism is businesses competing with one another and you have winners in losers.
59. audiblenarcotic (Posts: 111; 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.
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.
4. squallz506 (banned) (Posts: 1075; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
woo hoo!!! long live monthly4g!!! good for magenta, and me also xD.
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
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.
8. aztaxia12295 (Posts: 272; 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
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.
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.
51. remixfa (Posts: 14255; 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.
32. corporateJP (Posts: 2431; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
No, it's called "consumer protection" in this instance.
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.