x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

AT&T responds to Sprint's lawsuit

Posted: , by Ian M.

Tags :

AT&T responds to Sprint's lawsuit
It didn’t take long at all for AT&T to fire back as the nation’s second largest mobile carrier issued a statement in response to the lawsuit filed by Sprint opposing their merger with T-Mobile USA.

Sprint filed their lawsuit just a short time after the Department of Justice filed one of their own. They have been openly against the merger since day 1. In response to the lawsuit, this is what AT&T had to say:

"This simply demonstrates what we’ve said all along – Sprint is more interested in protecting itself than it is in promoting competition that benefits consumers. We of course will vigorously contest this matter in court as AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile USA will: help solve our nation's spectrum exhaust situation and improve wireless service for millions; allow AT&T to expand 4G LTE mobile broadband to another 55 million Americans, or 97% of the population; and result in billions of additional investment and tens of thousands of jobs, at a time when our nation needs them most."

The war of words between opposing carriers has certainly begun and will probably continue throughout the remainder of AT&T’s attempt to acquire T-Mobile USA. What do all of you think about AT&T’s response? We would love to hear what you think in the comments below.

source: Phone Scoop

51 Comments
  • Options
    Close






posted on 06 Sep 2011, 16:48 9

1. downphoenix (Posts: 3165; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)


typical AT&T response, saying sprint is more interested in protecting itself than in competition? So I guess AT&T is buying out T-mobile so there's more competition, LOL.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 18:13 2

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


ATT buying T-mobile is competition. Government intervention is not competition. If one company is buying another and both companies agree on the deal how is that not competition? That's like saying you can make as much money as you want but you can't buy anything with it.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 20:30 4

32. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


no.. thats business.. and it drastically reduces competition while giving a large player an indiscriminant amount of power when it comes to phone specs, spectrum usage, and usage rates for itself and many regional carriers that roam off of it because now they have no choice.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 21:26 2

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


Of course it's business but it's still competition. Two competing companies face off, one does not want to keep going (or the parent company doesn't want to.) So they decide to sell off their assets to the bidder of their choosing. Usually the highest bidder of course. How was that not competition at work? This isn't a charity, when there is competition, with people or businesses, one or more eventually loses.

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 00:48

42. livingmild (Posts: 15; Member since: 24 Dec 2009)


There's no denying there's competition with respect to buying T-mobile. The problem is there's less competition after the acquisition takes place. 80% of the market between 2 providers isn't competition. It's a monopoly. I'm certain that while in the interim prices will stay the same, but in the long run prices will surely rise and innovation will suffer and jobs will be lost at some point because of redundancy between the two carriers.

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 10:46

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


Well it isn't a monopoly it's closer to a duopoly which it still isn't That's like saying since Pepsi and Coke control most of the bottling industry then that's a monopoly or a duopoly when that isn't the case. You still have RC, 7UP, and all the generic brands. But I do see where you're coming from that you will feel that it will stifle innovation. I believe that there will always be another company that will be willing to throw their hat into the ring.

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 11:01

52. darth8ball (Posts: 520; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)


7up is coca cola owned and distributed, and most of the generic brands are made by coke or pepsi. they just get branded differently in the factory. Most gereric brands of food and beverages are made by the name brand manufacturers and sold under a different label for less, Coke and Pepsi sell for more to pay for the advertising that makes you want to buy the higher priced product.

Blows your mind doesn't it?

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 11:20

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


Actually 7UP is owned by Dr.Pepper and they are their own company. They use the same bottling factory as Pepsi though. I am aware that many of the generic ones are bottled by many of the name brand companies but they are not owned by them. There is a huge difference between a bottler and a owner. Blows your mind doesn't it?

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 11:29

54. darth8ball (Posts: 520; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)


sorry sprite is coke.

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 21:53 1

60. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


no, competition is companies fighting against each other for a customer's business. The merger reduces competition (in my view), but the merger itself is just business. They are related in this instance, but not the same.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 21:34 2

36. DontHateOnS60 (Posts: 867; Member since: 20 Apr 2009)


In at&t's mind, yes, that's correct, and the reason is because they'll be able to expand their network to compete with Verizon. And if we're going to be honest here, this was never a 4 horse or 3 horse race to begin with. It was always just at&t and Verizon, since they've dominated the industry.

T-Mobile wouldn't be on the market if it wasn't for Deutsche Telekom getting tired of it's investment in T-Mobile. At&t just happened to see it as an opportunity, seeing how T-Mobile owns large chunks of spectrum in areas not well covered by at&t, plus they can use existing infrastructure to build out a better network in areas where both networks exist, not to mention its GSM already. They can also argue that it helps with the spectrum crisis because they would now have new spectrum at their disposal.

So you've got a company who wants to get rid of an investment it made that it doesn't want to deal with anymore, and a company who is looking for a way to expand its network. On paper, it's a great match as a business decision.

As far as the whole jobs thing goes, I'm sure this idea assumes that these jobs will be created through infrastructure building. We're not stupid, we know a T-Mobile store right down the street from an at&t store would be pointless, so it's going to get shut down. Other stores in areas where at&t doesn't have stores, will remain open though. But there's also the jobs that could be created by the companies that at&t buys its telecom equipment from, like Lucent, or Siemens.

That's pretty much how it's viewed from a corporate perspective.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 16:50 7

2. M1K3YWR19H7 (Posts: 18; Member since: 31 Jan 2011)


sprint just knows that once this goes through no one is going to want to deal with their garbage. At&t's response is perfect and I agree 100%.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 16:53 3

3. panchi (unregistered)


Thats what i was gonna say...Lol

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:00 2

4. Alex (unregistered)


AT&T-Mobile in 2012!!!

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:02 6

5. spanky (Posts: 81; Member since: 02 Jun 2011)


AT&T is just playing on the heartstrings now. Prove to me how putting one company out is going to provide more jobs. Are they going to employ all T-mobiles employees, and 3rd party employees? I am just curious to see how this is going to help. Spur growth by removing competition? hmmmmmmm

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 19:12 2

23. Phoneguy007 (Posts: 218; Member since: 02 Jun 2011)


wow.....I think you should tell tmo that ...i mean att is not forcing them to sell they want to sell tmo and thier employees and there customers....

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:04 4

6. Mack (unregistered)


The gov is involved now with the lawsuit, so i dont see it going through. Its an awful idea for this deal to go through. Tons of jobs will be lost, much more than will be gained. Nothing, absolutely nothing positive can come from this deal besides at&ts crappy network becoming larger.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 19:13 2

24. Phoneguy007 (Posts: 218; Member since: 02 Jun 2011)


You think att is crappy try sprint lol....

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 19:36 1

27. S123 (unregistered)


All depends on where ur at...And Att customer service ranks last year in and out,adding an additional 30 million wont help that either

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 01:36

44. Mack (unregistered)


At&t has the worse coverage in my area by far. Verizon, or sprint, and nothing else. Every time im on the line with someone that uses at&t the call drops. Maybe its just my area, but even with good signal the service sucks. Sprint doesnt have the fastest 3g by any means, but it more reliable, atleast it has been for me in the southeast...

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:17 2

8. JordanCox (Posts: 21; Member since: 17 Apr 2011)


You can put a thumbs down on this comment if you want. Idgaf. But i've been with at&t for awhile. They get better service than verizon cause i've had verizon too. There customer service may not be the best but there wireless coverage is awesome. I think this deal is a good idea but all the haters are gonna say it's dumb and shouldn't go through.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:28 2

10. exxwing (unregistered)


If AT&T merges with TM, it will just mean more people with atrocious phone service at a premium price. I always know when I'm talking to someone on AT&T. Dropouts, echoes, and that killer half second delay. But you get to pay more for that.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 17:42 3

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


Sprint is loaded of Bulls**t, the purchase was ok when they bid for it but now somebody else got it is bad, maybe they wanna be the Only carrier that screww multiple companies like they did with Nextel...!!!

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 18:03 3

13. Samsung (Posts: 3; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)


Sprint in a way is being hypocrtitical because they BOUGHT Nextel so they should not be caring

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 18:15 3

16. The_Miz (Posts: 1496; Member since: 06 Apr 2011)


Should've figured someone with a name based on a company who copies Apple wouldn't understand. Nextel is a very small company, Sprint buying them would have in no way effected competition and strict regulations set by the croo...I mean government.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 18:16 2

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


You're avatar still is pretty homo

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 21:13 1

34. The_Miz (Posts: 1496; Member since: 06 Apr 2011)


Lol, DBZ is fail.

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 05:47 1

47. justacomment (unregistered)


By the way, are you aware that Sprint and Nextel run off two entirely different networks...Nextel's iDEN Network..which is uncapable of handling things like 4G and the Sprint CDMA Network...Sprint purchasing a struggling Nextel is entirely different from this merger....please take the time to check your facts before being so hard on a company that has to look out for it's own interests, as well as the mobile industry.

posted on 06 Sep 2011, 18:15 2

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


Going from 5-4 companies is not a big deal, but 3-4 watch out there's a monopoly a brewin

posted on 07 Sep 2011, 08:52

49. rwolf1984 (Posts: 532; Member since: 06 Jun 2009)


exactly how i see it...Verizon just bought Alltel and that made Verizon's coverage better and Sprint's worse!!!

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories