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

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

FEATURED VIDEO

69 Comments

1. GeekMovement unregistered

gasp!

2. downphoenix

Posts: 3165; Member since: Jun 19, 2010

Hip Hip Hooray!

25. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

Hooo!

3. vvelez5

Posts: 623; Member since: Jan 29, 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: 2026; Member since: May 26, 2011

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

33. corporateJP

Posts: 2458; Member since: Nov 28, 2009

Nothing is worse than AT&T. Nothing.

40. ph00ny

Posts: 2026; Member since: May 26, 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.

41. Baseballer

Posts: 132; Member since: Dec 07, 2011

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

42. iblackdroid

Posts: 67; Member since: Jul 19, 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: 1361; Member since: Nov 19, 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: Dec 07, 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: 1060; Member since: Nov 30, 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

56. mctcm

Posts: 204; Member since: Oct 19, 2011

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

57. mctcm

Posts: 204; Member since: Oct 19, 2011

i came back to lol at you and your union propaganda again "they avoided paying taxes!" lol

48. ILikeBubbles

Posts: 525; Member since: Jan 17, 2011

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

49. vvelez5

Posts: 623; Member since: Jan 29, 2011

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

59. audiblenarcotic

Posts: 114; Member since: Nov 16, 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.

65. vvelez5

Posts: 623; Member since: Jan 29, 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

Posts: 1075; Member since: Oct 19, 2011

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

5. davecann2

Posts: 460; Member since: Mar 15, 2011

I think we all saw this coming.

6. jamrockjones

Posts: 345; Member since: Oct 26, 2011

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

15. Giggity

Posts: 147; Member since: Nov 17, 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: Sep 09, 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: Nov 22, 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

Posts: 1075; Member since: Oct 19, 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: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 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: 2458; Member since: Nov 28, 2009

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

45. medicci37

Posts: 1361; Member since: Nov 19, 2011

@ aztaxia I doubt you can be helped.

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.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.