Seven States Pile On To Block AT&T/T-Mobile Deal 152
An anonymous reader writes "New York, California, and five other U.S. states have joined a lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice that would block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. 'The revised filing comes ahead of a court hearing next week, when the two sides are scheduled to discuss the prospects of a settlement. AT&T has said that it will contest the Justice Department's lawsuit, while also seeking a potential settlement.' CNet notes that 'States don't have the power to block the deal, but they can influence the federal regulators and make it more onerous if AT&T attempts to negotiate for concessions to close the deal. They can also slow down the process with their own lawsuits.'"
Who do I write (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Snail mail if you aren't sure about e-mail making it through the filter.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do sometimes invite you to a constituents breakfast. So if you're likely to be in the right place at the right time, you might get a chance to bitch in a w
Re: (Score:2)
This article on writing letters to government ministers [crikey.com.au] was written with Australia in mind, but it contains some interesting tactics that might well be worthwhile for getting a decent response from US politicians, too.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe I'll have my next letter sent from a lawyer-buddies office, so the letterhead will get some kind of attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just make up your own custom letterhead for a fictitious law firm.
Re:Who do I write (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked with, for and among political offices. It's very well known in that biz that a written letter is much more effective than email, unless you're already an associate of the recipient.
Snail mail is always best for corresponding with politicians and officials with whom you don't already correspond regularly. They're more likely to have it handed to them, because they're mostly old and think email is for people who think for a living, not schmooze. And even if it's just a staffer who reads it (and maybe mentions it to the politico - or better yet, gets it to influence the work their office actually does among other staffers), a letter is better. Lawyers and other official correspondents use snail mail, sometimes as required by law or contract. And the people who write letters tend to be people who vote. Both because they tend to be older, and more office-oriented, and to be people who put actual time into the political process.
Re: (Score:2)
They're more likely to have it handed to them, because they're mostly old and think email is for people who think for a living, not schmooze.
It's so reassuring to know that the politicians don't even pretend to think.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't bother reading the bills they vote on either.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they read the snailmail letters from the lobbyists. Or rather their staff reads them. The letters tell them how to vote, and why they care. If you get your letter in there with the lobbyist's, you have a chance. The political game is entirely defined by access. And snailmail has access that email still does not.
Re:Who do I write (Score:4, Informative)
You should write your state attorney general [wikipedia.org], that is the official who deals with this. You have [theoretical] power over the attorney general, since that office is usually elected.
Re: (Score:2)
> say I'll vote for him if he supports this
You'll give yourself away as a literate, thinking citizen, which is perhaps not his target demographic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be a patent troll to get his attention. Besides, he has enough on his plate. http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2011/09/state-bar-of-texas-sues-attorney-general-greg-abbott-over-open-records-decision.html [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.
So much for the one size fits all solution. Some congressfolk are women!
Re: (Score:2)
Not many! [rutgers.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Your talking about an evangelical candidate. I'm sure he already has a little boy for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For Republicans, you need to be a "discrete" 18 year old boy
That's siamese twins out, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was the last Democratic congressmember to get caught with a prostitute - pudgy, female or otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he's not the most recent, but Barney Frank had a string of rent boys operating out of his apartment.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you were born. Who cares?
Republican congressmembers are busted every year. Constant and recent behavior is not equal to acts decades old.
You Republicans can't even get "A = B" right, you're so sick.
Re: (Score:2)
At least republicans get fired when they get busted.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. David Vitter is still jerking around the Senate, after getting busted for paying women to diaper and screw him.
Name a Democrat who's gotten busted who still has their job. And again, if you're going to dig up ancient history like Barney Frank, you're just proving that your argument is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, and hasn't been president for well over a decade. His blowjob wasn't from a hooker, either.
Since that's the best you can do, it's obvious that there's nothing like equivalence between the two parties. Admit it already.
Re: (Score:2)
If you like, I'll run. I don't care what they look like as long as all of the bits are there.
Re: (Score:2)
Or pose as a 20YO woman on Twitter who likes to get pictures of a politician's junk [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Introduce the notion of a continuum and you introduce a slippery slope from T/F and multiple-choice to essay questions.
*Shudders.*
Re: (Score:2)
Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.
I don't have the option. My congressman is a Democrat.
Well, in that case just go to his office to give him the BJ, or mail him a stack of $100 bills( he'll keep them in his freezer).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"whom" is dead. Even the textbooks admit that "who" is acceptable (even if not correct or recommended) for the objective case. We have a descriptive language, and as such, you are wrong.
What you say is technically correct but you miss the point. Like most people who miss a good point that says a lot about our culture, you're suddenly concerned with some technical way to give a "pass". So be it.
The difference is actually useful. If you witness someone correctly using "whom", you can bet serious money that they are educated and actually read a book once in a while. The average person is intellectually lazy and can't understand why anyone would read a book without being forced to by a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I know where "whom" is meant to be used but intentionally avoided using since it's now considered archaic language.
But I'll keep that in mind in case I ever want to impress a literature nerd, steampunk enthusiast, or other vintage language fan, rather than simply converse with people who don't see the imperfect or modern use of language as the mark of a dimwit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're the one that looks like a jackass here.
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting someone who IS wrong is not being a jackass.
The original poster technically was wrong. While it is accepted in some circles to be wrong, that doesn't make it right.
See Example: Most of common American English. This bleeds over into American Culture. Being wrong is acceptable.
I have no idea if this man is American or not, but if he is then kudos for trying to raise the bar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
English troll is talking about their own country.
I hope they block it (Score:2)
but if they don't, they should give the T-Mobile customer the ability to cancel/change their contract with no penalty or fees.. I sure as hell didn't avoindf AT&T and become a T-Mobile customer just to end up an AT&T customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Change it to another company, where available. Is there anywhere that ONLY has T-Mobile and AT&T? I could at least got to sprint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use them, but many coworkers really love their Sprint plans. I have been pretty happy with VZW, but I would not join them anymore as they no longer offer unlimited data.
This is a no-brainer (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I detest government interference in business, I hope that these anti-trust lawsuits are successful. This is exactly the sort of thing that the anti-trust laws were intended to prevent. Given the resources ($$$) of AT&T, I expect strong lobbying and eventual approval of the deal.
JSL
Re: (Score:2)
The other competitors (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA technology that uses different frequencies and different modulation schemes. GSM is a more popular format worldwide because it is not patent-encumbered. CDMA phones typically lag in technology by several years.
Which is why I have a CDMA Samsung Galaxy S2 from Sprint a month or so after the international launch and before AT&T and TMobile offer it. .
Also, Verizon and Sprint run on the same CDMA frequencies and have a bilateral roaming agreement. And CDMA is a more efficient modulation, allowing more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology.
Everything is CDMA now, including GSM (Score:2)
Which is why I have a CDMA Samsung Galaxy S2 from Sprint a month or so after the international launch and before AT&T and TMobile offer it. .
Also, Verizon and Sprint run on the same CDMA frequencies and have a bilateral roaming agreement. And CDMA is a more efficient modulation, allowing more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology.
True with 2G but GSM 3G uses Wide Band CDMA so the special efficiency is essentially the same.
Re: (Score:2)
True with 2G but GSM 3G uses Wide Band CDMA so the special efficiency is essentially the same.
Good point, although I think you meant 'spectral' efficiency. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I bluetooth calls in my car while using my phone as a GPS. The maps download on the fly, as well as traffic info, etc.
It is in no way a useless feature.
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same thing... on CDMA. I have no idea what the fuck you guys are talking about for this "no voice and data at the same time" garbage.
Its a technical limitation, sort of. All it actually requires is that the phone be set up to be able to handle two connections. Not a big deal on an Android device, or any current-gen smartphone for that matter.
Re:This is a no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I find it hard to believe that GSM is not patent encumbered. My impression was that the lack of being hard-tied to a device was what made it so popular in Europe (what with their quaint notion of Consumer Rights) and it spread from there (and has grown by inertia to everywhere CDMA is as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
And the underlying multiplexing has changed from TDMA to CDMA anyway. Time division multiplex was a stupid idea from the beginning.
Where was the love? (Score:2)
Re:Where was the love? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oligopoly (Score:3)
First, it won't form a monopoly. There will be 2 other major carriers besides AT&T.
An oligopoly [wikipedia.org] is hardly much better. Oligopolies have a reliably tendency to act a lot like monopolies. Each of the firms is well aware of the actions of the others and while they will compete, in general prices will generally be higher and the firms will retain more profits [wikipedia.org]. If you want to see this in action look at the pricing of text messaging. The cost of it to the carriers is a good approximation of zero and yet they are able to charge huge margins on it. In a competitive marketplace this should be
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not implying that Sprint or Virgin are "major carriers."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GSM works in most places outside the US, unlike CDMA, and allows you to switch carriers (unless you were dumb enough to buy a carrier-locked phone) simply by changing SIM cards. And therefore, for obvious reasons, most phones are GSM phones.
So yeah, it's a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a phone that works outside of the US, Canada and a couple of other countries, then yes, GSM is important. Here in the UK, I bought a SIM free phone, and I can use it on any of the carriers that operate here. If I go to another country, I can buy a pay as you go SIM from a local carrier there to avoid expensive roaming fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a T-mobile customer, and I don't want the merger to go through. If I wanted to be an AT&T customer I'd have signed on with AT&T. I picked T-Mobile because their plans are cheaper, are more flexible, their phones are better (in my opinion), and they have less of a tendency to try to extort $800 out of you when somebody on your plan messes up.
If they get bought I suspect that they won't get around to dismantling 4G coverage for my phone before my contract ends. If they try to get rid of my plan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does It Matter Anymore? (Score:2)
Prior to the merger announcement way back when, I could access T-mobile's website and easily find a few different customer service numbers that would connect me to operatives almost immediately. There was even one number specially reserved for existing c
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen any of these problems. TMO in the Seattle the area is still fast and reliable, and I have more coverage (first-party, not roaming) than I did last year. The month-to-month plans are harder to find now, but they still exist. I've only had to call support once, but it was easy. The response was quick, the guy spoke English with an American accent, and he fixed one problem immediately and helped find the cause of the other.
I'm going to be very upset if TMO-US no longer exists independently when
Re: (Score:2)
I just noticed a new 3G area lit up this afternoon, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Anecdotal I know, but they have been upgrading their network for some time now.
Where are you, Colorado? (Score:2)
With 2 call centers at risk, you would think CO would be all over this. Time to get involved...
So who do I write if I want the merger to go... (Score:2)
Look, Deutsche Telekom is not going to invest any more money into T-Mobile, so someone will have to buy it, AT&T is as good a choice as any.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we're speaking of the issue as if our opinions mattered at all, certainly there's far less grief involved in that than in forcing everyone who actually likes T-Mobile to have to switch to AT&T against their will.
nothing wrong with the merger (Score:2, Troll)
Again [slashdot.org] and again [slashdot.org] there is nothing wrong with the merger, it will create more pressure in this market, notice that it is not consumers, who are coming out with the lawsuit, just as always, it is the competing companies, who are afraid they will have to do actual real competition, find ways to cut prices, figure out how to increase customer satisfaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies are only created by government intervention. [mises.org] The lawsuit is brought forward by companies, who are afraid of incoming competition from a larger entity, but the only real monopolies are always enjoying government protection.
Free Market is market that is free of GOVERNMENT intervention, not a market that has no larger economies of scale. Consumers gain from economies of scale, and in this case especially, this is a good move for consumers, as they will see increase of competition, not decrease of i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain to me what is your specific problem with Microsoft?
Free Market allows economies of scale to exist, if a company dominates the market for some time it only means that this is the cheapest product that can be provided at the best quality that can be provided for some time.
Obviously competitors were forming while Microsoft had its success. From Apple to Free software, competition was coming on line.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company that dominates market for some amount of time, o
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say I have a problem with the Microsoft monopoly. You claimed that all monopolies are created by government. I just wanted you to elaborate on the government's involvement in creating the Microsoft monopoly. I am having a hard time finding any information to that effect. As far as the Google monopoly goes I think i figured that one out. Government created the Internet (apranet) and now Google has a monopoly on searching the Internet. So government created the Google monopoly. Just want to
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed that all monopolies are created by government.
- I am still claiming it.
Monopolies are systems that are maintained by government regulations, taxation, laws, subsidies. Monopolies do not form in absence of government, in absence of government economies of scale can form, but if they are not serving the public interest of low cost and high value, then they will lose customers to somebody who will provide lower cost and higher value.
Government created the Internet (apranet) and now Google has a monopoly on searching the Internet.
1. Google is not a monopoly.
2. TCP/IP was only one protocol out of variety of other protocols that already existed prior t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is part of regulations, which inhibit business formation.
In this case the inhibition comes in form of protection of Microsoft against redistribution of the product bought from them by third parties. Copyright laws do not allow alternative channels of distribution, which would compete with the original creator/provider. You may or may not see this is a 'good' thing, but regardless of the moral objections it prevents competition in distribution of the material from forming by government protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'm a customer and I oppose the merger.
What do you propose - that I file a lawsuit against AT&T and T-Mobile? They'll no doubt have the jurisdiction transferred to some court halfway across the country, no doubt citing some provision in my contract that allows this. Then they'll probably try to dismiss it. I don't have the luxury of taking a year off of work to write legal briefs, or the money to fly out to deposition corporate shills and show up in courtrooms who knows where. It would be a hard
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'm a customer and I oppose the merger.
- excellent. Then you have the most important vote of all - vote of your dollars.
You can spend your money elsewhere, and that's the only message that counts. Getting government into this will only worsen the situation in the long run, as all government involvement does.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, who do you propose I give my money to? I want to give it to T-mobile, and the forces of monopolization are slowly getting rid of that option for me.
Natural monopolies are a perfectly valid place for government interference. If you don't want the government to dictate how you operate, then don't buy cell phone towers.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a 'natural monopoly', but there are economies of scale and there are government created monopolies - franchises and AT&T was one of these, and over 3000 companies were destroyed by the government to achieve that [mises.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm fine with splitting up the cell companies if that is what you're proposing.
My solution would be that companies that provide cell phone service should not be permitted to own either towers or spectrum. Just standardize the protocols and have utilities run the towers and sell bandwidth to cell phone providers. You'd have multiple utilities in any given area, and no utility could cover more than so many square miles. Now no one company holds enough sway to control prices.
In any case, the original
Re: (Score:2)
No, my response is not that you shouldn't complain. My response is that customers who don't like the service should vote with their wallets, not try and destroy the free market by attacking it with government dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like the service. How do I vote with my wallets for an option that the "free market" is about to get rid of?
Besides - a situation where there are only 3-4 companies in a given space is hardly a "free market."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about split it off and run it solo... That said, have you considered that DT might be interested in having T-Mobile purchased for the terms AT&T offered and is willing to make statements in support of the transaction?
What?! Perish the thought!
You can tell someone "you know, there are street criminals who would actually shoot someone for the $50 in their wallet" and they will readily believe you. Despite that, everyone knows that businessmen would never, ever use deception when millions of dollars are at stake. I mean, for fuck's sake, they wear suits. No one who dresses nicely would do bad things. You're a paranoid raving lunatic tin-foil hatter if you don't agree.
Re: (Score:2)
"T-Mobile has the best prepaid plans of any carrier."
I pay $25/month (it will be $35 if you aren't grandfathered) for unlimited data and 300 talk minutes on Virgin Mobile. Works for me, since I used about 14 of those talk minutes last month and a shitload of data. Plans were cheaper across the board than T-Mobile. Of course, you'd be CDMA on Sprint's network, which may or may not work for you. But regardless, T-Mobile is hardly the cheapest prepaid option.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint is much smaller than AT&T and probably would be allowed to buy T-mobile. T-mobile does make money, plus it will get free spectrum and favorable terms on roaming agreements if the deal falls through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Sprint and T-mobile use different technologies and have different market shares.
Believe it or not, the difference is more one of business policy than actual technology. As a practical matter, any phone built like the Motorola Photon could easily work on Sprint and T-Mobile (it can't now, because Sprint had the UMTS radio specifically created to block use of AT&T and T-Mobile). With the next version of the baseband chipset, it could probably even do HSPA+ ("4G on T-Mobile") as well.
If Sprint bought
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile would be worse off without a merger since they are treading water as it is.
Rejection by regulators would leave AT&T liable to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash, to give T-Mobile USA wireless spectrum, and to reduce charges for calls into AT&T’s network, a package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom has said. [bloomberg.com]
So actually T-Mobile will win a big concession if this falls through.
Re: (Score:2)
LTE is great but unnecessary for most phone transactions.
What we really need in this country is not so much faster speeds, but more reasonable prices and terms on what we already have! So far those that are going LTE have capped their data and raised their rates (Verizon & AT&T).
If T-Mobile bothered to market themselves on a low price/liberal terms angle they would have to fight the new customers off with a stick and could get by with HSPA+ for 3 more years! That's the reason those of us that like T
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you broke Slashdot, double-posts should be impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year.
I don't know (because anything but the summary is behind paywall) if this takes into account that in USA you are really paying for the handset for credit when in Finland and Netherlands it is far more common to pay separately for the handset (easily $500-$600 cost for a new highend-smartphone) and then select the carrier, this evens out the difference because basic plans are here dirt cheap (I have unlimited data for two SIM cards (phone and a USB adapter for laptop) for 9€/mo and phone calls - initiat