<p>
</p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Moves to Block AT&T/T-Mobile Deal - TheStreet](<a href=“http://www.thestreet.com/story/11235597/1/us-moves-to-block-attt-mobile-deal.html?puc=_mdb_html_pla2&cm_ven=EMAIL_mdb_html]U.S”>http://www.thestreet.com/story/11235597/1/us-moves-to-block-attt-mobile-deal.html?puc=_mdb_html_pla2&cm_ven=EMAIL_mdb_html)</p>
<p>Consumers would be harmed by higher prices and fewer choices if the merger goes through.</p>
<p>Potential employees will be harmed by lack of jobs due to the merger not happening (referencing bringing the jobs back to the USA).</p>
<p>It seems that most people decide between Verizon and AT&T anyway so I say let the merger happen - there’s still competition.</p>
<p>We’re stuck with t-mobile which at one time served us well, but no longer does. We don’t even get a decent connection in our house any more. We were really rooting for the merger, though I still think we want to switch to Verizon when we get a chance.</p>
<p>I for one, am happy at DOJ’s decision. ATT’s late game antics (the possible return of off-shore jobs) is likely a wide-eyed fantasy. And if T-Mobile service is so bad, why does ATT want it? Let T-Mobile die a natural death, which will certainly happen if its customers are constantly antagonized.</p>
<p>Having a single GSM provider in this country would be a mistake. Then again, the metric system in the U.S.A. never went over well either.</p>
<p>
Apparently it’s mostly for the T-Mobile 4G network. T-Mobile must have improved some things since I switched from T-Mobile to AT&T because T-Mobile’s coverage was so bad in the areas I spent most of my time. </p>
<p>I think the government should stay out of it. This is just one more case of the government interfering with business too much. If they merge and customers don’t like it they can switch to Verizon or Sprint or other companies will pop up and fill the void if there is one.</p>
<p>Edited to say - I just used the word ‘government’ in my post which I guess can get political pretty quickly so I guess I should back out of this discussion.</p>
<p>I believe that Verizon and Sprint do not use GSM.</p>
<p>^^ That’s true but I think most consumers don’t really care what the underlying technology is and regardless, there’s nothing stopping Verizon and Sprint from putting in a GSM infrastructure if they feel they need to because that’s what customers demand (other than the practical side of the cost). For business travelers who want a phone that’ll work in Europe (GSM) Verizon has some models that’ll work on both their own and GSM networks.</p>
<p>Whoops - I wasn’t going to post anymore on this one but this was just a technical aspect.</p>
<p>UCSD<em>UCLA</em>DAD, I’m no techician but I’m guessing there’s more to the wireless companies’ strategies for not fully embracing GSM than just the customers’ interests. A lot of people I talk to (certainly not a scientific sampling) would love to be able to use the same phone and switch carriers at their convenience. The CDMA network and long- term contracts typically restrict such opportunity in the U.S., even though most other wireless customers in the rest of the world have this option.</p>
<p>My guess is that American companies aren’t keen on GSM because of the options, i.e. competition, it providers for customers.</p>
<p>It is worrisome to me that those 2 large wireless companies are considering merger. I don´t think this is going to be good for the consumers. As someone who just experienced Continental/United merger, I would say the service we are getting now is a lot worse - lines are longer, price is higher, many amenities we used to get on Continental are gone. I think it would be the same with ATT and T-mobile merger. Verizon services (phones) do not work globally. Anyone who travels outside of US would not choose Verizon.</p>
<p>Telcel is the only viable wireless company in Mexico, whenever other little companies start up, they are crushed by Telcel. It costs USD $80 for a no frill BB with data service, no unlimited texting or air time. It would be hard to believe their infrastructure is more expensive than US. They probably could put up a wireless tower any where without needing a lot of approval. It would also be hard to believe that it is because people could afford it because most people make less than $1000/mon. They charege what they charge because they can, and people do not have a choice.</p>
<p>Oldfort, we must have closely aligned karma. LOL! I was thinking the same thing about the UA / CA merger (just started a new thread on the topic). I also agree … don’t think consumers will benefit from a T-mobile / ATT wireless merger.</p>
<p>We had no service at our house with AT&T so we switched to Tmobile last year. We get good service in our general home/ work/school areas, and the pricing structure was much better for us. We also had a couple of negative experiences with customer service with AT&T.</p>
<p>I wasn’t happy to hear about the merger since I imagine rates would go up.</p>
<p>Verizon services (phones) do not work globally. Anyone who travels outside of US would not choose Verizon.</p>
<p>My daughter travels quite a bit & just gets a local sim card etc when she travels-</p>
<p>if you want to keep your phone #, which is important for business people, a local sim card doesn´t do it.</p>
<p>
Verizon has quite a number of phones that also support GSM and work internationally. Go to their website and you’ll see them.</p>
<p>Regarding the contracts - consumers choose whether to get a contract or not. There are already no contract phones/plans available. Many of us choose to enter a contract based on the economics - i.e. the phone company subsidizes the cost of the phone in exchange for the ‘contract’ and we’re willing to exhchange a 2 year commitment in order to get the cheaper phone. If you don’t want a contract then pay the real price for the phone (an unlocked one) and pay as you go.</p>
<p>From a practical perspective, most people wouldn’t switch the carrier every other month anyway so after a couple of years with a particular carrier they re-evaluate what’s available and just get a new subsidized phone with the new carrier rather than trying to use their old phone. Even with the same carrier many people switch out the phones every couple of years or so for one with new technology and the companies typically subsidize this.</p>
<p>We don’t disagree here, UCSD_UCLA. Most folks base their decision on the economic consequences. Remember when long distance calling first began to become a commodity? The competition among Long Distance companies encourged them to offer all kinds of $$ incentives for customers to switch providers. I remember people who switched companies more than once a year when MCI, Bell Atlantic and others were paying you to do so.</p>
<p>I literally live within sight of TMobile’s corporate offices. I have AT&T and can only get 2 bars on my phone most of the time. I was really hoping for the merger to improve my connection…darn ;-)</p>
<p>Those who hope that a merged AT&T-Tmo will improve coverage are way too optimistic. </p>
<p>Ask yourself one basic question. Why is it that I can’t ROAM with AT&T? so, if I have 0.001 bars of AT&T network and 3 bars of T-mo, will I latch to T-mo? the answer is NO. </p>
<p>It took AT&T 2+ years to ‘fully integrate’ another acquisition they did in 2009 into their network (Centennial) and even so, coverage barely improved where I am. </p>
<p>If the merger goes thru, the only GSM carrier in the US will be the expensive one, and good luck with that. Part of the reason Europe has much better options for cell service is the competition.</p>