AT&T Accidentally Reveals That It Doesn't Need T-Mobile At All
from the oops dept
One of the key talking points from AT&T in support of the T-Mobile merger is that it "needs" T-Mobile's spectrum in order to expand its planned 4G/LTE networks to cover 97% of the population. And, there's no doubt that having T-Mobile's spectrum will make it easier, but that's not the same as it being necessary. As Broadband Reports has been pointing out for a while, Verizon has less spectrum than AT&T but can cover the same 97% of the population with it. Apparently a lawyer for AT&T accidentally posted a document to the FCC's site that more or less admits that AT&T doesn't need T-Mobile's spectrum, and that it could invest $3.8 billion to catch up to Verizon in terms of LTE coverage. $3.8 billion is a fair bit of money, but it's a hell of a lot less than the $38 billion that it's spending for T-Mobile. Yes, AT&T also gets T-Mobile subscribers with that, but it certainly raises questions about AT&T's claims that it would be too "costly" to invest to get to 97% coverage with its existing spectrum. As BBR notes, the timing of the letter also suggests that AT&T knew it was planning to buy T-Mobile when it decided to claim that it would "not" build out its network, perhaps recognizing that this would help give it a talking point for why the merger should be allowed.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: costs, merger, spectrum
Companies: at&t, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where is that letter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where is that letter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: where is that letter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is good news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What AT&T is paying for is the customer base, the existing networking (including some 4G stuff), which is generating about 20 billion a year of revenue. Net bottom line more than pays for the money to borrow this stuff.
They get a customer base, they get ready income, and they get more coverage up front - and best of all, enough income to pay for the take over.
They can still spend the 3.8 billion over time to improve their existing network, but now they are doing it for a much larger customer base (cost per user drops significantly).
Mike, where is your MBA from again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
None of this has _anything_ to do with whats good business, and it has everything to do with what we're going to let the market do and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It really seems like AT&T is trying to pay to buy out competition, and this document proves that their previous purchase justifications were less than honest. You have to agree that it has at least a little bit of stinky smell to it, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think for a second that the government would permit anything near a monopoly in this game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact the cell phone market might be on its way to looking like the video game console market (a very small handful of competitors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You get what you pay for.
Increasing the size of your network, and customer base, and eliminating a competitor: $38 billion.
Having a monopoly: priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's That Sound?
The deafening sounds of crickets and no one being surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]