AT&T vows to bring back 5,000 U.S. jobs if merger approved
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
source: Forbes
Government sues to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger
WASHINGTON --
The Justice Department filed suit Wednesday to block AT&T's $39 billion deal to buy T-Mobile USA on grounds that it would raise prices for consumers.
The government contends that the acquisition of the No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T would reduce competition.
At a news conference, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the combination would result in "tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services."
The lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of competition, said Cole.
AT&T said it would fight and ask for an expedited court hearing "so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed." The company said the government "has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive effects, and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court."
Four nationwide providers - Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint - account for more than 90 percent of mobile wireless connections.
T-Mobile has been an important source of competition, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network, according to Sharis Pozen, acting chief of Justice's antitrust division.
Mobile wireless telecom services play an increasing role in day-to-day communications, with more than 300 million smart phones, data cards, tablets and other mobile wireless devices in use.
Deutsche Telekom, the owner of T-Mobile, had no immediate comment.
AT&T and T-Mobile compete nationwide, in 97 of the largest 100 cellular marketing areas, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
It says AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a competitive factor through low pricing and innovation.
Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps, a Democrat and a staunch opponent of industry consolidation, said that he shares "the concerns about competition and have numerous other concerns about the public interest effects of the proposed transaction, including consumer choice and innovation."
Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who heads the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, said the suit was an effort to protect consumers "in a powerful and growing industry that reaches virtually every American."
The suit used some of T-Mobile's own documents describing its role in the market to explain why the merger shouldn't take place. In those documents, the company calls itself "the No. 1 challenger of the established big guys in the market and as well positioned in a consolidated 4-player national market."
T-Mobile said its strategy is to attack other companies and find innovative ways to overcome the fact that it is a smaller company.
T-Mobile "will be faster, more agile and scrappy, with diligence on decisions and costs both big and small," one company document said. "Our approach to market will not be conventional, and we will push to the boundaries where possible."
The suit also says the anti-competitive problems a merger would cause cannot be overcome by regional companies.
Regional companies lack national networks, so are limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers, the lawsuit states.
Government sues to block AT&T, T-Mobile merger
WASHINGTON --
The Justice Department filed suit Wednesday to block AT&T's $39 billion deal to buy T-Mobile USA on grounds that it would raise prices for consumers.
The government contends that the acquisition of the No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T would reduce competition.
At a news conference, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the combination would result in "tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services."
The lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of competition, said Cole.
AT&T said it would fight and ask for an expedited court hearing "so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed." The company said the government "has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive effects, and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court."
Four nationwide providers - Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint - account for more than 90 percent of mobile wireless connections.
T-Mobile has been an important source of competition, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network, according to Sharis Pozen, acting chief of Justice's antitrust division.
Mobile wireless telecom services play an increasing role in day-to-day communications, with more than 300 million smart phones, data cards, tablets and other mobile wireless devices in use.
Deutsche Telekom, the owner of T-Mobile, had no immediate comment.
AT&T and T-Mobile compete nationwide, in 97 of the largest 100 cellular marketing areas, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
It says AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a competitive factor through low pricing and innovation.
Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps, a Democrat and a staunch opponent of industry consolidation, said that he shares "the concerns about competition and have numerous other concerns about the public interest effects of the proposed transaction, including consumer choice and innovation."
Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who heads the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, said the suit was an effort to protect consumers "in a powerful and growing industry that reaches virtually every American."
The suit used some of T-Mobile's own documents describing its role in the market to explain why the merger shouldn't take place. In those documents, the company calls itself "the No. 1 challenger of the established big guys in the market and as well positioned in a consolidated 4-player national market."
T-Mobile said its strategy is to attack other companies and find innovative ways to overcome the fact that it is a smaller company.
T-Mobile "will be faster, more agile and scrappy, with diligence on decisions and costs both big and small," one company document said. "Our approach to market will not be conventional, and we will push to the boundaries where possible."
The suit also says the anti-competitive problems a merger would cause cannot be overcome by regional companies.
Regional companies lack national networks, so are limited in their ability to compete with the four national carriers, the lawsuit states.
Ok lets put this together...
Obama "wants" to create jobs.
However, he doesn't want current businesses to become "too big".
Yet, he wants to propose a "jobs" bill. *I know Gunner will correct me on this, but isn't this the 4th so-called jobs plan?*
BTW, competition will always be there. Verizon, and Sprint has a huge following.
With that being said, lets be honest. ATT is based in Texas. Texas getting more jobs *not minimum wage*. This is purely political. This has nothing to do with consumers because if ATT really wanted to rip off consumers, they would have raised rates even before the deal. The Justice Department's logic is flawed. Besides, when did Obama start caring about consumers?
Last time I checked, gas is still fucking high. We don't see his bullshit administration doing shit about that.
OH yea, he will be a one term president, and I will be voting for the opponent.
I'm done....
Obama "wants" to create jobs.
However, he doesn't want current businesses to become "too big".
Yet, he wants to propose a "jobs" bill. *I know Gunner will correct me on this, but isn't this the 4th so-called jobs plan?*
BTW, competition will always be there. Verizon, and Sprint has a huge following.
With that being said, lets be honest. ATT is based in Texas. Texas getting more jobs *not minimum wage*. This is purely political. This has nothing to do with consumers because if ATT really wanted to rip off consumers, they would have raised rates even before the deal. The Justice Department's logic is flawed. Besides, when did Obama start caring about consumers?
Last time I checked, gas is still fucking high. We don't see his bullshit administration doing shit about that.
OH yea, he will be a one term president, and I will be voting for the opponent.
I'm done....
Nafta....
A dispute among the ignorant! LOL!
LOL! Boycott, what about capitalism?
Signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992.
In actuality it was the 1986 round (Reagan) of the GATT agreement that led to NAFTA. The 1973 (Nixon) round of GATT was the beginning of the end.
BTW, your boy Rick Perry is all for NAFTA.
Rick Perry's NAFTA Superhighway Problem
LOL! Boycott, what about capitalism?
Signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992.
In actuality it was the 1986 round (Reagan) of the GATT agreement that led to NAFTA. The 1973 (Nixon) round of GATT was the beginning of the end.
BTW, your boy Rick Perry is all for NAFTA.
Rick Perry's NAFTA Superhighway Problem
Last edited:
This shit is funny....
He will win the next one Harvard President always win twice
You put quotations around the word "wants". You don't believe Obama wants more job creation? You think he likes the sound of 9% unemployment on his watch?
Don't see how being against companies being too big is all of a sudden a bad thing. More companies and competition seems to suggest more jobs and more places to work.
Political? I know you enjoyed the past President who openly, and illegally, turned the Justice Dept into a political arm of his Administration but that doesn't mean everyone thinks like Bush/Rove.
AT&T could raise rates but they're in a very competitive field so that would be smart.
If they can create 5k jobs, why not just do it anyway? Hell, that' probably 4k more customers for them.
Obama doesn't care about consumers? Okay. You see someone running on the Republican ticket that does? I don't see any in Washington now since they were unanimously against the Consumer Protection Agency and dead set against the popular Elizabeth Warren running it.
5000 jobs would still be a net loss. And those 5000 jobs are low paying call center jobs currently being done by some Indian named George.
the two combined companies would end up loosing at least 25% of the current workforce because it would be redundant.
Nextel ain't been shit since Sprint bought them up
Exactly. This isn't really that complex and I can't fathom what the arguments against blocking this merger would be. Unless you're a telecommunications tycoon that is.
Monopolies are never a good thing.... I thought you market evangelists understood this.
Exactly. This isn't really that complex and I can't fathom what the arguments against blocking this merger would be. Unless you're a telecommunications tycoon that is.
Monopolies are never a good thing.... I thought you market evangelists understood this.
And dude thinks Texas would get higher than minimum wage jobs ?
Dude built his resume on minimum wage jobs and being anti-union.
Just my two cents...
I worked at both Nextel and AT&T... that merger mess is nothing more than bullshit!
The owner of Nextel was trying to get rid of that and take the quick pay-off. He didn't want the headaches anymore. Nextel bought a lot of unnecessary software that had more bugs in it than a little bit to make it appear that their money was being spent wisely (the delusional bullshit). Timothy Donahue (owner and said CEO) only kept renewing its pattern annually until he got Nextel off his hands. MCI was suppose to buy it but because of a stock market leak the deal stopped. When Sprint bought Nextel...it cost more to unite the services which sprint thought was going to be easy since Nextel release global access (using the satellites). Many lost their jobs in the merger. They used the top people to train their replacements who were getting lower salaries than those that knew their jobs inside and out. Those that were good/great and getting good pay, got released.
I was hired at Cingular who was said to have bought out AT&T...six months after being hired it was rumored that AT&T would buy out Cingular (truth was...it already had happened. It was all a tax evasion tactic. They only honored the Cingular benefits for a short while before changing everything up (back to the AT&T way but worst). Basically, the tactic of the merger will create 5,000 jobs but then watch them make excuses onto why they have to eliminate 6 to 7 thousand jobs. Besides...AT&T buying T-Mobile is the venture of a monopoly. Which is why the government stepped in.
This is not gibberish this is real talk. Pay attention to the signs. Obama tried by giving large corporations tax breaks and bailouts thinking they were going to create and/or maintain their job-status-quo which was suppose to lower unemployment...instead they pocketed the monies and left Obama looking like he assisted them instead of them doing what they were suppose to do with the monies. Be thankful the government stepped in.
I worked at both Nextel and AT&T... that merger mess is nothing more than bullshit!
The owner of Nextel was trying to get rid of that and take the quick pay-off. He didn't want the headaches anymore. Nextel bought a lot of unnecessary software that had more bugs in it than a little bit to make it appear that their money was being spent wisely (the delusional bullshit). Timothy Donahue (owner and said CEO) only kept renewing its pattern annually until he got Nextel off his hands. MCI was suppose to buy it but because of a stock market leak the deal stopped. When Sprint bought Nextel...it cost more to unite the services which sprint thought was going to be easy since Nextel release global access (using the satellites). Many lost their jobs in the merger. They used the top people to train their replacements who were getting lower salaries than those that knew their jobs inside and out. Those that were good/great and getting good pay, got released.
I was hired at Cingular who was said to have bought out AT&T...six months after being hired it was rumored that AT&T would buy out Cingular (truth was...it already had happened. It was all a tax evasion tactic. They only honored the Cingular benefits for a short while before changing everything up (back to the AT&T way but worst). Basically, the tactic of the merger will create 5,000 jobs but then watch them make excuses onto why they have to eliminate 6 to 7 thousand jobs. Besides...AT&T buying T-Mobile is the venture of a monopoly. Which is why the government stepped in.
This is not gibberish this is real talk. Pay attention to the signs. Obama tried by giving large corporations tax breaks and bailouts thinking they were going to create and/or maintain their job-status-quo which was suppose to lower unemployment...instead they pocketed the monies and left Obama looking like he assisted them instead of them doing what they were suppose to do with the monies. Be thankful the government stepped in.
they are not even saying they are creating 5000 jobs.They are saying they are bringing back 5000 jobs..The call center will be in the US instead of India.
Good info though dude thanks.
I went through two mergers when I worked IT for a bank that acquired two other banks and there was a lot of lost jobs.
Right now United airlines employees are going through that because they bought continental.
United saw the amount of buyouts and changed the rules
every employee has to reapply for their jobs
if you don't reapply you will not be eligible for severance
if they offer you a job and it requires relocation and you don't accept you are not eligible for severance.
the only way you get severance is you reapply and are not offered a position.
And everybody won't get an offered because they don't need all the United employees and all the Continental employees
Good info though dude thanks.
I went through two mergers when I worked IT for a bank that acquired two other banks and there was a lot of lost jobs.
Right now United airlines employees are going through that because they bought continental.
United saw the amount of buyouts and changed the rules
every employee has to reapply for their jobs
if you don't reapply you will not be eligible for severance
if they offer you a job and it requires relocation and you don't accept you are not eligible for severance.
the only way you get severance is you reapply and are not offered a position.
And everybody won't get an offered because they don't need all the United employees and all the Continental employees
source: The Nation
Robber-Baron Rick Perry's Got $500,000 in AT&T Money That Says America Needs More Media Monopoly
If anyone needed a reminder that Democrats and Republicans still differ on some fundamental issues, it has come with the decision of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to block the merger of T-Mobile and AT&T.
In a rare but encouraging blow against the sort of business behemoths that anti-trust laws were designed to constrain—especially in areas so critical as communications—Deputy Attorney General James Cole declared: “We believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices, and lower-quality products for their mobile wireless services.”
“Anyway you look at it, this deal is anti-competitive,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen, who explained that an “exhaustive investigation” by the Justice Department had concluded that removing a low-cost, innovative wireless carrier from a market that is already dominated by two major players would result in less competition and innovation and higher prices for consumers.
Craig Aaron, the president and CEO of the media-reform group Free Press, hailed a moment where “facts and law had trumped politics.” “Blocking this merger is a major victory for the public interest," he said. "The Justice Department clearly based their decision on the facts, and, as Free Press has argued from the start, the overwhelming evidence shows that this merger would lead to higher prices, few choices for consumers, and massive job cuts.”
“It’s encouraging to see the federal regulators have not been snowed by AT&T’s promises and bluster. Its smoke-and-mirrors effort was a good front for a while, but when you get down to the facts of the matter, this was a bad idea from the start, and no amount of corporate spin overcome that reality,” added Aaron. But he warned, “AT&T has already invested untold millions in lobbying and campaign contributions, and it is going to play every card in the deck to try to get this merger done.”
AT&T will have an ally who is never going to be accused of putting facts and the law ahead of politics: Texas Governor Rick Perry.
The front-runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nod has positioned himself as a champion of big business—especially when big business wants to get bigger.
Not only has Perry endorsed the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, he has actively promoted it, writing a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and the other commissioners, in which he argued that “this merger will continue to provide for great consumer choice, offer a wide range of service options, and spur continued innovation.”
The governor’s letter, sent in his official capacity before he announced his candidacy, urged federal officials to adopt “a light regulatory touch” and “business-friendly policies.”
Perry, who has tried to present himself as a tech-savvy contender (even if he does not quite have the language of Twitter and tweets down), argued in the letter that “the future rests in wireless broadband, and the federal government’s swift approval of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would send a strong signal to employers, consumers, and states that our federal government is serious about meeting the communication and technology needs of Texans and all Americans.’
That’s not how the Justice Department or consumer groups see it.
So what’s behind Perry’s different perspective?
Gee, perhaps it is the more than $500,000 that AT&T’s political action committee has given Perry over the past decade.
Watchdog groups accused Perry of engaging in “pay-to-play” politics, which sounds about right.
It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who at the start of the last century embraced the trust-busting program of the Progressive Era and taught America that monopolies were bad for consumers, competition and democracy.
Rick Perry is not a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. And, despite his techie pretensions, he is not a 21st-century Republican, or even a twentieth-century one.
Perry’s an old-fashioned nineteenth-century robber-baron Republican. And he’s writing letters to prove it.
Robber-Baron Rick Perry's Got $500,000 in AT&T Money That Says America Needs More Media Monopoly
If anyone needed a reminder that Democrats and Republicans still differ on some fundamental issues, it has come with the decision of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to block the merger of T-Mobile and AT&T.
In a rare but encouraging blow against the sort of business behemoths that anti-trust laws were designed to constrain—especially in areas so critical as communications—Deputy Attorney General James Cole declared: “We believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices, and lower-quality products for their mobile wireless services.”
“Anyway you look at it, this deal is anti-competitive,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sharis Pozen, who explained that an “exhaustive investigation” by the Justice Department had concluded that removing a low-cost, innovative wireless carrier from a market that is already dominated by two major players would result in less competition and innovation and higher prices for consumers.
Craig Aaron, the president and CEO of the media-reform group Free Press, hailed a moment where “facts and law had trumped politics.” “Blocking this merger is a major victory for the public interest," he said. "The Justice Department clearly based their decision on the facts, and, as Free Press has argued from the start, the overwhelming evidence shows that this merger would lead to higher prices, few choices for consumers, and massive job cuts.”
“It’s encouraging to see the federal regulators have not been snowed by AT&T’s promises and bluster. Its smoke-and-mirrors effort was a good front for a while, but when you get down to the facts of the matter, this was a bad idea from the start, and no amount of corporate spin overcome that reality,” added Aaron. But he warned, “AT&T has already invested untold millions in lobbying and campaign contributions, and it is going to play every card in the deck to try to get this merger done.”
AT&T will have an ally who is never going to be accused of putting facts and the law ahead of politics: Texas Governor Rick Perry.
The front-runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nod has positioned himself as a champion of big business—especially when big business wants to get bigger.
Not only has Perry endorsed the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, he has actively promoted it, writing a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and the other commissioners, in which he argued that “this merger will continue to provide for great consumer choice, offer a wide range of service options, and spur continued innovation.”
The governor’s letter, sent in his official capacity before he announced his candidacy, urged federal officials to adopt “a light regulatory touch” and “business-friendly policies.”
Perry, who has tried to present himself as a tech-savvy contender (even if he does not quite have the language of Twitter and tweets down), argued in the letter that “the future rests in wireless broadband, and the federal government’s swift approval of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would send a strong signal to employers, consumers, and states that our federal government is serious about meeting the communication and technology needs of Texans and all Americans.’
That’s not how the Justice Department or consumer groups see it.
So what’s behind Perry’s different perspective?
Gee, perhaps it is the more than $500,000 that AT&T’s political action committee has given Perry over the past decade.
Watchdog groups accused Perry of engaging in “pay-to-play” politics, which sounds about right.
It was a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, who at the start of the last century embraced the trust-busting program of the Progressive Era and taught America that monopolies were bad for consumers, competition and democracy.
Rick Perry is not a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. And, despite his techie pretensions, he is not a 21st-century Republican, or even a twentieth-century one.
Perry’s an old-fashioned nineteenth-century robber-baron Republican. And he’s writing letters to prove it.
No difference between the parties?
source: The Hill
Rick Perry reiterates support for AT&T/T-Mobile merger
Republican Rick Perry's presidential campaign reiterated the Texas governor's support for AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile on Thursday, one day after the Justice Department sued to block the deal.
"AT&T is a highly-regarded Texas-based company, creating thousands of good American jobs and providing critical communications services worldwide," Mark Miner, a spokesman for Perry, said in an email. "Governor Perry believes the combination of the two telecom companies will be good for consumers, good for technology innovation and good for America job creation."
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>GA_googleFillSlot("HilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250");</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1314920901140&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&pstok=lXR_E29sEjgKDQoLCPmmpQMQ-YCT3h0KDQoLCJnUnQMQ0fSfnx0KAAoNCgsI-anUAhC5mIuSGQoNCgsI-anUAhCRsZCSGQ&client=ca-pub-5456982649231368&slotname=HilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250&page_slots=HilliconValley_Leaderboard_728x90%2CLeftEar_184x90%2CPushdown_970x66_expandable%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83_2%2CHilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250&cust_params=Section%3D21%26Category%3D605%26Article%3D179249&cookie=ID%3Dc81224a2d364b079%3AT%3D1314271417%3AS%3DALNI_Mb8l3gZF3Aibnebd96ozw8v4lmOng&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhillicon-valley%2Ftechnology%2F179249-rick-perry-reiterates-support-for-atatt-mobile-merger&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26source%3Dhp%26biw%3D665%26bih%3D341%26q%3Datt%2Brick%2Bperry%26oq%3Datt%2Brick%2Bperry%26aq%3Df%26aqi%3D%26aql%3D%26gs_sm%3De%26gs_upl%3D1531l9672l0l10062l25l24l6l3l0l0l203l1545l7.7.1l15l0&lmt=1314920903&dt=1314920903296&cc=100&oe=utf-8&biw=648&bih=325&ifi=6&adk=2339981367&u_tz=-240&u_his=2&u_java=true&u_h=512&u_w=683&u_ah=487&u_aw=683&u_cd=32&flash=10.3.183.5&gads=v2&ga_vid=1344968483.1314271407&ga_sid=1314920438&ga_hid=929264833&ga_fc=true"></SCRIPT>
Perry wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in May urging the agency to approve the deal. He said the merger would be a boon for the Texas economy and would improve broadband access in rural areas.
"The future rests in wireless broadband, and the federal government's swift approval of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would send a strong signal to employers, consumers and states that our federal government is serious about meeting the communication and technology needs of Texans and all Americans," Perry wrote.
The FCC is still conducting its review. The Justice Department filed suit on Wednesday, arguing the deal would illegally reduce competition in the wireless market.
source: The Hill
Rick Perry reiterates support for AT&T/T-Mobile merger
Republican Rick Perry's presidential campaign reiterated the Texas governor's support for AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile on Thursday, one day after the Justice Department sued to block the deal.
"AT&T is a highly-regarded Texas-based company, creating thousands of good American jobs and providing critical communications services worldwide," Mark Miner, a spokesman for Perry, said in an email. "Governor Perry believes the combination of the two telecom companies will be good for consumers, good for technology innovation and good for America job creation."
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>GA_googleFillSlot("HilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250");</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1314920901140&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&pstok=lXR_E29sEjgKDQoLCPmmpQMQ-YCT3h0KDQoLCJnUnQMQ0fSfnx0KAAoNCgsI-anUAhC5mIuSGQoNCgsI-anUAhCRsZCSGQ&client=ca-pub-5456982649231368&slotname=HilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250&page_slots=HilliconValley_Leaderboard_728x90%2CLeftEar_184x90%2CPushdown_970x66_expandable%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83%2CHouseTest_HPButton87x83_2%2CHilliconValley_ContentSquare_300x250&cust_params=Section%3D21%26Category%3D605%26Article%3D179249&cookie=ID%3Dc81224a2d364b079%3AT%3D1314271417%3AS%3DALNI_Mb8l3gZF3Aibnebd96ozw8v4lmOng&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhillicon-valley%2Ftechnology%2F179249-rick-perry-reiterates-support-for-atatt-mobile-merger&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Den%26source%3Dhp%26biw%3D665%26bih%3D341%26q%3Datt%2Brick%2Bperry%26oq%3Datt%2Brick%2Bperry%26aq%3Df%26aqi%3D%26aql%3D%26gs_sm%3De%26gs_upl%3D1531l9672l0l10062l25l24l6l3l0l0l203l1545l7.7.1l15l0&lmt=1314920903&dt=1314920903296&cc=100&oe=utf-8&biw=648&bih=325&ifi=6&adk=2339981367&u_tz=-240&u_his=2&u_java=true&u_h=512&u_w=683&u_ah=487&u_aw=683&u_cd=32&flash=10.3.183.5&gads=v2&ga_vid=1344968483.1314271407&ga_sid=1314920438&ga_hid=929264833&ga_fc=true"></SCRIPT>
Perry wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in May urging the agency to approve the deal. He said the merger would be a boon for the Texas economy and would improve broadband access in rural areas.
"The future rests in wireless broadband, and the federal government's swift approval of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would send a strong signal to employers, consumers and states that our federal government is serious about meeting the communication and technology needs of Texans and all Americans," Perry wrote.
The FCC is still conducting its review. The Justice Department filed suit on Wednesday, arguing the deal would illegally reduce competition in the wireless market.
Why wouldn't he support it. AT&T HQ is in TX. T Mobile USA is based in WA. Since I don't live in either state I am against it. My friends in TX are for it because it will probably mean more jobs for TX. They don't need to control almost 3/4 of the cellular market here. Prices are already high enough.
Seriously, we're talking about donors now?
I guess if it was GE merging with T-mobile it would be alright?
This move was purely political. You haven't heard shit about this until Perry got in the race.
While we're talking about jobs, why everyone talking down on minimum wage jobs like there's no chance to move up in the company? Nobody ever heard of "crawling before you walk". If you're living off a minimum wage job, in Texas, you obviously need to look at yourself in the mirror. Perhaps you need to ask yourself some hard questions about how you got there. Then fix your current situation. I'm saying this because I had to do it. Hell, I might have to do it again if the Post Office decides to go under.
In my eyes, a job is a job.
I guess if it was GE merging with T-mobile it would be alright?
This move was purely political. You haven't heard shit about this until Perry got in the race.
While we're talking about jobs, why everyone talking down on minimum wage jobs like there's no chance to move up in the company? Nobody ever heard of "crawling before you walk". If you're living off a minimum wage job, in Texas, you obviously need to look at yourself in the mirror. Perhaps you need to ask yourself some hard questions about how you got there. Then fix your current situation. I'm saying this because I had to do it. Hell, I might have to do it again if the Post Office decides to go under.
In my eyes, a job is a job.
Not many jobs that pay minimum wage have that much room to grow in the first place. And that start in the mail room and end up CEO is some TV shit. Like I said most companies now staff mail rooms with contractors.
As to looking in the mirror, Texas already has some of the worst education in the country and with his cuts it is only going to get worse.
Now Texas was known for some good Universities but he is gutting them to.
Minimum wage should be your first job or a job while you are in school not what you have to look forward to when you finish school.
But then again he isn't living paycheck to paycheck with his circle of supporters.
Bush was a myth and bankrupted every company he had given to him and then his bankrupted the country.Don't know why anybody would think he would do anything else with his past.
Absolutely untrue. I've been against it from the day I heard about it, awhile ago. My company has been with T-Mobile for several years. I switched to T-Mobile years ago because of costs influenced by the competition. If the No. 2 (AT&T) and No. 4 (T-Mobile) merge, the result is 2 big companys, and no incentive to compete. T-Mobile has an unlimited data plan (that benefits my company) and AT&T doesn't -- any question that AT&T ends unlimited plans ??? - the result, my cost increases. I don't think any of my reasons are political, do you ???
I live in Atlanta. BellSouth, a part of ATT is headquartered here. I am against it. I see no benefit in more corporate consolidation. Even with the proposed 5000 jobs ATT is promising, the enviable redundancy that any merger will create will not offset any loss in jobs. I always look at what's best for the consumer. This would be just one less competitor and eventually, like the cable industry result in more expensive services and lower quality at the customer end.
Politics? What you will see is ATT lawyers dragging this out hoping President Obama is defeated and if Governor Secessionist is in office, waiting for his DOJ to drop the suite.
Corporations do, what is best for business, their customers...
fyi on economy/jobs
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/sa_mar_11.pdf
No!
Here we go with the liberal talking point. Let's talk about education... YEA EDUCATION IS BAD IN TEXAS.... So fucking typical.. What is this based off? Tests?
You talk about the rags to riches story is some tv shit. Like its a fairy tale. Just hearing that statement tells me how much faith you have in yourself, and in other people. So, I guess everyone needs to start out with a 50k a year job? Guess what, if that happens, professional careers will start out at 100k. Cost of living will be way up due to the higher cost of regular goods/services will be up the roof. Perhaps having jobs that start off lower wages maybe the reason more jobs are around in MY state. It would make sense to you if you could take your head out your ass.
Keep talking about how bad Bush is doing, Bush is doing so bad, Obama decided to continue most of his policies. Yet, you more than likely will give Obama an excuse like the little lackey bitch that you are.
*can you tell that I'm in a good ass mood?*
I'm not talking about your personal view on this. I'm talking about Obama's justice department reasoning for barring the merger. It's purely political. BTW, how many jobs ATT has outside of the US anyway?
You challenge the contention about Texas education no contrary information, huh? Weak, AAA.
I'm glad there are so many jobs in Texas with your 8.4% unemployment. Many of those jobs have turned out to be government jobs so while everyone else is cutting public sector jobs, Perry is adding them. I guess that's something to like about him.
But aren't you giving your personal view on this?
Last edited:
Can you name a better yard stick?
No its based off living there and seeing first hand how bad the schools are.
The tests confirms it
No rags to riches is the exception and for Perry to act like it is a normal progression blowing smoke
Lower wages don't keep the costs down it just gives the executives more in their pockets.
A pair of Nike s cost less that 5 dollars to make so why do they cost 150 to buy?
The question is not how many jobs AT&T has outside the country. The question is how many jobs inside the country will be lost due to the merger.
How many of the higher paying union jobs with better benefits will be lost in favor of the non union jobs that T-Mobile will handle with worse benefits. But that will fall in line with the many Perry jobs that are low paying with no benefits.
The 5000 jobs are low paying call center jobs.
Oh and you mistake me I am not a little bitch I am a big bitch that would bitchslap you and dare you to complain. So miss me with your behind the keyboard name calling.
