Clearly we need to ignore the regulator and listen to the poor mom-and-pops shop AT&T.

As powerful as AT&T is, they sure are pretty whiny.

/sore losers

schief2: The latest I've heard is that if (when) their merger falls through, AT&T wants to form a "joint venture" with T-Mobile. Ummm....how the fark is that any less of a potential monopoly?

It's like they're just banking on "Fark You, We're AT&T And We're Big Enough to Do Whatever the Hell We Want" working for them sooner or later.

It worked for almost 100 years, after all (1885-1982)....

Gough: It worked for almost 100 years, after all (1885-1982)....

That was a completely different company, though. SBC is a hell of a lot worse than the company formerly known as AT&T ever was.

Goodfella: Clearly we need to ignore the regulator and listen to the poor mom-and-pops shop AT&T.

The buyout is going to happen anyway, this is just the FCC spouting off after getting bought off by someone that wants to kill the deal.

The latest I have heard is landlines may get spun back off into its own company, either way this deal will end up happening in some form.

MrEricSir: That was a completely different company, though. SBC is a hell of a lot worse than the company formerly known as AT&T ever was.

The problem is people cant understand the difference, I have had to deal with old SBC people on more than one occasion, it was farking amazing the paper trail needed to get just the simplest of tasks completed. What is amazing is that these dumb farks think they are profitable and actually are arguing about how Uverse needs to go away since its draining all their money away, they are too stupid to realize that if Uverse doesnt take off then they are dead in the broadband market.

Old Landline people are some of biggest morons on the planet, if it wasnt for government subsidies they would have been out of business years ago.

m1ke: As powerful as AT&T is, they sure are pretty whiny.

They were whiny to the US Supreme Court and Roberts slammed them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/03/01/in-att-case-chief-justice-roberts - has-a-little-fun-at-companys-expense/

A deal of this magnitude is a singular sensation which will sweep across the nation.

MrEricSir: Gough: It worked for almost 100 years, after all (1885-1982)....

That was a completely different company, though. SBC is a hell of a lot worse than the company formerly known as AT&T ever was.

True that. I was just amazed when SBC (the Baby Bell formerly known as Southwestern Bell) turned around, bought it's former parent, then changed its own name to AT&T

They STILL don't have all the service they promised to people from the last merger. Parts of Arizona and I think it was Montana that had service with another company (Alltell?)and were "swapped" to AT&T and over a year later they STILL don't have GSM service. Most of them went to Verizon because AT&T couldn't (and still hasn't) rolled out the towers they promised to serve the GSM crowd. The Arizona utilities commissioner (whatever his title is) said in the WSJ a couple days ago that he's given up on AT&T ever providing service that they promised the FCC would be in place promptly for the changeover.

The whole customer swap thing was supposed to provide more competition to Verizon in rural areas, but AT&T just can't or won't support the infrastructure necessary to compete. And if I were the FCC, I would stop them from any new deals, spectrum acquisitions, new tower technology, whatever until they manage to make good on promises made to the federal and state governments to secure their last deal. If the company can't do that, then the promises made today are no good.

BolloxReader: They STILL don't have all the service they promised to people from the last merger. Parts of Arizona and I think it was Montana that had service with another company (Alltell?)and were "swapped" to AT&T and over a year later they STILL don't have GSM service. Most of them went to Verizon because AT&T couldn't (and still hasn't) rolled out the towers they promised to serve the GSM crowd. The Arizona utilities commissioner (whatever his title is) said in the WSJ a couple days ago that he's given up on AT&T ever providing service that they promised the FCC would be in place promptly for the changeover.

The whole customer swap thing was supposed to provide more competition to Verizon in rural areas, but AT&T just can't or won't support the infrastructure necessary to compete. And if I were the FCC, I would stop them from any new deals, spectrum acquisitions, new tower technology, whatever until they manage to make good on promises made to the federal and state governments to secure their last deal. If the company can't do that, then the promises made today are no good.

A few years back, after my old phone died, I got a GSM phone for "free" (with a 2-year contract) at the nearest AT&T store (80 miles away). Even though the salesperson had all of my information (address, etc.), she didn't bother to tell me that there wasn't yet GSM service in my area. For more than a year, my phone was useful only as a doorstop when I was near home. I had to buy a dual-mode phone from a local service provider in order to have a phone where I needed it most.

The ATT lobbyist is being a stupid twat. It's the responsibility of the company to satisfy regulators, not the other way around.

If the regulators are blocking your company, there might be a good reason for that.

Fubini: The ATT lobbyist is being a stupid twat. It's the responsibility of the company to satisfy regulators, not the other way around.

If the regulators are blocking your company, there might be a good reason for that.

Yes, the other side has better lobbyists.

Megacorp is mad and will take it's ball and go home.

I'm negotiating a merger with T-Mobile's spokesmodel.

clovis69: m1ke: As powerful as AT&T is, they sure are pretty whiny.

They were whiny to the US Supreme Court and Roberts slammed them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/03/01/in-att-case-chief-justice-roberts - has-a-little-fun-at-companys-expense/

Say what you will about one set of justices or another, they are very smart and often have brutal senses of humor. Reading an opinion or a transcript of arguments just highlights that no sane person would want to get into a verbal fight with one of them. Just the way he ended that opinion was beautiful.

ChubbyTiger: clovis69: m1ke: As powerful as AT&T is, they sure are pretty whiny.

They were whiny to the US Supreme Court and Roberts slammed them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/03/01/in-att-case-chief-justice-roberts - has-a-little-fun-at-companys-expense/

Say what you will about one set of justices or another, they are very smart and often have brutal senses of humor. Reading an opinion or a transcript of arguments just highlights that no sane person would want to get into a verbal fight with one of them. Just the way he ended that opinion was beautiful.

About all of the SCOTUS can provide pretty hilarious benchslaps.

/Except Thomas