T-Mobile and AT&T Merger Essay

If they are able to maintain the loyalty of most of their current customers, the companies will then have a shared amount of about 100 million customers. This potential customer volume for the merging companies would greatly outnumber the customer volume of the industry leaders, AT&T and Verizon. This kind of turnout would create greater competition between the two merging companies and the two leading companies (Sprint Wireless News, 2014). Although the outcomes seem promising for Sprint and T-Mobile, there are also potential negative effects of a merger that the companies should take into consideration. Current Sprint and T-Mobile customers have expressed their fear of the possible merger for multiple reasons. The two biggest worries for telecommunication services consumers is the potential for rising costs and a reduction in provider options (John, 2016). In making a final decision, the companies, as well as the Federal Communications Commission, should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a

It seems like T-Mobile doesn’t get out of one problem and get into another. Last year a National Labor Relations Board judge decided that the employment policies of T-Mobile defied the United States labor law by impeding workers’ ability to organize and other rights. One of the policies prevented workers from communicating with each other about wages, speaking to the news media about job conditions and speaking with co-workers to organize evidence against disciplinary

Our case study titled, The AT&T and McCaw merger negotiation, provides us with an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the merger between McCaw cellular and AT&T. McCaw was the largest competitor in the rapidly growing cellular telephone communications industry. AT&T was the dominant competitor in long-distance telephone communications in the United States, and one of the largest corporations. Prior to the negotiations, it had no position in cellular communications.

I expect that as mature, incumbent players, AT&T and Verizon are unlikely to make the price changes necessary to really stop T-Mobile’s momentum, and instead are likely to focus on maintaining cash flow. With Sprint now focused on cost cutting and maintaining liquidity, it is also no longer a real threat to T-Mobile’s operational and earnings momentum. The only real challenge that T-Mobile will face is to prove to customers that even though its network may not be as big as AT&T’s or Verizon’s, it is just as good. While quality seems better so far, the verdict is not yet in, and T-Mobile needs to augment coverage in some areas to catch up.

In the two commercials created by AT&T and Verizon, they have some similarities that are clearly visible. For example, both companies

Firstly, the antitrust lawsuit followed by a sudden divestiture could cause uncertainties towards the company’s future and might change the shareholders perception of AT&T in an unfortunate way.

The AT&T and T-Mobile merger should not be approved, as the merger may cause more harm than benefits to consumers and for the related market. A horizontal practice is one that involves mergers and activities in the same industry. A horizontal merger comes under Section 7 of Clayton Act and under Section 2 of Sherman Act, as it would create a monopoly. As AT&T and T-Mobile both operates in same industry, the merger is clearly horizontal. The concern with horizontal arrangements is that it may increase market power, leading to lessened competition and higher prices. Many of interest groups(like other companies like SprintNextel, the Competitive Carriers Association, Cellular South, Leap Wireless, MetroPCS, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Yankee Group, group of seven NGOs including Consumer unions , National Hispanic Media Coalition, Future of Music Coalition, etc.) opposed. Most of them expressed concerns that the merger will stifle the competition, may result in increased prices for consumers, will reduce innovation and technological progress in the field, and it will leave with fewer options for consumers to shop around for cell phone plans. The decrease in consumer choice happens as the merger will reduce the number of mobile wireless carrier who has decent nationwide coverage. Consumers Union stated that there is great deal of data and evidence that this transaction will lead

AT&T strive to be a great place to work, to be respectful, and supportive, of the diverse workforce and inclusive culture, and to recognize the benefits of the diverse suppliers, customers and business partners.

Opportunities. Industry Consolidation. The avenue for further business consolidation has acted as a major opportunity for AT&T to grow and diversify revenue. Evidently, AT&T has made numerous industry consolidation efforts including the DIRECTV acquisition and the vertical integration through the set Time Warner acquisition (Nicholas, 2017). Such consolidation efforts have the potential for reducing the churn rate and offering unique value propositions, such as bundled offerings, and motivating cost efficiencies in content right negotiations and revenue synergies.

AT&T merged with T-Mobile on 2011; AT&T is now the largest wireless carrier in the United States leaving their major competitor Verizon Wireless on the side. T-Mobile benefited from the acquisition y reducing all their debts by acquiring AT&T stocked valued. With the acquisition, AT&T focuses on increasing its network and coverage, and working on expanding their Long Term Evolution technology

When all of AT&T Wireless's major competitors chose another company for wireless number porting, AT&T Wireless should have rethought its choice of a competing vendor, which meant extra layers of integration that ultimately failed. The due diligence of integrating a new system with AT&T's current system was non-existent and the company paid the ultimate price as Cingular, one of AT&T Wireless' largest competitors bought the wireless business from AT&T.

The General Electric (GE) and Honeywell International (HI) case illustrates the complexities of structuring mergers and acquisitions when the combined firms are capable of exerting market influence that threatens the competitive landscape. While General Electric's CEO, Jack Welch, characterized the deal as, "This is the cleanest deal you'll ever see," European anti-trust regulators were not so inclined to view the transaction as harmless to competition (Elliot, 2001).

Referring to the textbook, the definition of monopoly is a market structure where a single firm serves as an entire market for a good that has no close substitutes. It acts as the crucial threat to innovation and low prices. Due to the fact, the dominance of single-firm with more than half of its market share is almost as harmful to consumer as a monopoly. Back in 1970s, the entrance of WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint into telecommunication market had effect on increasing competitive market. As of now, their merge will only stop the progress and create one of the largest monopoly in the U.S. economy. Overall, the merger of WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint will degrade the variety amount of their motives and

Communications Industry leaders today are more than aware of the challenges digital native players are bringing to the field. In response to these challenges, for example, Randall Stephenson, AT&T’s chairman and chief executive, has stated that they are retraining their employees to adapt and reinventing themselves so that AT&T will transform into a company that will be able to compete with its digital competitors by leveraging data and customer insights. Verizon Communications on the other hand has indicated that it is open to the possibility of a merger, taking advantage of strategic partnerships to reset the course of the company and thrive in this competitive new environment.

AT&T was broken up into the Bell companies in “1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust suit against the monopoly” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Today AT&T has become a competitor vying for control of the telecommunications industry. “In monopolistic competition, there are many firms vying for control of one market. Each firm offers a different type of product, as opposed to perfect competition in which all offer the same product. Each firm, then, has a monopoly in the market of their own product”(Oracle ThinkQuest Education Foundation) AT&T in 1988 began purchasing stock in Sun Microsystems to begin its diversity in product services. Throughout the 90s AT&T continued purchasing more computer companies and cell phone companies to gain market share in the growing telecommunication industry (CyberStreet). Good pricing structures align with costs. AT&T Wireless realized that the marginal cost of a cellular minute was small compared to the cost of acquiring and maintaining customers. Their switch to a flat fee “One-Rate” plan was a huge success, stealing heavy users away from the competition. Prices increased for light users and many became hooked on the cellular lifestyle (Lake Partners Strategy Consultants, Inc. [LPSCI], 2001-2004). AT&T has seen that the ability to change quickly in the ever-evolving telecommunications market will help in gain market share. Its ability to see the value in keeping customers rather