filed a complaint with FTC

[Tidbits]

ERMarshall2 wrote:

youre funny

you cant buy spectrum if it doesnt exist.  ATT's buying whatever other companies will sell them. They just gave qualcom 2 billion for  a small part of the spectrum they own. They had no choice but to try and buy TMO.  Do you not realize wireless spectrum is not unlimited?

English isnt your first language is it?

They had intention to buy T-Mobile.  They want the spectrum and hardware.  It was a cheaper way for them doing so.  If they had no intention of buying T-Mobile they'd wouldn't have bid nearly triple of what Sprint offered.  They wanted to make sure they could get T-Mobile.  Do you honestly think if AT&T had no intention to buy they would bid that high?

[ERMarshall2]

dude seriously where do you get this info from? 1TB downpipes for 38B? A its called a backhaul when its a wireless network.  Then there are tier 1 internet backbones the fastest of which are 100Gbs, owned by VZW and run over their FIOS network in 3 cities only.  and it doesnt cost ANYWHERE NEAR 38B to lay down fiber.  Its about 10,000 dollars per a mile plus the multiplexing stations that amplify the signal.  Youre teachers must hate you

[ERMarshall2]

you just changed your whole story! you went from stating "they would not make a profit in 100 years" to the equivalent of "eh we dont need TMO I guess"

[Tidbits]

I guess you don't read up on companies before signing a contract with them.  It's in their press releases.

in 2004 and in 2007 Verizon spent 38B on 1TB downpipes One from Europe to the East Coast, and one from Asia to the West Coast.  Which gives me the hint that Vodafone and Verizon may try and combine companies and go Global instead of being regional.

My teachers don't hate me. 

[ERMarshall2]

and if you bothered to try adn educate yourself and actually read the 2011 statement instead of arguing me with yoru made up facts, you would have seen TMO earned 1.3 billion last year

[Tidbits]

Answer this question...

Would you invest 50B dollars in a company and wait 100 years to get back that 50B and make money off it? 

[Tidbits]

Did you look at T-Mobile US reports and not DT reports?  Stop looking at those... Look at the US reports.  They made LESS THAN 400M(380M iirc) last year and the year before they were barely above 400M(430M iirc).  Are you sure you are not mixing up T-Mobile EU and T-Mobile US in those reports?

[ERMarshall2]

OK now Im confused because that is exactly what I said and your just repeating it now.  ATT only wanted their spectrum. I made that clear, youre post insinuated that DT was begging ATT to take TMO off their hands.  I merely stated that wasnt true, ATT was desprete for the coverage that TMO had 

[ERMarshall2]

OK so yoru talking about international undersea internet backbones now, which have nothing to do with wirless spectrum. Do you want to be any more inconsistent with your arguments?

[Tidbits]

Your last line says it all.  AT&T WANTED to buy T-Mobile.  You said AT&T didn't really want to buy T-Mobile.  Regardless of the reasons AT&T WANTED TO BUY T-MOBILE. 

Sprint offered 19B for the company.  With their total earnings in 10 years(T-Mobile US only) DT would still be down 26B on initial investment to enter the market.  With what AT&T offered 39B and shares in AT&T that could potentially gives DT that 50B initial investment and profit.

DT was desperate enough to take AT&T offers.  No company is willing to wait 100 years to get that kind of profit in any sector of their business.  You wouldn't even invest 50B and not get any real returns for 100 years.