Login
 
Page 4 of 7 
 
 05-16-2018 11:06 PM
 zapjb 
 
Originally posted by zapjb:
That venture falls flat without VZW roaming & for non-bundlers. I call Rumpelstiltskin & shenanigans on this venture.

Take the worst of Sprint & the worst of T-Mobile today. And that'll be better than this. I see its customers as bundlers, non-travelers & people too stubborn to admit they made a mistake & port out.

Originally posted by themanhimself:
The sprint/TMobile merger?

Nope separate as they are now.
 
 05-17-2018 12:35 AM
skylar_G 
 
Originally posted by erikkarma808:
Exactly. AT&T knows they're on shaky ground with their own merger. Especially with the recent revelation that they paid anywhere between $200K and $1.2 million to Trump's personal lawyer for "insight" (bribery) into their thinking on mergers. Probably be best of AT&T kept a low profile for awhile.
Any worse than TMobile paying a consulting firm headed by an ex fcc chairman with Washington ties to lobby for their merger? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/t-mobile-pays-ex-fcc-commissioner-to-lobby-for-sprint-merger/

All these companies pay for lobbying, it just hardly makes public news. If TMobile thought paying Cohen could get their merger passed, they likely would of been in line as well. The only reason it made news is Cohen got raided. That's not a knock on TMobile, there are billions of dollars at stake here, of course they are going to use every advantage they feel they can to get it to pass, just as with At&t and time Warner, billions of dollars at stake, of course they are going to try to use every advantage they can to get it to pass. Anyways the time Warner case is in a judges hands. Them opposing or not opposing the TMobile merger would have zero effect on a judges decision. They likely don't oppose it, because they really don't care. Verizon publicly said the same thing, they don't care. At&t probably hopes TMobile does get their TV and streaming service up and running Nationwide and fast, they will likely be paying at&t for Turner content then.
 
 05-17-2018 02:22 AM
 @TheRealDanny
 
Originally posted by skylar_G:
Any worse than TMobile paying a consulting firm headed by an ex fcc chairman with Washington ties to lobby for their merger? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/t-mobile-pays-ex-fcc-commissioner-to-lobby-for-sprint-merger/



Way worse.

One is using a legal method by contracting a political lobbyist/strategist and the other (allegedly) paid Trump's personal lawyer $600k on the first day of his administration to "better understand the President's thinking."

The suspicion was that Cohen was selling access to Trump using money funneled through a shell company called Essential Consultants Inc. What makes it suspicious is that Cohen is not a consultant and he is the only employee of the alleged, "Consultant Firm."

AT&T isn't being accused of anything technically but it appears that they may have been bribing a member of the President's inner circle. Sometimes appearances can mean everything.

The President was PO'd because it makes it look like he was publicly denying the merger while his personal attorney was getting paid to potentially grease the wheels. Because there are other companies who paid Trump's personal lawyer for similar information it makes the President look like he may have been part of this greasy operation (getting paid personally for legal favors) and that's never a reputation you want in this political climate even if it's not true.

CNN who is owned by Time Warner isn't exactly on the best of terms with the administration and AT&T originally cited: "selective enforcement," potentially putting them at a disadvantage. But AT&T can't use that argument in their trial with the DOJ because a judge blocked AT&T's request to see White House communications surrounding the deal.
 
 05-17-2018 02:40 AM
erikkarma808
 
Right. And AT&T realized how shady it was to pay Cohen as they've sent an internal email (which has become public) to company employees trying to spin what they did and why they did it.

It could be argued that "T-Mobile/Verizon etc lobby" but this is in a whole different league. I think AT&T keeping quiet about not only the T-Mo/Sprint merger but just quiet in general, is a strategy to keep them out of the Media limelight which may give them a better chance at having their own merger slip through without as much publicity.
 
 05-17-2018 02:46 AM
skylar_G 
 
Originally posted by @TheRealDanny:
Way worse.

One is using a legal method by contracting a political lobbyist/strategist and the other (allegedly) paid Trump's personal lawyer $600k on the first day of his administration to "better understand the President's thinking."

The suspicion was that Cohen was selling access to Trump using money funneled through a shell company called Essential Consultants Inc. What makes it suspicious is that Cohen is not a consultant and he is the only employee of the alleged, "Consultant Firm."

AT&T isn't being accused of anything technically but it appears that they may have been bribing a member of the President's inner circle. Sometimes appearances can mean everything.

The President was PO'd because it makes it look like he was publicly denying the merger while his personal attorney was getting paid to potentially grease the wheels. Because there are other companies who paid Trump's personal lawyer for similar information it makes the President look like he may have been part of this greasy operation (getting paid personally for legal favors) and that's never a reputation you want in this political climate even if it's not true.

CNN who is owned by Time Warner isn't exactly on the best of terms with the administration and AT&T originally cited: "selective enforcement," potentially putting them at a disadvantage. But AT&T can't use that argument in their trial with the DOJ because a judge blocked AT&T's request to see White House communications surrounding the deal.
There was nothing illegal about what at&t did. It just is percieved differently because of who it involves. Why is TMobile paying a p.r. firm fronted by a former f.c.c. chairman to sell this merger? The same reasons at&t would give Cohen money. To try to persuade people in power to agree with their thinking. Same motive behind tmobiles move also. Neither one is illegal, you can argue that it's unethical if you want, but you can't say one is better than the other. You cant justify one and condemn the other based on who you use as a wireless carrier. Cohen wasn't or isn't a person of power, he holds no postition in the government. It's hard to call it bribary when the person getting the money cannot make any choices on the matter. Same as with tmobiles pr firm. The person has ties to Washington, prolly pretty close friends with some people there, yet he holds no current position in government, can't really make any choices on the matter. Same exact reasoning behind it.

At&t can't use any argument anymore for the time Warner case. The trial has been over for a few weeks now. Them saying anything about the TMobile merger one way or another has zero bearing on the outcome of the time Warner deal. It's in a judges hands right now. I believe June 12th he announces his verdict.
 
 05-17-2018 03:02 AM
 @TheRealDanny
 
Originally posted by skylar_G:
There was nothing illegal about what at&t did. It just is percieved differently because of who it involves. Why is TMobile paying a p.r. firm fronted by a former f.c.c. chairman to sell this merger? The same reasons at&t would give Cohen money. To try to persuade people in power to agree with their thinking. Same motive behind tmobiles move also. Neither one is illegal, you can argue that it's unethical if you want, but you can't say one is better than the other. Instead, you cant justify one and condemn the other based on who you use as a wireless carrier.

At&t can't use any argument anymore for the time Warner case. The trial has been over for a few weeks now. Them saying anything about the TMobile merger one way or another has zero bearing on the outcome of the time Warner deal. It's in a judges hands right now. I believe June 12th he announces his verdict.


I'm not surprised to read this kind of response; I figured as much; but I totally disagree that T-Mobile's use of a legal political lobbyist is on the same level playing field as AT&T paying our President's personal lawyer through a shell company.

If the only argument is that: "they're all the same," "they're just as bad," they're no better than the other," than I think one is really missing the point here and betting on deflection winning out over reason.

And no they're not all the same, they aren't just as bad and there are some better than the others.
 
«Previous | Next»
 
Share
TwitterFacebookMySpacedeliciousGoogleDiggreddit

Powered by:
WiForums
version 4.1.9F
WiForums.net


Copyright 2011, Thaddeus Clarke Jr.