Verizon is acquiring AT&T

The acquisition deal was just signed today.

I have to admit, I’m actually a bit surprised that AT&T managed to stay independent for this long. They built out a massive infrastructure across the entire country, moving from just TV and internet into telephony. It always felt like a matter of time before either AT&T or Verizon swallowed them up.
The takeover is valued at 93 million euros, which supposedly accounts for AT&T's existing debts. It’s a shame they didn't release their actual business results.

Speaking as someone who uses both providers, I’m bummed this happened. We just lost our only real alternative in the telecom market. I’ve been happy with AT&T’s service and pricing so far, but I’m fully expecting a price hike across the board very soon.😢

Robin Rodriguez5 said:The acquisition deal was just signed today.

I have to admit, I’m actually a bit surprised that AT&T managed to stay independent for this long. They built out a massive infrastructure across the entire country, moving from just TV and internet into telephony. It always felt like a matter of time before either AT&T or Verizon swallowed them up.
The takeover is valued at 93 million euros, which supposedly accounts for AT&T's existing debts. It’s a shame they didn't release their actual business results.

Speaking as someone who uses both providers, I’m bummed this happened. We just lost our only real alternative in the telecom market. I’ve been happy with AT&T’s service and pricing so far, but I’m fully expecting a price hike across the board very soon.😢

Back in 2010, total revenue hit roughly $45 million, marking a solid 35% jump from the previous year (sales alone were about $40 million). On the flip side, total expenses climbed to about $44 million, up about 9% from the prior year (operating costs sat at around $41 million). This left them with a slim profit of about $1.4 million for 2010, which is quite the pivot from the $6.7 million loss they posted in 2009. As for the books, AT&T's assets are valued at approximately $70 million, while long-term and short-term liabilities come in around $50 million.

I'm happy with AT&T's service and pricing so far, but I'm fully expecting a price hike any day now.

What makes you think prices are going up?

A price hike like this would fit right in with the usual pattern of telecom monopolies swallowing up the competition here in the States.

I haven't been keeping close tabs on the specifics lately, but looking at how much competition there is in this market, I find it hard to believe they could actually pull off those low price points without breaking the bank. Contracts lasting just a year or two aren't exactly life sentences; switching providers is practically effortless these days. Besides, you’ll get your answer soon enough—you'll see if your skepticism was actually justified one way or the other.

We'll see, though when it comes to cable TV, Bnet basically has zero competition—maybe DirecTV if you're lucky. Internet and phone services are just a side note at this point.

So, Bnet is offloading layoffs while simultaneously acquiring Bnet? Who exactly are they trying to play for fools here? A dysfunctional government is easily the biggest drag on the American economy. It makes zero sense why the state doesn't incentivize employers through lower taxes or reduced levies to encourage hiring.

silvercrane38 said:So, Bnet is offloading layoffs while simultaneously acquiring Bnet? Who exactly are they trying to play for fools here? A dysfunctional government is easily the biggest drag on the American economy. It makes zero sense why the state doesn't incentivize employers through lower taxes or reduced levies to encourage hiring.

If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending somewhere else or just pile on more debt.

Verizon is laying people off at Verizon, then goes out and buys another company just so they don't have to deal with layoffs anymore.

Carl Foster8 said:If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending somewhere else or just pile on more debt.

Verizon is laying people off at Verizon, then goes out and buys another company just so they don't have to deal with layoffs anymore.

I suppose a failing business buying another failing business to somehow "offset" losses is supposed to make sense? Is that the kind of logic they feed to the unwashed masses?

silvercrane38 said:I suppose a failing business buying another failing business to somehow "offset" losses is supposed to make sense? Is that the kind of logic they feed to the unwashed masses?

What do you mean by "mindless masses"?

If they're losing money, I guess it’s obvious why they’d lay people off.
Besides, even if they're profitable, they can still cut staff if they feel it helps justify their reason for existing.

Great, they should definitely incentivize them to start laying people off. 🙄

I honestly don't see this acquisition bringing any real benefits to customers, regardless of which side you're on. I actually predict we'll see a surge in AT&T service usage. Since this market is such a minefield—with so many different IPTV providers and triple-play bundles (TV, internet, phone)—they can't afford to mess up too much. But hey, we'll see how it plays out. All things considered, I think this is a bad move. It’s just a case of a big fish eating a smaller one that was actually providing fair service at a fair price.

Donna Davis8 said:Great, they should definitely incentivize them to start laying people off. 🙄

I honestly don't see this acquisition bringing any real benefits to customers, regardless of which side you're on. I actually predict we'll see a surge in AT&T service usage. Since this market is such a minefield—with so many different IPTV providers and triple-play bundles (TV, internet, phone)—they can't afford to mess up too much. But hey, we'll see how it plays out. All things considered, I think this is a bad move. It’s just a case of a big fish eating a smaller one that was actually providing fair service at a fair price.

Nobody is encouraging them, but nobody is stopping them either since it's their legal right.
I assume if you ran a company, you wouldn't risk the whole thing just to save a few employees. If you did, the likely outcome would be everyone losing their jobs.

The competition is keeping prices steady, and if the market is stagnant, that isn't really the provider's problem.

Carl Foster8 said:Nobody is encouraging them, but nobody is stopping them either since it's their legal right.
I assume if you ran a company, you wouldn't risk the whole thing just to save a few employees. If you did, the likely outcome would be everyone losing their jobs.

The competition is keeping prices steady, and if the market is stagnant, that isn't really the provider's problem.

Of course, it's always the low-level workers who get blamed for a company's collapse, while management and the executive suite remain completely blameless.

silvercrane38 said:Of course, it's always the low-level workers who get blamed for a company's collapse, while management and the executive suite remain completely blameless.

Management definitely plays a role, but those above them—all the way up to the owners—are the ones responsible for firing people. At the end of the day, the owner is the one deciding how many layoffs happen and where.

So, did they only fire the entry-level staff at Verizon?

Up until this point, I’ve been absolutely thrilled with my service from AT&T.
But honestly, my experiences with Verizon have been nothing short of a disaster.
I went into one of their authorized retail stores to pick up a new phone, and the salesperson explicitly promised me that I’d be seeing monthly credits on my bill as part of the deal. Well, two months roll by and not a single cent of those credits has appeared, so naturally, I went back to complain. Instead of taking responsibility, the folks at the store just shrugged and told me the salesperson had messed up and that I really ought to track down the manager. After a few fruitless attempts to actually find someone in charge, I finally gave the Verizon corporate line a call.
They told me I had to submit some formal written request, only for me to receive a canned response from Verizon shortly after, basically telling me to take my grievance right back to the store where it started.
It is absolute garbage, truly, and there is absolutely no way they are getting another dime out of me. As soon as my contract with AT&T expires, I am jumping ship to another provider immediately.

Donna Davis8 said:Great, they should definitely incentivize them to start laying people off. 🙄

I honestly don't see this acquisition bringing any real benefits to customers, regardless of which side you're on. I actually predict we'll see a surge in AT&T service usage. Since this market is such a minefield—with so many different IPTV providers and triple-play bundles (TV, internet, phone)—they can't afford to mess up too much. But hey, we'll see how it plays out. All things considered, I think this is a bad move. It’s just a case of a big fish eating a smaller one that was actually providing fair service at a fair price.

Good grief! 😁

Look, a job isn't just an end in itself—it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to lay people off for all sorts of reasons (like, say, a dip in workload—which is basically the norm these days—or just boosting efficiency by bringing in new tech). Honestly, the fact that they laid workers off shouldn't even matter when we're talking about the AT&T acquisition.

I mean, if work is just an end in itself, why don't we just ban personal laptops in HR? Then we'd have full employment overnight.

It’s honestly just a sad day for anyone who’s ever stuck with AT&T services.

Carl Foster8 said:Management definitely plays a role, but those above them—all the way up to the owners—are the ones responsible for firing people. At the end of the day, the owner is the one deciding how many layoffs happen and where.

So, did they only fire the entry-level staff at Verizon?

Some managers got let go too (though not many, mostly just the bottom-tier staff), but they didn't touch the big boss who's actually responsible for the profit drop.

I can't quite make heads or tails of what you're getting at here—is this a typo, or are we jumping into some random topic out of nowhere? If you're trying to start a discussion, maybe throw some actual substance my way so I don't have to guess what's going on in that head of yours. kaže:
As someone who’s been a loyal customer for both providers, I honestly feel pretty gutted that things have reached this point—we've basically lost our only legitimate alternative in the telecom market. I’ve always been satisfied with the service and pricing over at AT&T, but let's be real... I'm already bracing myself for those inevitable price hikes coming down the pipe soon. 😢

Joseph Young57 said:It’s honestly just a sad day for anyone who’s ever stuck with AT&T services.

I’ve gotta say—I’m feeling the exact same way about all of this. It really does worry me.
I’ve actually had a pretty great experience with AT&T up to this point—I use all three of their services—and honestly, my phone bill is even lower than... $1.75Honestly, I’ve been glued to my phone this entire time—my connection is rock solid—and I can pull down 1GB files in what feels like a heartbeat. It’s ridiculous. Listen, folks, regarding those people over in customer support... 🙏 ... I mean, honestly, looking back at how many times they’ve actually stepped up to help me—it’s actually pretty ridiculous. Polite....

It’s not just the price hike that’s got me worried—it's the quality. I have this nagging fear that while they’re busy squeezing more money out of us, the actual service is going to take a massive nosedive.
Look, I’ve been a Verizon customer since day one—literally since the beginning—and if I’m being honest, I’m really not a fan of them. They aren't exactly winning any awards in my book. But, since I don't bundle anything else with AT&T or have any of those other big telecom services tied up in one giant package, I always end up looking at Verizon as the lesser of two evils. It’s just one of those "pick your poison" situations, I guess.

We'll see about that soon enough.

silvercrane38 said:So, Bnet is offloading layoffs while simultaneously acquiring Bnet? Who exactly are they trying to play for fools here? A dysfunctional government is easily the biggest drag on the American economy. It makes zero sense why the state doesn't incentivize employers through lower taxes or reduced levies to encourage hiring.

First off, that’s almost certainly just a typo. Secondly, Verizon is preemptively cutting staff in that specific sector before any actual losses even hit the books. If you want to survive, the smartest move is to restructure during the years when you actually have the capital to cover it. As for the Bnet acquisition, that's purely about expanding their reach, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Verizon's core business model.

silvercrane38 said:I suppose a failing business buying another failing business to somehow "offset" losses is supposed to make sense? Is that the kind of logic they feed to the unwashed masses?

Verizon isn't some bottom-feeder, so I have no idea where you're getting that from, whereas a company dumping massive capital into nonsense like AT&T could actually be considered a loser.