Verizon is acquiring AT&T

Harold Wright6 said:When a company like that underperforms, it just helps their competitors grow, because the overall market size doesn't really change based on who's winning. Since this is a foreign-owned service company, the government won't even blink. If the company is as bad as you say, then it honestly doesn't matter if they survive or not.

A company being involved in corruption isn't necessarily tied to throwing parties. They meet with politicians at charity events all the time.

What other companies? You've got maybe three players, and two of them are clearly in bed together.
Maybe T-Mobile gained some ground because these clowns couldn't dig themselves out of the hole they dug, though I suppose AT&T is way less incompetent by comparison. I think it's mostly because they poached the competent staff from Verizon, which was actually decent before they started losing all the good people back around 2002. But I guess T-Mobile can't keep growing forever because Americans are just too lazy and indifferent as customers.

The parties have everything to do with wasting money like crazy right when it looks like revenue is starting to dip. Both Verizon and AT&T are pretty significant to the government. Like, they pull in that 6% tax, and there's this rumor that Verizon passed on opening a call center in El Paso because of it—even though they already had the building and the staff all lined up. It’s all that "you take our 6%, so we won't create jobs where they're needed" type of attitude, though that might just be total nonsense.

Harold Nelson6 said: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.

Look, I get what you're saying. Generally speaking, I agree. But I am pretty sure the average worker at Verizon isn't to blame for poor management or running at a loss. We all know who is responsible, and they don't get fired; instead, they get bonuses when expenses drop at the end of the year (mostly because of the massive payroll). It’s ironic.

Just look at what people say about Verizon. Most people are generally dissatisfied. I don't know why, and I won't dive into what needs to change since that's not my field, but it seems to me they need structural changes🤔 rather than letting go of "small-town" workers—basically the easiest targets like contractors, temporary staff, or those nearing retirement.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave it at that. 🙂


From my own experience, Verizon is a sneaky company. They basically trap you with those 18-month or longer contracts. Other companies do it too, but these guys aren't cheaper than the rest. You wouldn't expect this from someone who is supposed to be a telecom leader alongside AT&T. That’s just my take. They practically scammed a 55-year-old retiree by offering a cheap phone tied to a two-year plan. They promised the monthly cost would be $17, all inclusive, but the bills always come in at over $100. I hope she enjoys those extra dollars they squeezed out of her. May they choke on it.

Donna Davis8 said:Look, I get what you're saying. Generally speaking, I agree. But I am pretty sure the average worker at Verizon isn't to blame for poor management or running at a loss. We all know who is responsible, and they don't get fired; instead, they get bonuses when expenses drop at the end of the year (mostly because of the massive payroll). It’s ironic.

Just look at what people say about Verizon. Most people are generally dissatisfied. I don't know why, and I won't dive into what needs to change since that's not my field, but it seems to me they need structural changes🤔 rather than letting go of "small-town" workers—basically the easiest targets like contractors, temporary staff, or those nearing retirement.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave it at that. 🙂


From my own experience, Verizon is a sneaky company. They basically trap you with those 18-month or longer contracts. Other companies do it too, but these guys aren't cheaper than the rest. You wouldn't expect this from someone who is supposed to be a telecom leader alongside AT&T. That’s just my take. They practically scammed a 55-year-old retiree by offering a cheap phone tied to a two-year plan. They promised the monthly cost would be $17, all inclusive, but the bills always come in at over $100. I hope she enjoys those extra dollars they squeezed out of her. May they choke on it.

You're not wrong.

Donna Davis8 said:Look, I get what you're saying. Generally speaking, I agree. But I am pretty sure the average worker at Verizon isn't to blame for poor management or running at a loss. We all know who is responsible, and they don't get fired; instead, they get bonuses when expenses drop at the end of the year (mostly because of the massive payroll). It’s ironic.

Just look at what people say about Verizon. Most people are generally dissatisfied. I don't know why, and I won't dive into what needs to change since that's not my field, but it seems to me they need structural changes🤔 rather than letting go of "small-town" workers—basically the easiest targets like contractors, temporary staff, or those nearing retirement.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave it at that. 🙂


From my own experience, Verizon is a sneaky company. They basically trap you with those 18-month or longer contracts. Other companies do it too, but these guys aren't cheaper than the rest. You wouldn't expect this from someone who is supposed to be a telecom leader alongside AT&T. That’s just my take. They practically scammed a 55-year-old retiree by offering a cheap phone tied to a two-year plan. They promised the monthly cost would be $17, all inclusive, but the bills always come in at over $100. I hope she enjoys those extra dollars they squeezed out of her. May they choke on it.

I completely see your point, and it's obvious the atmosphere in that company is pretty rotten, but...

My comment was more general—it wasn't exclusively about AT&T. Layoffs aren't inherently bad, and a company that lets people go and then immediately starts acquiring others isn't necessarily "corrupt"—those two things aren't actually linked.

As for AT&T itself, it’s totally expected that the first ones out the door are the least protected employees—because, let's face it, top managers aren't going to fire themselves... Unfortunately, that's just how it works in any community—the little guy always gets screwed first. Those successful managers will get their turn eventually—either sooner or later, once they've steered the whole ship into the ground.

Shouldn't the Federal Communications Commission (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) be giving the green light on this stuff first? Honestly, knowing how AT&T operates, I’ve got a bad feeling this buyout isn't going to do much for us customers. And what if those rumors are actually true—though I really hope it's just trash talk—about AT&T and Verizon teaming up to merge into one giant company just to cut costs? What would that even do to the market? Is that even legal?

The FCC has absolutely no reason to block this acquisition.

This thread belongs in the Business section, so please stick to economic topics. Keeping redundant staff on the payroll at the expense of productivity and profit goes against any sane business policy. If you want to complain that AT&T only cares about margins instead of employees, go find a different subforum.

Personally, like I mentioned in my first post, I’m bummed this takeover is happening because it feels like two companies moving in completely opposite directions. When AT&T first hit the scene, they were a breath of fresh air. Their marketing and IT departments actually knew what they were doing; during those early years, every single innovation in the domestic telecom market came straight from AT&T. Verizon was always playing catch-up, lagging behind by six months to a year. AT&T pioneered the prepaid system, they were the first to bundle discounted hardware to scale their user base, they brought VPN systems to the corporate world, and even their mobile parking solution was practically patented in Europe. They had massive plans, but around 2002/2003, things started sliding. It’s obvious the people driving that momentum moved on, and ever since, AT&T has been on a downward trajectory for me—even though I’m still a customer out of pure inertia (I've been around since '99). Those big innovative plans? They never materialized (like paying bills via SMS, which was revolutionary back in 2002). Nowadays, AT&T seems like the most overpriced mobile carrier out there, and their public presence is almost non-existent. The Coachella event used to be an AT&T thing, but it's been Lollapalooza for years now, and I doubt they have any connection to Napa Valley anymore. T-Mobile actually started out using AT&T's infrastructure before they eventually switched over to T-Mobile themselves. Simply put, it looks to me like AT&T has been stagnating for a long time.

On the flip side, Comcast had some serious growing pains. In the beginning, the signal was flaky on TV and especially on the internet, but they ironed those kinks out and started expanding their service range and subscriber base. To me, they looked like a healthy, growing entity—they actually reminded me of how AT&T used to be in its prime. I don't know much about Comcast's financials, and the numbers Shadow posted are the first I've seen regarding their specific metrics. But I just don't like seeing a company that's been on a decline for years swallow up a company that's on the rise. It's like if The Beach Boys took over Linksys; sure, AT&T isn't exactly The Beach Boys, but you get my point.😁

This is honestly such a desperate move by Verizon, trying to jump onto the tail end of the high-speed broadband train. They totally missed the boat back in 2001, and now that everything is falling apart, they’re grasping at straws because their massive IT scam—Home Depot—is basically dead in the water. I guess they were originally looking at picking up Verizon, but they've backed out of that now. It's actually been in the works for a while, though; they've already been building that new facility behind the current one to house Comcast and Verizon.

Word is AT&T pays millions every month just to lease fiber optics from Comcast, and they're finding those expenses on the bill too.

I honestly can’t wrap my head around people who go on these huge rants about carriers having overpriced plans.🙄
Nobody is forcing your hand here; you’re the one signing the contract. Just please don't come at me saying you signed an agreement thinking texts were pennies when they were actually charging you a buck per message.

Right now, I’m with T-Mobile. I get 100 texts, 512MB of data, and 300 free minutes ($0.08 just to start the call), and my bill comes out to $37.

Before this, I was over at Verizon and I really messed up, but that was entirely on me.😉