Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Verizon to buy MCI, whither Qwest

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:53:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal with
Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint; perhaps Sprint now will go
after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050214/verizon_mci_4.html

More about : verizon buy mci qwest

Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:36:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
> in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal with
> Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint;

Qwest couldn't even afford to keep its own wireless operations; hence
the reason why Sprint bought out the infrastructure and worked with
Qwest to operate as an MVNO.

> perhaps Sprint now will go
> after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.

One merger at a time. Sprint is going to be plenty big once it finishes
the Nextel deal.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:45:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <1111krk1ntmov56@corp.supernews.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
> > In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
> > in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal with
> > Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint;
>
> Qwest couldn't even afford to keep its own wireless operations; hence
> the reason why Sprint bought out the infrastructure and worked with
> Qwest to operate as an MVNO.
>
> > perhaps Sprint now will go
> > after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.
>
> One merger at a time. Sprint is going to be plenty big once it finishes
> the Nextel deal.

If Sprint stands still Bell South will gobble it up, with or without
Nextel.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:05:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-BAECA9.12455514022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <1111krk1ntmov56@corp.supernews.com>,
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>
> > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > > In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
> > > in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal
with
> > > Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint;
> >
> > Qwest couldn't even afford to keep its own wireless operations; hence
> > the reason why Sprint bought out the infrastructure and worked with
> > Qwest to operate as an MVNO.
> >
> > > perhaps Sprint now will go
> > > after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.
> >
> > One merger at a time. Sprint is going to be plenty big once it finishes
> > the Nextel deal.
>
> If Sprint stands still Bell South will gobble it up, with or without
> Nextel.

I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management today -
http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...

In addition, considering that Sprint not only includes LD, they have SPCS.
In the other deals, SBC bought ATT, the LD + company (no wireless), and
Verizon bought MCI +company with no wireless.

As Sprint is doing the deal with Nextel, knocking out one more competitor in
the wireless field, I doubt seriously whether the FCC or the FTC would allow
Bell South to take out one more cellular competitor.

Bob

Bob
February 15, 2005 4:50:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:05:47 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-BAECA9.12455514022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <1111krk1ntmov56@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Jack Zwick wrote:
>> > > In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
>> > > in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal
>with
>> > > Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint;
>> >
>> > Qwest couldn't even afford to keep its own wireless operations; hence
>> > the reason why Sprint bought out the infrastructure and worked with
>> > Qwest to operate as an MVNO.
>> >
>> > > perhaps Sprint now will go
>> > > after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.
>> >
>> > One merger at a time. Sprint is going to be plenty big once it finishes
>> > the Nextel deal.
>>
>> If Sprint stands still Bell South will gobble it up, with or without
>> Nextel.
>
>I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management today -
>http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...
>
>In addition, considering that Sprint not only includes LD, they have SPCS.
>In the other deals, SBC bought ATT, the LD + company (no wireless), and
>Verizon bought MCI +company with no wireless.
>
>As Sprint is doing the deal with Nextel, knocking out one more competitor in
>the wireless field, I doubt seriously whether the FCC or the FTC would allow
>Bell South to take out one more cellular competitor.
>
>Bob
>
>Bob
>


It's ironic that Verizon winds up buying the company that initially had
AT&T split as a monopoly into 7 regional companies.

Even though I don't consider VZW as a part of the Verizon landline company
anymore since 48% of it is owned by Vodophone.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:50:51 -0500, twister wrote:

>Even though I don't consider VZW as a part of the Verizon landline company
>anymore since 48% of it is owned by Vodophone.

Vodaphone purportedly has the right to require Verizon to purchase its interst in VZW within the next few years and reportedly wants to do so in order to purchase a system in the US more compatible with its own or to relieve some of its own corporate problems.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:06:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <LVbQd.873$9J5.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-BAECA9.12455514022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <1111krk1ntmov56@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Zwick wrote:
> > > > In quick response top the SBC purchase of AT&T, Verizon on 2/14 (early
> > > > in the morning) has agreed to by MCI, with MCI not wanting to deal
> with
> > > > Qwest. Qwest can't afford to buy Sprint;
> > >
> > > Qwest couldn't even afford to keep its own wireless operations; hence
> > > the reason why Sprint bought out the infrastructure and worked with
> > > Qwest to operate as an MVNO.
> > >
> > > > perhaps Sprint now will go
> > > > after Qwest instead to help shield itself from Bell South.
> > >
> > > One merger at a time. Sprint is going to be plenty big once it finishes
> > > the Nextel deal.
> >
> > If Sprint stands still Bell South will gobble it up, with or without
> > Nextel.
>
> I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management today -
> http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...
> i&date=20050214

If you were about to buy a company, you'd keep it secret and issue a
denial, lest the stock price be bid up, and it cost you Billions extra.

So that press release should be ignored. The general rule of thumb is
they're not trying to buy a company until they issue a denial that they
are. We now have that denial.

If they weren't interested in buying Sprint, there'd be no need to issue
a denial.

> In addition, considering that Sprint not only includes LD, they have SPCS.
> In the other deals, SBC bought ATT, the LD + company (no wireless), and
> Verizon bought MCI +company with no wireless.

> As Sprint is doing the deal with Nextel, knocking out one more competitor in
> the wireless field, I doubt seriously whether the FCC or the FTC would allow
> Bell South to take out one more cellular competitor.



And if BellSouth were to buy Sprint, they might easily keep the long
distance, and spin off and/or sell the other pieces you mention; either
cause thats what they want to do, or because the FTC or FCC might
require such to allow the sale to go through.

BellSouth needs to add LongDistance lines like Verizon and SBC just did
or it will become an also ran like Qwest.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 3:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <cezynjalpeepbz.iby2yv1.pminews@news.individual.net>,
"Philip R. Mann" <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:50:51 -0500, twister wrote:
>
> >Even though I don't consider VZW as a part of the Verizon landline company
> >anymore since 48% of it is owned by Vodophone.
>
> Vodaphone purportedly has the right to require Verizon to purchase its
> interst in VZW within the next few years and reportedly wants to do so in
> order to purchase a system in the US more compatible with its own or to
> relieve some of its own corporate problems.

Vodaphone is between a rock and a hard place. They want their own outfit
in the US, but they also

a) Like the profits from VZW
b) are a GSM outfit, so no one left for them to buy
- Cingular now too big
- AT&T Wirelss already bought out
- T-Mobile owned by German Government and not for sale.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:28:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-83D90A.06060115022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <LVbQd.873$9J5.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snipped>

> > I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management
today -
> >
http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...
> > i&date=20050214
>
> If you were about to buy a company, you'd keep it secret and issue a
> denial, lest the stock price be bid up, and it cost you Billions extra.
>
> So that press release should be ignored. The general rule of thumb is
> they're not trying to buy a company until they issue a denial that they
> are. We now have that denial.
>
> If they weren't interested in buying Sprint, there'd be no need to issue
> a denial.

That does not make logical sense, considering the text they did use in the
PR they did issue. Plus, if we go by your reasoning, they then not only lied
to their stockholders, then issued a false and misleading statement that the
SEC would jump all over.

>
> > In addition, considering that Sprint not only includes LD, they have
SPCS.
> > In the other deals, SBC bought ATT, the LD + company (no wireless), and
> > Verizon bought MCI +company with no wireless.
>
> > As Sprint is doing the deal with Nextel, knocking out one more
competitor in
> > the wireless field, I doubt seriously whether the FCC or the FTC would
allow
> > Bell South to take out one more cellular competitor.
>
>
>
> And if BellSouth were to buy Sprint, they might easily keep the long
> distance, and spin off and/or sell the other pieces you mention; either
> cause thats what they want to do, or because the FTC or FCC might
> require such to allow the sale to go through.
>
> BellSouth needs to add LongDistance lines like Verizon and SBC just did
> or it will become an also ran like Qwest.

::Knocking on wood here::, but IMHO, that never happen, considering that the
wireless division is the future of the company, and the most valuable part
of the company ...

Bob
February 15, 2005 9:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:09:29 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>In article <cezynjalpeepbz.iby2yv1.pminews@news.individual.net>,
> "Philip R. Mann" <prmlaw@NOSPAMnyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:50:51 -0500, twister wrote:
>>
>> >Even though I don't consider VZW as a part of the Verizon landline company
>> >anymore since 48% of it is owned by Vodophone.
>>
>> Vodaphone purportedly has the right to require Verizon to purchase its
>> interst in VZW within the next few years and reportedly wants to do so in
>> order to purchase a system in the US more compatible with its own or to
>> relieve some of its own corporate problems.
>
>Vodaphone is between a rock and a hard place. They want their own outfit
>in the US, but they also
>


They don't have to worry, Bush will give away anything they want. AMOCO oil
went to BP. Waiting to see who is next.


>a) Like the profits from VZW
>b) are a GSM outfit, so no one left for them to buy
> - Cingular now too big
> - AT&T Wirelss already bought out
> - T-Mobile owned by German Government and not for sale.

Yea, it was funny to see the hypocrites that spurned Germany as they did
France after our United Nations fiasco's, later to find out that their
cellular service was owned by a German company. Then all of sudden you just
heard France being dissed and not Germany. It seemed that the closer the
cell phone got to Zeta's crouch their sales went up.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 9:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <AGnQd.1257$9J5.1203@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-83D90A.06060115022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <LVbQd.873$9J5.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management
> today -
> > >
> http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...
> > > i&date=20050214
> >
> > If you were about to buy a company, you'd keep it secret and issue a
> > denial, lest the stock price be bid up, and it cost you Billions extra.
> >
> > So that press release should be ignored. The general rule of thumb is
> > they're not trying to buy a company until they issue a denial that they
> > are. We now have that denial.
> >
> > If they weren't interested in buying Sprint, there'd be no need to issue
> > a denial.
>
> That does not make logical sense, considering the text they did use in the
> PR they did issue. Plus, if we go by your reasoning, they then not only lied
> to their stockholders, then issued a false and misleading statement that the
> SEC would jump all over.

Corporations do that all the time. "We changed our mind" "Circumstances
changed" "They made us an offer".
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 9:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <AGnQd.1257$9J5.1203@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-83D90A.06060115022005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <LVbQd.873$9J5.808@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > I doubt it Jack, considering the comments from Bell South Management
> today -
> > >
> http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji...
> > > i&date=20050214
> >
> > If you were about to buy a company, you'd keep it secret and issue a
> > denial, lest the stock price be bid up, and it cost you Billions extra.
> >
> > So that press release should be ignored. The general rule of thumb is
> > they're not trying to buy a company until they issue a denial that they
> > are. We now have that denial.
> >
> > If they weren't interested in buying Sprint, there'd be no need to issue
> > a denial.
>
> That does not make logical sense, considering the text they did use in the
> PR they did issue. Plus, if we go by your reasoning, they then not only lied
> to their stockholders, then issued a false and misleading statement that the
> SEC would jump all over.
>
> >
> > > In addition, considering that Sprint not only includes LD, they have
> SPCS.
> > > In the other deals, SBC bought ATT, the LD + company (no wireless), and
> > > Verizon bought MCI +company with no wireless.
> >
> > > As Sprint is doing the deal with Nextel, knocking out one more
> competitor in
> > > the wireless field, I doubt seriously whether the FCC or the FTC would
> allow
> > > Bell South to take out one more cellular competitor.
> >
> >
> >
> > And if BellSouth were to buy Sprint, they might easily keep the long
> > distance, and spin off and/or sell the other pieces you mention; either
> > cause thats what they want to do, or because the FTC or FCC might
> > require such to allow the sale to go through.
> >
> > BellSouth needs to add LongDistance lines like Verizon and SBC just did
> > or it will become an also ran like Qwest.
>
> ::Knocking on wood here::, but IMHO, that never happen, considering that the
> wireless division is the future of the company, and the most valuable part
> of the company ...

What a terribly short memory Mr Smith has. From the day Cingular
announced its purchase of ATTWS up until the day Sprint agreed to merge
with Nextel, Sprint was saying EXACTLY what BellSouth is saying now. You
find us a press release saying "Sprint is planning a major acquisition".
Flat doesn't happen. Corporation don't telegraph their actions.

=======

Now I'm not saying BellSouth WILL buy Sprint, but it's logical for them
to do so, and Sprint's best defense would be to buy Qwest.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:11:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> They don't have to worry, Bush will give away anything they want.


That may be, but the simple fact is that Bush can't pull a GSM network
out of his ass, the two remaining GSM network s(Cingular adn T-Mobile)
are not for sale, whether you think Bush likes it or not.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
February 16, 2005 5:28:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

What does Bush have to do with this? Or are you referring to someone other
than the president who has some sort of influence over these companies?

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:1115avfouaahs8f@corp.supernews.com...
>> They don't have to worry, Bush will give away anything they want.
>
>
> That may be, but the simple fact is that Bush can't pull a GSM network out
> of his ass, the two remaining GSM network s(Cingular adn T-Mobile) are not
> for sale, whether you think Bush likes it or not.
>
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8dyQd.220121$w62.73004@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> What does Bush have to do with this? Or are you referring to someone other
> than the president who has some sort of influence over these companies?

Bah, pay no attention. It's just the typical gratuitous anti-Bush
remark you get nowadays from sore loser liberals nursing their wounds.

--
John Richards
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:45:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <rhMQd.8319$ng6.7523@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8dyQd.220121$w62.73004@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > What does Bush have to do with this? Or are you referring to someone other
> > than the president who has some sort of influence over these companies?
>
> Bah, pay no attention. It's just the typical gratuitous anti-Bush
> remark you get nowadays from sore loser liberals nursing their wounds.

The sore losers are in Washington State.
!