AT&T was one of the largest monopolies in the world with over a million employees. It was targeted and speared to break up as to provide choices for consumers and eliminate a total control over the state of the wireless industry.
Now, AT&T wants to take over pay tv all while trying to snuff out wireless carriers as well.
Does anyone here understand why me and many others have constantly posted our opinions why we need to keep Verizon and AT&T under control? These two companies are far more financially equipped to do just about anything they want. I would advise anyone that disagrees with me to keep the argument that the smaller carriers have had plenty of chance to grow. This simply isn't the case. The moment the monopoly was broken ...
(continues)
...
They already are put back together, it's too late and the death star is coming for you lol... Southwestern and Atlantic were the most powerful from the start its pretty obvious but also the fault of other providers for not being as aggressive while they had the opportunity to do so.
Dave L.
...
If I remember correctly, you also swear by the Samsung Galaxy. So....hard to take your opinion seriously, lol.
...
ZpikeMay 12, 2014, 10:58 PM
You only buy Angel Soft toilet paper. And everyone knows that no hard a** uses Angel Soft. So, personally I'm having trouble believing you have the strength of your convictions.
...
lmao 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿
...
You remembered incorrectly.
I had always been an HTC man. I switched to Samsung preferably due to retaining expandable memory and removable battery. While I love my S5, I do not get attached to my phones due to upgrading every two years. It is just a tool to conduct a business and communicate.
You should take me serious as I care more for consumer advocacy than pretty, shiny objects. Anyone that complains about why family phone bills are almost the cost of a car payment or insurance deductables are so high, shouldn't take my comments lightly.
My comments are to help you; Not the greedy industry.
John B.
...
I am sure it would be OK if Sprint or Softbank were to buy our DirecTV, right? Lol
...
Yes. Because shifting the folcrum point to a more even balance is better for healthier choice and pricing. The problem is, even having strong parent companies, Tmobile and Sprint still have limited funded parents as compared to Verizon and AT&T.
However, it is my hope that acquistions or merges are kept to minimalistic numbers and that AT&T and Verizon are kept at bay to use innovation rather than just purchase entities that others built.
John B.
...
Slammer said:
Yes. Because shifting the folcrum point to a more even balance is better for healthier choice and pricing. The problem is, even having strong parent companies, Tmobile and Sprint still have limited funded parents as compared to Verizon and AT&T.
However, it is my hope that acquistions or merges are kept to minimalistic numbers and that AT&T and Verizon are kept at bay to use innovation rather than just purchase entities that others built.
John B.
Ahhh yes...So It's okay for your big dog to buy up everything, but nobody elses.
...
Please review my response that you highlighted and ask yourself if that is what I said. In case you found it confusing:
I believe what I was saying is that I'd like to see an even balance. I didn't say I wanted my carrier of choice to buy up everything.
John B.
...
The FCC and FTC have co-ruled that ATT won't be a monopoly unless their CEO dons a suit with tails, a top hat and monocle.
...
There are some financial analysts that feel the break up of AT&T was a mistake. This has led to the easing of proper regulations in serving the public interest. The truth be known that AT&T and Verizon were left with substantial wealth after the break up in order to out pace the smaller carriers. The whole reason for the dissolve has been negated by failed observation and monitoring by the very same government that forced the break up.
John B.
...
So you are saying that everything is a big massive conspiracy?
...
As far as wireless goes the smaller companies have very large parent companies that could invest if they want. But they don't.
...
Who said they don't want to. Just because they haven't doesn't mean anything. People only assume that they don't want to. Large purchases require large pay backs that are driven by revenue. Tmobile and Sprint lack the revenue and the parent companies are no different than a mom and dad. I'm not about to lend my 32 year old son money on something that is a chance, sketchy pay back. I might help in small funding to ease debt but, I will not sacrifice my fortune on guesses. Businesses are the same. AT&T and Verizon have manipulated the industry through our home government that promises financial benefits for both the politicians and the corporation. The foreign corps would not offer the same returns.
John B.
...
Their parent companies aren't like a mom and dad. Because Sprint and T-mobile are a part of the bigger company. DT doesn't want to invest in T-mobile because they know that T-mo can never succeed. Softbank just bought Sprint and we have to wait awhile to see what they do but I think it will be good. We need less government intervention not more.
...
I for one would rather see directv stay a separate entity from any company. The only reason at&t wants to buy them is because they are losing home phone, broadband and pay tv customers. This just gives them another way to raise prices. I hope the FCC and the DOJ steps in and blocks them.
...
smcgarvey6 said:
I for one would rather see directv stay a separate entity from any company. The only reason at&t wants to buy them is because they are losing home phone, broadband and pay tv customers. This just gives them another way to raise prices. I hope the FCC and the DOJ steps in and blocks them.
except as a trend, prices have fallen.
...
ZpikeMay 16, 2014, 1:46 AM
>>except as a trend, prices have fallen.
Which ones would those be? Please elaborate.
...