AT&T To Acquire T-Mobile USA
This must be blocked.
The easy way is for AT&T to simply buy T-Mobile..the hard way is to allow T-Mobile to continue to bleed customers until it dies naturally at which point AT&T will no doubt step in to eat its rotting, dessicated corpse.
Either way, T-Mobile doesn't have much of a future, and the bulk of its spectrum will be owned by AT&T in the end.
If you look at the two biggest and most profitable companies, AT&T and Verizon, why are they strong when their competitors are weak? Because both AT&T and VZW offer a broad range of services beyond wireless telephone, they also offer landline, DSL and television service.....you can make a profit, indeed a healthy one, IF wireless telephone service is merely one of a broad array of services you offer, however if you offer only wireless phone service, you probably won't be able to survive.
It's really hard to make money off wireless phon...
(continues)
It made sense for Verizon to purchase Alltel because Alltel had all the rural markets in the midwest and the west where Verizon had no service....same with AT&T, thanks to the diverstiture,
But I'm not aware of a market where T-Mobile offers service but AT&T doesn't....so from a 'coverage' standpoint the merger doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
It must be all about obtaining the spectrum to build out a proper 4G network.
there was a ton of hullabaloo around the VZW Alltel acquistion...
ELawson87 said:
This must be blocked because, if it isn't, a lot of people(including me) will most definitely be out of jobs. There's an AT&T store across the street from where I work.
So, you believe that it is the government's responsibility to ensure job growth and sustenance?
dgrave2929 said:
Hey great, I thought you knew that was the roll of the gov..... lmfao
Um...no it's not. Just for the heck of it, where is the separation of church and state mentioned?
The separation of church and state has nothing at all to do with this thread, I merely wanted the guy I was posting with to demonstrate his knowledge of our government.
Then the 14th amendment expands the bill of rights to the states.
You're welcome to argue with my Constitutional law professor, though.
The whole concept of "separation of church and state" was a single line written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church in Georgia (I believe it was Georgia). Progressives have since taken Jefferson's words so far out of context, that virtually every American believes the separation of church and state is law, when it is, in fact, not.
That IS "separation of church and state," is it not? Considering the United States separated from a nation where the Head of State was also the leader of the nation's religion...
The Supreme Court would disagree with you, as well.
If you're unsure what the establishment clause means may I suggest you refer to the guy who wrote it.
The word progressive has shifted in meaning many times since the constitution was founded. The supreme court, however, has remained remarkably consistent on this topic.
"In what context is a "wall of seperation" not a wall... that separates?
It is in fact a law, rooted deep within the framing of the bill of rights, and ratified many times, using the ve...
(continues)
There are thousands of real people with families that will be put in a very bad situation if this happens, so you can take the laissez-faire garbage and shove it. There is no free market when three companies dominate an entire industry.
Really? There are only two major soft drink companies, Coke and Pepsi, who together have nearly 80% of the market tied up.... and it's been that way for years....I haven't seen anyone complain about a lack of choice in soft drinks recently....
Telephone is more like a utility than anything.....and most places get by fine with only one or two utility companies.....if I had as many as 3 choices for my electric and water companies I would be dancing a jig....
Three major carriers, and a PLETHORA of smaller, local carriers, such as US Cellular, Cellular South and several others.....will do fine for most people I think.
Comparing wireless phone service to both water AND soft drinks is a bit ridiculous. Soft drinks, despite being mostly a market controlled by two companies, has dozens if not hundreds of substitutes, store-brands, independents, etc. Soft drinks are also an elastic product, meaning that it isn't necessary. If you don't like Pepsi or Coke, you can drink water(from your local water utility, perhaps). You don't NEED soft drinks. Or, at least you don't once you get over the caffeine withdrawal, which isn't plesant, believe me.
Water and electricity are necessities, and, much as I dislike it, operate best as monopolies because of the heavy amount of infrastructure required. Wireless...
(continues)
ELawson87 said:
I also oppose private ownership of public utilities...Water and electricity are necessities, and, much as I dislike it, operate best as monopolies because of the heavy amount of infrastructure required.
I don't understand. Utility companies do indeed implement large infrastructures by nature. But, why must any company be nationalized? Do you really put more faith into the federal government than you do businesses? That mentality is very dangerous to a republic.
Comparing wireless phone service to both water AND soft drinks is a bit ridiculous. Soft drinks, despite being mostly a market controlled by two companies, has dozens if not hundreds of substitutes, store-brands,...
(continues)
The danger to the republic is people being perfectly fine with corporations growing to the point where they are large and more powerful than the state. The state is responsible to the people. A corporation that dominates a market is responsible to its profit margin.
I put more faith in public ownership of anything that is too important to leave to the whims of the profit motive--utilities, healthcare, etc.
"As does the wireless industry; there are literally hundreds of US wireless providers."
Not where I live, and certainly not any that offer anything above basic calling. Trimming the number of national carriers reduces customer choice and avail...
(continues)
The danger to the republic is people being perfectly fine with corporations growing to the point where they are large and more powerful than the state. The state is responsible to the people. A corporation that dominates a market is responsible to its profit margin.
ARRGHH! You are preaching to the choir here, but you fail to understand that we agree. Let me be clear: I believe in a free market, in which competition between companies is encouraged and protected by the government.
I don't want this merger to go through, not because I have some vendetta against AT&T and/or T-Mobile, but because I want what's best for the consumers.
Then on that point, sir, we are entirely in agreement, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
😁
And I would also point out that the defintion of a 'free market' is not one which is not regulated, but rather a 'free market' is one in which there is no central planner, and one in which the government does not 'play favorites' by choosing winners and losers in the market.
In fact, government regulation is an ESSENTIAL component of the free market, to ensure that competition is truly free and fair, regulation is needed to prevent competition, in the same way that an umpire is needed to ensure that a baseball game is a truly fair competition....
I would also point out that the absolute de...
(continues)
This forum is closed.