AT&T to Sprint: We Want to See Your Competitive Plans
What I don't get is...
I mean, unless AT&T can use the merger to create efficiencies and lower costs. Then Sprint would be out of luck with fewer people jumping ship.
The real questions are:
How is this deal bad for "the consumer?"
Less choice? Sure, but now AT&T and T-Mobile customers have a low cost carrier to jump ship to... Sprint.
Higher bills? Sure, but now AT&T and T-Mobile customers have a low cost carrier to jump ship to... Sprint.
Less handset choices? Uh... has anyone noticed they all carry the same phones with different names now anyway???? Sprint has almost all the same phones as everyone else.
If the merger goes throug...
(continues)
They will by FAR, have the largest influence among the cell phone manufacturers.
They will also drive Sprint out of business, then once they're gone, buy them out, or just let them die completely - then raise their price after the competition is gone.
Whatever the case, more companies is ALWAYS better. Better competition, better rates and more of a drive for the company to provide the best service possible to differentiate themselves from the others.
edzero said:
Sprints doing a good enough job driving themselves out of business
So, why do they need the government to help kill them off?
This merger could do just that...
edzero said:
Sprints doing a good enough job driving themselves out of business
That is a naive, simplistic view, one that ignores external factors. It is akin to calling a school kid "clumsy" because a couple of bullies continually trip him and push him into the wall.
The two biggest reasons that Sprint and T-Mobile struggle and that AT&TWS, ALLTEL, DCOC, and RCC are no longer in business are VZW and AT&T. They have bought up (or are trying to buy up) anti competitive market share and have turned a once vibrant industry into their own corporate fiefdoms.
AJ
The history of business shows that becoming a monopoly is in the long run harmful to a company because it limits their ability to adapt and innovate, and thus monopolies tend to be short lived.
Government monopolies however are another story....when the coercive and anti-competetive monopoly is the government, who is going to step in and provide competition and balance?
T Bone said:
The history of business shows that becoming a monopoly is in the long run harmful to a company because it limits their ability to adapt and innovate, and thus monopolies tend to be short lived.
Repeated assertion does not equal veracity.
Your monopoly caveat is not any more relevant now than it was when you used your unapt Kodak analogy. Kodak was the dominant company in a field that is completely open to new entrant competition. If I can come up with an innovative imaging technology and effectively market it to buyers, then I can grab a share of the market. The sky is the limit.
Wireless is nothing like that. Spectrum licensing and infrastructure deployment create huge barriers to...
(continues)
If these companies all had to build out immediately, they would not spend billions buying just to sit on it. But of course that would require our government to make rules to this affect, and that does not seem likely to happen.
By adding more competition (more companies) it should spur more growth. More growth-= More Profits.
JMO
A good example is the DROID and Blackberry Storm. Both were mediocre devices, but Verizon had enough of a marketing push behind both that they sold in decent quantities. The DROID sustained the momentum, though the Blackberry Storm was such garbage it was quickly forgotten. Still, that a phone that terrible sold when the iPhone was already well established should say something about Verizon's loyal subscriber base.
By contrast, the Palm Pre floundered- Sprint didn't have a wealthy enough subscriber base to sustain it, even though it launched when AT&T's network was in te...
(continues)
This forum is closed.