AT&T To Acquire T-Mobile USA
This must be blocked.
This deal has little chance of passing FTC muster and for good reason. Taking another competitor out of the market will be really bad for consumers.
...
There are two ways to do this: the hard way and the easy way.
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.
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.
...
I don't necessarily think that it is a 'good thing', but I do think that it is inevitable because it is really, really difficult for companies to make a profit offering only wireless telephone service.
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)
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)
...
And Verizon wasn't able to purchase every customer from Alltel, so as to avoid a monopoly in rural markets. Thank goodness!
...
I'm not sure that T-Mobile is a truly 'national' network either....they have great coverage on the east coast, some one the west coast, and virtually nothing in the midwest.
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.
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.
...
It has nothing to do with gaining coverage. It all has to do with acquiring subs and spectrum, the latter being the biggest motivator.
...
Isnt that precisely what I just said? 'This must be all about obtaining the spectrum?' 😕
...
Spectrum is the biggest kicker here, as well as more cell towers to pull through.
...
Hey cc, the reason why no one felt this way about Alltell is bc Alltell wasnt really a major carrier. When you talk to people in the industry they always talk about the big 4, you can within reason throw them in there, but lets be honest. Thats kinda like calling nextel a legit cell phone company as well. No one wants it and isnt really all that great.
...
selective memory much? lol
there was a ton of hullabaloo around the VZW Alltel acquistion...
there was a ton of hullabaloo around the VZW Alltel acquistion...
...
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.
...
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?
...
and you won't find it in the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights (or any Amendment, for that matter).
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.
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.
...
The separation of church and state as a concept is mentioned in the establishment clause of the 1st amendment of the constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" was penned originally in an open letter to the Danbury Baptist church explaining what the establishment clause means. The phrase has since been used in several supreme court decisions spanning the last 250 years.
...
"Congress shall make no law..." - First Amendment. "No law" is pretty straight-forward.
Then the 14th amendment expands the bill of rights to the states.
You're welcome to argue with my Constitutional law professor, though.
Then the 14th amendment expands the bill of rights to the states.
You're welcome to argue with my Constitutional law professor, though.
...
Actually, it's not, and you (and your Constitutional law professor I'm assuming) have drawn false conclusions as to what the First Amendment protects, religion-wise. The First Amendment only limits Congress from declaring a national religion. Never once in any formal document is it stated that our government cannot be a religously-influenced government.
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.
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.
...
"Never once in any formal document is it stated that our government cannot be a religously-influenced government. "
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.
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.
...
All I'm saying is that the government should indeed be forbidden from establishing a national religion, in which all citizens are required to adhere to one belief. Other than that, I couldn't care less if Congress passed a National Prayer Day (which, it actually did the day after the First Amendment was ratified).
...
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State".
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)
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)
...
Great, I was being funny. I was taking your comment and going a little more political.
...
I believe it's the government's responsibility to prevent oligopolies and monopolies from stifling competition, leading to higher prices for poorer service, as well as a lack of job opportunities.
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.
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.
...
"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....
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....
...
Another example is game consoles...there are three major game consoles...X Box...Playstation (two versions, PS2 and PS3) and Nintendo Wii....I haven't heard anybody complain about a lack of competition in game consoles recently...
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.
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.
...
Unless you happen to work for the carrier that's being bought out. Then, well, tough ****. The shareholders are getting a nice bonus.
...
I also oppose private ownership of public utilities.
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)
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)
...
"Do you really put more faith into the federal government than you do businesses?"
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.
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.
...
"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.
Then on that point, sir, we are entirely in agreement, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
...
I think we still disagree on some fundamental political beliefs, but we are certainly in agreement on this whole issue.
😁
😁
...
I'm a democratic socialist living in South Carolina. That isn't anything new for me. >_>
...
I'm a libertarian capitalist, so I think we disagree on virtually everything. I know we both want what's best for the consumer - we just disagree on how to deliver that.
...
O RLY? So, you believe that the government is more able to provide jobs than businesses?
...
Government oversight and regulation of business to prevent monopolies isn't providing jobs. It's ensuring jobs aren't lost because shareholders and executives would rather buy their way into control of a market than actually earn it through good service and pricing. There is no free market with only 2 or 3 options. It leads to collusion. Therefore, with an oligopoly, government must step in and serve the best interests of customers and employees, because the companies involved damn sure won't.
...
Well...I would point out that he is arguing against a strawman, no one is advocating 'lassiez faire'...i.e. no economic regulation whatever....
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)
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)
...
I understand how a free market works. In fact, I adhere to the school of thought of laissez-faire Capitalism - to a point. I am certainly grateful of the anti-trust laws (i.e., anti-monopoly) in place, because I simply want what's best for companies and consumers alike - a free market in which competition drives better services at lower prices.
...
This is America. It's all about the money, even with the FCC. If they let Comcast buy NBC and didn't see a problem do you really think they would even hesitate to approve this? It's a done deal. Get over it.
...
This forum is closed.
