AT&T Withdraws Its T-Mobile Application from FCC

[STravis]

[citation][nom]Objectivist[/nom]This is an absolute abomination. The fact that 2 companies were attempting to do something they felt was in their best interest best interest, and the government come swooshing in swinging their clubs and guns and puts a stop to it is not a win for anyone. It is an assault on freedom, and any assault on freedom is an assault on everyone. Right now we have 4 major wireless carriers. Why is that ok in the eyes of the government, but having only 3 would "harm customers". No one has a right to cell phone service. Therefore, even if the merger would lead to higher prices (which I don't believe it would) there is no reason the government should step in and see to it that prices don't rise. The government's only proper role is to protect rights, and cell phone service is not a right.[/citation]

STFU retard.

 

[Objectivist]

Instead of name calling why don't you use some intellectual thought to prove to me that it IS the government's role to decide whether 2 companies can merge, and whether prices are "high enough" already. All you people are emotionally arguing on the basis of things like "as a T-Mobile customer I don't want to be on AT&T's network, therefore this is good", instead of defining what the government's proper role as an agent of force is.

 

[snipeye]

@Objectivisit Granted, it's wiki, but there's some good info about antitrust and monopoly law. http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

You said the merger was done by what the two companies felt was in their best interest, but in this case, their best interest does not equal best interest to the consumer. It's not just their customers being affected; other wireless customers will be affected by the decrease in competition (such as less competitors to choose from, possibly higher prices, etc.), any new or current competitors will be further depressed by the higher amount of difficulty to even compete in this sector, and the list can go on and on from there. In a way, true, no one has a right to cell phone service. However, they do have a right to purchase/compete in a fair market, as well as the right to a freedom of choice. That's part of the reason why the government got involved.
And to whomever said the easy way/hard way about T-Mobile keeping their customers, this is just hearsay from me, but I know two disgruntled AT&T workers (mid-level manager, and a technician) who openly admitted that there would be layoffs for both AT&T and T-Mobile if the merger happened. Employees doing the same job would be laid off to improve efficiency, and such. That's why mergers can be seen as negative business moments for the employees involved (especially the one that's being taken over).

 

[Objectivist]

Well, I believe that antitrust laws are inherantly evil and immoral. The laws are written in a way that is so vague that they are impossible to follow. A business doesn't know if they have disobeyed the all-powerful regulators demands until they come knocking on their door. This is the essence of a dictatorship, not a constitutional republic like the US is supposed to be. Dictators keep their people on their toes, constantly changing their demands, so as to keep them under constant terror and threat of punishment. This is no different than the antritrust laws. Look at the Microsoft antitrust case. They were scrutinized for GIVING their product away when they bundled IE with Windows. Other cases punish companies for "price gouging" or "price fixes". The only given common denominator given by regulators is "anti-competitiveness". This is an undefinable term. I would argue that in the AT&T case, their desire to acquire T-Mobile is the essense of competition. They want to increase their competative position against companies like Verizon and Sprint.

But, regardless, the real question that needs to be answered is do we have a RIGHT to certain prices, certain products, or certain numbers of companies existing? I say NO. Rights are only a right to action, not a right to products or to the work of others. Imagine if, instead of T-Mobile being bought by AT&T, they just decided to close their doors. Should the government force them to stay open because "consumers have a RIGHT to more than 3 mobile carriers"? It's insanity. No one forces you to buy a cell phone or deal with any particular cell phone company. You do so voluntarily. If you don't like a company's products or prices you have the RIGHT not to deal with them. Similarly, they have a RIGHT to charge very high prices and lose customers accordingly. The point is, this all comes down to the definition of rights, and the government's proper role with respect to them. I believe that the government's only job is to protect each individual's life. There is no proof in reality that cell phones or a certain price for a cell phone is anyone's right.

 

[Objectivist]

@snipeye. Also, be careful when you say the government has to step in to maintain consumer's freedom of choice. Their freedom of choice is whether or not to deal with any of the availailable companies that wish to sell a product (in any field, not just with cell phones). There is no freedom to choose between companies that don't exist. If T-mobile decides to sell itself to AT&T, they are no longer an existing company. You don't have a "right to the nonexistant". You simply have a right to deal with whatever companies DO exist... and only if they wish to deal with you.

Also, please define a "fair market". To me, a fair market is simply one where the government does not step in and give any kind of favors to either side, whether it's the consumer, or the producer. The government's job in this case, is simply making sure that no fraud is committed, and that contracts are upheld. Fair is simply making sure no one is violating someone else's rights. However, this can only be achieved if there is a clear proper understanding of what rights are. Unfortunately, when it comes to poilitical debates like these, people skip the step of defining rights, and simply declare "rights" that don't really exist.

 

[matt_b]

As part of the original agreement, AT&T must now pay T-Mobile parent company Deutsche Telekom $4 billion in break-up fees. $3 billion of that is in cash and $1 billion is in spectrum.

Somebody fire the person at AT&T that agreed to this part of the contract. Someone at T-Mobile is getting promoted in the meantime........
I hate ridiculous contracts like this and it's a shame to see AT&T put itself in a corner for ever agreeing to this junk contract. In good news though, this gives Sprint a HUGE sigh of relief that they may be down but certainly not out now. Hopefully we can have more fierce competition to come to bring these ridiculous mobile contract gimmicks, hidden add-ons, and oh yeah; the whole separate texting plan being needed because it isn't a part of data - they're unrelated to one another. I love that last one.

 

[eddieroolz]

Wow, Deutsche Telekom should use this to milk more cash out of AT&T. Pretend that they're interested in a sale, and then just get FCC to intervene. Everybody wins!

 

[blackened144]

DT doesnt want T-Mobile and Ive heard they would be willing to just let the company go under.. How is letting that happen any worse for consumers, T-Mobile employees, and the economy than a merger with ATT?

 

[Guest]

I can't stand all of this crap that people spout off about! All these people talking about the job losses that would occur if the merger would happen are full of it. T-mobile as a business has been crushed. DT doesn't want them! It's just a matter of time until I and the largest percentage of the company are out of jobs!!! They are still trying to cut a deal in which they would just divest parts of the company and the rest of t-mobile will be divested into other telecom companies. T-mobile is dead and so is almost all of their employees if this happens. Thanks!