Government Files to Block AT&T's T-Mobile Acquisition

[acadia11]

Fantastic, well done DoJ. They just need to stop this merger period. Sure Verizon is the one lobbying for this, but who cares, this merger does not need to happen.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Purely a political move by the Obama regime. T Mobile is a third place network. Sprint will be next to get eaten up. This merger will happen one way or another. Its inevitable. Oh and Iphone 5 on AT&T ftw. Unlimited data plan - check..... Verizon - capped.[/citation]

Have you noticed that anytime Obama gets it right it's a political move? Well, I hope Obama keeps making political moves. I'm more inclined to think the decision was made more by Verizon lobbying against the merger. Moreover , honestly, the president has way more stuff on his plate than to worry about if ATT and T-Mobile merger. The President in the US is more of an executive than someone who is involved with every single decision.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]If left alone businesses will do what is good for business which is never good for the customer/voter/tax payer/citizen. The government is there to protect the customer and their rights. You can call it socialism if you want but when done right the only people it hurts are the elite top of the top rich people, just about everyone (aka 99.99%) benefits considerably - and the rich can still be rich by the way. Or should we just go "hands off" let telco's end up like the banks and have to throw nearly a trillion dollars at them to clean up their mess?[/citation]


Exactly, people have this warped sense of reality where they think. that capitalism is good for the country or greed is good for the country. Capitalism is neither good or bad, Capitalism exists to make money for an individual. Sometimes along that way it helps more often than not it hurts the country in this day and age. Capitalism is good for the individual but not neccessarily good for the collective. The sooner people really this, I think the better off they will be, they won't be shocked when corporations outsource, make record profits and don't hire, or simply just out right fxk consumers. Maybe, then, you'll stop hearing people say corporations need more benefits, subsidies for private jets, tax breaks and so on ... they can take care of themselves just fine, the rich have one thing to worry about that is generally revolution putting themselves in the best position to maintain and acquire more wealth is not usually something they have to worry about, or need the peasants to do for them.

 

[zoemayne]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCp-1hgfxI

 

[Darkerson]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Purely a political move by the Obama regime. T Mobile is a third place network. Sprint will be next to get eaten up. This merger will happen one way or another. Its inevitable. Oh and Iphone 5 on AT&T ftw. Unlimited data plan - check..... Verizon - capped.[/citation]

Obvious troll is obvious!

 

[Hellbound]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Purely a political move by the Obama regime. T Mobile is a third place network. Sprint will be next to get eaten up. This merger will happen one way or another. Its inevitable. Oh and Iphone 5 on AT&T ftw. Unlimited data plan - check..... Verizon - capped.[/citation]

Nowhere in the article is Obama's name mentioned. The government is more than just Obama. This could turn into an antitrust issue if ATT acquires Tmobile and I think the government sees that, and that's why they are trying to block it. I don't like Obama either, but there is no need to make things up.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]I don't see a duopoly as a reason for DOJ to step in. It's not like Verizon wouldn't compete with the unified ATT and T-Mobile company.It shouldn't be ATT's fault that Verizon exists. This argument should be whether or not Verizon can stay competitive against ATT instead of whether other companies can stay competitive with the TWO of them.If they're really aiming to make sure 2 companies cannot be dominate in a market, how come they haven't stepped in on:UFC (purchased Strikeforce), monopoly in the MMA sportNvidia and ATI (only 2 mainstream graphics entities)Intel and AMDetcetcetcThis decision makes no sense. As long as there is an equally strong competitor, DOJ needs to step back and let the market work.[/citation]

ATI no longer exists.... nVidia and AMD aren't the only mainstream graphics entities. Intel also produces mainstream graphics chips, as does S3.
Intel and AMD aren't the only processor makers. VIA dominates the embedded market and ARM dominates the mobile market.
UFC is considered "sports entertainment"...same as WWE, ECW and WCW, so no monopoly.

Also, AT&T has a long standing history or anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior. I'm guessing you're probably rather young based on your post. It is AT&T's fault that Verizon exists. Verizon is among the side-effects of AT&T being given free reign in the communications market. AT&T/Bell Labs faced anti-trust suits in the past which resulted in Bell Labs being split up into multiple companies. Bell South, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic, Central Bell, etc.....AT&T/Bell Labs was referred to as "Ma' Bell" because it completely dominated the communications market. AT&T/Bell Labs has been actively trying to re-establish their prior market dominance since the DoJ forced the company split-up.

Lucent Technologies, a former wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T/Bell Labs, spun off a cellular communications company named "360 Communications". After becoming an independent subsidiary, they sold "360 Communications", which then became Alltel. Alltel was later purchased by Verizon. AT&T later started "Suncom", which was later sold to Bell South and merged with Bell South cellular communications division Cingular Wireless. Bell South (SBC), purchased AT&T from Bell Labs. Bell South later merged with Southwestern Bell and formally changed the company name to AT&T and Cingular became AT&T Wireless. (That's 3 of the "7 baby bells" recombined as Southern Bell and South Central Bell had already combined to create Bell South). Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX (that leaves 2 "baby bells" independent). Bell Atlantic later merged with MCI (after AT&T successfully strangled the company into bankruptcy) and the combined company became known as Verizon TeleCommunications. This is all directly related to AT&T's history of market domination and anti-competitive actions. AT&T is actively making attempts to rebuild the market dominating business they were forced to divest in 1984....this is not, in any way, beneficial to consumers.

 

[ravewulf]

Good

 

[hoofhearted]

Now what would really benefit the consumer is if Sprint and T-mobile merged, then offered phones that worked on both networks (CDMA & GSM).

 

[warmon6]

that's 1 more monkey wrench in the equation. now can we make this final!

 

[Jprobes]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]ATI no longer exists.... nVidia and AMD aren't the only mainstream graphics entities. Intel also produces mainstream graphics chips, as does S3.Intel and AMD aren't the only processor makers. VIA dominates the embedded market and ARM dominates the mobile market.UFC is considered "sports entertainment"...same as WWE, ECW and WCW, so no monopoly.Also, AT&T has a long standing history or anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior. I'm guessing you're probably rather young based on your post. It is AT&T's fault that Verizon exists. Verizon is among the side-effects of AT&T being given free reign in the communications market. AT&T/Bell Labs faced anti-trust suits in the past which resulted in Bell Labs being split up into multiple companies. Bell South, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic, Central Bell, etc.....AT&T/Bell Labs was referred to as "Ma' Bell" because it completely dominated the communications market. AT&T/Bell Labs has been actively trying to re-establish their prior market dominance since the DoJ forced the company split-up.Lucent Technologies, a former wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T/Bell Labs, spun off a cellular communications company named "360 Communications". After becoming an independent subsidiary, they sold "360 Communications", which then became Alltel. Alltel was later purchased by Verizon. AT&T later started "Suncom", which was later sold to Bell South and merged with Bell South cellular communications division Cingular Wireless. Bell South (SBC), purchased AT&T from Bell Labs. Bell South later merged with Southwestern Bell and formally changed the company name to AT&T and Cingular became AT&T Wireless. (That's 3 of the "7 baby bells" recombined as Southern Bell and South Central Bell had already combined to create Bell South). Bell Atlantic merged with NYNEX (that leaves 2 "baby bells" independent). Bell Atlantic later merged with MCI (after AT&T successfully strangled the company into bankruptcy) and the combined company became known as Verizon TeleCommunications. This is all directly related to AT&T's history of market domination and anti-competitive actions. AT&T is actively making attempts to rebuild the market dominating business they were forced to divest in 1984....this is not, in any way, beneficial to consumers.[/citation]

That is quite possibly the best breakdown of what 'Ma Bell' Was spliced into and is now reforming into the 'Destructocom' to be named 'Ma Cell'

 

[ikefu]

The big issue to me with this AT&T merger is that they claim they need to do this in order to upgrade their network. Yet today they are seriously behind Verizon and others in terms of network reliability and coverage even though they operate under the same restrictions.

So if they haven't invested enough in the network up to now, why would buying T-Mobile suddenly change this habbit. This has nothing to do with building a better network, it has everything to do with wanting to kill competition so you can avoid spending more money on the network. AT&T's wireless division made 15 BILLION in profit in a single quarter. You can't tell me they don't have enough money to upgrade the network without T-Mobile.

 

[tuch92]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Exactly, people have this warped sense of reality where they think. that capitalism is good for the country or greed is good for the country. Capitalism is neither good or bad, Capitalism exists to make money for an individual. Sometimes along that way it helps more often than not it hurts the country in this day and age. Capitalism is good for the individual but not neccessarily good for the collective. The sooner people really this, I think the better off they will be, they won't be shocked when corporations outsource, make record profits and don't hire, or simply just out right fxk consumers. Maybe, then, you'll stop hearing people say corporations need more benefits, subsidies for private jets, tax breaks and so on ... they can take care of themselves just fine, the rich have one thing to worry about that is generally revolution putting themselves in the best position to maintain and acquire more wealth is not usually something they have to worry about, or need the peasants to do for them.[/citation]

I agree 100% with this paragraph, and I actually saved it onto my computer cause it was well written. Also, my guitar's name is Acadia. So there's that too. haha

 

[chickenhoagie]

Definitely thumbs up for the gov on this one..I'm glad they still recognize some monopoly's taking place in our country. Monopoly's, in the end, will never be good for our country

 

[legacy7955]

CEO of AT&T Randell L. Stephenson and his greedy gang are the perfect example of what happens when the MBA virus is unleashed on business.

Watch this it probably isn't too far from the truth.

Link to YT http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lQ6z_Dr8qM

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]Good[/citation]

Sykozis - What the...
Very impressive write up. Thank You

 

[Blessedman]

Way to stop corporations from fk'ing the public, freeze prices and tax the shit out of them. This way they cannot just pass along the tax off to their customers. Like the idea of taking away tax breaks from big oil... Guess what take away some of their profits from tax breaks and they will just charge the consumer more for their product. The public is too weak willed to say enough so the government should do their job and protect us from being rapped... Which is what is sort of taking place here.

 

[DaveUK]

Actually, consolidating resources and networking infrastructure will create substantial cost savings and substantially improve coverage (especially high speed data) for all customers involved.

You all fail to recognise that all relevant regulators would be scrutinising this new consolidated network moving forward, and if at any point AT&T were seen to be using their new position to the detriment of consumers then they would be prosecuted on Anti-trust grounds just like Microsoft.

I genuinely fail to see how this would be a bad thing on a competitive basis. We have seen a similar thing with Orange UK and T-Mobile UK joining together here in England... I now have better coverage and my bills have not gone up!

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]DaveUK[/nom]Actually, consolidating resources and networking infrastructure will create substantial cost savings and substantially improve coverage (especially high speed data) for all customers involved.You all fail to recognise that all relevant regulators would be scrutinising this new consolidated network moving forward, and if at any point AT&T were seen to be using their new position to the detriment of consumers then they would be prosecuted on Anti-trust grounds just like Microsoft.I genuinely fail to see how this would be a bad thing on a competitive basis. We have seen a similar thing with Orange UK and T-Mobile UK joining together here in England... I now have better coverage and my bills have not gone up![/citation]

Well to put it simply, people still have that bad taste in there mouth about AT&T all those years ago when they were originally broken up.

See the thing is, here in the US, not a lot companies cant be trusted to keep there prices low after a merger. Even with all the "regulations".

So, in my option, why allow a merger to happen with the decent chance of prices going up, and few other things to happen and then just breaking it apart for monopoly related issues? Why waste peoples and goverment time and money to break it apart?

Also, what works in the UK doesn't mean it works well for other counties. Case in point, while Orange U.K. has 17 million customers (my number maybe off but this is what i was able to find), Tmobile USA alone has just under double that number (about 30 million). That not including what AT&T has (about 90 million). Which combine is close to 120 Million people on a network.

While you may of see a gain over there, im doubtful with the shear number of users here that we would see any benefits.

 

[Mathos]

[citation][nom]DaveUK[/nom]Actually, consolidating resources and networking infrastructure will create substantial cost savings and substantially improve coverage (especially high speed data) for all customers involved.You all fail to recognise that all relevant regulators would be scrutinising this new consolidated network moving forward, and if at any point AT&T were seen to be using their new position to the detriment of consumers then they would be prosecuted on Anti-trust grounds just like Microsoft.I genuinely fail to see how this would be a bad thing on a competitive basis. We have seen a similar thing with Orange UK and T-Mobile UK joining together here in England... I now have better coverage and my bills have not gone up![/citation]

The problem with that is, the UK and US don't have the same regulations as far as things like that go. The UK probably has regulations regarding price fixing or gouging the customer. Where as the US government doesn't have such. Generally the government here only steps in to stop something if it will cause serious damage to competition and the market. Companies like AT&T and them specifically have proven over and over again, that they cannot be trusted when it comes to that. How is it that AT&T can produce so much profit from their wireless divisions yet not be able to afford to upgrade their networks? Yet Verizon, though bigger right now, seems to be able to, T-Mobile, much smaller seems to be able to, and Sprint seem to be able and more than willing to?