Huh? Democrats can't string together logical thoughts? Where on earth did that come from? The Republicans tell us that the best way to balance the budget is to give $2 trillion of tax breaks to corporations and millionaires. And that's logical? Or how about their positively delusional denial of climate science? It appears that the author of the above referenced quote may be named "Dim" for a reason....
Care to name one major utility that was then not government-owned?
Of course: Ma Bell (AT&T), and most other utilities (gas, electric, etc.) in the US. They were government regulated, but investor owned and privately run.
At that time most utilities in other developed countries, whether telecom or other, were government owned and run. Examples include the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) and the GPO (General Post Office, which also ran the phone system) in the UK; Electricité de France, and too many others to mention.
I think you need to reread both our posts. You seem to be missing the point.
Quote:
A related point: US phone services are more expensive than those in many other parts of the world today.
And cheaper than some others. Do you draw some conclusion from that?
All the crying is cause Sprint though Tmo will stay forever waiting on them to be purchased... They had plenty of time and chances but didn't wanted to pay DTelecom.. I remember the permanent rumor about it when I used to work for Tmo but years passed and they missed their chance.
The company should focus on existing customers and technology, and spending shareholders cash to buy new customers through a merger.
AT&T lives in the last century as far as I am concerned.
My iPhone service stinks with AT&T, due in part because they keep acquiring companies. The last one, forced them to delay 3G deployment. They finally brought 3G here, but only last year. How about delivering a phone call that doesn't drop half the time?
AT&T's only way to survive is to let their calls drop while acquiring new customers through acquisition.
OK, I will give it a shot. It would be illegal because it would create a monopoly on the GSM network, which currently only consists of AT&T and T-Mobile. That will definitely cause harm to customers and eliminate choice.
Consider this example. Currently, I have an iPhone I own free and clear. I am running it on T-Mobile's network. I like T-Mobile because 1) the plans are cheaper, 2) more diverse, and 3) I don't have to have a data plan with my unlocked owned free and clear iPhone. I use only wi-fi.
If AT&T buys T-Mobile, I now have no place to take my owned free and clear equipment. The other day it was reported that T-Mobile has something like 2 Million unlocked iPhones running on its US network. This is just iPhones. In addition, Apple is selling unlocked GSM iPhones that currently can run on AT&T and T-Mobile's network.
Now AT&T currently has a policy where it requires all iPhone users to have a data plan even if the phone is off contract and you don't want data. So what do all those millions of people using iPhones on T-Mobile do if they don't want AT&T's expensive data plans? Toss their phones? Suck it up? They only have one unrealistic option: get rid of their expensive handphones, which might not be possible as a large amount of people buying unlocked iPhones are likely doing so with the intent to use them on T-Mobile's network.
Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through.
Further, the airwaves in which AT&T operates are not owned by AT&T. It has to have a license to use said airwaves. The public owns the airwaves. Accordingly, the government has a duty to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit. Besides creating a monopoly on the GSM network, the sale will result in less competition, the loss of thousands of jobs, urban blight in the form of closed T-Mobile stores, less innovation with handsets, higher prices, and less options.
You will notice with the exception of Microsoft, handset makers aren't coming out in favor of the deal. That is because AT&T will yield tremendous power and will be able to dictate anything it wants to such manufacturers. Apple wouldn't be able to do what it did with smart phones if it entered a post T-Mobile sale landscape because it couldn't demand concessions from AT&T and it would have to be on AT&T's network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit
Really? What makes it illegal? It wouldn't form a monopoly, not with VZW still out there... Unless you think that being the only carrier supporting CDMA constitutes a monopoly, although that would be like saying that nintendo has a monopoly because they make the only system that supports Wii games. Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts... Or daring fireball has a monopoly because Gruber only writes for them... Or, you get the point.
If you have Tmo, and don't like AT&T, you will still have choices, off the top of my head there's:
1. Verizon
2. Sprint
3. Cricket
4. US Cellular
5. Metro PCS
you might not like any of those choices, but you do have them.
Forget my previous post. It just dawned on me that you are only capable of thinking in black or white. The nuisances of independent thought seem to escape you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit
Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts...
He says that the merger would harm Sprint. Screw Sprint. All them greedy mofos are about to robbed the consumer with this ridiculous thing called DOWNLOAD CAPS.Some have already started.
Personally I'm getting sick and tired of this whole cell wars ting. iSO, android, windows mobile etc. I'm through with this sh***!
dude, sprint is the only one without download caps!!!
.
all the best prepaid deals are on the sprint network.
i pay $25/month for an android phone with unlimited data, texting, and 300 minutes/month
OK, I will give it a shot. It would be illegal because it would create a monopoly on the GSM network, which currently only consists of AT&T and T-Mobile. That will definitely cause harm to customers and eliminate choice.
Consider this example. Currently, I have an iPhone I own free and clear. I am running it on T-Mobile's network. I like T-Mobile because 1) the plans are cheaper, 2) more diverse, and 3) I don't have to have a data plan with my unlocked owned free and clear iPhone. I use only wi-fi.
If AT&T buys T-Mobile, I now have no place to take my owned free and clear equipment. The other day it was reported that T-Mobile has something like 2 Million unlocked iPhones running on its US network. This is just iPhones. In addition, Apple is selling unlocked GSM iPhones that currently can run on AT&T and T-Mobile's network.
Now AT&T currently has a policy where it requires all iPhone users to have a data plan even if the phone is off contract and you don't want data. So what do all those millions of people using iPhones on T-Mobile do if they don't want AT&T's expensive data plans? Toss their phones? Suck it up? They only have one unrealistic option: get rid of their expensive handphones, which might not be possible as a large amount of people buying unlocked iPhones are likely doing so with the intent to use them on T-Mobile's network.
Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through.
Further, the airwaves in which AT&T operates are not owned by AT&T. It has to have a license to use said airwaves. The public owns the airwaves. Accordingly, the government has a duty to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit. Besides creating a monopoly on the GSM network, the sale will result in less competition, the loss of thousands of jobs, urban blight in the form of closed T-Mobile stores, less innovation with handsets, higher prices, and less options.
You will notice with the exception of Microsoft, handset makers aren't coming out in favor of the deal. That is because AT&T will yield tremendous power and will be able to dictate anything it wants to such manufacturers. Apple wouldn't be able to do what it did with smart phones if it entered a post T-Mobile sale landscape because it couldn't demand concessions from AT&T and it would have to be on AT&T's network.
That is a very nice concrete example. The other reason this is a monopoly / duopoly is because no credible new entrant could be formed (because spectrum was stupidly sold directly to the monopolists). People who study this in depth (i.e. industrial organization economics) will realize that kind of auction was destined to create and reinforce permanent monopoly companies. How could ATT / Verizon go bankrupt at this point? They would last 350 years now. This market was never supposed to be so exclusive.
It's the same with large predatory airlines these days. In many cities there are only 1-2 airlines going where you need to go now. Whereas there used to be 5. When you can document real harm to customers using equations, that is when these mergers become essentially illegal. In fact, the companies could be forcibly broken up if you properly demonstrate these effects in court, or if the DOJ actually started working these issues.
Well, all the prices in 04 were about equal and all my friends except for one at the time were on cingular, so I went with them. They became ATT later and got the iphone - I upgraded to teh iphone, then the 3g and now im on the 4 - may switch next time, but not sure yet...
OK, I will give it a shot. It would be illegal because it would create a monopoly on the GSM network, which currently only consists of AT&T and T-Mobile.
I don't think you'll have much success with that argument.
GSM is an underlying technology, not a market. Cellular phone service is the market. Joe Phoneuser doesn't know or care what GSM or CDMA are.
You may as well argue that Ford exercises an illegal monopoly of making Fords.
...and your examples are not great either - some blogger only writes for one site, who cares - you go to other sites if you dont like him and you can get the same info...
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
Of course: Ma Bell (AT&T), and most other utilities (gas, electric, etc.) in the US. They were government regulated, but investor owned and privately run.
At that time most utilities in other developed countries, whether telecom or other, were government owned and run. Examples include the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) and the GPO (General Post Office, which also ran the phone system) in the UK; Electricité de France, and too many others to mention.
Duh. I was referring to the telcos in other countries, in response to your post. Everyone knows that ATT was privately owned, as I say in my original post (which you do not seem have read).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
I think you need to reread both our posts. You seem to be missing the point.
Nah. You both need to reread mine, so you could actually start a sensible subthread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilM
And cheaper than some others. Do you draw some conclusion from that?
The only conclusion to draw is what I originally said: that ATT was cheaper than the others. Get it now?
Regardless, I don't think there's anyone out there claiming that land-line service costs more today (inflation adjusted) than it did 30 years ago.
Land lines most certainly do cost more today! Inflation isn't the reason.
Under Ma Bell, local service was subsidized by artificially inflated prices on long distance. With divestiture, that subsidy went away; the cost of local service rose rapidly, while the cost of long distance plummeted.
By the way, inflated long distance prices also bankrolled the development of phone infrastructure in rural areas, which otherwise wouldn't have had phone service.
I'm old enough to remember life under Ma Bell, and my sister worked for her at the time of divestiture, so i was paying close attention to this issue as everything unfolded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
All them greedy mofos are about to robbed the consumer with this ridiculous thing called DOWNLOAD CAPS.
Yeah, like they haven't been robbing customers blind with stupid, absurd fees on text messages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit
?Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts...
Indeed you are a Dimwit! You can't prove your point with a broken, dysfunctional analogy. Give us one which works.
Comments
Huh? Democrats can't string together logical thoughts? Where on earth did that come from? The Republicans tell us that the best way to balance the budget is to give $2 trillion of tax breaks to corporations and millionaires. And that's logical? Or how about their positively delusional denial of climate science? It appears that the author of the above referenced quote may be named "Dim" for a reason....
I was thinking the same thing.
Care to name one major utility that was then not government-owned?
Of course: Ma Bell (AT&T), and most other utilities (gas, electric, etc.) in the US. They were government regulated, but investor owned and privately run.
At that time most utilities in other developed countries, whether telecom or other, were government owned and run. Examples include the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) and the GPO (General Post Office, which also ran the phone system) in the UK; Electricité de France, and too many others to mention.
I think you need to reread both our posts. You seem to be missing the point.
A related point: US phone services are more expensive than those in many other parts of the world today.
And cheaper than some others. Do you draw some conclusion from that?
AT&T lives in the last century as far as I am concerned.
My iPhone service stinks with AT&T, due in part because they keep acquiring companies. The last one, forced them to delay 3G deployment. They finally brought 3G here, but only last year. How about delivering a phone call that doesn't drop half the time?
AT&T's only way to survive is to let their calls drop while acquiring new customers through acquisition.
Consider this example. Currently, I have an iPhone I own free and clear. I am running it on T-Mobile's network. I like T-Mobile because 1) the plans are cheaper, 2) more diverse, and 3) I don't have to have a data plan with my unlocked owned free and clear iPhone. I use only wi-fi.
If AT&T buys T-Mobile, I now have no place to take my owned free and clear equipment. The other day it was reported that T-Mobile has something like 2 Million unlocked iPhones running on its US network. This is just iPhones. In addition, Apple is selling unlocked GSM iPhones that currently can run on AT&T and T-Mobile's network.
Now AT&T currently has a policy where it requires all iPhone users to have a data plan even if the phone is off contract and you don't want data. So what do all those millions of people using iPhones on T-Mobile do if they don't want AT&T's expensive data plans? Toss their phones? Suck it up? They only have one unrealistic option: get rid of their expensive handphones, which might not be possible as a large amount of people buying unlocked iPhones are likely doing so with the intent to use them on T-Mobile's network.
Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through.
Further, the airwaves in which AT&T operates are not owned by AT&T. It has to have a license to use said airwaves. The public owns the airwaves. Accordingly, the government has a duty to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit. Besides creating a monopoly on the GSM network, the sale will result in less competition, the loss of thousands of jobs, urban blight in the form of closed T-Mobile stores, less innovation with handsets, higher prices, and less options.
You will notice with the exception of Microsoft, handset makers aren't coming out in favor of the deal. That is because AT&T will yield tremendous power and will be able to dictate anything it wants to such manufacturers. Apple wouldn't be able to do what it did with smart phones if it entered a post T-Mobile sale landscape because it couldn't demand concessions from AT&T and it would have to be on AT&T's network.
Really? What makes it illegal? It wouldn't form a monopoly, not with VZW still out there... Unless you think that being the only carrier supporting CDMA constitutes a monopoly, although that would be like saying that nintendo has a monopoly because they make the only system that supports Wii games. Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts... Or daring fireball has a monopoly because Gruber only writes for them... Or, you get the point.
If you have Tmo, and don't like AT&T, you will still have choices, off the top of my head there's:
1. Verizon
2. Sprint
3. Cricket
4. US Cellular
5. Metro PCS
you might not like any of those choices, but you do have them.
Sincerely,
Dim
Forget my previous post. It just dawned on me that you are only capable of thinking in black or white. The nuisances of independent thought seem to escape you.
Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts...
What a little girl!!!
He says that the merger would harm Sprint. Screw Sprint. All them greedy mofos are about to robbed the consumer with this ridiculous thing called DOWNLOAD CAPS.Some have already started.
Personally I'm getting sick and tired of this whole cell wars ting. iSO, android, windows mobile etc. I'm through with this sh***!
dude, sprint is the only one without download caps!!!
.
all the best prepaid deals are on the sprint network.
i pay $25/month for an android phone with unlimited data, texting, and 300 minutes/month
try getting that on at&t or verizon prepaid
What are you trying to say here? You're not making any sense.....
And you're not answering the question. Does that make sense?
OK, I will give it a shot. It would be illegal because it would create a monopoly on the GSM network, which currently only consists of AT&T and T-Mobile. That will definitely cause harm to customers and eliminate choice.
Consider this example. Currently, I have an iPhone I own free and clear. I am running it on T-Mobile's network. I like T-Mobile because 1) the plans are cheaper, 2) more diverse, and 3) I don't have to have a data plan with my unlocked owned free and clear iPhone. I use only wi-fi.
If AT&T buys T-Mobile, I now have no place to take my owned free and clear equipment. The other day it was reported that T-Mobile has something like 2 Million unlocked iPhones running on its US network. This is just iPhones. In addition, Apple is selling unlocked GSM iPhones that currently can run on AT&T and T-Mobile's network.
Now AT&T currently has a policy where it requires all iPhone users to have a data plan even if the phone is off contract and you don't want data. So what do all those millions of people using iPhones on T-Mobile do if they don't want AT&T's expensive data plans? Toss their phones? Suck it up? They only have one unrealistic option: get rid of their expensive handphones, which might not be possible as a large amount of people buying unlocked iPhones are likely doing so with the intent to use them on T-Mobile's network.
Make no mistake this creates a monopoly on the GSM network. It harms customers because people owning phones tied to the GSM network will only have one option. The bedrock principle of choice is for a customer to be able to freely walk. That will not be easy for customers if the sale goes through.
Further, the airwaves in which AT&T operates are not owned by AT&T. It has to have a license to use said airwaves. The public owns the airwaves. Accordingly, the government has a duty to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit. Besides creating a monopoly on the GSM network, the sale will result in less competition, the loss of thousands of jobs, urban blight in the form of closed T-Mobile stores, less innovation with handsets, higher prices, and less options.
You will notice with the exception of Microsoft, handset makers aren't coming out in favor of the deal. That is because AT&T will yield tremendous power and will be able to dictate anything it wants to such manufacturers. Apple wouldn't be able to do what it did with smart phones if it entered a post T-Mobile sale landscape because it couldn't demand concessions from AT&T and it would have to be on AT&T's network.
That is a very nice concrete example. The other reason this is a monopoly / duopoly is because no credible new entrant could be formed (because spectrum was stupidly sold directly to the monopolists). People who study this in depth (i.e. industrial organization economics) will realize that kind of auction was destined to create and reinforce permanent monopoly companies. How could ATT / Verizon go bankrupt at this point? They would last 350 years now. This market was never supposed to be so exclusive.
It's the same with large predatory airlines these days. In many cities there are only 1-2 airlines going where you need to go now. Whereas there used to be 5. When you can document real harm to customers using equations, that is when these mergers become essentially illegal. In fact, the companies could be forcibly broken up if you properly demonstrate these effects in court, or if the DOJ actually started working these issues.
So who are you using and how did you select them?
Well, all the prices in 04 were about equal and all my friends except for one at the time were on cingular, so I went with them. They became ATT later and got the iphone - I upgraded to teh iphone, then the 3g and now im on the 4 - may switch next time, but not sure yet...
"My position is that it would more difficult for Sprint to compete," he replied. "This would be a duopoly, and it would put Sprint to be acquired."
Does he actually talk like that or is this poor proofreading??
'would more difficult'
'and it would put Sprint to be acquired.'
OK, I will give it a shot. It would be illegal because it would create a monopoly on the GSM network, which currently only consists of AT&T and T-Mobile.
I don't think you'll have much success with that argument.
GSM is an underlying technology, not a market. Cellular phone service is the market. Joe Phoneuser doesn't know or care what GSM or CDMA are.
You may as well argue that Ford exercises an illegal monopoly of making Fords.
...and your examples are not great either - some blogger only writes for one site, who cares - you go to other sites if you dont like him and you can get the same info...
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
Have a great day,
Dim
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
Have a great day,
Dim
It isn't a monopoly...It's a Duopoly
Of course: Ma Bell (AT&T), and most other utilities (gas, electric, etc.) in the US. They were government regulated, but investor owned and privately run.
At that time most utilities in other developed countries, whether telecom or other, were government owned and run. Examples include the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) and the GPO (General Post Office, which also ran the phone system) in the UK; Electricité de France, and too many others to mention.
Duh. I was referring to the telcos in other countries, in response to your post. Everyone knows that ATT was privately owned, as I say in my original post (which you do not seem have read).
I think you need to reread both our posts. You seem to be missing the point.
Nah. You both need to reread mine, so you could actually start a sensible subthread.
And cheaper than some others. Do you draw some conclusion from that?
The only conclusion to draw is what I originally said: that ATT was cheaper than the others. Get it now?
Does he actually talk like that or is this poor proofreading??
'would more difficult'
'and it would put Sprint to be acquired.'
Regardless, I don't think there's anyone out there claiming that land-line service costs more today (inflation adjusted) than it did 30 years ago.
Land lines most certainly do cost more today! Inflation isn't the reason.
Under Ma Bell, local service was subsidized by artificially inflated prices on long distance. With divestiture, that subsidy went away; the cost of local service rose rapidly, while the cost of long distance plummeted.
By the way, inflated long distance prices also bankrolled the development of phone infrastructure in rural areas, which otherwise wouldn't have had phone service.
I'm old enough to remember life under Ma Bell, and my sister worked for her at the time of divestiture, so i was paying close attention to this issue as everything unfolded.
All them greedy mofos are about to robbed the consumer with this ridiculous thing called DOWNLOAD CAPS.
Yeah, like they haven't been robbing customers blind with stupid, absurd fees on text messages?
?Or that Republicans have a monopoly because the Democrats can't string together logical thoughts...
Indeed you are a Dimwit! You can't prove your point with a broken, dysfunctional analogy. Give us one which works.
That was exactly the point I was making. If there are other options, by definition there isn't a monopoly.
So Microsoft shouldn't have been hit with any of those anti-trust lawsuits in the U.S., E.U., or anywhere else, then?
all the best prepaid deals are on the sprint network.
For me, T-mobile offers the best prepaid package. That'll probably go away if the merger goes through.