Perhaps this is a sign that the judge is skeptical of the DOJ's argument?
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
This is not a big deal. If you actually read the order, most of it is about scheduling the trial. At the end she orders the parties to be prepared to discuss the PROSPECTS of a settlement, not a settlement itself. This is routine. AI is searching hard for a story here.
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
So is a suit to stop a power plant from being built next to your house also odd?
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
AT&T will probably agree to dump the least profitable parts to another carrier like verizon did when they acquired alltel.
That's civil, right? I'm OK with showing my ignorance here - is the DoJ filing a civil action?
I think it has to be a civil action... no one has broken a law.
Seems to me the only real case is around purchasing power. IOW, the ability based on market size to persuade suppliers not to sell to competitors. One has to wonder if Apple's exclusive sale of the iPhone to AT&T for a long time and then to only add VerizonWireless is what brought this all about. If (and this is speculative) AT&T persuaded Apple to not sell to anyone else for a long time then that pressure is now coming around to bite them.
The settlement should be that DOJ does their job enforcing USA laws, AT&T obeys those laws, or it can be brought into government management with increasing forfeiture of ATT shareholder assets, the more government time is wasted on law-breaking behavior by ATT.
yeah - I might be alive after 30 days without a cell phone - but would I still be employed?
People had jobs for hundreds of years before the invention of the cell phone. I have been employed now for five years since giving up my cell phone. Every once in awhile my boss will ask me for my cell phone # and I explain that I don't have one, but if the company would like to pay for one I would be glad to carry it around with me if they feel the need to be able to get a hold of me when I am not at the office. If you need a phone for your job then I hope your employer pays the bill. I am really speaking about the person that pays $100 a month to be able to text a friend that he saw a cool new car drive down the street while playing Angry Birds.
yeah - I might be alive after 30 days without a cell phone - but would I still be employed?
I refuse to carry one. My comp started going up substantially about the same time I started refusing. There's an inverse relationship between employees with phones and their productivity.
Comments
Perhaps this is a sign that the judge is skeptical of the DOJ's argument?
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
So is a suit to stop a power plant from being built next to your house also odd?
Or perhaps it's the inevitable end with T and DT conceding something to get it moving. Probably handing some spectrum back to FCC which will just get auctioned back out ($$$$) or promises to deliver 3G and 4G to more rural areas.
These kinda suits are odd to me. A trial without a crime or charge. Prove yourself innocent. Prove your thoughts and intentions aren't so competitive that it would appear you are trying to beat any of your competition out of a space - even the ones that don't want to be in the space anymore.
AT&T will probably agree to dump the least profitable parts to another carrier like verizon did when they acquired alltel.
So is a suit to stop a power plant from being built next to your house also odd?
That's civil, right? I'm OK with showing my ignorance here - is the DoJ filing a civil action?
That's civil, right? I'm OK with showing my ignorance here - is the DoJ filing a civil action?
I think it has to be a civil action... no one has broken a law.
Seems to me the only real case is around purchasing power. IOW, the ability based on market size to persuade suppliers not to sell to competitors. One has to wonder if Apple's exclusive sale of the iPhone to AT&T for a long time and then to only add VerizonWireless is what brought this all about. If (and this is speculative) AT&T persuaded Apple to not sell to anyone else for a long time then that pressure is now coming around to bite them.
yeah - I might be alive after 30 days without a cell phone - but would I still be employed?
People had jobs for hundreds of years before the invention of the cell phone. I have been employed now for five years since giving up my cell phone. Every once in awhile my boss will ask me for my cell phone # and I explain that I don't have one, but if the company would like to pay for one I would be glad to carry it around with me if they feel the need to be able to get a hold of me when I am not at the office. If you need a phone for your job then I hope your employer pays the bill. I am really speaking about the person that pays $100 a month to be able to text a friend that he saw a cool new car drive down the street while playing Angry Birds.
yeah - I might be alive after 30 days without a cell phone - but would I still be employed?
I refuse to carry one. My comp started going up substantially about the same time I started refusing. There's an inverse relationship between employees with phones and their productivity.