If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should.
Lack of functioning competition is a real-world reason.
You and I both know there are few examples of free markets these days (a garage sale with all cash transactions would be a good example of a free market in action), but allowing regulators to squash mergers because of some kind of nonsensical “common good” argument holds no water, IMO.
As long as it’s basically T-Mobile getting Sprint’s coverage and customers & basically nothing else, great. If they are taking on management, corporate attitude & customer service, then no thank you.
According to the article, T-Mobile will hold the controlling stake. So they will buy sprints customers and spectrum. Then I would imagine the stores, management and customer service would convert to And be absorbed by t-Mobile.
As long as it’s basically T-Mobile getting Sprint’s coverage and customers & basically nothing else, great. If they are taking on management, corporate attitude & customer service, then no thank you.
According to the article, T-Mobile will hold the controlling stake. So they will buy sprints customers and spectrum. Then I would imagine the stores, management and customer service would convert to And be absorbed by t-Mobile.
Both companies are teetering on the brink anyway and do not come close to controlling percentages of markets. Make it so! And I guarantee once it happens there will be more competitors ready to fill other gap markets.
If I remember correctly, the reason why the original merger in 2014 didn't happen is because the regulatory committy under Obama sited that it would create less competition. Article below from 2014 http://www.engadget.com/amp/2014/03/13/sprint-tmobile-merger/
Mergers should almost never be blocked. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should. If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible.
Yes. In unicorn play world all companies play by the same rules and are truly happy when competition enters the market. In reality the monopolies write the damn laws (Local, State, Fed) that tilt the playing field toward them.
Unicorn play world doesn't actually exist, never had, never will (don't tell my 7y/o).
If this improves T-Mobile coverage, which has been getting slower and slower (in NYC), then good. If it makes it even worse, then bad. I don't know which will happen?
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
You are so delusional. Without level field playing regulations these idiots will collude and raise prices from all the carriers. There is no way in hell anyone can enter this world now with the spectrum long-term leases by the big telcos. The pipe dream of more competition magically lowers prices and benefits the consumer should have died when TR called it for what it was: bull shite.
Sprints network and support is crap. T-Mobile better have a brilliant plan to migrate everyone to their network and support those millions of new users.
Seems like I would be cheaper to lower their prices to match Sprint for the next 5 years, wait for their BK and collect all those users.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
You are so delusional. Without level field playing regulations these idiots will collude and raise prices from all the carriers. There is no way in hell anyone can enter this world now with the spectrum long-term leases by the big telcos. The pipe dream of more competition magically lowers prices and benefits the consumer should have died when TR called it for what it was: bull shite.
There was no need for the personal attack to make your argument, so right off the bat you lose a point.
Pay attention to what has actually happened in the telecom business. Collusion WITH THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS has been the rule, not the exception until relatively recently and in some cases it continues (for example, information scraping and sharing arrangements that were divulged by Wikileaks and Snowden). Collusion is when you partner with the Feds to prevent competition in your market.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
You are so delusional. Without level field playing regulations these idiots will collude and raise prices from all the carriers. There is no way in hell anyone can enter this world now with the spectrum long-term leases by the big telcos. The pipe dream of more competition magically lowers prices and benefits the consumer should have died when TR called it for what it was: bull shite.
There was no need for the personal attack to make your argument, so right off the bat you lose a point.
Pay attention to what has actually happened in the telecom business. Collusion WITH THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS has been the rule, not the exception until relatively recently and in some cases it continues (for example, information scraping and sharing arrangements that were divulged by Wikileaks and Snowden). Collusion is when you partner with the Feds to prevent competition in your market.
And you think unregulated companies would solve collision? Hilarious.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
You are so delusional. Without level field playing regulations these idiots will collude and raise prices from all the carriers. There is no way in hell anyone can enter this world now with the spectrum long-term leases by the big telcos. The pipe dream of more competition magically lowers prices and benefits the consumer should have died when TR called it for what it was: bull shite.
There was no need for the personal attack to make your argument, so right off the bat you lose a point.
Pay attention to what has actually happened in the telecom business. Collusion WITH THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS has been the rule, not the exception until relatively recently and in some cases it continues (for example, information scraping and sharing arrangements that were divulged by Wikileaks and Snowden). Collusion is when you partner with the Feds to prevent competition in your market.
And you think unregulated companies would solve collision? Hilarious.
Deregulated, not “unregulated”. Collusion, price fixing, intimidation, fraud, etc. are all still illegal (and it’s funny to note that the Feds AND labor unions have historically and currently engage in all of those illegal activities).
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
One company in a marketplace does not exactly mean monopoly, though. If other companies can occupy that same sector but choose not to because it give no significant income, that is not a monopoly. Monopoly happens when they CAN"T get to that segment, due to other company preventing them from doing that.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
One company in a marketplace does not exactly mean monopoly, though. If other companies can occupy that same sector but choose not to because it give no significant income, that is not a monopoly. Monopoly happens when they CAN"T get to that segment, due to other company preventing them from doing that.
Well, that's what the frack they're doing. Man. tiresome.
Considering they get the god damn spectrum from the government and they spend loads of cash lobbying that government, that's a monopoly.
Not only that, they spend shitloads of money trying to stop local governments from providing any services (WIFI, broadband, etc).
The marketplace obviously is very lucrative so it is not like its a market that can only support one entrant.
It has a barrier to entry because of the equipment (but that equipment is much cheaper than in the early 2000s and because the resource is basically finite you can basically squat forever and exploit the marketplace once you get the spectrum. There is no way to enter without the spectrum.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
Typically I would agree. But here we have 2 overly dominant players who aren't all that competitive with each other and 2 also rans. ... We might be better off with 3 strong companies -- we MIGHT even see some actual competition.
IMO Tmobile would be weaker if they have to carry Sprint's baggage.
If I remember correctly, the reason why the original merger in 2014 didn't happen is because the regulatory committy under Obama sited that it would create less competition. Article below from 2014 http://www.engadget.com/amp/2014/03/13/sprint-tmobile-merger/
Mergers should almost never be blocked. I can’t think of a real world reason why they should. If competition is actually functioning, no so-called monopoly is possible.
Ah, you may may need to revisit -- or visit -- some basic econ classes.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
This has little to do with regulation. It has to do with ownership rights of the frequencies the at issues companies use. The public owns the airwaves. The companies just have non-transferable rights.
if competition was the goal, killing the proposed ATT merger was one of the best decisions to ever happen to the cellular industry.
Blocked mergers have little to do with regulation? What are you talking about? They have everything to do with regulation.
And if the public actually “owns the airwaves” then there is no need for the FCC.
Well, being a tmobile user, if this improves coverage while maintaining the rest the network, I'm all for it, but if this makes some kind of merges network with new management, don't.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
The trouble with your argument is the Public owns the frequency they use. Companies like T-Mobile only have a non-transferable license to use the frequency. So the owner of the frequencies need to provide consent to a merger that transfers usage rights.
The reason SoftBank has attempted this merger for the second time is trump is a corporate friendly administration more so than Obama.
If you mean Republicans generally are more willing to do anything a company wants no matter what the cost to the public, I agree.
Although, I will say it would be completely different allowing T-Mobile and Sprint to merge than allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile. AT&T was wanting to buy T-Mobile to kill competition and increase its market share, T-Mobile and Sprint arguably would be merging to be more competitive with Verizon and T-Mobile. Further, Sprint seems to be slowly dying.
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
Just what we need: fewer companies in a marketplace…
We need less regulation and more competition. As history has shown us time and again, businesses go through cycles of mergers and divestment to remain competitive, but if laws and requirements prevent competition (as was the case when AT&T was a monopoly), then consumers pay the price. There will always be new smaller, more responsive competitors to sluggish and unresponsive behemoths... as long as the behemoths cannot “legally” suppress competition.
This has little to do with regulation. It has to do with ownership rights of the frequencies the at issues companies use. The public owns the airwaves. The companies just have non-transferable rights.
if competition was the goal, killing the proposed ATT merger was one of the best decisions to ever happen to the cellular industry.
Blocked mergers have little to do with regulation? What are you talking about? They have everything to do with regulation.
And if the public actually “owns the airwaves” then there is no need for the FCC.
How about to ensure compliance with the conditions set forth in the government lease of the airwaves [on behalf of the public]?
Again, the airwaves are not owned by the prospective companies. They have exclusive non-transferable leases with conditions. The companies know this when they purchase the usage rights. They know the right to use the airwaves is non-transferable without government consent.
So the government has an absolute right to evaluate a proposed transfer of the airwave rights to determine if it is in accords with government objectives.
I agree, as stated above, I think there are other reasons outside of the regulatory committee that caused SoftBank to drop its bid in 2014. Like the atmosphere. SoftBank didn't want to pay a penalty like att did if the deal fell apart.. ( I'm just guessing)
This merger should absolutely go forward. It was ridiculous it was opposed in the first place... and I say this as an AT&T stockholder.
The trouble with your argument is the Public owns the frequency they use. Companies like T-Mobile only have a non-transferable license to use the frequency. So the owner of the frequencies need to provide consent to a merger that transfers usage rights.
The reason SoftBank has attempted this merger for the second time is trump is a corporate friendly administration more so than Obama.
If you mean Republicans generally are more willing to do anything a company wants no matter what the cost to the public, I agree.
Although, I will say it would be completely different allowing T-Mobile and Sprint to merge than allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile. AT&T was wanting to buy T-Mobile to kill competition and increase its market share, T-Mobile and Sprint arguably would be merging to be more competitive with Verizon and T-Mobile. Further, Sprint seems to be slowly dying.
Gee, tell me more about the extraordinary bailouts of the "too big to fail" financial institutions.
Comments
Unicorn play world doesn't actually exist, never had, never will (don't tell my 7y/o).
james
Sprints network and support is crap. T-Mobile better have a brilliant plan to migrate everyone to their network and support those millions of new users.
Seems like I would be cheaper to lower their prices to match Sprint for the next 5 years, wait for their BK and collect all those users.
Pay attention to what has actually happened in the telecom business. Collusion WITH THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS has been the rule, not the exception until relatively recently and in some cases it continues (for example, information scraping and sharing arrangements that were divulged by Wikileaks and Snowden). Collusion is when you partner with the Feds to prevent competition in your market.
Ah, you may may need to revisit -- or visit -- some basic econ classes.
Um... what?
If you mean Republicans generally are more willing to do anything a company wants no matter what the cost to the public, I agree.
Although, I will say it would be completely different allowing T-Mobile and Sprint to merge than allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile. AT&T was wanting to buy T-Mobile to kill competition and increase its market share, T-Mobile and Sprint arguably would be merging to be more competitive with Verizon and T-Mobile. Further, Sprint seems to be slowly dying.
How about to ensure compliance with the conditions set forth in the government lease of the airwaves [on behalf of the public]?
Again, the airwaves are not owned by the prospective companies. They have exclusive non-transferable leases with conditions. The companies know this when they purchase the usage rights. They know the right to use the airwaves is non-transferable without government consent.
So the government has an absolute right to evaluate a proposed transfer of the airwave rights to determine if it is in accords with government objectives.