Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act don't get much clearer than this. Hopefully the Justice Department will block the deal.
Not going to happen. I don't see how this purchase violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. There is no restraint of competition since they did not really compete anyways. Plus, you are forgetting that AT&T still has lots of competition from Verizon. Looking forward to having better reception
Oh yeah, let's get those politicians more involved in the marketplace! That always works out well, doesn't it?
I'm Mr. Libertarian, and yes, politicians tend to be idiots about economic decisions. But they're in this market already, so they might as well try to move motivations toward where they help the market rather than cripple it. There are good and powerful restrictions that they could place on this deal to get the US out of the 2 year lockup/free phone for everyone trap that we're in.
Tell me what you think about a rule to force providers to lower prices for people using their own phones? It seems to me like you could design a rule that forces ATT to make it clear how much your subsidy is when you buy a new phone, and then, how much of any subsidy you pay down every month in a given plan.
Say you buy an iPhone for $200. ATT must tell you that the original price was $599, and you have a $399 subsidy. You then have your choice of plans. $110 ($25), $90 ($18), $70 ($12) and $60 ($10) with the parenthetical number being the amount that you pay down monthly, or would save if bringing your own phone. When you get a subsidized phone, you are effectively getting a 2 year loan from ATT. Mortgage companies are forced to tell you APRs, why shouldn't cell providers be forced to be more open about what you're actually paying for?
This removes the nitty gritty of pricing decisions from the government, which of course they couldn't do anyway. ATT still has full control over pricing, but if it wants to offer subsidized phones, it is forced to make it clear how much that subsidy is, so people who don't want subsidized service can make a choice. The key is finding a way to write it so that it is self-enforcing. ATT must want to reveal the information to the customers who want the subsidy despite the small number of people who will stop receiving it.
Truthfully I've never understood all the hate for AT&T. They always gave us excellent customer service and coverage (switched from Verizon).
This can be good for service, or considered anti-competitive, but I think it IS kind of a company's job to be better than the competition, and if they're not?then Verizon and Sprint still exist.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think AT&T will have lots of competition still. I don't think the average user knows or cares about GSM vs CDMA.
For now AT&T will be the only GSM provider in the USA but two to three years from now it won't matter because all the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) will be entrenched in LTE technology. By that time you'll have everyone using one single standard which makes changing carriers easier.
Somehow, I'm not convinced. One or the other will do something that ensures their system is incompatible with the competition. Total compatibility would erase perceived competitive advantages and make changing networks a cakewalk. Never happen. Never.
Government that governs least governs best. I hope they stay out, as they are part of the spectrum allocation problem, and when is the last time government did anything right?
Examples: US Postal Service, Government schools -- abominations which would never be so lackluster if they was a free market!
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek
I can't believe this! Hopefully the government stops this from happening or at least makes AT&T divest in a lot of markets. There's only a handful of GSM carriers nationwide and with there being just one nationwide provider we're in for some anti-competitive moves by AT&T (I hope not though).
I feel sorry for T-mobile customers, there goes their quality.
Oh yeah, let's get those politicians more involved in the marketplace! That always works out well, doesn't it?
What as opposed to the "free markets" you guys currently employ that has raped and pillaged your country to the point where the rest of the world laughs at you?
The same markets that have given you the crappiest healthcare system, immense unemployment, poor competition in the cellular market etc?
Capitalism doesn't work and has never worked. It just serves to screw the little people and make the already rich even richer. It doesn't benefit the country and until America realises this they will forever go downhill.
I can speak about this because I live in New Zealand and since the 80's this country has moved towards an American style capitalist society from the country's socialist roots and the country has gone downhill ever since.
At least Vodafone seems to be the lesser of two evils. Ok, there is three cell companies in New Zealand but 2Degrees' data plans suck balls. That leaves Telecom who has held the country to ransom for the past 20 years so they're hardly a shining beacon of light.
So AT&T will be the only nation wide GSM provider in the US? That doesn't sound good.
Sheit, I just bought prepaid T-mobile data card and wanted to get off the contract with ATT - this is really bad news for choice.... if you want GSM you will be left with 1 option only... very expensive one. Isn't this to be approved by some kind of antimonopoly office first?
What as opposed to the "free markets" you guys currently employ that has raped and pillaged your country to the point where the rest of the world laughs at you?
The same markets that have given you the crappiest healthcare system, immense unemployment, poor competition in the cellular market etc?
Capitalism doesn't work and has never worked. It just serves to screw the little people and make the already rich even richer. It doesn't benefit the country and until America realises this they will forever go downhill.
I can speak about this because I live in New Zealand and since the 80's this country has moved towards an American style capitalist society from the country's socialist roots and the country has gone downhill ever since.
At least Vodafone seems to be the lesser of two evils. Ok, there is three cell companies in New Zealand but 2Degrees' data plans suck balls. That leaves Telecom who has held the country to ransom for the past 20 years so they're hardly a shining beacon of light.
Since the 80s, NZ has seen steadily decreasing unemployment until the world recession in 2009.
Moves toward market economies are vastly positive, but those who are less skilled and were supported on the teat of the government under socialism may very well be hurt by it, as they should be. Is that you?
For now AT&T will be the only GSM provider in the USA but two to three years from now it won't matter because all the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) will be entrenched in LTE technology. By that time you'll have everyone using one single standard which makes changing carriers easier.
LTE is for data only. The voice is still via GSM network.
LTE is for data only. The voice is still via GSM network.
I don't know?I've thought for a while that the future of these telecoms will be data, since a lot of people use VoIP on their smartphones, and you can get way better international rates. Though that wouldn't be for everyone, of course.
Truthfully I've never understood all the hate for AT&T. They always gave us excellent customer service and coverage (switched from Verizon).
This can be good for service, or considered anti-competitive, but I think it IS kind of a company's job to be better than the competition, and if they're not?then Verizon and Sprint still exist.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think AT&T will have lots of competition still. I don't think the average user knows or cares about GSM vs CDMA.
Well, if you never tried the better service you can be happy. Everywhere in Europe people DO NOT PAY for incoming calls or incoming messages. ONLY IN AMERICA....
Somebody spammed my phone with tens of messages few years ago - 15 cents a piece. I was forced to block messaging to avoid hundreds of dollars cost.... this is insane.
Well, if you never tried the better service you can be happy. Everywhere in Europe people DO NOT PAY for incoming calls or incoming messages. ONLY IN AMERICA....
I know? this country is mostly pathetic when it comes to technology anyway.
But I was talking only about the United States, since this affects people in the US only.
Three is far from a monopoly? No, three is very nearly a monopoly. Fewer competitors than about eight is a problem.
There's very little precedent for the government to block a deal like this. AT&T will still have less than 50% market share on a national basis. Now if Verizonwireless were to announce a deal to acquire Sprint, that would get more scrutiny as their market share would be in excess of 50%.
Government that governs least governs best. I hope they stay out, as they are part of the spectrum allocation problem, and when is the last time government did anything right?
Examples: US Postal Service, Government schools -- abominations which would never be so lackluster if they was a free market!
I think this is a failed analogy. I can site a zillion other reasons that grade and high school education should not be left to the private sector. There is always an incentive to give the least amount of service for the most amount of money. That alone makes for a bad idea. Simply governing less is the simpletons solution to solving problems when our problems are far and away more complex than telling the government not to govern.
I think this is a failed analogy. I can site a zillion other reasons that grade and high school education should not be left to the private sector. There is always an incentive to give the least amount of service for the most amount of money.
You probably shouldn't check out the numbers behind how well our government is currently providing value for the money we lavish on it (taken by gunpoint).
Comments
Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act don't get much clearer than this. Hopefully the Justice Department will block the deal.
Not going to happen. I don't see how this purchase violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. There is no restraint of competition since they did not really compete anyways. Plus, you are forgetting that AT&T still has lots of competition from Verizon. Looking forward to having better reception
Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act don't get much clearer than this. Hopefully the Justice Department will block the deal.
Lately, I'm not so ensure about the government enforcing laws. I'm hoping they prove me wrong this time.
Oh yeah, let's get those politicians more involved in the marketplace! That always works out well, doesn't it?
I'm Mr. Libertarian, and yes, politicians tend to be idiots about economic decisions. But they're in this market already, so they might as well try to move motivations toward where they help the market rather than cripple it. There are good and powerful restrictions that they could place on this deal to get the US out of the 2 year lockup/free phone for everyone trap that we're in.
Tell me what you think about a rule to force providers to lower prices for people using their own phones? It seems to me like you could design a rule that forces ATT to make it clear how much your subsidy is when you buy a new phone, and then, how much of any subsidy you pay down every month in a given plan.
Say you buy an iPhone for $200. ATT must tell you that the original price was $599, and you have a $399 subsidy. You then have your choice of plans. $110 ($25), $90 ($18), $70 ($12) and $60 ($10) with the parenthetical number being the amount that you pay down monthly, or would save if bringing your own phone. When you get a subsidized phone, you are effectively getting a 2 year loan from ATT. Mortgage companies are forced to tell you APRs, why shouldn't cell providers be forced to be more open about what you're actually paying for?
This removes the nitty gritty of pricing decisions from the government, which of course they couldn't do anyway. ATT still has full control over pricing, but if it wants to offer subsidized phones, it is forced to make it clear how much that subsidy is, so people who don't want subsidized service can make a choice. The key is finding a way to write it so that it is self-enforcing. ATT must want to reveal the information to the customers who want the subsidy despite the small number of people who will stop receiving it.
Do you think such a design would work?
This can be good for service, or considered anti-competitive, but I think it IS kind of a company's job to be better than the competition, and if they're not?then Verizon and Sprint still exist.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think AT&T will have lots of competition still. I don't think the average user knows or cares about GSM vs CDMA.
For now AT&T will be the only GSM provider in the USA but two to three years from now it won't matter because all the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) will be entrenched in LTE technology. By that time you'll have everyone using one single standard which makes changing carriers easier.
Somehow, I'm not convinced. One or the other will do something that ensures their system is incompatible with the competition. Total compatibility would erase perceived competitive advantages and make changing networks a cakewalk. Never happen. Never.
Examples: US Postal Service, Government schools -- abominations which would never be so lackluster if they was a free market!
I can't believe this! Hopefully the government stops this from happening or at least makes AT&T divest in a lot of markets. There's only a handful of GSM carriers nationwide and with there being just one nationwide provider we're in for some anti-competitive moves by AT&T (I hope not though).
I feel sorry for T-mobile customers, there goes their quality.
Oh yeah, let's get those politicians more involved in the marketplace! That always works out well, doesn't it?
What as opposed to the "free markets" you guys currently employ that has raped and pillaged your country to the point where the rest of the world laughs at you?
The same markets that have given you the crappiest healthcare system, immense unemployment, poor competition in the cellular market etc?
Capitalism doesn't work and has never worked. It just serves to screw the little people and make the already rich even richer. It doesn't benefit the country and until America realises this they will forever go downhill.
I can speak about this because I live in New Zealand and since the 80's this country has moved towards an American style capitalist society from the country's socialist roots and the country has gone downhill ever since.
At least Vodafone seems to be the lesser of two evils. Ok, there is three cell companies in New Zealand but 2Degrees' data plans suck balls. That leaves Telecom who has held the country to ransom for the past 20 years so they're hardly a shining beacon of light.
So AT&T will be the only nation wide GSM provider in the US? That doesn't sound good.
Sheit, I just bought prepaid T-mobile data card and wanted to get off the contract with ATT - this is really bad news for choice.... if you want GSM you will be left with 1 option only... very expensive one. Isn't this to be approved by some kind of antimonopoly office first?
What as opposed to the "free markets" you guys currently employ that has raped and pillaged your country to the point where the rest of the world laughs at you?
The same markets that have given you the crappiest healthcare system, immense unemployment, poor competition in the cellular market etc?
Capitalism doesn't work and has never worked. It just serves to screw the little people and make the already rich even richer. It doesn't benefit the country and until America realises this they will forever go downhill.
I can speak about this because I live in New Zealand and since the 80's this country has moved towards an American style capitalist society from the country's socialist roots and the country has gone downhill ever since.
At least Vodafone seems to be the lesser of two evils. Ok, there is three cell companies in New Zealand but 2Degrees' data plans suck balls. That leaves Telecom who has held the country to ransom for the past 20 years so they're hardly a shining beacon of light.
Since the 80s, NZ has seen steadily decreasing unemployment until the world recession in 2009.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=NZD
Moves toward market economies are vastly positive, but those who are less skilled and were supported on the teat of the government under socialism may very well be hurt by it, as they should be. Is that you?
Seems there will still be plenty of competition. ATT is, and will remain, far from a monopoly.
Three is far from a monopoly? No, three is very nearly a monopoly. Fewer competitors than about eight is a problem.
For now AT&T will be the only GSM provider in the USA but two to three years from now it won't matter because all the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint) will be entrenched in LTE technology. By that time you'll have everyone using one single standard which makes changing carriers easier.
LTE is for data only. The voice is still via GSM network.
LTE is for data only. The voice is still via GSM network.
I don't know?I've thought for a while that the future of these telecoms will be data, since a lot of people use VoIP on their smartphones, and you can get way better international rates. Though that wouldn't be for everyone, of course.
Truthfully I've never understood all the hate for AT&T. They always gave us excellent customer service and coverage (switched from Verizon).
This can be good for service, or considered anti-competitive, but I think it IS kind of a company's job to be better than the competition, and if they're not?then Verizon and Sprint still exist.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think AT&T will have lots of competition still. I don't think the average user knows or cares about GSM vs CDMA.
Well, if you never tried the better service you can be happy. Everywhere in Europe people DO NOT PAY for incoming calls or incoming messages. ONLY IN AMERICA....
Somebody spammed my phone with tens of messages few years ago - 15 cents a piece. I was forced to block messaging to avoid hundreds of dollars cost.... this is insane.
Well, if you never tried the better service you can be happy. Everywhere in Europe people DO NOT PAY for incoming calls or incoming messages. ONLY IN AMERICA....
I know? this country is mostly pathetic when it comes to technology anyway.
But I was talking only about the United States, since this affects people in the US only.
But you're right? it's pathetic over here.
Three is far from a monopoly? No, three is very nearly a monopoly. Fewer competitors than about eight is a problem.
There's very little precedent for the government to block a deal like this. AT&T will still have less than 50% market share on a national basis. Now if Verizonwireless were to announce a deal to acquire Sprint, that would get more scrutiny as their market share would be in excess of 50%.
Government that governs least governs best. I hope they stay out, as they are part of the spectrum allocation problem, and when is the last time government did anything right?
Examples: US Postal Service, Government schools -- abominations which would never be so lackluster if they was a free market!
I think this is a failed analogy. I can site a zillion other reasons that grade and high school education should not be left to the private sector. There is always an incentive to give the least amount of service for the most amount of money. That alone makes for a bad idea. Simply governing less is the simpletons solution to solving problems when our problems are far and away more complex than telling the government not to govern.
Well, now...can't wait for the commercial with the girl in the pink dress. I wonder where her lipstick will end up?
I was thinking the same thing.
I think this is a failed analogy. I can site a zillion other reasons that grade and high school education should not be left to the private sector. There is always an incentive to give the least amount of service for the most amount of money.
You probably shouldn't check out the numbers behind how well our government is currently providing value for the money we lavish on it (taken by gunpoint).