Maybe because it is the government agency responsible for regulating the public airwaves and granting licenses for its use. The government gave a license to T-Mobile to use a certain spectrum, and AT&T to use another spectrum. AT&T wants to purchase the license from T-Mobile. The government has to approve that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
I really don't know why the FCC thinks it's supposed to be involved with this. Seems this is entirely a matter for the DOJ, or at least is supposed to be.
Let us hope so. German companies are more consumer friendly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roos24
I still don't believe this. Germans take (or buy, if they have to), but never sell without an ulterior motive; it's not in their DNA. If the FCC allows it, I predict that AT&T will be German-owned within five years. With their strong Euro it will be very easy for them to increase their stake in AT&T.
Yeah, who cares which department looks into it as long as it's being looked in to?
You should care. Otherwise, we end up with a government that does things they want to do instead of things the law says they are permitted and obligated to do. I elect my representatives to create laws. I don't elect the bureaucrats and so I'm counting on the bureaucrats to do what the law, voted on by my reps, says they can and should do.
You don't seem to understand how things work. The public owns the airwaves, not any company. The government licenses the right to use those airwaves to the private companies. Consequently, the government is supposed to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit.
The written law gives the FCC the power to draft rules and regulations to control the airwaves to the publics benefit.
I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand.
What part of this makes you think the FCC is concerned with the spectrum?
Also, what part of existing anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Do you realize how extreme that is? Sure, find evidence to support your point of view. But cellular prices are crazy high right now. T-Mobile's prices are HALF that of AT&T.
Yes, service improved. Yes phones became cheaper. That correlation, NOT causal. You cannot claim correlation relationships are true.
The reason coverage expanded and prices dropped is because of the natural progression of technology. The second you buy a computer, it is immediately outdated.
[COLOR="red"]It takes time to build networks, that's the only limitation.[/red]
JUST LOOK at what competition did to ATT? Verizon said, LOOK you have terrible service. As a result, they have spent billions attempting to improve their service. With monopolies, which is the natural outcome of merging, eventually Verizon or AT&T will be more powerful and buy the other. Then what incentive will there be to lower prices and improve service?
But without large, nation wide cellular company, there was no incentive to build nation wide network and improve coverage. And smaller companies can only expand quickly to become large companies by mergers. So you can't say all mergers are bad for consumers and innovation.
One way I see this merger benefit consumer is cell phone makers have one less carrier to worry about, so they maybe able to divert some of the money spent to custometically change a phone for the carrier to actually improve the phone itself.
The FCC oversees Broadband, Competition, Spectrum, Media, Public Safety and Security, and Modernization.
AT&T absorbing the fourth largest mobile carrier in the country and growing into one of the largest mobile carriers in the world. From the standpoint of competition, you do not see that as something to look into?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLew
I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand.
What part of this makes you think the FCC is concerned with the spectrum?
Also, what part of existing anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Do you realize how extreme that is? Sure, find evidence to support your point of view. But cellular prices are crazy high right now. T-Mobile's prices are HALF that of AT&T.
It certainly depends on how you look at it. When I first got a mobile phone 13 years ago. The cheapest price plan I could find was with Sprint. I was paying $60 for 50 daytime minutes and 500 night/weekend minutes. It was about one dollar a minute for overages. No texting, no internet nothing else extra.
Do you think anyone would pay for that type of plan today?
Quote:
JUST LOOK at what competition did to ATT? Verizon said, LOOK you have terrible service. As a result, they have spent billions attempting to improve their service. With monopolies, which is the natural outcome of merging, eventually Verizon or AT&T will be more powerful and buy the other. Then what incentive will there be to lower prices and improve service?
AT&T and Verizon are offering terrible service in comparison to what?
If you compare it to 10 years ago the service is obviously vastly better today. 10 years ago it was normal to either have large areas with no service or to pay high roaming fees in areas where you carrier had no service.
Today there are much smaller pockets of areas with poor service and roaming fees no longer exist.
The FCC oversees Broadband, Competition, Spectrum, Media, Public Safety and Security, and Modernization.
AT&T absorbing the fourth largest mobile carrier in the country and growing into one of the largest mobile carriers in the world. From the standpoint of competition, you do not see that as something to look into?
So now it's not about the use of the spectrum and the FCC's domain over the licensing of that spectrum, it's about protecting competition - which again leads to my second question, what part of the current anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Essentially AT&T would have to prove that it will not abuse its position. That it will not engage in anti-competitive practices against other companies. That it will not limit consumer options and raise prices.
The FCC will look through all of the nations markets to see where AT&T and T-Mobile are the two dominant carriers. In markets like that AT&T will have to sell its T-Mobile's properties to a competitor.
If the FCC feels the very nature of this merger will push anti-competitive behavior and limit consumer options they do not have to approve the merger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLew
So now it's not about the use of the spectrum and the FCC's domain over the licensing of that spectrum, it's about protecting competition - which again leads to my second question, what part of the current anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
It would be far better for consumers if the FCC denied AT&T, and mandated a merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, and then Apple created an iPhone version for that group as well.
It's obvious we're heading to a Verizon/AT&T mobile country. As long as their are two companies then you have competition.
What people have to realize or remember is AT&T is not the AT&T of yesteryear. Cingular bought AT& and decided to keep the name. AT&T did NOT have rollover, sheesh!
As long as their is a Verizon / AT&T fight then we'll have healthy and continuing price wars; ala competition. I also don't think Sprint will be gobbled up as their books are pretty strong and they have a decent network that is huge, albeit not as big as the big two.
It would be far better for consumers if the FCC denied AT&T, and mandated a merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, and then Apple created an iPhone version for that group as well.
Unless you make Android phones that is!
Maybe if you live in China and like a centrally planned economy.
The problem with fears of "limited competition" is that today's AT&T and T-Mobile are hobbled competitors. AT&T doesn't have Verizon's reach but has a newer more globally standard network with much greater potential for speed improvements.
T-Mobile has the bandwidth and network capacity to grow, but it's non-standard and higher frequency, meaning it will never get good phones, and that its mobile service is limited from working well for rural users (or penetrating buildings). TMobile is cheaper, not because the company is more generous but because its service is less valuable! That's how the market works dummies.
Together, US consumer gets a much improved competitor to Verizon (in coverage), a much faster 3G+, and a much earlier rollout of LTE, which will help not just AT&T but also Verizon, which will roam its users between the two.
This is a consolidation (which I'm not usually quick to support), but it's different than most consolidations because it's not just two widget makers or content producers joining forces to create layoffs and reduce the number of competitors.
In this case, you have two service providers handling limited public spectrum, which together they can use far more effectively than were they to remain separate. I'd rather have one national train network than two competing systems that didn't have tracks to every city, but had duplicate tracks to many cities providing negligible "competition."
TMobile was headed out of business in any event. Joining with Sprint would be a nonsensical boondoggle that only a Chairman Mao could recommend in "sounds like a good idea" ignorance.
The people who liked TMobile's cheap/low quality service can move to Cricket or Metro PCS. The US can finally get a real, nationwide, fast network, and 5-10 years faster than otherwise. AT&T will get immediate improvements, making it more competitive with Verizon and forcing both to offer better plans, as they already have.
Boost mobile. virgin mobile net 10. leap wireless Metro pcs straight talk. Cellular one. Sure there are many more cheap choices i forgot to mention i dont want it to happen either but just showing there are plenty of cheap alternatives to pick from if we end up having too but if it does i may do boost mobile 50 unlimited everything blackberry plan
Hmm. Mild conspiracy theory: anyone else starting to think that AT&T’s DSL/U-Verse data caps were implemented as a negotiating/bargaining chip for FCC approval of this T-Mobile buyout? Think about it: AT&T just created out of thin air something it can “give up” as a way of appearing reasonable and considerate of federal regulators. The politicians can look like they’ve done something positive, despite merely restoring the status quo.
In a way, this is sort of like the NFL’s push for an 18 game season in CBA negotiations. They appear to not have been truly serious about the prospect, but simply created the issue as a bargaining chip. “We’ll give this up (not that we ever really wanted it) if you’ll give up something as well.”
Here’s hoping that’s the case. I genuinely don’t mind AT&T acquiring T-Mobile if Sprint can somehow get its act together. Of course, Verizon might simply buy out Sprint, and suddenly we might be left hoping Comcast (shudder) gets into the mobile phone game just to provide competition.
Boost mobile. virgin mobile net 10. leap wireless Metro pcs straight talk. Cellular one. Sure there are many more cheap choices i forgot to mention i dont want it to happen either but just showing there are plenty of cheap alternatives to pick from if we end up having too but if it does i may do boost mobile 50 unlimited everything blackberry plan
What about those guys above why not support them help one of them become thennext tmobile sized compNy and support small businesses
It's obvious we're heading to a Verizon/AT&T mobile country. As long as their are two companies then you have competition.
In the beginning (or near it) the FCC restricted cell phone operators to 2 carriers in most markets to ensure competition but also foster growth. It wasn't long before their own studies indicated that no real competition existed in a given market until at least 3 carriers were present.
This deal has the potential to effectively put Sprint out of business, leaving only Verizon and AT&T.
I hope the FCC won't forget that lesson they learned.
Just look at current pricing for iPhone or iPad service from AT&T and Verizon. The minor differences in their offerings amount to variations on a theme, not competition.
If the iPhone were to also come to Sprint and/or T-Mobile, I would expect to see more competitive pressure on all carriers in their service offerings.
Also, the FCC originally required all 1G cell phones to work on every carrier's network—to ensure portability of service between carriers. That is a requirement they were talked into dropping when 2G was rolled out, creating the current situation of AT&T's phones not working on Verizon's network (and vice versa). There is hope that '4G' LTE might end up fixing the portability problem created when the FCC dropped that requirement. Even Sprint is now mulling a '4G' LTE option in addition to its current '4G' WiMax offerings.
Personally, I'd rather the merger not get approved. I see it as a short-term fix to AT&T's current perceived problems, with significant long-term negative consequences in tow (i.e. the marginalization/elimination of Sprint).
Comments
I really don't know why the FCC thinks it's supposed to be involved with this. Seems this is entirely a matter for the DOJ, or at least is supposed to be.
I still don't believe this. Germans take (or buy, if they have to), but never sell without an ulterior motive; it's not in their DNA. If the FCC allows it, I predict that AT&T will be German-owned within five years. With their strong Euro it will be very easy for them to increase their stake in AT&T.
Yeah, who cares which department looks into it as long as it's being looked in to?
You should care. Otherwise, we end up with a government that does things they want to do instead of things the law says they are permitted and obligated to do. I elect my representatives to create laws. I don't elect the bureaucrats and so I'm counting on the bureaucrats to do what the law, voted on by my reps, says they can and should do.
You don't seem to understand how things work. The public owns the airwaves, not any company. The government licenses the right to use those airwaves to the private companies. Consequently, the government is supposed to ensure the airwaves are being used to the public's benefit.
The written law gives the FCC the power to draft rules and regulations to control the airwaves to the publics benefit.
I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand.
What part of this makes you think the FCC is concerned with the spectrum?
Also, what part of existing anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Do you realize how extreme that is? Sure, find evidence to support your point of view. But cellular prices are crazy high right now. T-Mobile's prices are HALF that of AT&T.
Yes, service improved. Yes phones became cheaper. That correlation, NOT causal. You cannot claim correlation relationships are true.
The reason coverage expanded and prices dropped is because of the natural progression of technology. The second you buy a computer, it is immediately outdated.
[COLOR="red"]It takes time to build networks, that's the only limitation.[/red]
JUST LOOK at what competition did to ATT? Verizon said, LOOK you have terrible service. As a result, they have spent billions attempting to improve their service. With monopolies, which is the natural outcome of merging, eventually Verizon or AT&T will be more powerful and buy the other. Then what incentive will there be to lower prices and improve service?
But without large, nation wide cellular company, there was no incentive to build nation wide network and improve coverage. And smaller companies can only expand quickly to become large companies by mergers. So you can't say all mergers are bad for consumers and innovation.
One way I see this merger benefit consumer is cell phone makers have one less carrier to worry about, so they maybe able to divert some of the money spent to custometically change a phone for the carrier to actually improve the phone itself.
The FCC oversees Broadband, Competition, Spectrum, Media, Public Safety and Security, and Modernization.
AT&T absorbing the fourth largest mobile carrier in the country and growing into one of the largest mobile carriers in the world. From the standpoint of competition, you do not see that as something to look into?
I don't think I'm the one that doesn't understand.
What part of this makes you think the FCC is concerned with the spectrum?
Also, what part of existing anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Do you realize how extreme that is? Sure, find evidence to support your point of view. But cellular prices are crazy high right now. T-Mobile's prices are HALF that of AT&T.
It certainly depends on how you look at it. When I first got a mobile phone 13 years ago. The cheapest price plan I could find was with Sprint. I was paying $60 for 50 daytime minutes and 500 night/weekend minutes. It was about one dollar a minute for overages. No texting, no internet nothing else extra.
Do you think anyone would pay for that type of plan today?
JUST LOOK at what competition did to ATT? Verizon said, LOOK you have terrible service. As a result, they have spent billions attempting to improve their service. With monopolies, which is the natural outcome of merging, eventually Verizon or AT&T will be more powerful and buy the other. Then what incentive will there be to lower prices and improve service?
AT&T and Verizon are offering terrible service in comparison to what?
If you compare it to 10 years ago the service is obviously vastly better today. 10 years ago it was normal to either have large areas with no service or to pay high roaming fees in areas where you carrier had no service.
Today there are much smaller pockets of areas with poor service and roaming fees no longer exist.
You don't understand what the FCC does.
The FCC oversees Broadband, Competition, Spectrum, Media, Public Safety and Security, and Modernization.
AT&T absorbing the fourth largest mobile carrier in the country and growing into one of the largest mobile carriers in the world. From the standpoint of competition, you do not see that as something to look into?
So now it's not about the use of the spectrum and the FCC's domain over the licensing of that spectrum, it's about protecting competition - which again leads to my second question, what part of the current anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
The FCC will look through all of the nations markets to see where AT&T and T-Mobile are the two dominant carriers. In markets like that AT&T will have to sell its T-Mobile's properties to a competitor.
If the FCC feels the very nature of this merger will push anti-competitive behavior and limit consumer options they do not have to approve the merger.
So now it's not about the use of the spectrum and the FCC's domain over the licensing of that spectrum, it's about protecting competition - which again leads to my second question, what part of the current anti-trust laws would prevent this deal from going through?
Unless you make Android phones that is!
What people have to realize or remember is AT&T is not the AT&T of yesteryear. Cingular bought AT& and decided to keep the name. AT&T did NOT have rollover, sheesh!
As long as their is a Verizon / AT&T fight then we'll have healthy and continuing price wars; ala competition. I also don't think Sprint will be gobbled up as their books are pretty strong and they have a decent network that is huge, albeit not as big as the big two.
It would be far better for consumers if the FCC denied AT&T, and mandated a merger between T-Mobile and Sprint, and then Apple created an iPhone version for that group as well.
Unless you make Android phones that is!
Maybe if you live in China and like a centrally planned economy.
The problem with fears of "limited competition" is that today's AT&T and T-Mobile are hobbled competitors. AT&T doesn't have Verizon's reach but has a newer more globally standard network with much greater potential for speed improvements.
T-Mobile has the bandwidth and network capacity to grow, but it's non-standard and higher frequency, meaning it will never get good phones, and that its mobile service is limited from working well for rural users (or penetrating buildings). TMobile is cheaper, not because the company is more generous but because its service is less valuable! That's how the market works dummies.
Together, US consumer gets a much improved competitor to Verizon (in coverage), a much faster 3G+, and a much earlier rollout of LTE, which will help not just AT&T but also Verizon, which will roam its users between the two.
This is a consolidation (which I'm not usually quick to support), but it's different than most consolidations because it's not just two widget makers or content producers joining forces to create layoffs and reduce the number of competitors.
In this case, you have two service providers handling limited public spectrum, which together they can use far more effectively than were they to remain separate. I'd rather have one national train network than two competing systems that didn't have tracks to every city, but had duplicate tracks to many cities providing negligible "competition."
TMobile was headed out of business in any event. Joining with Sprint would be a nonsensical boondoggle that only a Chairman Mao could recommend in "sounds like a good idea" ignorance.
The people who liked TMobile's cheap/low quality service can move to Cricket or Metro PCS. The US can finally get a real, nationwide, fast network, and 5-10 years faster than otherwise. AT&T will get immediate improvements, making it more competitive with Verizon and forcing both to offer better plans, as they already have.
C'mon. A couple of mil in kickbacks, a few campaign contributions, and they're all set to marry the bride.
Not until the FCC makes a big show of how they agonized over the approval.
As long as their is a Verizon / AT&T fight then we'll have healthy and continuing price wars; ala competition.
If you have only two big competitors, doesn't that make price fixing that much easier and tempting?
In a way, this is sort of like the NFL’s push for an 18 game season in CBA negotiations. They appear to not have been truly serious about the prospect, but simply created the issue as a bargaining chip. “We’ll give this up (not that we ever really wanted it) if you’ll give up something as well.”
Here’s hoping that’s the case. I genuinely don’t mind AT&T acquiring T-Mobile if Sprint can somehow get its act together. Of course, Verizon might simply buy out Sprint, and suddenly we might be left hoping Comcast (shudder) gets into the mobile phone game just to provide competition.
What about those guys above why not support them help one of them become thennext tmobile sized compNy and support small businesses
It's obvious we're heading to a Verizon/AT&T mobile country. As long as their are two companies then you have competition.
In the beginning (or near it) the FCC restricted cell phone operators to 2 carriers in most markets to ensure competition but also foster growth. It wasn't long before their own studies indicated that no real competition existed in a given market until at least 3 carriers were present.
This deal has the potential to effectively put Sprint out of business, leaving only Verizon and AT&T.
I hope the FCC won't forget that lesson they learned.
Just look at current pricing for iPhone or iPad service from AT&T and Verizon. The minor differences in their offerings amount to variations on a theme, not competition.
If the iPhone were to also come to Sprint and/or T-Mobile, I would expect to see more competitive pressure on all carriers in their service offerings.
Also, the FCC originally required all 1G cell phones to work on every carrier's network—to ensure portability of service between carriers. That is a requirement they were talked into dropping when 2G was rolled out, creating the current situation of AT&T's phones not working on Verizon's network (and vice versa). There is hope that '4G' LTE might end up fixing the portability problem created when the FCC dropped that requirement. Even Sprint is now mulling a '4G' LTE option in addition to its current '4G' WiMax offerings.
Personally, I'd rather the merger not get approved. I see it as a short-term fix to AT&T's current perceived problems, with significant long-term negative consequences in tow (i.e. the marginalization/elimination of Sprint).