FCC: Not So Fast AT&T

Zepher said:
AT&T will buy T-mobile then Verizon will attempt to buy Sprint.
This will basically give AT&T a monopoly on the GSM network and Verizon on the CDMA network.
Click to expand...

This would be horrible...lets hope this doesn't happen...lets hope!!!
 
Ashbringer said:
Since you know so much about the industry, let me ask you a few questions. Since I'm a T-Mobile customer myself.

#1 How does this effect our contract? Switching contracts will offer me better deals, then sticking with T-Mobile/AT&T. When the deal is final, can I jump to Verizon or Sprint without having to pay the cancellation fee? I'm on a family plan, and it'll cost me $150 per person to cancel, and there's 5 people on the plan.

#2 How do you think they're going to treat consumers will smart phones? Unlimited data plans? Free offers for newer smart phones, that will actually work on AT&T's network?

#3 Will AT&T at least try to match the plans that T-Mobile offers?
Click to expand...

#1. If they materially (adversely) change your plan you would be able to get out of contract without a termination fee. If they don't you'd still be bound by contract and have to pay an early term to get out.

#2. You'll probably see teaser promotions from ATT to try and get T-Mobile people to sign a new ATT contract, possibly with phone deals, plan deals, or both.

The network/frequency details are going to be the fuzzy area. This really depends on how the Feds handle it. ATT will probably have to let go of considerable spectrum from both their current holding and T-Mobile to get this deal passed and its anyones guess how exactly this will play out. Using the VZW/Alltel merger as an guideline I'd imagine the FCC will look at each individual area and go at it piece by piece with who owns what spectrum and how many carriers are operating there. If too few carriers are there (and ATT and T-Mo are 2 of them) then there is a good chance ATT will have to divest (sell) one of those to another carrier to preserve competition (and thus consumer choice). Consider your area and all possible carriers, if you have VZW, ATT, and T-Mobile you might not even end up with the post merger ATT.

#3. You will most likely be able to continue on your plan as is for now, if they change it they know they risk lots of people canceling without penalty to go to another carrier, but as above they will most likely try to entice you into an ATT or some sort of compromise plan they make for converting customers.

Hope that answers your questions.
 
lets be real, ATT didn't drop $39 billion for the FCC to say "wait guyz are you sure this is okay????"
 
If the FCC says no, then ATT doesn't lose 39billion and nothing happens with t-mobile.
 
Trimlock said:
If the FCC says no, then ATT doesn't lose 39billion and nothing happens with t-mobile.
Click to expand...

Not really, take a look at this:

That’s the $3 billion question — the amount of money it would have to pay T-Mobile’s parent, Deutsche Telekom, if the deal were blocked. That huge breakup fee should provide a powerful incentive to compromise.
Click to expand...

And more importantly, if the deal doesn't go through, not only could they stand to lose a ton of money, but it also means they've tied up $39 billion for a whole year or more, funds that could have been allocated elsewhere to increase efficiency.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/atts-full-cost-for-getting-t-mobile/
 
Ultima99 said:
#1. If they materially (adversely) change your plan you would be able to get out of contract without a termination fee. If they don't you'd still be bound by contract and have to pay an early term to get out.
Click to expand...

What about me? The term on my contract ended and I didn't get a new phone through them, so I am just paying for the sim month to month. I have the $10 unlimited data plan since I had a "dumb" phone when I got it and am currently using it with a smart phone. Can they force me to pay the $25 or whatever it is for the 2 GB ATT plan?
 
Schizzlefuzz said:
What about me? The term on my contract ended and I didn't get a new phone through them, so I am just paying for the sim month to month. I have the $10 unlimited data plan since I had a "dumb" phone when I got it and am currently using it with a smart phone. Can they force me to pay the $25 or whatever it is for the 2 GB ATT plan?
Click to expand...

If you are using a plan that is cheaper than what the proper plan is for your current device then sure, they could. Keep in mind that the merger will take some time to complete (some estimates are 1yr) and that is just the corporate side (including govt approval). It is unlikely you'll see much change before then. Once that is done they can begin network integration, consolidation, upgrades, and plan changes etc etc etc and anything is fair game. Do realize they will want to eventually migrate everyone to a new plan, but you shouldn't have to worry for awhile.
 
DoggyDaddi said:
I was just a kid when Ma Bell was torn to pieces... kind of makes it all pointless doesn't it? We've already got price-fixing and industry wide gouging on what are now considered mandatory/basic features of online plans and carriers. How long till this all turns into another "They've been conspiring together for YEARS to fuck you on memory pricing"?

Ah well, I only bought my cell to make calls, and its monthly charge is still less then I'd be paying for a dedicated land line every month for less convenience. I love my blackberry curve.. it's a great little music player, but I get odd looks when I pull out my Sony MVR-V6's and plug them in LOL.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, until the last time the memory makers got caught, they were probably the *only* market that wasn't ruthless price fixed. You should have seen the industry papers, lamenting the "bloody price wars" and begging for a more "mature industry" (i.e. price fixing). I personally believe that they were singled out to make an example of anyone who dares try to compete on price: when you get back to good old price fixing, you will be busted!

I have trouble believing that the last DDR2 crash was intentional. I suspect that the prices might not be fixed now, but have no real clue.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
It's exactly the same. How can you think that a deal between two parties somehow means an extramarket entity has to get involved?

It's between AT&T and T-Mobile, period. No interlopers need impinge.
Click to expand...

No. It's not.

When you buy your piddly $1 hamburger it doesn't directly affect thousands of employees and millions of customers.

This merger would directly concern employees in both companies as well has millions of wireless subscribers.

There are regulations in place to limit the power of large conglomerates so they don't dominate any one market to the point where customer interest is hurt.

You're either foreign or too young to remember the bad old days of AT&T (the old AT&T (Ma Bell), not this reconstituting AT&T1000). You basically had to rely on them for all wiring in the home for telephone. If service stunk, tough shit. Not their problem. You couldn't own your own phones. You got the "privilege" of RENTING their beat-to-shit old rotary dial phones, and you essentially paid the price THEY wanted without any options for switching carriers.

If we're going back to those days, the proper answer is "FUCK THAT NOISE".

You think you'd have public internet access if the original AT&T still ruled the roost? HELL FUCKING NO!

Or if we did, we'd still be on 28.8 dialup.
 
AT&T.jpg
 
Chas said:
No. It's not.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It really is.

Chas said:
When you buy your piddly $1 hamburger it doesn't directly affect thousands of employees and millions of customers.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Every purchase does.


Chas said:
There are regulations in place to limit the power of large conglomerates so they don't dominate any one market to the point where customer interest is hurt.
Click to expand...
If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. Further, why then is that not extended to government itself, which prevents competition with itself?

Chas said:
You're either foreign or too young to remember the bad old days of AT&T
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm old enough. I also know that the AT&T monopoly was created by the US Federal Government! Were you not aware that the federal government legally prevented all competition to AT&T? Look it up.
 
badcaps said:
Abolish the FCC.
Click to expand...

That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. While I don't like a lot of the crap they do like censoring broadcasts, someone has to be in charge of regulating frequency spectrum. It would be complete chaos if anyone could use any frequency for anything they wanted.

As for the people complaining that the FCC shouldn't even be involved, you're really taking your anti-government hate to a completely crazy level. First, the ability to assess and approve mergers was a power granted to them by congress to ensure at least some competition in the market. Second, I guess you really would like the wireless industry to be just like the wired internet and television industry where you're lucky if you have two options in any given market and prices are 30-40% higher than they should be. Third, this isn't just between two parties. The fact that both companies utilize licensed frequencies means the government is already involved.

I'm still sure this will end up getting pushed through because I don't trust the regulators to actually do their jobs. They'll give some lip service to competition, force some meaningless concessions, and approve the merger.
 
If this deal is allowed to go through, in a few years, two companies will control 99% of the cell-phone market.

If I try to start my own cell service, the FCC will stop me.
 
bigpimpatl said:
Not really, take a look at this:



And more importantly, if the deal doesn't go through, not only could they stand to lose a ton of money, but it also means they've tied up $39 billion for a whole year or more, funds that could have been allocated elsewhere to increase efficiency.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/atts-full-cost-for-getting-t-mobile/
Click to expand...

apparently the masses of lemmings don't care about efficiency. They continue to buy against their wallet's interests.
 
darkpaw said:
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

[...]

As for the people complaining that the FCC shouldn't even be involved, you're really taking your anti-government hate to a completely crazy level.
Click to expand...

Would that the world were filled with gentle and thoughtful folk like you.
 
darkpaw said:
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. While I don't like a lot of the crap they do like censoring broadcasts, someone has to be in charge of regulating frequency spectrum.
Click to expand...
No, someone doesn't.

darkpaw said:
It would be complete chaos if anyone could use any frequency for anything they wanted.
Click to expand...
You've never heard of homesteading, I take it.

darkpaw said:
As for the people complaining that the FCC shouldn't even be involved, you're really taking your anti-government hate to a completely crazy level. First, the ability to assess and approve mergers was a power granted to them by congress to ensure at least some competition in the market.
Click to expand...
Except that the FCC tends to destroy competition.

darkpaw said:
Second, I guess you really would like the wireless industry to be just like the wired internet and television industry where you're lucky if you have two options in any given market
Click to expand...
That's usually due to city- or county-granted monopolies. It is here, at any rate. Time-Warner was granted a monopoly by the city, and the city only grudgingly "allowed" U-Verse service.

darkpaw said:
and prices are 30-40% higher than they should be. Third, this isn't just between two parties. The fact that both companies utilize licensed frequencies means the government is already involved.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't have been in the first place.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Yes, it is. It really is.
Click to expand...

When it concerns thousands of employees and millions of subscribers with a potential monopoly, by law, no it is NOT. Read yourself up on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Then come talk to me about it again.

Yes, it does. Every purchase does.
Click to expand...

Guess again. You're purchasing a single-use product (I'm pretty sure I wouldn't eat a "hand me down lunch"). We're talking about ongoing services with extensive contracts. I don't see you signing up for a McBurger of the Month club.

If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. Further, why then is that not extended to government itself, which prevents competition with itself?
Click to expand...

Because we had that once. That little tiff called the Civil War? Unfortunately government doesn't really work properly (well, ours doesn't work PERIOD) if there's competition.

Nope, I'm old enough. I also know that the AT&T monopoly was created by the US Federal Government! Were you not aware that the federal government legally prevented all competition to AT&T? Look it up.
Click to expand...

Yes I was. Why do you think it took them 7 years to break up AT&T? The government has the right to assign limited monopolies to various services. Look at the railroads of 40 years ago, look at power companies of 40 years ago. Basically they were given these monopolies to provide unified infrastructures in their various fields with the understanding that it was what was being done was for the general good of the consumer. When these practices became more of a hindrance to the consumer, the monopoly was ended, the original company was broken up into the RBOCs and AT&T Labs, and government oversight became the norm.
 
I haven't seen a big corporation yet that can't shoot itself in the foot. Wish ATT put more of that ENERGY into customer service.
 
heh i'm not sure why so much discussion about competition when we're only talking about the fcc. all issues related to competition are investigated by ftc and doj.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
I don't get why the mafia capo has to give his approval for this. It's none of anyone's business but the owners of T-Mobile and AT&T. I don't need government permission to buy a Big Mac; AT&T surely doesn't need government permission to buy T-Mobile.
Click to expand...

That's because if you start getting charged $50 for a Big Mac, you can go eat something else. If your only option is a Big Mac, you won't be too happy paying $50.
 
Adam Smith, he of the famous "invisible hand," had this to say about business:

"“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

There are not two sides to this argument - pro-regulation and pro-business, but three - pro-market. Neither the gov't or business is pro-market. Business TELLS you it is pro-market, then goes out and spends $39 billion to buy a company that has nearly maxed it's networks capacity already - so how will they make back their $39 billion?
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
I don't get why the mafia capo has to give his approval for this. It's none of anyone's business but the owners of T-Mobile and AT&T. I don't need government permission to buy a Big Mac; AT&T surely doesn't need government permission to buy T-Mobile.
Click to expand...

Their businesses are protected by heavy government regulation. Because we afford them so much protection, we are entitled to regulate their activities as well.

Don't think they're protected? Go broadcast static on the cell phone spectrum, enough to interfere with cell reception for several city blocks. See who comes calling. Hint: it won't be AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Yes, it is. It really is.
Click to expand...

um.. no...

lets use your McDonalds hamburger analogy... this would less you buying one hamburger and more like McDonalds and Burger King buying out every other restaurant and grocery store in the US and became the only sources of food... (oh and growing your own food at home is illegal too - try broadcasting on the cellular frequencies and see how long it takes the FCC to come down on you) and then charged you $100 for a burger... what do you do? starve? nope, you gotta pay to live... just like in modern day society you pretty much NEED a cell phone (and trust me, I wish I didn't have one)
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Yes, it is. It really is.
Click to expand...
Chas said:
When it concerns thousands of employees and millions of subscribers with a potential monopoly, by law, no it is NOT.
Click to expand...
The Sherman act is unconstitutional and anti-competition. One of the ways it was used was to prevent the NFL from broadcasting games on over-the-air channels on Fridays and Saturdays. Check USC 15 Ch. 32 sections 1291-1294 if you do not believe me.


Chas said:
You're purchasing a single-use product (I'm pretty sure I wouldn't eat a "hand me down lunch"). We're talking about ongoing services with extensive contracts.
Click to expand...
So what.


Knight_of_BAAWA said:
If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. Further, why then is that not extended to government itself, which prevents competition with itself?
Click to expand...
Chas said:
Because we had that once.
Click to expand...
No, we did not.


Chas said:
That little tiff called the Civil War?
Click to expand...
The US has never had a civil war. There has never been a war fought in the US for control of the central government, which is what a civil war IS. What we had was one country invading another.

Chas said:
Unfortunately government doesn't really work properly (well, ours doesn't work PERIOD) if there's competition.
Click to expand...
That goes against all economic laws.


Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Nope, I'm old enough. I also know that the AT&T monopoly was created by the US Federal Government! Were you not aware that the federal government legally prevented all competition to AT&T? Look it up.
Click to expand...
Chas said:
Yes I was.
Click to expand...
Then you clearly know that AT&T's monopoly was not a market creation; it was a federal fiat creation. What then is your problem?

Chas said:
Why do you think it took them 7 years to break up AT&T? The government has the right to assign limited monopolies to various services.
Click to expand...
No, it does not.

All government is illegitimate. And no businesses ever need to consult with a government if they wish to merge.
 
SilverSliver said:
That's because if you start getting charged $50 for a Big Mac, you can go eat something else. If your only option is a Big Mac, you won't be too happy paying $50.
Click to expand...
So what's to prevent someone from starting their own restaurant? Or what's to prevent another cell company from starting up? Only government can prevent such a thing.
 
FLECOM said:
lets use your McDonalds hamburger analogy... this would less you buying one hamburger and more like McDonalds and Burger King buying out every other restaurant and grocery store in the US and became the only sources of food...
Click to expand...
And what's to prevent people from growing their own food then or starting their own stores, other than government fiat? And note that government fiat != market.
 
I'd like T-Mobile to stay independent, but it seems unlikely.

There would still be 3 major cell phone carriers, so you can't really claim monopoly.
Why would the US government stop an American company from buying out a German one?

Either way T-Mobile USA is in trouble. Even if someone like Virgin could step up and buy them they would still have to figure out a way to turn the company around as the subscriber base has been falling. They need the iPhone...
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
So the correct answer is not to regulate their activities, but remove the protection.
Click to expand...

We can't remove the protection. If we don't regulate the EM spectrum, it becomes unusable. If we regulate it, then we are by default protecting the businesses that profit it from it by making it illegal for others to use "their" part of the spectrum.

History has demonstrated time and again that businesses absent of competition will offer less and charge more, and treat the public as if it is doing us all a favor by merely existing in the first place. And a single competitor is frequently not competition: two businesses can--without collusion--develop strategies where they simply work around each other. It doesn't have to be malicious or deliberate, each one simply finds that it's most profitable to not compete with the other. Add one more and suddenly you get real competition.
 
SilverSliver said:
That's because if you start getting charged $50 for a Big Mac, you can go eat something else. If your only option is a Big Mac, you won't be too happy paying $50.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the ability for new competitors to enter the market.
 
ie - if a $50 big mac was your only option of eating, it wouldn't be for long.
 
I think it was at Ars, but someone asked this simple question: how often does the FCC block these types of large mergers?

LOL, AT&T is probably having a good laugh at the FCC's posturing so it can seem like it's "good for consumers."
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
The US has never had a civil war. There has never been a war fought in the US for control of the central government, which is what a civil war IS. What we had was one country invading another.

All government is illegitimate. And no businesses ever need to consult with a government if they wish to merge.
Click to expand...

WOW I missed these gems. I don't even know what to say.
 
SilverSliver said:
He has a point, even if it's a technical one. The south did not want to govern the north. They only wanted to govern themselves separate from the north.
Click to expand...

civil war 
–noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

Just because they called themselves another country doesn't make it so. It was, prior to their split, one country. They couldn't get along and tried to split off.

As for the North invading the South, ask yourself who fired first. The South wasn't some innocent dame sitting around while the big bad North came stomping in. They took offensive action into new territory as well.

But whatever, try to redefine history as you like. The South ended up winning anyway, they get more money from the gov't than anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top