FCC: Not So Fast AT&T

[SilverSliver]

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

It was two different countries.

 

[Ashton]

I'm gonna ignore all the Anarchist comments upto this point...

From my POV, I hope this never happens. However, lets look at another point. How many places is T-mobile the ONLY choice? Also how many places are like where I live that t-mobile is "an option" but your gonna get 1 bar at best and if a car drives by your call drops...

On the other paw, how many places is ATT only technically an option (1-bar)?

The way this will spin is that ATT is "helping" these areas with poor Tmo reception by "giving" them access to the ATT network. Then, they're going to stop all new contracts, and begin phasing out old ones. Services like "unlimited data" will only be offered to grandfathered contracts, and any changes to your contract will force you to change plans (Add a line? nope. Add Data? Nope. Add SMS? Nope. Remove ANYTHING? Hell no!) and give up certain services you've been using. Lets not forget that no new phones will be released on the Tmo spectrum (though eBay solves this problem nicely as long as you don't need high-speed data and AFAIK Tmo doesn't offer many 3G areas even as it is)

In short, ATT will work silently and quickly to lock Tmo customers into a single tiny pigeon hole with only a couple options and anything other than that tiny set of options or any changes will require moving to ATT

In turn this will also leave only Sprint with a reasonably-priced unlimited data plan (Verizon is only affordable if your a company or CEO...). The question then is whether they will join ATT's bandwagon of pay-per-byte or try to steal away customers by advertising their unlimited plan that ATT does NOT offer.

In the end, I don't see this helping consumers at all. ATT will still be the most expensive Data provider and 2nd most expensive voice provider (iirc Verizon still holds the "most expensive in the USA" crown) and may cause a market shift to all-around higher prices. (after all if ATT+VZW are $30 higher for the same cost, why would Sprint maintain it's prices when it can easily go up $20/month and still be "the cheapest"?)

In summation:
I expect this to be approved, and dark times in the future for cellphone costs...

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

We can't remove the protection. If we don't regulate the EM spectrum, it becomes unusable.

That's a textbook non sequitur.

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.

And that can't be done with homesteading?

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.

Which, oddly enough, is precisely how government flunkies look at us "mundanes".

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.

Yet government rulings frequently destroy competition. Or destroy businesses, ala Blockbuster and the one that just went out of business this past summer.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

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.

And just because you want to believe it was the same country doesn't make it the same country.

As for the North invading the South, ask yourself who fired first.

Lincoln ignored the advice of all his generals and resupplied the fort for the tariff house in Charleston. SC offered to buy the fort, even. Lincoln would have none of it. Tariffs must be collected, you see, even if the port is in a foreign country.