Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

marketwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#21

Post by dasil003 »

baggachipz wrote: post #4

We can bitch and moan all we want, but the truth is that this deal will absolutely go through. If there's enough outcry, expect a dog-and-pony show on C-SPAN; in the end, they'll approve the merger with a "stern warning." Count on it.

The cynic in me agrees, but I think it's reasonable to believe that if the public outcry were enough, regulators would stop this. So why are we sitting here upvoting cynical comments on HN rather than mailing representatives?

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#22

Post by EricBerglund »

Schultzy wrote: post #19
Bud wrote: post #2

Mr. Arends makes a very strong argument. And really, if you need a shorthand way to understand this issue, all you need to know is that the Bush Administration stripped away the limits on one company's ownership of spectrum. Republicans talk a good game about the "free market", but it's internally inconsistent talk; you can't have a free market if the number of players in said market gets below a certain level. 4-5 i…

What's so bad about a monopoly in a free market? Doesn't that just create opportunity for some other carrier, perhaps a currently small regional company, to step up and fill that hole? If the pain is big enough, there will be competition. If we mandate competition, it's not a FREE market.

This is true in a market with few existing regulations and a low barrier to entry, in other words the complete opposite of the mobile market.

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#23

Post by TGJ »

Schultzy wrote: post #19
Bud wrote: post #2

Mr. Arends makes a very strong argument. And really, if you need a shorthand way to understand this issue, all you need to know is that the Bush Administration stripped away the limits on one company's ownership of spectrum. Republicans talk a good game about the "free market", but it's internally inconsistent talk; you can't have a free market if the number of players in said market gets below a certain level. 4-5 i…

What's so bad about a monopoly in a free market? Doesn't that just create opportunity for some other carrier, perhaps a currently small regional company, to step up and fill that hole? If the pain is big enough, there will be competition. If we mandate competition, it's not a FREE market.

The problem lies in costs. A monopolistic company keeps costs down due to scale. Any other business cannot enter the market on a competitive level because they cannot meet the same price structures.

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#24

Post by wallabe »

suprgeek wrote: post #7

The author captures this point perfectly: AT&T and T-Mobile merger will create a "GSM Monopoly" in the American market. This will be bad news for any customer who has to use GSM handsets as Europe, Asia, etc have GSM. So if you ever have to travel internationally you are better off with GSM phones. AT&T must not be allowed to Monopolize this key market.

I don't think most consumers care about the technology they're using. They care about quality (does the phone work) and price. Discussions of GSM vs CDMA seem to obfuscate the main issue, which is that less competition will make the same service more expensive and quality worse. It wasn't until Verizon got the iphone that ATT started to care at all about quality, because they had the monopoly

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#25

Post by metageek »

derobert wrote: post #10
suprgeek wrote: post #7

The author captures this point perfectly: AT&T and T-Mobile merger will create a "GSM Monopoly" in the American market. This will be bad news for any customer who has to use GSM handsets as Europe, Asia, etc have GSM. So if you ever have to travel internationally you are better off with GSM phones. AT&T must not be allowed to Monopolize this key market.

Everyone is moving to LTE, so this really doesn't sound like a huge deal, at least in the medium-to-long term. You will be able to get LTE from AT&T/T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon, at least.

It's a reasonable point, but we don't yet know whether there will be LTE phones that work on both AT&T and Verizon, let alone when roaming abroad.

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#26

Post by theoj »

bgentry wrote: post #3

This quote summarizes the whole issue for me: Two weeks ago, as it happens, I took my business away from AT&T. The reason? Simple. T-Mobile offered me a better deal. Lower prices. No two-year contract. And monthy savings because I brought my own phone. It was a free market. So I moved. And now, that choice is gone. Sure, you can choose between companies A, B, & C. All of which cost roughly the same, nickel & dime you…

For me, it's about quality. Guess who had the worst network in America?

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/12/consume...

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#27

Post by rwmj »

Schultzy wrote: post #19
Bud wrote: post #2

Mr. Arends makes a very strong argument. And really, if you need a shorthand way to understand this issue, all you need to know is that the Bush Administration stripped away the limits on one company's ownership of spectrum. Republicans talk a good game about the "free market", but it's internally inconsistent talk; you can't have a free market if the number of players in said market gets below a certain level. 4-5 i…

What's so bad about a monopoly in a free market? Doesn't that just create opportunity for some other carrier, perhaps a currently small regional company, to step up and fill that hole? If the pain is big enough, there will be competition. If we mandate competition, it's not a FREE market.

RF spectrum is not a free market - it's a government-backed monopoly.

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#28

Post by theoj »

Sure enough, it happened just like the author says. Tuned in to CNN this morning and the announcer cheerfully smiled (?!) and said that ATT will acquire TMobile and this is great because we will now get access to iPhones! Nevermind that ATT's service is horrible and their costs are high. Made me want to hit my forehead.

Re: Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked

#29

Post by MatthewPhillips »

Schultzy wrote: post #19
Bud wrote: post #2

Mr. Arends makes a very strong argument. And really, if you need a shorthand way to understand this issue, all you need to know is that the Bush Administration stripped away the limits on one company's ownership of spectrum. Republicans talk a good game about the "free market", but it's internally inconsistent talk; you can't have a free market if the number of players in said market gets below a certain level. 4-5 i…

What's so bad about a monopoly in a free market? Doesn't that just create opportunity for some other carrier, perhaps a currently small regional company, to step up and fill that hole? If the pain is big enough, there will be competition. If we mandate competition, it's not a FREE market.

Monopolies prevent competition from entering the market (by definition) by building barriers to entry. AT&T is not a monopoly, people like to throw that word out whenever a company does something like this. What Intel did to AMD is a good example of a company using a monopoly position to prevent competition.
Post reply on HN