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

51–56 of 56 posts

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

#51

Post by envane »

hoag wrote: post #43

My response to this related HN post: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=2349678 My proudest accomplishment in law school was a research paper I wrote entitled "Anti-Antitrust: The Need for Antitrust Law Reform." In that paper, I argued that antitrust law as applied today totally misses the point: the issue shouldn't be whether a company, otherwise satisfying the elements of a monopoly, is harming competitors, but whether a c…

"do any of you -- aside from our realm of early adopter computer savvy tech types -- genuinely remember any everyday computer users actually complaining that Windows came preinstalled with IE instead of Netscape?"

That's a really narrow view of the damage done by the IE monopoly. The ubiquity of IE6 continues to stifle the development of new web technology by requiring developers to cater to hapless prisoners of corporate IT policy.

I don't have the patience to spell it out, but i'm sure you'll piece it together if you lurk moar.

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

#52

Post by Bud »

Qo wrote: post #39
Bud wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It creates a monopoly in the GSM space and an effective duopoly overall. Pretty darn close.

Even if this deal goes through, you'll have three national carriers to choose from and, depending on where you live, one or more regional carriers, plus VoIP. That's not pretty darn close to a monopoly at all. I think there's a stronger case for a GSM monopoly, but at some point the argument becomes silly - where do you draw the line between an uncompetitive market and a market with product differentiation? Would you…

What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well.

1=1.

This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.

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

#53

Post by Qo »

Bud wrote: post #52
Qo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this deal goes through, you'll have three national carriers to choose from and, depending on where you live, one or more regional carriers, plus VoIP. That's not pretty darn close to a monopoly at all. I think there's a stronger case for a GSM monopoly, but at some point the argument becomes silly - where do you draw the line between an uncompetitive market and a market with product differentiation? Would you…

What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well. 1=1. This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.

First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong.

But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because the product that this company sells is going to be somewhat different than those of its competitors. Yeah, true, so what?

(a)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_...

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

#54

Post by Bud »

Qo wrote: post #53
Bud wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well. 1=1. This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.

First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong. But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because th…

Ah yes, because Northeastern Alaska Sanskrit 2400-baud Modem Wireless has sooooo many subscribers. Yeah, that argument will hold up.

There are no other GSM providers of note which offer modern, up-to-date services (and handsets) and are a serious option now, besides ATT. I was snarky because I suspected obtuseness; I think that obtuseness has now been confirmed.

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

#55

Post by Bud »

Qo wrote: post #53
Bud wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well. 1=1. This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.

First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong. But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because th…

BTW, Qo, I note your account was created 5 hrs ago, seemingly for the purpose of posting your comment above. Karma is currently 1. Do you work for ATT, by chance?

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

#56

Post by Qo »

Bud wrote: post #54
Qo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong. But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because th…

Ah yes, because Northeastern Alaska Sanskrit 2400-baud Modem Wireless has sooooo many subscribers. Yeah, that argument will hold up. There are no other GSM providers of note which offer modern, up-to-date services (and handsets) and are a serious option now, besides ATT. I was snarky because I suspected obtuseness; I think that obtuseness has now been confirmed.

Of course my argument holds up. It's true by definition. But remember, my first post said that I thought there was a stronger case for a GSM monopoly.

Look, the term "monopoly" is a pretty strong word, and it carries with it certain connotations that I don't think apply here. So if you want to use it in the strictest sense of "a market with only one seller" then I agree with you, but saying that "AT&T has a monopoly on GSM mobile coverage" has about as much weight as saying "Apple has a monopoly on iPods." Yeah, true, so what?

Post reply on HN