It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate probes "unfixable" AT&T/T-Mobile deal

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Senate probes "unfixable" AT&T/T-Mobile deal


arstechnica.com

When a Senate antitrust committee hearing is called “The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again?”, you know that the back-and-forth will be contentious, and today's hearing certainly was.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

"When I was a kid," said Senator Al Franken (D-MN), "every Sunday at exactly 9am in Minnesota, my grandmother would call from New York and talk to my father for precisely three minutes." It was the only time the two had to talk, but fortunately "the breakup of Ma Bell forever changed the cost of long-distance service." Now, Franken sees AT&T's $39 billion bid for T-Mobile as an attempt to put Ma Bell back together again.

"I fear that if approved, the merger would take us one more step toward the monopoly market that we had under Ma Bell," said Franken, who warned that it was "going to raise prices for American families."


Since it's AT&T that 'buying' T-Mobile, is it still considered as "merger."


"I fear that if approved, the merger would take us one more step toward the monopoly market that we had under Ma Bell," said Franken, who warned that it was "going to raise prices for American families."


But the two companies present a different set of expectations...


We can't wait to lower prices

But AT&T and T-Mobile argued the deal was all upside for consumers. In their view, the merger will provide:

- Better 850MHz access to AT&T towers; provides much better in-building coverage
- Near-term network quality improvements; both companies use GSM, can quickly merge networks and see better channel polling, control channel efficiencies, etc. This should produce fewer dropped calls and better data downloads
- LTE. "T-Mobile does not have sufficient spectrum to roll out an LTE network," said its CEO, so long as it has to support existing HSPA+ and GSM. AT&T will make that possible.
- Significantly reduced cost. It "will drive prices down," T-Mobile promised.


I no longer know whether these people can be believed...after all they all participated in the illegal warrantless wire-tapping of private communications we consumers paid for... (although granted, they did receive retro-active immunity from prosecution - so they never have to admit wrong-doing)


arstechnica.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I still remember the days of the great break up of AT&T.

What is really funny about it all was on the West Coast at least, before At&T was the giant it was Paciifc Bell that was the threat.

So they broke up PacBell. Then when AT&T was too big, part of it bacame PacBell again.

Then, PacBell bought AT&T, and decided to keep the name, AT&T. Go figure.

I wish that we could break up the government for being too big.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

I wish that we could break up the government for being too big.


What a great idea!

Political monopoly of continued governance should be made illegal..... although that probably spur on the mother of all false flags!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes, and possible the creation of another world villian.

All of these too big corporations, that supposedly threaten a monopoly keep this
monstrosity we so fondly call government well fed.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Maybe we should ask Mr. Franken why there are only about a handful of large national phone companies to begin with instead of government playing decision maker in who can or cannot merge. The only reason so few companies dominate the telephone market is because only those with enough power to lobby and pay the regulatory fees and taxes can exist, that leaves only a select few. So before we start picking on businesses we should see the route cause of it all.

Businesses are inherently competitive and greedy until they get to the point where they learn how to manipulate the rules in their favor through local, state, and federal laws. Then the competitive part is thrown out the door while the greed takes complete control. Once they have their monopoly established what do they have to fear? No competition is going to mess with them because government prevents it. And can you blame corporations for being greedy? If they can why not? Sure it is not moral but if the politicians are weak kneed and corrupt enough then should it not be the politicians we examine instead of the businesses?

That is like punishing the criminal for bribing the sheriff into letting him out of prison. Who do you believe is truly at fault; the prisoner or the sheriff?

Just another reason for Franken and the big government politicians to vilify business instead of looking behind the curtain to see it is them pulling the levers.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I wouldn't be so quick to let AT&T off the hook, they were a nightmare back in the day when they were the only phone company in town. Monopolies don't exist for the common man's benefit. American phones service still sucks badly compared to European phone service, everything we do comes with 2-3 year contracts and high-$$'s.

AT&T will probably get it's way, by giving the government more access to their records and customer accounts.




top topics



 
4

log in

join