Slashdot Mirror
AT&T: Meet the New US GSM Monopoly
itwbennett writes "Why should consumers care about the AT&T/T-mobile merger? Already, Verizon has dropped unlimited data plans and the US trails Japan, South Korea, and others in variety and performance of mobiles. Don't think for a second that those aren't the direct result this new monopoly, says blogger Tom Henderson. '...Those pesky State agencies that used to have regulatory authority has been usurped by the US Federal Government,' writes Henderson. 'This wasn't an accident. Who would you rather deal with, 43 different state regulatory authorities, or those convenient people on Capitol Hill?'"
It certainly seems appropriate for this article.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I'm sure the free market will take care of this issue.
Are you, Americans are still paying for incoming calls and SMSes?
Keep voting in the Republicans and Democrats! They clearly have your interests in mind!
For all your one-stop shopping needs.
Ever notice how few people are really paying attention? How along the campaign trail nobody ever asks an important question like, "Would you oppose an AT&T / T-Mobile merger which really harms competition in the US?"
They had an Ohio farmer on the news, back when W was running for re-election, when asked which was more important, Social Issues or Economic Issues, the farmer said, "As long has be works to block abortion, he doesn't mind if a few eggs get broken." Really. Wonder how he's doing on that farm after the Bank Collapse. When are people going to wake up and realize they have put far too much focus on a social agenda and too little on Business and Economic issues which affect them to more devastating effect?
I suppose someone, somewhere is fine with the merger, as long as their important Social Agenda gets lip service.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...never was unlimited. So spinning this into 'the end of Verizon's unlimited plan is spurred by ATT monopoly" is a pretty lame argument.
Good-bye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers
Just because they don't have stores on every street corner doesn't mean there aren't a hundred different wireless providers to choose from.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Does anybody on Slashdot actually travel? Prices in general of most goods are _way_ cheaper in the US than in Europe or Japan (I haven't been to South Korea). US taxes are relatively low. Why do I care if a cell phone bill is a few hundred bucks a year more?
And then people miss the point that cell infrastructure scales both with population and with physical area. Someone has to pay for that.
Bullshit. I work for a telco in Finland, and covering a piece of land is as easy/hard in both as the average population density is in the same ballpark. I would even accept that covering rural America is harder, but by that logic most Americans in the cities should have the best broadband in the world. The real difference is that we have four national networks for a population of 5M and the competition is fierce. The regulator is here FOR the people.
Every nation gets the government it deserves.
In (Ex-Soviet) Russia, you can choose from MTS, MegaFon, Beeline, Tele2, or a few other GSM Providers.
In China, you can choose from China Mobile (Easyown, GoTone, M-zone, Peoples, ZoNG), ChinaUnicom. (Yes, the main ones are state-owned)
In the "Free" United states, you can choose any GSM provider you want, as long as you "want" to use the government-approved AT&T/T-mobile.
So you say: "If there's customer demand, Capitalism shows another company will be created so competition remains..." Yeah Right. The State (FCC) owns 100% of the spectrum, and it's all been sold to AT&T T-Mobile. So exactly what GSM spectrum is available for competition?
It's also the only country in the world that will put you in jail if you even /attempt/ to buy and import a Citroen C5 or a Citroen DS3 ("R", preferably) Automobile.
Don't give me the safety line -- both of these cars are rated very well for both safety, and emissions. (Google NCAP) And they look cool too.
I'm not feeling very "Free" as we celebrate our "Freedom" this weekend.
Sprint will not survive this buyout... even Hesse admits this...
Either Sprint will be bought by Verizon, or Sprint will die a slow death, then be bought for pennies on the dollar.
Sprint will be strangled by 1) high roaming costs, or NO roaming, which means poor coverage for its customers, who will then leave,
2) handset freeze out, prime example being the iPhone which Sprint *still* cannot get,
3) price war: AT&T and Verizon can just decide to wage a price war for a couple of years and decimate Sprint,
4) landline/call termination obstruction and rate hikes, since between AT&T and Verizon, most of the landline are controlled by them, they can and will simply charge Sprint huge sums to allow Sprint consumers to call landlines. This is already a big cost for Sprint and it will get bigger.
That would be a fair point, if the US had tons of small inter-state cellular companies, with a few big evil cross-state providers. But that isn't the situation. Fact is, almost NO small businesses are currently operating in the US cellular sector. There is almost no competition at all in the US, the big two just make agreements on territory so they can both keep their prices high.
Honestly the EU isn't perfect but at least competition is healthy. The US has become so bad, the only solution I see at this stage is to make it illegal for a company to own both the core infrastructure and to also sell to the end consumer. That is what they did with the UK's BT monopoly. Broke it into three companies - consumer, wholesale, and Open Reach. And that was an massively successful route to take, with competition in the UK being extremely good.
I'm not sure how much water you argument holds when the worst European country in terms of telecom price/quality is still better than the best states in the US. Finland has a lower population density than the United States, and simultaneously better telcom.
So while true that Europe is a patchwork of carriers across its different states, every state there is better than any state in the US.
"Why should consumers care about the AT&T/T-mobile merger? Already, Verizon has dropped unlimited data plans and the US trails Japan, South Korea, and others in variety and performance of mobiles. Don't think for a second that those aren't the direct result this new monopoly", says blogger Tom Henderson. I'm pretty sure "Japan, South Korea, and others..." were far ahead of the US in mobile performance LONG before any merger talks came about.
Having a market dominated by a smaller number of larger companies is the ideal capitalist system according to rightist ideology. This is why they like mergers and hate it when antitrust laws are enforced. In this way, the few remaining companies don't have to deal with as much of that pesky "competition" thing, and through economies of scale they can deliver better goods for less money. At least, that's the excuses libertarians and conservatives usually give me.
This is also part of the reason why I argue that they are not in fact capitalists, but rather neo-feudalists.
For various reasons (one being the impending AT&T merger) I recently switched from T-Mobile to Sprint.
They have plans that give you 500 minutes with unlimited text and data for 69.99 (59.99 + 10.00 smart phone addon).
You have to sign up with this (not really) secret method to get the plan for 59.99...
http://mcguireslaw.com/2008/07/16/psst-have-you-heard-about-everything-plus/
With my wife constantly calling me and the long conversations I have with my Dad, at first I was afraid that 500 minutes would not be enough, but part of their plan is unlimited mobile to mobile and it applies to ANY mobile phone; even those from other carriers and it applies to incoming calls from mobiles.
This month I used about 41 minutes of my 500.
If the majority of people you talk to are on mobiles in the U.S., then I would look at Sprint.
Their data network seems to be a little less robust than Verizon or At&Ts, but for the first time ever I have 3G in my rural area and can steam Pandora/Slacker on my way to work - something I could never dream of with T-Mobile and the EDGE/GPRS connections they provide outside of dense urban areas.
Now I'm just hoping Sprint doesn't collapse as a result of the merger.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Does anybody on Slashdot actually travel? Prices in general of most goods are _way_ cheaper in the US than in Europe or Japan (I haven't been to South Korea). US taxes are relatively low. Why do I care if a cell phone bill is a few hundred bucks a year more? And then people miss the point that cell infrastructure scales both with population and with physical area. Someone has to pay for that.
I think it depends on where you go, and what goods you're looking at. I lived in Tokyo for three years. Moved back to the US, to California, and naively expected the cost of living to be lower.
It wasn't.
What was more galling, not only was I paying more living in CA, but the quality of the goods and services purchased was generally lower.
A random sample list:
And would people *please* give the population density argument a rest? It's a red herring. The San Francisco Bay Area is quite densely populated and is supposedly the center of the US high-tech industry - and yet cell coverage is kinda crappy, and internet service is much more expensive and much slower than anything you get in Japan (unless you're out in the boonies). It's not about population density, it's about profit margins, and what regulators and the competitive environment will allow.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
State Agencies get eaten alive by something as big as AT&T/T-Mobile. Did a State agency break up Ma Bell? All I can say to these State's rightser Loons is Divide and Conqueror.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The reason why it's more likely is that they don't want to compete. When you've got an oligopoly, it's advantageous to compete as minimally as possible. With T-mobile out of the picture, there would be no reason to continue to provide an unlimited plan. Unlimited plans certainly aren't any more profitable than ones with limits. They could just set the included amount somewhat higher than AT&T and pocket the extra money that they aren't having to spend on bandwidth costs.
Sure, it's somewhat fallacious to suggest that it's inevitable, but I'd be very surprised if it didn't play out like that just after Verizon buys Sprint in order to remain competitive.
How often does your average American leave the state? I don't personally consider that to be a major concern when I leave the state so infrequently. The bigger issue is the shit service around town.
The fact that I can't get decent coverage in a major city is an absolute embarrassment. And As for ISPs, Qwest apparently has written off much of Seattle in terms of upgrades deeming 1.5mbps to be fast enough. Same basic problem, shit regulation and a company that's figured out that it's cheaper to not bother to invest in infrastructure due to a lack of competition and regulation making them do it.
I still pay $50 a month total for my iPhone and still have unlimited 3G data being with ATT.
Now with the acquisition I have even more towers to cover me for the voice and 2G data end since T-mo towers are compatible with this.
One of the biggest problems in the US is simply finding a spot to put a tower.
Can't put it anywhere within a city limits without permission from the city. Can't put it on any land the city owns, period. Can't put it on any private land without a permit from the city. Can't put it anywhere near people that complain about the radiation hazards, how the sight of the tower offends them or any other complaint unless you like spending millions in court.
This means in non-rural areas finding a spot for a tower is a huge challenge whereas I suspect most other countries the siting for a tower is easy - you get the government permission at a high level and nobody is allowed to argue with you. This is especially true when the telephone provider also happens to be state-owned.
Sure there are "regulators" involved but they aren't listening to the lunatic fringe. Here in the US between the environmentalists, the radical environmentalists (you know, all progress since 800 AD is cruel, inhumane and against nature) and the basic nutjobs (cell tower radiation hazards, power transmission line hazards, magnetic cure-all bracelets that are negatively affected by any other EMF fields in the area, etc.) have the ear of the government and the courts.
Actually, you don't. Rates are high-ish, but capped by a EU directive...