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?'"

Comments

Where's the "corruption" tag?

[zooblethorpe]

It certainly seems appropriate for this article.

free market

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the free market will take care of this issue.

Re:free market

[CyprusBlue113]

Umm, no, it is the regulation of the single tech spectrum that is exactly why other countries have better mobile infrastructure, not stupidly creating more islands of spectrum.

Re:free market

[__Reason__]

AT&T is a bit like the liquid metal terminator from Terminator 2. You can break it into little pieces, but somehow, eventually, it'll find a way to reassemble itself and become a monopoly again.

Capitol Hill

[ackthpt]

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.

Re:keep voting for them!

[ISoldat53]

We have a two party system. The Sold and the For Sale.

Can't compare only cell phones

[vijayiyer]

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.

Re:US telecom trailing others isn't a fair assessm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes, thanks to the Magic of the Free Market!

[Benfea]

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.

Depends where you are.

[zooblethorpe]

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:

• Eggs - cheaper in Tokyo, and fresher there too.
• Dry cleaning - cheaper in Tokyo.
• Prepared ready-to-eat foods (a.k.a. chûshoku in Japanese, a bit like a carry-out buffet) - hard to find in the US outside of grocery stores, but generally tastier, more varied, and cheaper in Tokyo. Great for anyone living on their own, or in a household where no one has time to cook.
• Telecoms - both cell and internet service were *way* cheaper, with *way* better coverage and data speeds. I could place a phone call on the Ôedo line, the newest and deepest subway line in Tokyo, but I would drop out of service while driving on US 101 from Mountain View north past Google's massive campus. Yay, AT&T. :-P

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,