Slashdot Mirror


Leaked AT&T Letter Damages Case For T-Mobile Merger

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday a partially-redacted document briefly appeared on the FCC website, accidentally posted by a law firm working for AT&T on the $39 billion T-Mobile deal (somewhere there's a paralegal looking for work today). While AT&T engaged in damage control, telling reporters that the document contained no new information, a review of the document shows that's simply not true. Data in the letter undermines AT&T's primary justification for the massive deal, while highlighting how AT&T is willing to pay a huge premium simply to reduce competition and keep T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands."

201 comments

  1. Nothing new here by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, really there isn't. Corporate takeovers to stifle the competition is normal practice ( hell its the primary reason they exist ), so nothing 'new' was really released here.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Nothing new here by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right, anyone who is surprised by this is, well, lacking in foresight, to put it diplomatically. The merger was obviously about anti-competition, especially given that T-Mobile is one of only two contract companies (Sprint is the other) to undercut Verizon and At&T prices and data caps. This deal should not only not go through, the attempt should result in massive penalties against AT&T (splitting the company? Forced regulation of prices or removal of data caps? Ah, one can dream.) More likely, this will be brushed under the table, the right people will get "campaign donations", and everything will go smoothly. For AT&T. And the customers will get screwed. More screwed, that is. But, in the wireless provider business in America, that's pretty much how these things go.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Nothing new here by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is one new surprise....

      The actual document leak was a surprise. Everything else is something we all expected.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    3. Re:Nothing new here by kakyoin01 · · Score: 1

      The actual document leak was a surprise. Everything else is something we all expected.

      This, although I don't think it's as surprising as it is facepalm-worthy.

      --
      The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
    4. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T MO. Buy competition for less than it would cost to improve service.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by ischorr · · Score: 1

      It's something we all know. But it's tougher for the bought-off politicians to ignore if AT&T's own documents publicly support it. Remember, AT&T's public statement is that it will actually INCREASE competition; they're not stifling anything.

      So why would you "meh" this, except to be That Guy On The Internet?

    6. Re:Nothing new here by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Just because it's 'normal practice' and 'nothing new' doesn't mean there shouldn't be some red flags, or at least some general outrage. Competition is necessary for a well functioning market place. When a deal is done for the sole purpose stifling competition at the expense of the consumers, then that is exactly the reason and place for regulation.

    7. Re:Nothing new here by microbox · · Score: 1

      Behold: the shady underside of laissez-faire economics.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    8. Re:Nothing new here by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Probably because we ALL know that the days of the DoJ having any teeth at all are long gone friend. I mean if Intel didn't even get smacked down after CEOs admitted that their kickbacks were "like cocaine" and it came out that for several quarters during the price wars the ONLY profits coming into Dell were kickbacks? Or the fact that several programmers showed that the Intel compiler was rigged not only against AMD but their own P3 chips so they could push the Pentium 4 and that STILL didn't get them busted?

      Lets face it, nowadays a corporation could set the competition's offices on fire and as long as they bribed...err I mean "campaign contributed" to the right people they would probably not only not get busted for it, hell they'd probably get a tax break for the gas and matches!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Nothing new here by NalosLayor · · Score: 1

      How is a deal approved by government agents who are blatantly selling votes, for a service over a tightly government regulated slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, using only government approved equipment and with government sanctioned business practices in any conceivable way "lazziez-faire"? This doesn't in any way, remotely, resemble lazziez-faire. Just because republicans support it doesn't make it free market, unless you've been watching too much fox news.

    10. Re:Nothing new here by microbox · · Score: 1

      Because the free market doesn't exist apart from politics, in the same way that politics doesn't exist apart from people.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    11. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a platitude of a non reply. The ussr had politics, and while there were plenty of back room deals, no meaningful definition of "lazziez faire" would include the soviet system.

  2. I don't think much will come of it by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    They'll just get a slap on the wrist for lying. Worst case, the CEO will "resign" (aka: early retirement w/benefits) for good PR and the whole thing forgotten in a month.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:I don't think much will come of it by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you have any idea how hard it is to make ends meet on a one-time 165 million dollar payout? Because the CEO will be toxic if he resigns over this, he'll never work for more than maybe 10 million a year again.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:I don't think much will come of it by rhook · · Score: 1

      Cry me a river.

    3. Re:I don't think much will come of it by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Hey, if I can (just barely) make it on an $85M one time pay out, I'm sure he can make it on double that.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:I don't think much will come of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself, you rich bastard!

    5. Re:I don't think much will come of it by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, insightful repartee on my subtle use of sarcasm.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:I don't think much will come of it by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Hey, if I can (just barely) make it on an $85M one time pay out, I'm sure he can make it on double that.

      You could give me a measly $75M instead of giving this other person $85M. I think I could somehow manage to survive, though it will be tough.

    7. Re:I don't think much will come of it by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't live on 5% bonds of only $10M. $500k/year is just untenable for life.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:I don't think much will come of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the government will bail him out.

    9. Re:I don't think much will come of it by flonker · · Score: 1

      Ah, you must live in California.

  3. Merger will still happen by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    So can anyone name a merger that the government has successfully stopped?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Merger will still happen by loganljb · · Score: 2

      The Honeywell / GE Merger in 2001, for one. That was stopped by the EU, not the FCC, but the idea is the same.

    2. Re:Merger will still happen by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FCC stopped EchoStar from merging with DirectV. Otherwise Dish and DirecTV would be the same company. But that did allow NewsCorp to step in and buy DirecTV instead. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/echostars-directv-bid-blocked-by-fcc

    3. Re:Merger will still happen by Surt · · Score: 1
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Merger will still happen by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      Adaptec used to do the same thing: buy competitors and close them; happened to more than one of the vendors I used.

      When LSI Logic (only significant competitor for Adaptec at the time, and particularly useful in embedded systems) came on the block, the sale was blocked, so we weren't forced into a single (and, IMO, less competent) source for SCSI chips.

    5. Re:Merger will still happen by SpanglerIsAGod · · Score: 2

      Don't forget CheckPoint and Sourcefire.

      http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11382

      --
      War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
    6. Re:Merger will still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United Airlines and US Airways.

    7. Re:Merger will still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything Oracle bought from Sun. Merge and Extinguish.
      Everything Cisco bought from Linksys, Merge and Extinguish.

      When Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, we all saw this coming, the babybells re-merging, just like the Imperial Oil breakups remerging. Only Imperial Oil is still 3 large companies from it's 34 fragments. AT&T, the only National fragment it doesn't have IS Verizon.

      However duopolys are as bad as monopolies. Just look up north to Canada. AT&T/T-Mobile is similar to the Rogers-Fido deal. All they did was eliminate their only roaming-coverage competitor. Telus/Bell then switched to the same technology Rogers/Fido uses (GSM/GPRS/EDGE/HSPDA/LTE) and a few new carriers were introduced on GSM signaling but incompatible frequencies (The same ones T-mobile uses for their 3G.)

      So ultimately it's a lose-lose situation. If the deal goes through, you lose the value competitor. If the deal doesn't go through, they will be bought by the carrier with the crappy techology (Sprint has a mishmash of CDMA, iDEN and now partnering with even less compatible technologies, what the fuck are they thinking) and end up with... literately substandard service. It would be nice if T-Mobile and Sprint were to drop the lunacy and switch to the same LTE that everyone-that-isn't-Verizon is using.

    8. Re:Merger will still happen by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      The merger of Steve and Bill or the merge of Laura and Lucy.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    9. Re:Merger will still happen by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      AT&T, the only National fragment it doesn't have IS Verizon.

      No, there's also CenturyLink, which bought Qwest, which bought US West, which owned Mountain Bell, Northwestern Bell, and Pacific Northwest Bell.

      Once CenturyLink, Verizon, and AT&T merge, that's it for the 1983 divestiture.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Merger will still happen by jd · · Score: 1

      Not really. The EU is actually functional...ish... sometimes.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Merger will still happen by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      AT&T, the only National fragment it doesn't have IS Verizon.

      I would say that's a fairly significant chunk it doesn't have.

    12. Re:Merger will still happen by Oswald · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Merger will still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key topic to note is that it was stopped in the EU and not at all stopped by the FCC. Can anyone theorize on why it was not stopped by the FCC? Certainly, but it would be all theoretical on if anyone had already received their campaign contribution or if any of those contributions were returned after the merger fell through.

    14. Re:Merger will still happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bell Systems divestiture from 1974 to 1984? Just mentioning it for the irony. Took 10 years to break them up and less than 20 to forget why.

  4. 'Acceidentally'? No. by microcentillion · · Score: 2

    'Leaking' a statement of that magnitude was 100% intentional by someone who didn't want it 'going down without a hitch'. You know it's true.

    --
    But clearly you have something better to say...
    1. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      'Leaking' a statement of that magnitude was 100% intentional by someone who didn't want it 'going down without a hitch'. You know it's true.

      A paralegal willingly giving up their job for the benefit of faceless consumers? ... in this economy?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by mdenham · · Score: 1

      A paralegal willingly giving up their job for the benefit of faceless consumers? ... in this economy?

      They're probably a T-Mobile customer and already had a job in a different field lined up.

    3. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about whistle blower money. That could take 10 years + to pay out. The fired person would then get a 10M settlement, which they could get half of, (after the lawyers). So the person who did it could be simply looking for an all expenses paid 10 year holiday. Or they could settle in a back room today for 1million. Just hope they do it.

    4. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because no one ever makes a mistake. If they wanted it leaked, it would have been directly to the papers.

      Somewhere there is an IT guy taking the rap for some paralegals mistake.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Believe it or not, there are people who would do that, even in this economy. The may come as a shock to you, but someone people will die for other people.
      You surprise belays an undertone of selfishness that is beneath you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by PPH · · Score: 1

      If they wanted it leaked, it would have been directly to the papers.

      Its called plausible deniability. And it reduces the potential damages should AT&T try to sue the paralegal. They'll still end up fired, but intent to harm AT&T will be difficult to prove.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i'm sure Verizon will take care of them

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by danlip · · Score: 1

      Some people are willing to die for others, to protect their lives or fundamental freedoms - not to protect them from being screwed by their mobile provider.

    9. Re:'Acceidentally'? No. by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, there are people who would do that, even in this economy. The may come as a shock to you, but someone people will die for other people.
      You surprise belays an undertone of selfishness that is beneath you.

      I totally understand that people can be unselfish... I'm just a pessimist.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  5. US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a recent visitor to the USA and was astonished at the 3rd world nature of its cell system. I had never imagined it was so bad, before visiting. Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me. They seem intent on defending the very thing that makes their lives miserable compared with most developed nations.

    This was also the impression I had of its subway system. I've ridden subways in Moscow, Tokyo, London, and other major cities. All were clean, safe, and the sort of system a developed nation can be proud of. The subways in the US smelled of urine (!!), were infested by RATS (!!), covered with trash, and had the feel of a thing you'd only want to use if you do not value your personal safety. This was my first exposure, and really changed the view I used to have of the USA as an advanced nation. It really is on par with some very poor and undeveloped countries in terms of civic infrastructure.

    1. Re:US cell system by casualsax3 · · Score: 0

      I was a recent visitor to the USA and was astonished at the 3rd world nature of its cell system. I had never imagined it was so bad, before visiting.

      What exactly did you find so subpar? Service from just about any carrier should have been good considering you were in a city with a subway. My experience with world phones in Europe wasn't exactly thrilling. I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?

    2. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a recent visitor to the USA and was astonished at the 3rd world nature of its cell system. I had never imagined it was so bad, before visiting. Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me. They seem intent on defending the very thing that makes their lives miserable compared with most developed nations.

      Well, it's beginning to sink into our heads that the widely held belief that politicians know what we want and are willing to represent us and the good of the nation is not really true. (Whew! Try diagramming *that* sentence!). Massive riots aren't just yet about to happen though. Personally, I'd like to see energy and communications nationalized, but I won't hold my breath.

    3. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We put our money towards blowing up other countries. We don't care about our own.

      Anything in the federal budget that moves this country forward is essentially a rounding error compared to spending on military, subsidies (SS,medicare,unemp,etc), and debt payments.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

    4. Re:US cell system by grumling · · Score: 1

      So your answer to bad politicians is to give them even more power?

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    5. Re:US cell system by grumling · · Score: 1

      Once you get out of Manhattan, the place gets better.

      I promise.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    6. Re:US cell system by Macrat · · Score: 2

      I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?

      You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?

    7. Re:US cell system by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      Are you serious? Yeah, letting AT&T do and charge what they please when they are 1 of 3 soon to be 1 of 1 cell phone carrier will solve all the problems. Good call Rush.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    8. Re:US cell system by Chaonici · · Score: 1

      You're right. Let's allow big corporations to do whatever they want, and let the free market decide. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that. Sure, we'll end up with one massive carrier with absolutely horrid service and no competition, but it came about because of the free market, so that makes it okay, right?

      Remind me again which part of "promoting the general welfare" that falls under.

    9. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, not really. Go to any large city (which will be the only cities with public transit), and the conditions are the same. You can't make a profit off of poor people trying to get to work, so they don't.

    10. Re:US cell system by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. You just don't get it. There is no free market because of the government. If there were no government to distort the free market, we would currently have hundreds of competing carriers with excellent service, speeds, *and* price.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    11. Re:US cell system by stalky14 · · Score: 2

      Your Phone experience was probably AT&T, since it has the frequencies that most foreign phones roam to the US on. You're absolutely right about the (lack of) regulation here, but it's too late to change all of the non-interoperable systems the phone companies use.

      As for the subways, they are paid for by local governments. You must have been in NYC or Boston, because those are old and decrepit systems. Washington DC, San Francisco, and Atlanta have very nice systems. I'm in Portland and we have a top-notch surface rail/streetcar system. Don't base your opinion of the entire country's commuter rail on one municipality.

    12. Re:US cell system by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.

      Regulation is a four-letter word over here. It "handcuffs job-creators" and "stifles industry", and no matter what national polls show, (almost) no elected officials fight this Big Lie.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    13. Re:US cell system by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      So your answer to bad politicians is to give them even more power?

      The reductive reasoning of a Rome-burner.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    14. Re:US cell system by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I bought a sim in London and then got to pay 2 pounds per day just to turn it on in Spain. What union/country/territory do you live in who's carriers have seemingly gotten it so right?

      You're upset that a SIM bought in one country continued to work (for a fee) in a completely different country?

      Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic. I mean, the EU and the US are roughly the same size and in theory the EU is a unified trading area.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    15. Re:US cell system by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Regulation got us into this mess

      What universe are you living in? Subsidies are not regulation.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    16. Re:US cell system by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Ahahaha! You had me going for a moment there... I guess there's no way you could be serious. I know there are the supply and demand things that the market runs on, but the demand for communications, power, fuel and healthcare among others are limitless. As alternatives of choice lower, the race to the bottom begins as they lower quality and raise prices knowing that you have nowhere else to go if you don't like it.

      In the case of the telecoms, they are in default on their agreements to the US people and it's about time the US government called them to task on it. What agreement would that be? They paid for the right to use the radio frequencies they use in exchange, they are supposed to provide a net benefit to the people while building out infrastructure all over. What we get in return is fraudulent charges such as cost for text messaging which literally occupies no additional data load and mysterious charges that people frequently ignore and of course cherry-picking infrastructural improvements leaving poor areas with limited to no service.

      All of this is probably common knowledge to someone like you and so I can only surmise you are pulling a Stephen Colbert gag saying the opposite of what you mean.

    17. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the great thing about SIM-based systems -- just get another SIM in Spain. It's tempting to compare the EU and the US, in that they're both continent-wide confederations of states, with each state having its own independent gov't, but in reality, the EU is a much looser confederation than the US.

      (I live in the US, and have only been to one other country (Switzerland, if it matters) on one occasion, so I'm in no position to defend the Swiss (or European in general) mobile system, but your complaint sounds like unreasonable expectations, not a crappy mobile system.)

    18. Re:US cell system by Oceanplexian · · Score: 2

      Sorry you had a bad experience, but the US is nearly as large as the entirety of Europe, so that's a terrible comparison considering that outside the metro areas cell service quality is pretty decent. Also, I don't see how the "US Subway System" (never heard of that one...) is in any way related to the discussion of mobile regulations.

      The United States is a huge place, so picking out faults as a whole are pretty ignorant. If anything, I'd say regulations on spectrum use should be relaxed so more carriers can get in on the game.

    19. Re:US cell system by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If anything, I'd say regulations on spectrum use should be relaxed so more carriers can get in on the game.

      And who is going to pony up 100 billion dollars to just start up a new network from scratch? Apple? Exxon?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone forgets this, but I'll remind the Yankees..

      Only in the USA and Canada are you charged for both incoming and outgoing calls on a mobile phone.
      In Europe you are only charged for Outgoing calls, but you are charged more for calls that terminate at a mobile phone.

      Or in other words, their mobile phone system is more like our landline long distance system. Remember that their landline system is much more expensive and they were abandoning landlines years before Americans were.

    21. Re:US cell system by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic.

      Yeah, unless the distance I'm traveling just happens to take me across the border of Canada or Mexico, in which case that "archaic notion" that borders matter would still apply. Didn't NAFTA fix that?

      It's one thing to consider the idea of the nation-state archaic, it's another to consider it irrelevant today.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:US cell system by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.

      Because regulation is the first step on the path to SOCIALISM! We can't have that! We need business to be as free as possible, so we can follow in the footsteps of other great Libertarian countries like Somalia.

      Also, am I the only one who sees "USAians" as "US Asians"?

    23. Re:US cell system by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the idea that we should give shitty companies more power and ability to do what they're doing? At least with the government, I have a say in how things are run. I don't have any such power with a company.

    24. Re:US cell system by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Removing regulation has a far less chance of working.

    25. Re:US cell system by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      You forgot the sarcasm mark on there. Because there's absolutely no evidence that such a thing would happen, and that the big players wouldn't simply buy out most of their competitors, and force the rest out of business.

    26. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why USAians don't demand better regulation is a mystery to me.

      What regulations would you propose that would fit New York City and Jackson Hole Wyoming Or Wasilla Alaska? People in Europe have no idea how really big the USA is, and how your socialist "one size fits all" crap just cannot work here.

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7xmU7SHisJg/TVLym8da4cI/AAAAAAAABZk/0da3BWPu4cM/s400/US_Europe_Size_Comparison.bmp

      To summarize, Western Europe fits east of the Mississippi and Texas, missing about 1/2 the country. That short sighted view of the US is why you are not even qualified to tell us how to run things here.

      As for rats and pissing in subways, this is why we drive cars (not to mention the previous size problem. From your opinion of us, it sounds like you never left the beltway (Boston,NYC, DC). You really should come out west, where the air is clear and people still ride horses and carry guns, much more civilized world.

    27. Re:US cell system by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Google.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    28. Re:US cell system by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      My phone 'just works' in all of the 20-odd countries I've taken it to (scattered out over 4 continents).

      As in, 'Plane lands, turn on phone, have service within 30 seconds or so'.

      Except for...

      Guess which one?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    29. Re:US cell system by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Probably because in the US you can travel 2x the distance from Spain to the UK and still not pay extra when you use your cell phone - the whole notion just because I cross on member state's border I should automatically be gouged for using a cell is a bit archaic.

      Yeah, unless the distance I'm traveling just happens to take me across the border of Canada or Mexico, in which case that "archaic notion" that borders matter would still apply. Didn't NAFTA fix that?

      It's one thing to consider the idea of the nation-state archaic, it's another to consider it irrelevant today.

      True (although there are plans that avoid extra per day charges) - but the EU is ostensibly a "single entity' with respect to commerce and free movement of goods and people - similar in concept, if not execution, of the US' Federal system and individual states; whereas NAFTA's simply a trade agreement and not a political union. Nor does the US, Canada and Mexico have a joint military structure and political council to handle military affairs and common defense like much of the EU. I need show no passport going from Portugal to Spain to France or Germany and use the same currency, but my cell phone charges jump significantly? I can see where that is confusing and archaic; especially since the same countries often operate cross border anyway. It just lets them gouge their customers.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    30. Re:US cell system by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "Regulation got us into this mess and regulation won't get us out of this mess."

      Actually, one might say de-regulation got us in this mess. Major stuff in the 90's.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    31. Re:US cell system by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I'm not an American, but I live here for several months now.

      And you know what? It's a big country. Bigger than Europe, in fact. And it is also a federation - state borders are not just lines on the map, there really is a difference when you cross them. Some parts of US are, indeed, decidedly third-world. Others have all the infrastructure you could possibly ask for. It makes zero sense to try to average that out - it'd be like averaging, say, Finland and Albania, just because they're both in Europe.

    32. Re:US cell system by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well at least you can (in theory) "Throw the bums out" of office, but the CEO of supermegacorp ain't going nowhere. In most of the USA the duopoly has cherry picked the areas they want. not live in one? Go fuck yourself buddy. My mom lives less than a mile out of town, a town that has over 60,000+ when college is in BTW, when she built her house nearly 30 years ago the cable was a block and a half away. Guess where it is now? Why its a block and a half away!

      And before someone give the usual corporate bullshit of "Well if you live in a rural area" when I lived in Nashville in 03 there were areas in the center of town with NO cable or DSL access. You gonna tell me Music City USA is a corn field?

      The ONLY way we will EVER get nationwide broadband is to nationalize the last mile and then let the corps rent. if they want a monopoly? fine we'll give you 15 years for every area currently not being served you run 50Mbps fiber to. Run it to the home? We'll make it 25.

      As someone that has lived all over the south I can tell you there are HUGE areas that can't get shit, and we ain't talking just the rural folks either, we are talking dead center of some quite large cities. The duopoly cherry picks and if you aren't in an area they desire? Fuck you, you get nothing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    33. Re:US cell system by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      You almost never are on the same network when you cross from the US to Mexico or Canada, the same isn't true traveling across Europe.

    34. Re:US cell system by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      This was also the impression I had of its subway system. I've ridden subways in Moscow, Tokyo, London, and other major cities. All were clean, safe, and the sort of system a developed nation can be proud of. The subways in the US smelled of urine (!!), were infested by RATS (!!), covered with trash, and had the feel of a thing you'd only want to use if you do not value your personal safety. This was my first exposure, and really changed the view I used to have of the USA as an advanced nation. It really is on par with some very poor and undeveloped countries in terms of civic infrastructure.

      Really? In Atlanta, most of our subway stations are above ground, and open air. The trains are also pretty clean, with plenty of seats. Contrast this to when I was visiting Vienna. The trains were old, there was no or virtually no place to sit, and the underground stations were so choked with cigarette smoke you could barely see 10 feet in front of you.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    35. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for reference...
      I've lived in a few different US states over the years and even though the end points of my homes were over 4760 miles or 7658.84 kilometers apart (5 times zones difference) with a few places in between, I have had the same exact bank (with the same account numbers), the same insurance company (home and auto), and the same cell phone company and plan with the same phone numbers the whole entire time. Sure, I had to trade in my drivers licenses for one in the state I lived in, my insurance had to be adjusted and priced out for that state and a few other small things but a lot was able to stay the same.

    36. Re:US cell system by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the lions share of taxes (and population) in the USA come from areas that don't have subway systems, so there isn't a lot of political pressure to invest in them - and lots of pressure to not spend money on them.

      From the little I've traveled around Europe I can say that it is VERY different from the US. I tend to travel on business, which gives me the advantage of tending to see how ordinary people live (as opposed to what tourist traps look like). For example, in a typical town in the Netherlands you'll find a small train station or two, with about 5000 bicycles parked outside, and then 6-story buildings for a 5-10 block radius, and then nothing but farmland until you hit the next small town. You can easily walk or bike from the train station to anyplace you'd want to go.

      In the USA in an area with similar average population density you wouldn't find any buildings taller than 2 stories (or maybe the rare 3), and each building would be about 200 meters apart at least, surrounded by a large parking lot. They'd cover the same area as the space between two European towns. So, instead of one bustling town that you can walk around, you have this general smear of population everywhere. Within that 5-10 "block" radius of a hypothetical train station you'd find fewer people working than you'd find within 1 block in a European town. Of course, there is no real train station, since there would be no point in having one.

      It is just a very different culture. In the USA just about everybody has a quarter acre of lawn outside their home (on average). This is considered of higher value than being able to walk to get groceries.

      And having traveled roads in a number of countries, I'd say the urban access roads in the USA are better than what you'll find just about anywhere. For starters, virtually all the roads all actually have sidewalks and separate lanes for opposing traffic. :) The highway system is better in some European nations, but not by a great deal, and the US highways clearly carry far more cars. I think the US just has different priorities.

      All that said, I'd love to see practical public transit options in the US. However, so far they just don't exist for the rural population densities. Maybe when cars are able to drive themselves that will solve the problem (cars travelling in formation operating on a fee-for-trip model would probably be about as cost-effective and environmentally sound as trains are).

    37. Re:US cell system by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      The Tokyo subway system no longer reeks of urine??

    38. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live about 40 miles SW of Washington DC, just about the current fringe of the metropolitan area in this direction. The closest business to me is a small gas station about 4 miles away. There is no public water or sewer for at least 4 miles from my house and everyone in this area has well and septic systems and the average lot is about 5 acres. About 6 miles away the population density takes a huge jump but it is still no where equivalent to a "city". I would NEVER expect any type of mass transit to ever show up around here. What most people do now is drive to their closest mass transit point, park in a 1000-5000+ spot multi-level parking garage or a huge parking and take the mass transit (bus or train) into the city from there. I work a lot in Los Angeles too. Completely different concept but also not mass transit friendly. That area was never designed to have central points of business that people would flock too for work and live. It is spread out, so spread out in fact that the central downtown area looks like ghost town compared to every city I have ever worked in.

    39. Re:US cell system by itzdandy · · Score: 1

      I have a similar situation in the North-Central US. From Montana to Michigan, broadband access is surprisingly hard to come by in the middle of cities. Billings Montana is nearly 150,000 and 7 blocks from the City AND Federal court house there is no broadband! Fargo ND, on main street, No broadband. Wausau Wisconsing, 4 blocks from hotel-row along the interstate, no broadband. In fact, of the 30 locations I service in this area, 1/2 of them are unable to get any broadband at all and must rely on T1 service for hugely inflated rates.

    40. Re:US cell system by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So your answer to bad politicians is to give them even more power?

      Nationalizing doesn't necessarily require the politicians running it. The government could buy the telecoms, combine them into a single, nationwide LTE infrastructure, and then spin it off into a government-owned nonprofit corporation, subsidizing it periodically with infusions of tax money the same way they do with the existing telcos today, but subsidizing a nonprofit corp that can't (by design) overcharge its customers.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    41. Re:US cell system by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If there were no government to distort the free market, we would currently have hundreds of competing carriers with excellent service, speeds, *and* price.

      And they would provide that service by bulldozing random people's houses to put cell towers in... without permission or compensation.... And they would use frequencies that jam emergency responder communications... and TV... and radio.... And some new company would come through and trench across your driveway every three months laying new cables.

      There's a reason for regulation in the telecom space, and it's not to make competition harder. Read up on the tragedy of the commons to understand why an unfettered free market can't work.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    42. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than Manhattan, maybe. But on average not anywhere close to major cities in other western countries.
      About the only decent infrastructure in the US is the road network.
      Electricity? Major outages after a little hurricane or blizzard. Too stupid to bury the
            cables in the ground.
      Internet? Frequently only 2-3 providers available, all of which suck in the same way.
      Water? I know quite a few places in the US where the tap water comes from low quality wells. Shower in
            that water a few times, and you temporarily become a redhead.
      Train network? Comparable to Tunesia. And I'm being generous to Amtrak here.
      Local public transport? Decent in only a few old cities, crappy to non-existent elsewhere.
      Airports? Good density of airports and flight connections, but poor on flight service, and generally unreliable.
            Canceled flights, badly delayed flights, missed connections, lost luggage.
      Bicycle lanes? What is that, a "bicycle"?

    43. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      to be fair you were likely in NYC which makes that NYC's problem, not the rest of the country. In fact, living in a different city I would say that NYC as a whole is dirty, smells of urine(and trash) and has lots of rats. While my city only has above ground trains, they are far cleaner and well maintained compared to those in NYC.

      if you visit one place in the US, you do not have a good idea of how the US is run. each state runs things differently, we are not all LA/NYC.

    44. Re:US cell system by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      From what I understand the EU is what the USA was supposed to be, after all the interstate commerce clause would've been written very differently if central govt control everywhere was intended.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    45. Re:US cell system by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

      Government is what makes our lives miserable! We need less regulation! Regulation is ALWAYS bad and always stifles business! Also, most of the US doesn't even have subways...because we like cars, which are the free-market, government-intrusion-free alternative!

    46. Re:US cell system by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Then regulations should be made at the state, not the federal level with the federal level only mandating rough outlines. That's how it works in the EU, most regulations are at the member state level with EU regulations providing more of a framework. Your states are supposed to be fairly independent so make use of that.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    47. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zimbabwe?

    48. Re:US cell system by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Text messaging costs money to provide, so calling it free is disingenuous. But then, I have to call you out on that point on every single Slashdot story which mentions cellphone companies, so I'm not going to bother explaining it again. It'll take me like 15 minutes to write the post, and then you'll just dismiss it with a wave of your hand and go off about text messages being free to provide on the next story.

      The cost of text messaging is the abomination, not that they charge for it at all.

      Fucking brick walls, I swear it.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    49. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he has only ridden the New York subway, and not, say, the Atlanta or Washington, DC or Seattle or... any other city almost.

    50. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey foreign fuck. Aside from being a large country spatially, we also did not have our entire infrastructure bombed down to the bedrock 60 years ago, like Europe and Russia. We have had an organic growth of our country, especially the east coast, for the last 400 fucking years. Look at the roads in Boston, those are paved over cart paths. Chicago was lucky to have the fire, it gave them the chance to do a little civic planning. On top of that the USA helped pay for all that wonderful shit in Western Europe and Japan.

      This country needs to cut the defense budget in half and transfer all that money to rebuilding this country's infrastructure. An overall plan for the country as a whole would be nice first, also.

    51. Re:US cell system by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      I think the German antitrust agency would never allow that merger since the resulting company would have more than 30% market share. I think the rules are not too different for the European agency.
      A stronger antitrust regulation should also work for the USA.

    52. Re:US cell system by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Towns and cities that came about before the automobile tend to be sanely designed, with a cluster of high density housing surrounded by farmland. Examples are New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc.

      Those that came about (mostly) after the automobile tend to be spread out, with lots of suburbia, long distances between..pretty much anything, and useless if you don't have your own car. Good examples are Miami, Orlando, LA, and the San Francisco Bay Area. (the city itself is pretty good)

      Since pretty much *all* of Europe was developed before the car came along, pretty much all of Europe is high density towns/cities surrounded by farmland, with good public transit infrastructure. It's all about when our respective parts of the world "grew up". I think the priorities are all wrong; the automobile should be for long distance travel, not daily use... but that's just the way it happened. In the USA there's this fascination with the automobile... especially 60-70 years ago.

    53. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, USAians are not aware of the nature of anything, because they have no reference to comparison. In Europe within a couple of hours you can be somewhere else, speaking a different language, and compare with your own country. In the United States, the huge majority of the population is far away from anything other than the United States, and most who are have Mexico (worse off than we are) or Canada (too culturally similar) as comparisons. There is no way for the average citizen to directly compare it to anything else without actual research.

    54. Re:US cell system by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Mostly agree, but I have seen rats in Tokyo subways as well. Only an odd few though, not an infestation.

      Recently used the metro in DC, though, and was pretty disappointed in their smart card vending and turnstiles compared to Tokyo. Took me 5 times longer to figure out how to purchase and fund a card than it did in Japanese.

    55. Re:US cell system by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the wonderful world of cherry picking friend, where they will not only not provide you service but will SHUT YOU DOWN if you try to DIY. I know because a friend had his business stuck in a similar sitch, so he talked his partner into going in on a T-1 and renting access to those around him. The teleco got wind and pulled his plug with a "just try to sue us buddy!". His lawyer said "Oh sure you'll win, but it will cost a couple of million easy in lawyers fees and a good decade or more out of your life" so they shut down and moved away. Those nearly 400 homes? STILL nothing but dialup to this very day.

      So get used to it, thanks to the corrupt cabal in DC giving the duopoly a blank check to do anything they want cherry picking is the order of the day and if the city tries to run their own lines? they get sued even though the duopoly has NO intention of serving them! Like too much in this country we pay incredibly high prices for subpar service so some CEO can have extra hookers and blow. SNAFU my friend SNAFU.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    56. Re:US cell system by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Oh we have plenty of regulation. Been to California lately? Nearly every single commercial building is required to have a Prop 65 notice posted out in front. This basically says that there are known hazardous chemicals in the building and you could die if you go in. Now, if that was limited to places filled with doxin and dead bodies, there might be a point. But such notices are required when pencils, batteries or cleaning supplies are present. Show me a commercial establishment without cleaning supplies and you have found a homeless shelter.

      We get more and more silly regulations all the time. But there isn't a lot of enforcement for things that count and no pro-active inspections.

      Arizona says you can't hire illegals except we have day labor centers that cater almost exclusively to illegal immigrants. Recently a restaurant was closed for a couple of days when it was discovered that they had a large number of undocumented workers in every single one of their locations. They got in a different batch of cheap labor and opened right back up again a couple of days later. You can't run a restaurant with legal labor these days, it is just too expensive to be able to compete with the rest of the food service industry.

      Of course, we all know bans against hiring undocumented (cheap) workers are just discrimination against "brown people". So, do we really want more regulation?

    57. Re:US cell system by vovin · · Score: 1

      With regards to subways, there is a vast difference between NYC / Chicago which can be very sketchy vs San Francisco, D.C. and Boston. It has a lot to do with the culture of the cities and the age of the system.

      In my personal experience I lump (worst to best).
      NYC, Chicago, Mexico City, Barcelona, Paris roughly together.
      Sau Paulo with Rome
      San Francisco, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen
      Hong Kong and Singapore
      And finally Athens as the best public transport I've used.

    58. Re:US cell system by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Unenforceable or redundant laws are silly, I won't hesitate to agree. If there was a way to get a Commission of Ending Stupid Laws that didn't totally circumvent the Constitution, I'd be all for it (because obviously Congress would rather crank out piles of new ones instead, and I'd better head off that digression before I start ranting about treason). The topic is large, consumer-friendly regulation of big business practices. Those are under siege by Big Money. The thing is, they use bait-and-switch to get votes by showcasing the silly ones, and then wiping out the biggies.

      Common-sense weeding of many regulations ARE a good idea, but when TPTB do the weeding we get Comcast buying NBC, and AT&T buying T-Mobile, and NewsCorp buying... everything else.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    59. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any reason why you are excusing metro areas from needing good reception? They are more densely populated so need it more, and it isn't terribly difficult for operators to deal with, they just need more masts. If it can be done in other (non-US) major cities, why can't it be done in US ones?

    60. Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subway systems in our major cities are not at all consistent for sure, but when I've visited Washington DC I was highly impressed at the speed and cleanliness of their subways. Transfers worked great, never more than a few minutes wait, nice timers telling you when it's coming, maps to help you get around, no confusion, and nice wide-open clean spaces to wait.

  6. Ma Bell seeking to reduce competition?! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    No, say it isn't so! My reality is crashing down on me. I suddenly feel so disillusioned and jaded. I'm either going to go write emo poetry, or kill myself.

    No, wait, that would just be a huge overreaction. Suicide it is, then.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Ma Bell seeking to reduce competition?! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, wait, that would just be a huge overreaction. Suicide it is, then.

      Can I have your UID then?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Ma Bell seeking to reduce competition?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ma Bell? No, it is one of her bastard sons in drag taking the bitch's name and hiding behind it cause they had actually made their name more hated, if you can imagine that. SWBC--Southwestern Bell Corporation

  7. Capitalism at its best by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's no new information because we knew it already.

    Law of Capitalism #1: Customer value directly conflicts with corporate income. If more value goes to the consumer, less value will go to the corporation.

    Mergers are never for the benefit of the consumer.

    AT&T is willing to pay a huge premium simply to reduce competition and keep T-Mobile out of Sprint's hands

    Law of Capitalism #2: Monopolies win.

    But the problem isn't with our understanding of these laws. It's with the FCC not doing it's job, and everyone involved being paid off.

    1. Re:Capitalism at its best by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      All regulators are being captured. Captured regulators don't do their job. Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.

    2. Re:Capitalism at its best by immakiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      Law 1: not true. In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself. What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments. In this case, however, the market is pretty much an oligopoly. That's why the government has to step in to determine if this merger is something that allows AT&T to compete better and provide more value to the customers or if it's something that will altogether transfer more value from customers to AT&T.

    3. Re:Capitalism at its best by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      US economic system != capitalism.

      Capitalism isn't the government giving money to corporations at taxpayer expense.

      With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Capitalism at its best by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      In fairness, sometimes it's win/win/win (acquiror/acquisition/consumer) when a company with a nicely developed sales channel buys up a little invention and puts some wood behind the arrow.

      I used to work for a major heavy equipment manufacturer and scout around looking for neat inventions to put on our products. One was a patent by a nice dude with a high school degree that was totally awesome. We picked it up from him, made him a boatload of cash, and threw our engineering resources behind it and got it into the GLOBAL market in less than a year.

      Everyone got more out of it than they put in, and the customers loved it. I guarantee if a big company hadn't bought it, the dude would still be moving like 5 units a month via mail order.

    5. Re:Capitalism at its best by metrometro · · Score: 0

      In a competitive market, blah blah blah...

      And in a unicorn playground mobile data is free free free!

      You keep talking about capitalism as if it doesn't capture regulators and entrench monopolies. Look around. It is what it is.

    6. Re:Capitalism at its best by Darby · · Score: 1

      Capitalism isn't the government giving money to corporations at taxpayer expense.

      Sure it is. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. That is the golden rule of capitalism. Whoever owns the capital rules.

      With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor

      And by "true capitalism" you mean a fairy tale idealization which can't possibly exist in the real world. For those of us actually discussing the real world in which we all live you just come across as a naive child.

    7. Re:Capitalism at its best by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.

      So ruthless, self-serving competition doesn't exist in true capitalism? Interesting!

      If only we could have it. Darn reality!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself.

      No. That corporation will be bankrupted by the corporation that cuts corners and skimps on service. It's the tried and true practice of building up a good brand with superior products and services, and then riding that horse as hard as you can until it drops dead. Rinse, lather repeat. Verizon's network used to be so awesome that after switching from AT&T in 2002 I always asked callers if they were still there because I couldn't hear any line noise. I never dropped calls and never got choppy reception. VZW has been on a pretty rapid descent as they invest in luring customers into the highly profitable wireless data market instead of investing in growing their voice network to keep up with demand. Now I drop calls all the time and have shitty audio. Verizon sucks now and so does everyone else. Cell service in the United State is abysmal.

    9. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in a unicorn playground mobile data is free free free!
      You keep talking about capitalism as if it doesn't capture regulators and entrench monopolies. Look around. It is what it is.

      Well said.

      That's why the government has to step in to determine if this merger is something that allows AT&T to compete better and provide more value to the customers or if it's something that will altogether transfer more value from customers to AT&T.

      Anyone that was with Cingular when it became At&t (again) would realize that the only way to give the best value to At&t's customers would be to send them to Verizon, Sprint, or T-mobile. At&t is the fucking worst mobile company out there. If that we really their purpose they would stop taking money from At&t hand over fist and shut those fuckers down.

    10. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.

      Utterly false. There's an old business adage that clearly outlines why: "Nothing succeeds like success". If I can be even a small bit more profitable than my competitors, I can use that extra capital to leverage better prices from suppliers and advertisers, to lobby governments to create laws that favor me over competitors and otherwise ensure that life is just a little bit better for me and mine. Having employed these advantages, I can use them as leverage to repeat the cycle in a positive feedback loop until I achieve monopoly status and either absorb or destroy my once-Free market.

      Nowhere in that process does it say that you have to obtain that edge from happy customers. More power to you if you do! But as long as you don't sabotage the process by making them sufficiently happy to negate the positive feedback effects, building the require capital can come from outsourcing customer support to a country where a $1 lunch is a gourmet meal instead of a bowl of unflavored Ramen, cutting expenses by polluting the environment, exploiting child labor - anything that ups the profit margin is grist for the mill.

    11. Re:Capitalism at its best by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Word. I have observed that people are reluctant to leave their current carriers because of friends and family also being on that particular carrier. This form of lock-in was discovered to be a strong motivator long ago... which was about the time the race to the bottom started to occur in the competitive wireless market.

      When you see there are reasons people don't want to change, you will see reasons they can be abused as they are.

    12. Re:Capitalism at its best by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself.

      Right on cue!

      This is the myth that fuels small to medium businesses, and the dreamers who still have any hope left.

      Law #1 is true, and that is precisely why businesses that give the most value suffer through self-sacrifice and lower profits. While businesses are small, it is the moral stance of the founders and business operators that can counteract this law and increase customer satisfaction. It is at a price, but often those with a passion, and who are already happy with their compensation, such as the founders realizing their dreams, are happy to pay. This is great for consumers. But this is *not* capitalism at work. This is good will being applied to counteract the evil of capitalism at work.

      Beyond a certain threshold however, the company starts to prioritize profits over all else. This is when moral baggage (founders) are let go of, and the quality of service falls to "the minimum quality required to sustain their business". This can happen before or after a company goes public, but almost always happens after mergers or take-overs. And unfortunately is only a matter of time...

      Law of Capitalism #3: The quality of products, services, and compensation fall to their tolerable minimums, and prices rise to their tolerable maximums, as a corporation expands.

    13. Re:Capitalism at its best by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      US economic system != capitalism.

      I really wish this statement were true to everyone's eyes, and we could just admit it. Unfortunately, to many run this code:

      function USA(){
          capitasim;
      }

      if (USA != capitalism)
          then USA = socialism;

      Those who cannot see the code at work for what it really is cannot fix it. But thank Gov for free speech, because we all get to spew bullshit about it all day regardless of how anything is actually implemented.

    14. Re:Capitalism at its best by PPH · · Score: 1

      Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.

      For a fee, yes.

      Its like a hunting reserve. You pay to get in, bag your limit and tie it to the bumper of your SUV. Congress isn't making any money by letting the regulators run free.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Capitalism at its best by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Law 1: not true. In a competitive market, the corporation that can give customers the most value will keep the most value for itself. What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments.

      Which is why he posted Law 2. And in an unregulated market, AT&T would have already bought T-Mobile, and Verizon probably would have already bought Sprint.

    16. Re:Capitalism at its best by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      The US is close enough to Capitalism that the distinction is not important.

      And would you be arguing that in a "real Capitalist" setup, the companies would not lobby the government?

    17. Re:Capitalism at its best by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      With true capitalism monopolies can only exist if they serve the consumer better than any other competitor.

      Or if they buy out their competitors and force the others out of business. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft was able to get monopoly status without any special intervention, just good ol' fashioned anti-competitive behavior.

    18. Re:Capitalism at its best by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      USA has private ownership of the means of production (aka "capital").

      That is the only necessary and sufficient trait of capitalism. Taxes, subsidies etc are completely irrelevant - they represent government policy, but do not change the basis of the economic system.

      USA is a capitalist economy.

    19. Re:Capitalism at its best by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      All regulators are being captured. Captured regulators don't do their job. Problem is I think that the politicians WANT the regulators to be captured.

      It's not just the politicians. The regulators want it too. Even the non-government ones. Look at Standard & Poors - they are effectively a non-government regulator of the financial services market. But they sold out to the big investment houses like Gold Man-Sacks and rated their CDO's AAA when they were garbage just to keep the money flowing in to S&P.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even assuming that free markets exist, and I'm not so sure they do, let's go through a typical American's day:

      1. Wake up. Take a shower, the water for which is supplied by the government (and would be a natural monopoly even if it weren't).

      2. Get dressed, putting on the clothes highly likely purchased from Walmart or another big-box chain store that has been destroying their competition for years. Where I live, your choices are pretty much Walmart or Target. (If you want to drive to an actual mall, probably at least 30 minutes away at this point, you can get slightly more selection and a handful of higher-end stores.) Minimal competition at best. Target doesn't even compete with Walmart; they go for a slightly higher-income clientele.

      3. Make some breakfast. Walmart or Target again? Could be. Or you could choose from one of a handful of other stores in the oligopoly. I guess we should be happy that these oligopolies tend to be regional instead of nationwide.

      4. Hop in your car (there's what, five or six car companies who own a handful of brands?). Make sure your insurance from one of 5-6 companies is in your wallet or glove compartment. Roll up to one of a handful of chain gas stations (okay, okay, this is more of an urban/suburban thing than country-wide). Buy some gas, made from oil controlled by a cartel. Then proceed to work on the government-funded roadways.

      5. Get to work. Check your phone to see if you missed anything while you were driving (you don't text and drive right?) You use your service which is pretty much Sprint, Verizon or AT&T at this point. I guess we can say we have competition if call the market "phones," but with almost every phone locked to a specific carrier it is at best a specious win.

      6. Get to work, work a bit, go to lunch. Other than an occasional hotdog joint, we can all name the fast food players here. Hell, we can probably name a good portion of the non-fast-food players too, though most people frankly don't have time for sit-down lunches.

      7. Get home, hop on your Windows machine and check your email using your ISP. The best most of us can hope for is two choices, the regional cable provider (usually Comcast) or the regional DSL provider (often but not always AT&T or a subsidiary). No real competition here.

      8. Watch some TV. See above. All of this uses the electricity, of course, which is a government-regulated (natural) monopoly. If you prefer a book, I hope you like Barnes & Noble; with Borders shutting down it's probably your only bricks-and-morter left. Otherwise, there's about a 90% chance that you use Amazon. Video game? In terms of AAA titles there is some competition but certainly not on prices; it's frankly conspiratorial. Overall, yay! We've found a market with decent competition. (Of course a significant portion of people will take that game home and play it on one of three consoles or about two hand-helds.)

      Cold in the winter? Turn on the heat, likely provided by a gas company oligopoly.

      I'm sure there are a handful of sectors with tons of competition doing great things for consumers -- but they are tiny fractions of everyday life, meaningless by comparison.

      Of course the merger is not a good thing for consumers. AT&T is already a monopoly and is spending literally billions of dollars extra to acquire a company for the sole purpose of strengthening that monopoly and fending off any potential challenges to it -- something the document makes pretty clear.

      If we want to continue letting monopolies and oligopolies run every part of our day to day lives, that's fine -- but we need to regulate them to prevent them from trampling us in the process. Letting these companies run wild over us and pretending we have a free market at work is ridiculous.

    21. Re:Capitalism at its best by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Srs. Capitalism is a wild demon horse that the government must hold the reigns on. Left unchecked this horse will trample the very people that feed it!

      --
      Balderdash!
    22. Re:Capitalism at its best by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      I would refer to the current state of the US as Corporatism than Capitalism. Capitalism presumes that there will be competition because the market would be full of customers that can make educated decisions for their own good. This is obviously not the case. And the current state of education is making it worse.
      Corporatism just sees people as consumers, not customers. The attitude of entitlement to consumer money is rampant.
      Now, I would say that in some sectors there is enough competition and the customer demographic is relatively educated enough to drive market forces. But for the most part this is not the case.

      --
      Balderdash!
    23. Re:Capitalism at its best by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      So, how much for an AAA rating for Greece?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    24. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say is only true in monopolistic and (sometimes) oligopolistic environments. In this case

      What the fuck do you think we have here? That is the systems in place in the US. Welcome to the Fascist Republic of America

    25. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the politicians have themselves already been captured.

      MOST of the US politicians come from long family lines of either politicians or business families with heavy political connections.
      MOST of the US politicians are captured YEARS before they enter office.
      Reading down a list of how your rep voted on each bill/issue/etc during their term can almost universally connect them directly to less than half a dozen GIGANTIC companies.

      The system of payola regulation is designed and implemented by the people who are on payola.
      This results in a system which looks really hard on corruption, but actually has more holes in it than Christianity.
      It also results in a system where the only power to change the system is kept in the hands of those on payola.
      Activities which are aimed at changing the system to eliminate/reduce the holes and call corrupt members to justice are quickly stigmatized and then made illegal.
      Systems which result in widespread collaboration between dissidents are branded as "breeding dens for terrorism" and then this "imminent threat" is used to justify the marginalization, supervision, and outright control, of those systems until they can be used to support the regime or just become irrelevant.

      The bonding relationship of any group of individuals is sustained not on the things which they all agree they like, but rather on the things that they all agree to hate.
      Common enemy distraction FTW.

    26. Re:Capitalism at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last part isn't QUITE true.

      In unregulated markets (where something close to true capitalism can exist) a monopoly is often created when a conglomeration of competing companies come to a clandestine agreement to collude in such a way as to indirectly damage companies who are outside the conglomerate to the point where those companies have to shut down. This often includes taking heavy short-term losses just when they see a struggling competitor in order to push that competitor under.
      Once the number of competing companies has been reduced to the point where only a few outside the conglomerate exist, one or more of the member companies will make a power play and either be destroyed or shift the market to an oligopoly.
      Once a market becomes an oligopoly; the most self-serving action then becomes to raise the barriers to entry.
      For example, we'll never see a music monopoly, because the barriers to entry are so low that anyone with the talent and drive can get in it.
      However, the barriers to entry for starting up a new telecommunications carrier? TRHOUGH THE ROOF. You need the engineers, the marketers, the directors, the lawyers, the patent portfolio, years of working through the local, state, and national jurisdictions to get equipment installation permits... oh the regulations...

      Oligopolies only really exist in modern 1st world nations because of government regulation.
      Without regulators and their anti-competition laws, the best course of action for members of an Oligopoly is often to merge into a Duo-Opoly and in the case of "pure capitalism" it would be to merge to Monopoly. The merger allows for the best defense of assets and market share. It also gives more leverage in the fight to raise barriers to entry (to discourage any would-be startup competition). And if someone DOES up and compete... a monopoly has the best set of skills and resources to either starve them out or buy them out (whichever would be more profitable).

    27. Re:Capitalism at its best by immakiku · · Score: 1

      Ok, in any standard supply-demand analysis, you will find that if a company is attaining non-zero profits, in a competitive environment, another company WILL sprout up out of nowhere to snatch a percentage of that, possibly by selling the same products at a lower cost. This reduces the sum total profits attainable by both companies. The reduced value goes into the pool of money that customers get to KEEP.

      However! There is a catch to that. It's called barriers to entry. Examples include: patents that the first company holds that are required to produce the product, infrastructure required to deliver the product (think ISPs' fiber, cell towers), and marketability (if you wanted to sell an OS in the mid 1990s, your company name better be Microsoft). There is a huge (debatable in terms of fairness) advantage the market gives to the FIRST guy to succeed in a certain line of business.

      So in your examples, it's not in 100% of the cases in small businesses, they give up profit out of a sense of misplaced altruism. It's simply that they don't have anything that can command a higher profit. For companies that rise up again and again in the news (Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, the list goes on), they DO have the chips to play. They understand that barriers to entry prevent Joe Shmoe from writing his own OS or making his own smart phone or building his own cell network and compete successfully with them. They understand they are not in a perfectly competitive environment and can thus act monopolistically or oligopolistically.

      This is all not to say that analysis involving assumptions of a competitive environment is purely academic and impractical. In this case, the best action for any governing body to do is to try to increase the competitive potential of the market. This is why they allow certain mergers. The standard case is when two small companies merge to better compete against a bigger one (see Thompson-Reuter vis-a-vis Bloomberg). They will/should never allow a merger that is purely or mostly for eliminating competition (which is the case that was leaked here).

  8. This may result... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

    ...in the paralegal getting an "involuntary career path adjustment". But I doubt much will come of this. The only way anything significant will happen is if someone in congress latches on and runs with it. But that will only happen if they're from the district of a competitor and can count on their "support" in the upcoming election.

  9. Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sprint had (has?) a substantial problem when they bought Nextel, since it meant that they had to maintain two incompatible networks: CDMA and IDEN. Now they're going to buy a GSM carrier too? Seems silly.

    1. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      Just means you slowly phase one out. If AT&T buys T-Mobile they will be phasing out all the T-Mobile G3 phones (or force them onto 2G edge) so why wouldn't Sprint do something similar?

    2. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A link in TFA has a fascinating datapoint... Sprint is going to deploy LTE also. This now means all of the big players in the US are moving toward LTE.

    3. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So fascinating they released a statement on it...last month.

      http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/28/sprint-announces-deal-to-adopt-4g-lte/

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by grumling · · Score: 1

      That's because iDEN's biggest feature, push to talk, never quite worked right on the CDMA network. they couldn't get people to switch.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    5. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Has" is definitely right, and it's not just the network. I have been a Sprint IT contractor in the last five years, and they are still for the most part two separate companies internally. It's amazing that anything actually gets done in there. We spent most of the time praying "the other half" wouldn't have to get involved in our project, because that was basically an assurance of endless conference calls between Reston and Kansas City, followed by epic failure.

      The best thing AT&T could have done would have been to just let Sprint buy T-Mobile -- both companies would have collapsed within a few years.

    6. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      AT&T is still a GSM carrier. It's a lot easier for them to deal with two sets of GSM 3G frequencies than it would be for Sprint to deal with WiMax 4G, CDMA 3G, and GSM 3G.

    7. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Awesome. Hopefully the LTE phone chipsets will be devised in a way that they can be easily reconfigured for other frequencies by the user.

    8. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They will, but in US the operators will block this functionality if at all possible (and you can be sure that pressure will be applied to hardware manufacturers for that to be the case).

      The more it goes on, the more I think that we're extremely lucky that GSM was developed in Europe, not in US. At least now it's an open standard, and AT&T has to allow you to buy your phone elsewhere and plug their SIM card into it - even if you can be sure they'd rather have the same kind of lock-in as Verizon.

    9. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, it would make the non-data plans a trivial migration. That is still quite a few phones that could be instantly switched over without much fuss (same frequencies/etc). However, I'd think that any tower hardware capable of serving up 3G data on both the T-mobile and ATT frequencies/protocols could probably handle CDMA/etc just as easily. T-mobile and ATT use very different standards for 3G.

      Most likely they'd just run the two networks in parallel for two years and then force everybody on one of them to buy a new phone. That would almost certainly be an ATT-style no-sideloading hard-to-root phone. Ugh - hate to think that I might actually end up switching back to Verizon...

    10. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might not be too bad. iDEN is practically GSM (iDEN phones have IMEIs and SIM cards just like GSM phones, and work on a TDMA-based system as well) so I don't think adapting would be too bad.

    11. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      In the real world, users don't configure these things (and on every phone I've ever seen, cannot). The phone uses all the frequencies it can and the SIM card specifies which network can be connected to.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    12. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by YoopDaDum · · Score: 1

      It won't happen soon. One big practical issue with LTE is that it is deployed in a large number of different bands, with much more diversity than 2G or 3G. The baseband chip is universal, so no problem there. We're going toward universal RF chips too (handling all used bands from 700 MHz to 3.6 GHz typically), so the issue will be handled there too. But then there is the RF front-end with the power amplifier and filters. And here there's no universal solution. If you want more bands, you need to duplicate hardware and increase cost and surface (which is at a premium in handsets).

      There is work among worldwide operators to reduce the number of options, but it will be slow and a truly universal LTE system will not happen soon. Still in some areas you will have convergence on a given set of bands (Europe should get there for example).

      As for the US, the phones are subsidized and locked to an operator so why add cost to support other operators bands? Unless unlocked phones take off there's no point. And operators don't want this, and there's no Nellie Kross in the States it seems ;)

    13. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      However, I'd think that any tower hardware capable of serving up 3G data on both the T-mobile and ATT frequencies/protocols could probably handle CDMA/etc just as easily.

      And you'd be wrong. At least not without spending assloads of money.

      Most likely they'd just run the two networks in parallel for two years and then force everybody on one of them to buy a new phone.

      If you're talking about Sprint, this is what they did with Nextel, and it drug them down pretty hard. Running two parallel networks is pretty hard.

      If you're talking about AT&T, well.... at least Google makes Nexus phones for them.

    14. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That's "user configurable" enough for me. All I was asking for was some mechanism in which the user could easily modify the LTE radio in their phone to work on a different provider. A SIM card does this just fine.

    15. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      However, I'd think that any tower hardware capable of serving up 3G data on both the T-mobile and ATT frequencies/protocols could probably handle CDMA/etc just as easily.

      And you'd be wrong. At least not without spending assloads of money.

      Can you supply details? Does ATT or T-Mo have lots of hardware deployed which could be re-tasked to serve the other networks 3G phones but not a CDMA-based network? My understanding is that the ATT and T-Mo 3G networks are fairly different (different frequencies and protocols), so the only way I figure the same hardware could support both is if it uses software-defined radio and has very wide multiband support, and hardware with these capabilities probably could handle CDMA. Then again, I could be wrong on that. And, I wouldn't be surprised if none of the towers out there could support both without hardware changes.

    16. Re:Would Sprint buy T-Mobile? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well either way they were 2 incompatible networks, and that's a big pain to migrate everyone from one to another. It requires that they get new phones, that you manage 2 different networks while the transition happens. Even ignoring push-to-talk, it's going to be a big mess, and most of what you get out of it is a customer base which might leave anyway due to the messy migration. Given all the trouble, it might be easier and cheaper to steal the customers outright without buying the company.

      I still don't quite get why Sprint bought Nextel. Given how much trouble they've had, I think it was probably a mistake.

  10. Anyone have this document? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Reference is made to it, but where is it? I'd like to see it... anything that can prevent the T-Mobile buyout would be welcome news for me. I am a T-Mobile customer because they are the best for service and AT&T and Verizon are both evil as hell. Sprint burned their bridge with me as a previously long-term customer when they created a atmosphere where you had to threaten to leave their service in order to get what I needed. And before long, they started disconnecting "troublesome customers" to reduce their support call burden... I did not wait for them to disconnect me -- I just left for T-Mobile and never looked back.

  11. Yes! by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    As a happy T-Mobile customer let me just say, woohoo!!!!!

    Even if T-Mobile ends up not being able to survive on their own, i'd be happier getting subsumed into Sprint or Verizon. They certainly couldn't be any worse than AT&T. Not to mention that aside from all the other issues i have with AT&T, as someone who is also an Android owner i'm very happy with what T-Mobile has been doing with the platform. AT&T seems to be the company least likely to carry on in that spirit after acquiring T-Mobile.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Yes! by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      AT&T seems to be the company least likely to carry on in that spirit after acquiring T-Mobile.

      from a (my) German perspective the whole issue is incredible funny.

      here in Germany Deutsche Telekom (with subsidiaries like T-Mobile) is the 800-pound gorilla in telecommunication, formerly a public company, owner of most landlines, slow, bureaucratic, ... you name it. to see this shitty shop mentioned as a agile and innovative provider seems ridiculous to me. Is AT&T owner of branches in other countries? It would be interesting to know if Ma Bell is similar flexible outside the ancestral domestic market.

    2. Re:Yes! by vovin · · Score: 1

      Sort of.
      AT&T used to be a large player in Rogers (Canada). And if you think the US is bad, Canada is worse. Rogers is easily the worst GSM provider in the world. As compared with AT&T (USA), T-Mobile, Orange (Spain), TIM (Italy and Brazil), Vodafone (Hong Kong and S. Africa), China Moblie (China), China Unicom (China), and Telkomsel (Indonesia).

      I am strongly of the opinion that if/when AT&T swallows T-Mobile in the USA they will quickly be in competition with Rogers for worst in the world. Interestingly WIND in Canada (Running a T-Mobile freq) appears to be a much better option in the Great White North) and comparable to T-Mobile USA.

  12. I'm a TMo Customer... by milbournosphere · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...and this merger won't be good for me. I went to my local public dialog forum here in San Diego, and found quite a few others like me. Yet, we weren't able to talk because AT&T had lined up minority group after minority group after interest group after volunteer group talking about how "good AT&T is for the community." I shit you not, one lady even came up and spoke for her whole two minutes about how her pregnant 14-year old daughter wouldn't be able to function without this merger.

    The sad thing? Almost every person who stood up disclosed that they had received grants, money or deals from AT&T. Two hours later, I walked of the forum disgusted. I've been an ATT customer before, and I don't want to be again, and people must agree with me, because 50k people jumped ship from T-Mobile last quarter.

    I'm bummed because T-Mobile has historically been a great company to work with. Any company that rings you up to make you aware of and retroactively pay for an overcharge is okay in my book. For some reason, I couldn't see ATT doing that kind of thing. Oh well, at least I'll be able to jump ship to Sprint when ATT officially acquires T-Mobile. I don't trust the FCC or the FTC to lift a finger to stop this merger.

    1. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also a T-Mobile customer and I know both me and all of my friends with TMO will be going to Sprint the moment this merger hits. It means we have to buy new phones but me and my friends have all had AT&T wireless in the past and pretty much refuse to subject ourselves to them again.

      The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile would probably be the best thing to ever happen to Sprint.

    2. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

      I first had Cingular Wireless and they were great.... then they got soaked up by ATT and boy was it horrible. Dropped calls everywhere.

      Eventually switched to verizon after all of that shit. I have been with Verizon for over 3 years now and have yet to get a dropped call.

      I just wanted to get away from GSM in general and switch to CDMA over the voice clarity.

      But with Verizon wanting to cap data limits (i'm grandfathered in for unlimited, but not sure for how long)... I don't know who to go with...

      --
      Previewing comments are for sissies!
    3. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by scragz · · Score: 1

      I'm a T-Mobile customer and the behind-the-scenes changes are already happening and affecting me. A few months ago they discontinued the pseudo prepay plan I was on and made me pay a deposit. This month I had a bunch of dumb stuff happen that required a lot more minutes than I normally use. I called them to see about ordering more and their brand new policy is that you have to sign up for a new two-year contract just to add minutes to your plan for the month or you get charged $.49/minute (!!!) if you go over. The entire reason I went with T-Mobile was so I could own my own phone and not enter into any contracts with these evil mobile phone providers!

    4. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Current T-mo customer here as well. I hopped on with T-Mo when I bought my N900 (love it!), and have really loved interacting with the company since. When I heard about the T-mo merger with AT&T I started having flashbacks to when Cingular got bought by AT&T and my optimism died a little bit more that day.

      Anyways, since I value having a GSM phone far more than I do most other items when picking a cell service, I still want to stay with a company that allows me to use sim cards in unlocked phones rather than jumping ship to Sprint. That said, I think in the next month or so, I am going to buy a Simple Mobile sim card at a local gas station or something and try out their service. I know they run on T-Mobile's towers, but I will take some comfort in knowing that not all of my money is going over to AT&T post merger. If I find the service to be decent, I'll probably transfer my T-Mo number over to Simple mobile permanently and kiss T-Mo goodbye.

      Simple Mobile is relatively unknown, so far as I can tell. You might want to try something similar as well before jumping ship to the CDMA networks.

    5. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Check your facts: Cingular bought ATT and then changed their name to ATT to try and get some of the goodwill that ATT Wireless had. Only problem is they proceeded to implement all of the old Cingular lack of support and draconian rules.

      Case in point: I was an ATT custormer on their old network before GSM. Cingular wanted everyone to move to GSM so they could shut down the old network, makes sense right. But they wanted to charge me $36 per line to go to the new network, charge me so they could save money by shutting down the old network and because they would "give" me a new phone they expected to be able to extend my contract. I said hell no. Every six months I would get a Cingular (now ATT) call to move to the new network. 2 years later I moved when they dropped the line charge and gave me a phone without a new contract (Win for me and Win for Cingular).

      Good ATT Wireless, as a business customer I could get a refurb phone every six months for twenty bucks. The refurbs were just phones returned by customers that cancelled during the 30 day grace period. No contract extension required. Think the New Cingular/ATT did that. Hell no.

    6. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      If they keep changing the contract terms, you should be able to opt out without penalty.

    7. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm bummed too. Where else can you get a low usage pay-as-you-go plan for $10 a year with infinite rollover minutes and Internet day passes. I know ATT is going to kill all of that as soon as possible. No other company offers anything like T-Mobile's PAYG plans which are perfect for people who need a phone but only rarely use it.

      Plus I just bought a nice GSM Android phone and as a no-contract user I had to pay full price. Now I won't be able to use it unless I stick with AT&T.

      FCC, FTC, somebody please kill this merger.

    8. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup, I'm on TMo and I'm not looking forward to this. I just hope I can keep 4G service on my phone through the end of the contract.

      What I'm dreading is having ATT tell me that I'm going to be dropped to edge unless I get a new phone (and possibly re-up my contract). Maybe they'll offer me a free phone, and maybe even without a contract. The problem is that I like my current android phone, and I'm pretty picky about picking out phones. A key feature when selecting my current model was an active mod community and straightforward available rooting mechanism. Somehow I doubt that ATT is going to offer me a phone with those features...

    9. Re:I'm a TMo Customer... by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      You can. I'm T-mobile and AT&T keeps hitting me up with I'm close to 2Gigs data (internet)
      and it will cost me $10 extra if I go over. They are AD for AT&T, I had to ask. I've also never
      used over a 200 megs (use the WiFI, free data usage).

      Anyhow I looked at the contract I signed with T-mobile and if they raise rates materially you can opt out of your contract.

      Materially being the key word here.

      Small 44 page book titled: T-mobile terms and conditions July 18, 2010
      #5 Our rights to make changes. (came with my "MyTouch 4G")

      You can read it yourself, but there are several outs specifically if they raise rates; you can quit T-mobile, and are not required
      to pay an early termination fee,

  13. Deal will still probably go through by Immerial · · Score: 2

    It's funny, I read some where AT&T had announced that they predicted that they would have to divest $8 billion in various stuff to make the deal go through. The funny part is that I read it as "we need $8 billion to buy off the politicians for the deal to go through".

    1. Re:Deal will still probably go through by quarterbuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The story pretty much says the same thing.
      AT&T has said that it will cost them $39 Billion to buy TMobile. It has also claimed to investors that it will save them $10Billion.
      The justification is that it will enlarge Wireless coverage in USA.
      The leak now claims that the expanded network coverage will cost only $3.8 Billion http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2011/08/unredacted-ATT-filing-shows-high-price-tag/
      So AT&T Pays $39 Billion, saves $3.8 Bilion in network costs and $6.2 Billion in non-network costs (say closing and selling stores/laying off duplicated jobs). Assume that Sprint is worth the same as TMobile intrinscially - which is approx. $10B. The remaining $19 Billion premium paid must then be the cost of eliminating competition or the cost of keeping sprint from expanding.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    2. Re:Deal will still probably go through by skr95062 · · Score: 1

      The funny part is that I read it as "we need $8 billion to buy off the politicians for the deal to go through".

      Didn't you mean to say "We need $8 billion to buy off the politicians we don't already own for the deal to go through."?

      They already own enough politicians for the deal to go through, they just want to make sure the ones they don't own stay out of the way.

      I have known since the merger was announced that AT&T was blowing smoke up the FCC's ass. One less competitor, one step closer to total domination. AT&T along with Verizon will watch as Sprint dies a long slow painful death and then they both can really begin to screw the consumer. Not like they both don't already but it will be much worse when they are the only game in town.

      As Lilly Tomlin put it a long time ago "Sir we are the phone company. We don't have to care." Sad part is it is just as true today as it was back then.

    3. Re:Deal will still probably go through by PPH · · Score: 1

      The justification is that it will enlarge Wireless coverage in USA.

      Enlarge AT&T's wireless coverage, that is. They won't be adding one stinkin' cell site when they buy T-Mobile. That's existing coverage. If they wanted better coverage for their customers, they'd create a low cost roaming agreement with T-Mobile and leave the respective systems alone.

      The remaining $19 Billion premium paid must then be the cost of eliminating competition or the cost of keeping sprint from expanding.

      Bingo! Give that man a cigar (of the non-exploding variety).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Deal will still probably go through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR the cost of the existing contracts they will be purchasing? and while not a necessity for ATT, they will possess more spectrum, which through racketeering, has become an EXTREMELY valuable commodity.

  14. Likewise a TMo Customer with N900 by KWTm · · Score: 1

    Agree. Got on TMo to get good service with phones that take a SIM card. (I still don't get phones with no SIM card --what do you people do when you travel? Buy and learn to reconfigure a new phone just because you're in Japan/France/Ecuador for 2 weeks? Keep your non-functioning phone and disappear from civilization?) TMo had no problem with me bringing my unsupported unlocked Treo onto the TMo network, and now I similarly have a N900 which does what I want, as opposed to what the phone's corporate master wants (thank goodness, since Nokia clearly has no idea what N900 owners want).

    Here's hoping the deal doesn't go through, or at least that AT&T chokes and crumbles into little customer-oriented pieces.

    And, the rest of the phone companies, can you sort of take a look around and realize that global compatibility and SIM card use is a good thing? Thanks.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Likewise a TMo Customer with N900 by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      -what do you people do when you travel

      Simple - I have an el-cheapo Nokia I use :).

      Also - if you know you are going to travel a lot there are CDMA phones that support both CDMA and GSM.

    2. Re:Likewise a TMo Customer with N900 by KWTm · · Score: 1

      "-what do you people do when you travel"
      Simple - I have an el-cheapo Nokia I use :).

      Also - if you know you are going to travel a lot there are CDMA phones that support both CDMA and GSM.

      That's what I figured --so the el-cheapo phone you use does have internet connection? Do you use it to sync your files over to the Real Phone or do you end up using the el-cheapo? And what if it doesn't run the software that you're used to on the Real Phone? Or does it not have internet, and then your Real Phone is cut off from the rest of the world? (I mean, I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to rsync an iPhone to home, never mind an el-cheapo Nokia that might not even have bash, let alone rsync.)

      I would be interested in CDMA phones which also support GSM --any of them run Linux? (or WebOS or iOS or something decent?)

      --
      404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
      [GPG key in journal]
    3. Re:Likewise a TMo Customer with N900 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I still don't get phones with no SIM card --what do you people do when you travel? Buy and learn to reconfigure a new phone just because you're in Japan/France/Ecuador for 2 weeks?

      Most people don't go overseas often, if at all. Meaning that it's not important to them to have this ability, especially at the possible expense of worse service in their primary usage area.

      And there's also places like the one I grew up in, where the only providers were CDMA (Verizon and Alltel). Now that Verizon ate Alltel, AT&T is moving in, so there's a GSM carrier.

  15. This really needs to be on Drudge. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  16. He who creates the most value for the customer by Quila · · Score: 1

    gets the most business. He who gets the most business makes good profit.

    He who supplies poor value to the customer ends up not having customers.

    That is usually unless some external force, such as a government, interferes. The AT&T monopoly was created by the government. Even when monopolies do develop naturally, they don't last. Standard Oil was already starting to crumble before the forced breakup (and it had done some good for the consumer, vastly lowering the cost of oil products through various efficiencies).

    Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. One person getting a bigger piece of the pie does not necessarily mean every one else gets a smaller piece. The pie can grow.

    1. Re:He who creates the most value for the customer by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That comment ignores everything there is about reality. Ignoring the fact of lock-in, the fact of limited consumer choice, and the fact of market inertia.

    2. Re:He who creates the most value for the customer by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the major force that is marketing. Marketing specializes on altering the customer's mind to believe that a specific company offers the best deal whether that's true or not.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:He who creates the most value for the customer by Quila · · Score: 1

      People equated Standard Oil with oil.

      People equated Internet Explorer with Web browsing. That is starting to end now, no thanks to the ineffective antitrust remedies. It's ending because IE sucked for so long, much better solutions became available, enough to overcome that mindshare.

  17. I'm all for valuable takeovers by Quila · · Score: 1

    When they're for good reasons.

    Apple bought a couple chip design firms, seriously helped Apple compete against the likes of Samsung in the mobile space.

    Disney bought Pixar to revive its dying animation business and basically salvage a profitable relationship, gaining talented Pixar execs who could all-around revive Disney's creative side (I still think Pixar halfway bought Disney).

    But this one was obvious. There is no logical reason for this purchase other than shrinking the choice of the consumer.

    1. Re:I'm all for valuable takeovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe they wanted Carly Foulkes? Some people are into hot Canadian chicks. For example, I know several slashdotters who have girlfriends from Canada.

  18. Liberals by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Well, subways pretty much are only in large metropolitan cities, and have been run by liberals for the past 50 years, which explains why they are degraded. Money stolen from "the rich" and wasted lining the pockets of corrupt officials. Explains why you see the FLOOD of people with MONEY, are leaving the cities like NYC, and heading to Florida & Texas, where taxes are LOW.

    1. Re:Liberals by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Yeah because only liberals like Bloomberg run large metropolitan cities. And liberals like Mitt Romney run states with cities with horrid subways like Boston.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    2. Re:Liberals by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      6/10. Decent trolling effort, but just kinda lacked something at the end.

  19. You are a dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is probably one of the most ignorant posts I've seen on Slashdot. And that's saying a lot. So much fail compressed into so few words.

  20. It's the nature how captialism work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Economists had found this hundred years ago: the ultimate goal of capitalism is monopoly. Without intervention, that is the destine.

  21. perhaps you meant "poor regulation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, regulation helped us get here. But it was poor regulation that was either ignorantly or maliciously written. I don't suppose you are advocating no regulation at all, however it appears as though many here assume that is what you mean. Limited regulation is a great thing for the free market if it is well written and designed to benefit the public instead of a few people in the industry.

  22. Deal could be a loss for AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, if AT&T wants to spend all that money on buying an old 3G GSM network, I hope they do. Just like I hoped Microsoft would buy Yahoo. Many band LTE is the universal future standard. There will just be many small, local cell phone companies that can spring up with brand new LTE towers.

    1. Re:Deal could be a loss for AT&T by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      T-mobile has 4g GSM.

      I used it to send this message.

  23. Breaking up AT&T by Alioth · · Score: 1

    All those years ago it seems they went to great effort to break up AT&T. But now it's just clumped back together, a lot of the Baby Bells seem to just be part of AT&T again.

    This takeover ought to be stopped not just because of the problems with competition it will bring now, but the work it'll bring later when AT&T has to be broken up a second time.

    Perhaps there ought to be regulations that when a company reaches a certain size, it can't take over other companies (in other words, any new growth has to be by growing its existing business rather than taking over others) in case it becomes "too big to fail" and needs the taxpayer to bale it out, like what has happened with GM and Chrysler.

  24. makes me think of Teletext Re:US cell system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same with Teletext in Europe. I was impressed at the functionality of those Vic20 style graphics. Rudimentary WWW functionality all the way back in 1974... pages of information on vacation deals, traffic, weather etc. We didn't see anything like it in widespread use in N.America (and instead, for example had all the car ad small print uselessly flash by at the end of each advertisement ). We had to wait for the internet.

    For a specific example check out Ceefax on wikipedia.

  25. It includes all of those by Quila · · Score: 1

    Standard oil had massive inertia, pretty much owned the market for oil products. And this wasn't just in the consumer space -- all of it.

    Word Perfect once had lock-in. I think only lawyers use Word Perfect anymore.

    1. Re:It includes all of those by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the Standard Oil thing had absolutely nothing to do with the government stepping in.

      Likewise, I'm sure the Word Perfect thing had nothing to do with Microsoft's own anti-competitive behaviors.

    2. Re:It includes all of those by Quila · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the Standard Oil thing had absolutely nothing to do with the government stepping in.

      Nope. Before the breakup their market share in the Northeast had already dropped quite a bit from the almost 100% they had. They weren't even a majority in other areas, as competition heated up.

      Other later companies even had benefits Standard Oil didn't. Standard had already figured out the waste product Vaseline could be profitable (yes, check it, Chesebrough was a Standard Oil company). Standard didn't just dump gasoline like the others of the day, but used it to run generators and such. Later companies could sell that for cars. Standard Oil did use some anti-competitive practices to gain the monopoly, but the company was still quite innovative and well-run.

      Likewise, I'm sure the Word Perfect thing had nothing to do with Microsoft's own anti-competitive behaviors.

      I was a Word Perfect god back in the day, and even I realize Word Perfect totally screwed up the transition to Windows, despite what the suit says, and then screwed up the transition to 32-bit. Plus, one of WP's main advantages was all of the printer drivers, irrelevant in the Windows era. Microsoft simply had the better product, designed from the beginning to work in the GUI world. It was first made popular on the Mac in the mid 80s while Word Perfect wasn't even considering a GUI.