The iPhone's Role In Crippling T-Mobile

GMGruman writes "The feds may be blocking AT&T's buyout of T-Mobile, but T-Mobile is in poor shape to continue as is. Parent company Deutsche Telekom's decision not to invest in U.S. spectrum a decade ago constrained T-Mobile's ability to grow, especially through 4G networks now finally emerging. But from a customer point of view, it was the iPhone that has threatened the company the most. Or, more precisely, its lack of the iPhone."

Comments

insane government

[roman_mir]

Blocking an American company from buying out American assets back from a German company. Blocking merger, that would produce economies of scale. Actually a pro-liberal administration going against unions (as AT&T has a union and T-mobile does not, so union would automatically get more members). If the deal falls through AT&T will be on a hook for about 7 Billion USD in penalties. Great idea for American government to do that to American investors (how many mutual funds own the AT&T stocks?)

Government likes to pretend it is there to break up monopolies, but in reality it creates monopolies every time it spends any money.

Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. Obama provided them with loan packages of 535 Million dollars, Obama personally visited that company over a year ago, promoting that worthless business that cannot generate profits even with government support. How many businesses could have used that money if dollars could be allocated privately where market needs them? Instead a monopoly was being created, but it failed even with government support. Figures.

Re:insane government

[Hazel Bergeron]

Posting history suggests roman_mir is an Internet Libertarian troll. Don't expect a chain of logic.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Of-course a monopoly was being created, what else do you call it when POTUS provides you with half billion USD and promises to provide you with a market for your products via some regulations?

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Market IS individuals making individual choices to do something, to buy something, to produce something, not to buy something else, to short another thing. Market consists of individuals.

What USA has now is not a normal market, it's distorted by government's cheap money and regulations. When helicopter Ben comes out and says: interest rates will stay at 0 for 2 years, what he does is inflate another bubble (more of the US debt, it's T-bill bubble), but also he is allowing heavily leveraged banks to speculate freely, knowing that the money is free for 2 years. It's great for speculation, what good does anybody see from this except the bank executives and politicians?

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Let's skip with the first part, it's irrelevant, let's look at the second part, the one about 2-3 companies and choices.

When market needs choices, market provides choices. Government doesn't know anything about what market needs and most important thing is: government doesn't have the authority to dictate (to the formerly free individuals) what market must do.

The entire anti-trust idea is ridiculous on its face, when the reality is that all monopolies that exist are based on preferential government treatment. Any business that can take majority of business in free market is only able to do so as long as it provides the market with the products at acceptable prices/quality ratio. If the market is unsatisfied with the price/quality ratio of the product by a 'monopoly' (in reality an economy of scale) that is created in a free market, monopolies then form to occupy the niche that is left by the unsatisfied market, and these niche players can eventually supersede the former 'monopoly'.

Any time the anti-trust was used, it was used destructively, not productively. Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly by the time it was broken up and Alcoa aluminum was selling aluminum at prices that could not be beat.

There is nothing virtuous about competition for the sake of competition. Competition is only needed by the market when the price/quality ratio is unsatisfying. If there is a way to fit in another product at a cheaper price/with more/better quality, then the market will provide space for that product. Also consumers are fickle (unless they are Apple users I suppose), and they will change their buying habits in a heart beat if they figure something else is better.

In case of AT&T and T-Mobile the merger could be useful as they would have bigger coverage, would have economies of scale, and in the current US market, they could at least keep prices where they are today without raising them longer even with all the inflation that the government produces. Maybe they could come up with cheaper plans as well, to get more people in.

In any case, it's not government's role at all to regulate businesses, and all the monopolies that you are worried about today, ALL of them are created/propped up by governments.

Banks, GM, etc. should have all gone under (Berkshire would have gone under too, by the way, they were in deep trouble with AIG, fuck Buffet, the corporatist weasel.)

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

ad-hominem at +3 Insightful. Good.