AT&T Responds To DoJ Lawsuit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 9, 2011 @09:50AM from the but-we-can-leverage-our-synergies,-honest dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Last week the Department of Justice filed an antitrust complaint to stop the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile USA. Now, AT&T has responded, arguing that the merger would benefit consumers by increasing competition and freeing up spectrum. 'That means increased output, higher quality service, fewer dropped calls,and lower prices to consumers than without the merger,' they say. Meanwhile, House Republicans have sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Attorney General Eric Holder asking for an explanation of 'what went into the decision to challenge the merger and whether the agencies considered the impact on jobs and economic growth.' A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 21."

9 of 140 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Text of AT&T response by elrous0 · 2011-09-09 09:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Where's the love, DoJ? Remember back when we were tight, when we were illegally spying on all those Americans? Those were good days, baby. We didn't need no warrants or paperwork back then, did we? Why you got to be like this now? Can't we just keep everything hush-hush, like we used to? Come on, you know you want to say yes--just like we said yes when you wanted to install all that spy gear on our trunk lines. You liked daddy's trunk, didn't you girl?
Show some love for AT&T, baby. Don't let it end this way. Let us tap that ass again, like we tapped everyone's phone for you. Let's get away from these courtrooms and just switch places, girl, with *you* bending over and *us* doing the tapping this time. Don't be a hater, DoJ. Let daddy take you all the way *up there*--above the law, just one more time.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Nonsense by inode_buddha · 2011-09-09 09:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

How does buying up another telco player encourage competition?

--
C|N>K
1. Re:Nonsense by Jeng · 2011-09-09 09:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think part of what they were saying is that they are so incompetent that they have to purchase a whole other company so they quit dropping calls.
  The competition they are talking about encouraging is their own ability to compete, not the market itself.
  They have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see anything else.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-09 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How does it increase jobs? How does it increase economic growth? Here is a hint: all those cost reduction and merger synergies? They don't come from employing more people.
Impact on jobs? by SeNtM · 2011-09-09 09:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why do republicans always side with large corporations? The impact the merger will have on jobs is that they will be reduced as AT&T consolidates redundant positions.

--
"There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
1. Re:Impact on jobs? by msoftsucks · 2011-09-09 11:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's because the Repubs have been paid off by the big boys. They no longer represent you or me, they really represent corporate interests which have been bought out by all of that lobbyist money. They even managed to modify lobbying and financing laws to allow international companies to buy them off. To see how bad "your" representative has been bought off go here
  
  --
  Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
  Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Bullshit. by Xacid · 2011-09-09 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

How in the hell does acquiring a company like this result in MORE competition?
And lower rates? Just like us Cingular customers got? Yeah, right.
How can they even make such claims - that's damned near perjury.
Re:AT&T seems evil by guspasho · 2011-09-09 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Competition > free markets
Free markets are far from perfect; monopolies are only the most obvious flaw. Additionally, it's arguable whether a market dominated by a private monopoly is actually free. Free from governmental force, sure, but that isn't the only kind of freedom that is implied by the term free market.
Re:WHY by Pieroxy · 2011-09-09 10:53 · Score: 5, Informative

This! One thousand and two times this!
No cable provider has a monopoly... across the US. But none has competition in its area. They're essentially mini-monopolies. Why do you think internet access sucks that much in the US? There is virtually no competition.
When I lived there (2000-2004) I lived through 4 different places. In the SF bay area. I had to change providers everytime, and everytime I had no choice.
In France, I can choose btw at least 8 providers in urban areas. Result? Free calls (>200 countries), free TV (100 channels), Unlimited internet (and trust me, it's uncapped and unthrottled) 20MB/2MB for 30€/month.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!