Seven States Pile On To Block AT&T/T-Mobile Deal

An anonymous reader writes "New York, California, and five other U.S. states have joined a lawsuit initiated by the Department of Justice that would block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile. 'The revised filing comes ahead of a court hearing next week, when the two sides are scheduled to discuss the prospects of a settlement. AT&T has said that it will contest the Justice Department's lawsuit, while also seeking a potential settlement.' CNet notes that 'States don't have the power to block the deal, but they can influence the federal regulators and make it more onerous if AT&T attempts to negotiate for concessions to close the deal. They can also slow down the process with their own lawsuits.'"

Comments

Who do I write

[Dyinobal]

So who do I write to try and get my state to help block this as well? I assume my congressman but I don't think he actually gets my letters because if he does they must show up under spam. Perhaps I should lie to Rick Perry and say I'll vote for him if he supports this. I mean if politicians lie to me I can lie to them right?

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

Snail mail if you aren't sure about e-mail making it through the filter.

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

You should write your state attorney general, that is the official who deals with this. You have [theoretical] power over the attorney general, since that office is usually elected.

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the appropriate person to contact is your state's Attorney General

Re:Who do I write

[SomePgmr]

My snail mail doesn't end up being read either. Or at best, some intern skims over it just enough to press a button on the form letters I always get in return. I don't recall ever getting a letter back that actually addressed anything I said. Maybe the rep eventually gets a spreadsheet tally of [issue x]:[for|against]:[contributor|nobody].

But they do sometimes invite you to a constituents breakfast. So if you're likely to be in the right place at the right time, you might get a chance to bitch in a way that can't be completely ignored.

Re:Who do I write

[flaming error]

> say I'll vote for him if he supports this

You'll give yourself away as a literate, thinking citizen, which is perhaps not his target demographic.

Re:Who do I write

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Normally, one would write to your state's Attorney General. Judging from your comment about Rick Perry, that would be Greg Abbott, the AG of Texas. He's already suing Google, so he might be OK with this.

Re:Who do I write

[AK Marc]

Call his local office and find out when he'll be in the state. Then show up at his office. They try to never set anyone up to be able to say "I went to the Congressman's office, and he threw me out without seeing me." Also, if you are "writing" your congressman and fear a spam filter, you are doing it wrong. I did business in a building with congressional offices in it and rode the same elevator with Ted "tubes" Stevens once, so they do exist and do make it into their local offices at least occasionally.

Re:Who do I write

[AK Marc]

"whom" is dead. Even the textbooks admit that "who" is acceptable (even if not correct or recommended) for the objective case. We have a descriptive language, and as such, you are wrong.

Re:Who do I write

[cmv1087]

The line we need for anyone in government to do anything nowadays isn't "I'll vote for you if you do this", it's "I will give you more money than the other lobbyist." This is especially true for Rick Perry.

Re:Who do I write

[Doc Ruby]

I've worked with, for and among political offices. It's very well known in that biz that a written letter is much more effective than email, unless you're already an associate of the recipient.

Snail mail is always best for corresponding with politicians and officials with whom you don't already correspond regularly. They're more likely to have it handed to them, because they're mostly old and think email is for people who think for a living, not schmooze. And even if it's just a staffer who reads it (and maybe mentions it to the politico - or better yet, gets it to influence the work their office actually does among other staffers), a letter is better. Lawyers and other official correspondents use snail mail, sometimes as required by law or contract. And the people who write letters tend to be people who vote. Both because they tend to be older, and more office-oriented, and to be people who put actual time into the political process.

Re:Who do I write

[Doc Ruby]

English troll is talking about their own country.

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... I feel an ironic turning of tables coming... YES!

I know it's cool these days to be a ethnocentric European who believes themselves superior to all others and can't even manage to support themselves, but the correct method of attack for the generalization of groups you aren't part of is to not come off as insufferably arrogant.

You are likely to be European since they think other cultures are too hard and cannot fathom the 2-4 cultures many Americans fluently interact with. That means you're probably racist, too. Like all ignorant bigots, you think it's unreasonable that anyone would expect you to be able to control your own prejudices and assumptions. It's the other country's fault or it's China or anything other than your own failure to control your own actions.

If you Euros don't want the rest of the world to consider you a bunch of controlling, bigoted, imperialistic neanderthals who can't even keep your own government from trying to regulate the entire planet, stop acting the part.

Re:Who do I write

[mrquagmire]

Start here: http://www.opencongress.org/

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

"whom" is dead. Even the textbooks admit that "who" is acceptable (even if not correct or recommended) for the objective case. We have a descriptive language, and as such, you are wrong.

What you say is technically correct but you miss the point. Like most people who miss a good point that says a lot about our culture, you're suddenly concerned with some technical way to give a "pass". So be it.

The difference is actually useful. If you witness someone correctly using "whom", you can bet serious money that they are educated and actually read a book once in a while. The average person is intellectually lazy and can't understand why anyone would read a book without being forced to by a teacher, professor, or employer. This is particularly true of any book written above the 4th-grade reading level that newspapers and advertisers target.

Ergo, they say "hmm ... 'who' is listed as 'acceptable' so I'll never have to rub two brain cells together and really master my own native language. I found a way to avoid all those horrible milliseconds of thought. Cool." They probably also say things like "man, mediocrity and anti-intellectualism are wonderful, nothing is ever worth exploring or discovering or learning about after all, and I'm really fulfilled as a human being spiritually." Okay, so they never say that last one but they think that's a coincidence.

Anyway, the correct use of "whom" naturally tends to distinguish the thinking man from the sheep who need to be herded. The latter avoid learning and thinking as much as they can. They only do it if the cost of it is less than the consequence imposed by failing some external requirement. Even then, they do it reluctantly and only to the minimum degree necessary to appease the authority figure in question. Anyone who isn't part of this crowd stands out instantly.

Re:Who do I write

[tgeek]

So who do I write to try and get my state to help block this as well? I assume my congressman but I don't think he actually gets my letters because if he does they must show up under spam. Perhaps I should lie to Rick Perry and say I'll vote for him if he supports this. I mean if politicians lie to me I can lie to them right?

Good luck getting Rick Perry or any other elected official in Texas (most properly the AG) to file a suit against a company headquartered in Dallas.

Re:Who do I write

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

If society followed that logic we'd still all be speaking Proto Indo European. Languages change, accept it.

Re:Who do I write

[__Paul__]

This article on writing letters to government ministers was written with Australia in mind, but it contains some interesting tactics that might well be worthwhile for getting a decent response from US politicians, too.

Re:Who do I write

[Firehed]

They're more likely to have it handed to them, because they're mostly old and think email is for people who think for a living, not schmooze.

It's so reassuring to know that the politicians don't even pretend to think.

Re:Who do I write

[SomePgmr]

Interesting. It seems obvious, but it never occurred to me to make sure the letter deals with more than one topic, to help prevent easy categorization for a single automated response.

And maybe I'll have my next letter sent from a lawyer-buddies office, so the letterhead will get some kind of attention.

Re:Who do I write

[Ironhandx]

You're the one that looks like a jackass here.

Re:Who do I write

[DCFusor]

Someone once said, to catch mice, make a noise like a cheese. In this case, it sure does work better to appear to be a potential campaign contributer. Just sayin'. This is from practical experience (and success).

Re:Who do I write

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Or just make up your own custom letterhead for a fictitious law firm.

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't help it. His brain is broken in such a way that he projects his own failings onto anyone he disagrees with. I think it is some sort of suppressed self-hatred going on. It is kind of a thing of beauty to see it in action, the lack of self-awareness can be breath-takingly sublime.

I'm not joking either, just go back and look through his posting history. It's pretty much all he ever does.

Re:Who do I write

[AK Marc]

Correcting someone who is not wrong is being a jackass. Pointing out social convention only makes me a jackass to jackasses who need such basic social coaching.

Re:Who do I write

[scottbomb]

They don't bother reading the bills they vote on either.

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an awfully silly point for an AC who refuses to provide their posting history to make. That's not even really casting the first stone, or the pot and the kettle... that's more like being completely self-absorbed. Everyone is subject to judgment but you, eh?

I don't care to and did not check Mr. AK's posting history, because I don't need to in order to see he is correct. Languages and the process of using languages are by definition the process of conveying meaning. The symbols used, or the words in this case, are arbitrary as long as the meaning is consistently and repeatedly understood.

This isn't really a matter of debate. Linguistics is a field that has studied this quite extensively. Claiming otherwise is akin to those who disbelieve in fossils because they cling to strict creationism... a pure denial of fact in order to grasp onto their own insular belief that much stronger.

Your only possible saving grace of an explanation would be if you were taught within the French educational system, which quite systematically misrepresents the science of Linguistics in a way that would make the deep south of the United States quite proud. That would explain such confident ignorance quite well. But this is not about bravado, and in that sense, I find no vindication in your agreement. You can agree, or disagree, or disappear and never respond again. It does not change what is fact.

Re:Who do I write

[GameboyRMH]

Interesting. I know where "whom" is meant to be used but intentionally avoided using since it's now considered archaic language.

But I'll keep that in mind in case I ever want to impress a literature nerd, steampunk enthusiast, or other vintage language fan, rather than simply converse with people who don't see the imperfect or modern use of language as the mark of a dimwit.

Re:Who do I write

[Doc Ruby]

No, they read the snailmail letters from the lobbyists. Or rather their staff reads them. The letters tell them how to vote, and why they care. If you get your letter in there with the lobbyist's, you have a chance. The political game is entirely defined by access. And snailmail has access that email still does not.

Re:Who do I write

[sgt scrub]

You have to be a patent troll to get his attention. Besides, he has enough on his plate. http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2011/09/state-bar-of-texas-sues-attorney-general-greg-abbott-over-open-records-decision.html

Re:Who do I write

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a chance. AT&T is headquartered in San Antonio. Good luck, though

Re:Who do I write

[poofmeisterp]

Off-topic in a way... but have you run live statistics lately, while reading, on how many pompous know-it-alls can't spell more than 90% of the words they use correctly? It's sad and hilarious. I laughed out loud when reading your comment here, after having read many other winded comments from the aforementioned in the past couple of days. I give up. I feel thy pain. Damnit, I just did it! :)
/humor

Re:Who do I write

[Ironhandx]

Correcting someone who IS wrong is not being a jackass.

The original poster technically was wrong. While it is accepted in some circles to be wrong, that doesn't make it right.

See Example: Most of common American English. This bleeds over into American Culture. Being wrong is acceptable.

I have no idea if this man is American or not, but if he is then kudos for trying to raise the bar.

Re:Who do I write

[AK Marc]

The English language is officially and correctly described as "descriptive, not prescriptive." Thus, any error repeated enough becomes language. I'm asserting that objective "who" has reached that point, making it no longer "wrong" even if not preferred.

BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.

Re:BJs aplenty

[joocemann]

Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.

I don't have the option. My congressman is a Democrat.

Re:BJs aplenty

[AK Marc]

For Republicans, you need to be a "discrete" 18 year old boy. For Democrats, hire a pudgy female prostitute.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.

I don't have the option. My congressman is a Democrat.

I have just the plan. Do this yourself if you are black, and if you're not black ask one of your black friends to do it (you DO have black friends, right?). Get the black person to ask them to stop this deal. If they hesitate to agree, try calling them a racist. After all, if you disagree with a black person on a political issue, it can only be because of racism.

Then you're speaking their language. Hey, it helped intimidate anyone who would dare disagree with Obama and saved him from having to provide substantive answers to his critics. This can be leveraged.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't eliminate the option, it just widens the number of places that it's acceptable to give your congressman a bj.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Attila Dimedici]

Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.

I don't have the option. My congressman is a Democrat.

Well, in that case just go to his office to give him the BJ, or mail him a stack of $100 bills( he'll keep them in his freezer).

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

Zing! Nice one :).

Re:BJs aplenty

[Dogtanian]

For Republicans, you need to be a "discrete" 18 year old boy

That's siamese twins out, then.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Doc Ruby]

Who was the last Democratic congressmember to get caught with a prostitute - pudgy, female or otherwise?

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliot Spitzer comes to mind immediately. There was also that whole "DC Madam" thing a while back. Most recent I can think of for "sex scandal" and not specifically a prostitute is Anthony Weiner.

All Democrats, and all off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who puts effort into it can come up with a more recent scandal.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

For Republicans, you need to be a "discrete" 18 year old boy.

Republicans hate continuity?

Re:BJs aplenty

[camperslo]

Give your congressman a bj in an airport bathroom. He'll be far more receptive after that.

So much for the one size fits all solution. Some congressfolk are women!

Re:BJs aplenty

[flaming error]

Introduce the notion of a continuum and you introduce a slippery slope from T/F and multiple-choice to essay questions.

*Shudders.*

Re:BJs aplenty

[Desler]

Eliot Spitzer was never a member of congress. He was the Attorney General of New York and then the Governor.

Re:BJs aplenty

[grumling]

Or pose as a 20YO woman on Twitter who likes to get pictures of a politician's junk.

Re:BJs aplenty

[grumling]

Not many!

Re:BJs aplenty

[HornWumpus]

I'm sure he's not the most recent, but Barney Frank had a string of rent boys operating out of his apartment.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Doc Ruby]

Before you were born. Who cares?

Republican congressmembers are busted every year. Constant and recent behavior is not equal to acts decades old.

You Republicans can't even get "A = B" right, you're so sick.

Re:BJs aplenty

[sgt scrub]

Your talking about an evangelical candidate. I'm sure he already has a little boy for that.

Re:BJs aplenty

[sgt scrub]

If you like, I'll run. I don't care what they look like as long as all of the bits are there.

Re:BJs aplenty

[HornWumpus]

At least republicans get fired when they get busted.

Re:BJs aplenty

[AvitarX]

Wasn't dc madame changing the diapers of a republican?

Re:BJs aplenty

[Doc Ruby]

No they don't. David Vitter is still jerking around the Senate, after getting busted for paying women to diaper and screw him.

Name a Democrat who's gotten busted who still has their job. And again, if you're going to dig up ancient history like Barney Frank, you're just proving that your argument is irrelevant.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Anonymous Coward]

Mental cruelty!

Re:BJs aplenty

[Coren22]

Bill Clinton.

Re:BJs aplenty

[Doc Ruby]

Bill Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, and hasn't been president for well over a decade. His blowjob wasn't from a hooker, either.

Since that's the best you can do, it's obvious that there's nothing like equivalence between the two parties. Admit it already.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a current T-Mobile customer and I want nothing to do with AT&T.

I would have to cancel my account if this merger goes through and I don't know what I would do because T-Mobile has the best prepaid plans of any carrier. I'm positive AT&T will screw that up if they were to take over.

Re:Good

[blargster]

T-Mobile would be worse off without a merger since they are treading water as it is. They have no ability to invest in LTE deployment.

DT is dropping them and there will likely be no T-Mobile.

If the DOJ blocks the AT&T merger with them, they sure as hell won't allow Sprint to buy them on the very same grounds regarding reducing competition, etc.

Re:Good

[h4rr4r]

Sprint is much smaller than AT&T and probably would be allowed to buy T-mobile. T-mobile does make money, plus it will get free spectrum and favorable terms on roaming agreements if the deal falls through.

Re:Good

[Reverand Dave]

Sprint and T-mobile use different technologies and have different market shares. AT&T has a huge chunk of the market which would make a merger between them and T-Mobile bad for the market on a competition level. However if sprint and t-mobile were allowed to merge then it would allow the new company to actually compete in the market with the two big hitters AT&T and VZW. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea, I just see how it's feasible.

Re:Good

[blargster]

My point was that there would be only three major carriers in either case. That is the DOJ's objection.

Sizes of the companies is irrelevant.

Re:Good

[Desler]

T-Mobile would be worse off without a merger since they are treading water as it is.

Rejection by regulators would leave AT&T liable to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash, to give T-Mobile USA wireless spectrum, and to reduce charges for calls into AT&T’s network, a package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom has said.

So actually T-Mobile will win a big concession if this falls through.

Re:Good

[stalky14]

LTE is great but unnecessary for most phone transactions.

What we really need in this country is not so much faster speeds, but more reasonable prices and terms on what we already have! So far those that are going LTE have capped their data and raised their rates (Verizon & AT&T).

If T-Mobile bothered to market themselves on a low price/liberal terms angle they would have to fight the new customers off with a stick and could get by with HSPA+ for 3 more years! That's the reason those of us that like T-Mobile are with them in the first place.

Re:Good

[Miamicanes]

> Sprint and T-mobile use different technologies and have different market shares.

Believe it or not, the difference is more one of business policy than actual technology. As a practical matter, any phone built like the Motorola Photon could easily work on Sprint and T-Mobile (it can't now, because Sprint had the UMTS radio specifically created to block use of AT&T and T-Mobile). With the next version of the baseband chipset, it could probably even do HSPA+ ("4G on T-Mobile") as well.

If Sprint bought T-Mobile, the first thing they'd do is require all new high-end phones -- Sprint AND T-mobile -- to be like the Photon & able to do CDMA2000, UMTS, GSM, and wimax. After a year or two, they'd start repurposing some of their 1900MHz "Sprint" spectrum to UMTS uplinks, and pair it with chunks of T-Mobile's 2100MHz UMTS downlink spectrum. It wouldn't break a single T-Mobile phone, because they can all do 1900/2100MHz UMTS as easily as they can do 1700/2100MHz UMTS anyway.

Sprint would keep circuit-switched CDMA voice, but start phasing out EVDO in favor of UMTS for data, just like Telus did in Canada (except Telus skipped EVDO and went straight to UMTS). After 3-4 years, when all their high-end users were solidly migrated to phones capable of UMTS data, they'd probably shut down EVDO entirely in markets with tight 1900MHz spectrum (like San Diego) and only provide 1xRTT to the few remaining users who couldn't use UMTS (1xRTT can coexist alongside CDMA voice and dynamically share channel space with it, whereas UMTS needs dedicated spectrum). I believe this is what CDMA carriers in India have done as they've migrated users from EVDO to UMTS for data.

5-10 years down the line, the distinction between "Sprint" and "T-Mobile" would be academic. The towers would all be shared. Sprint would use a chunk of 1900MHz spectrum for legacy GSM voice & 2(.5)-G data (GPRS and EDGE), another chunk of 1900MHz spectrum for circuit-switched CDMA voice and 1xRTT data, and a third chunk of 1900MHz paired with T-Mobile's 2100MHz for 1900/2100MHz UMTS. They'd probably pair a fourth chunk of 1900MHz with their ~850MHz Nextel spectrum for premium UMTS (850 uplink, 1900 downlink), and use their 1700MHz spectrum for LTE. In the meantime, Sprint and T-Mobile customers with new phones would both get to suffer with Sprint's crap 4G service ("crap", because it doesn't work in moving vehicles due to the way Clear fucked up their tower-tower hand-offs... or more precisely, didn't bother to implement at all, so they all act like wifi access points with ~1km range instead of a real cellular network; instead of handing off gracefully, Sprint 4G just drops the connection and leaves you with no network connectivity for 10+ seconds while it handshakes with the next tower and gets a different IP address).

Anyway, the point is that there IS a graceful way to merge Sprint and T-Mobile's networks. That said, if Sprint and T-Mobile were to "merge", I'd only want it to happen if the Justice Department made them:

1. sell all their tower assets to TowerCo (the company Sprint created to own its towers), to maximize their availability for lease on open terms to competing networks

2. create a new company to handle everything RF-related. In other words, own the spectrum leases and run the CDMA2000, GSM, UMTS, and LTE radio services. Let's call this "RFco", and view them as the equivalent of an RBOC.

3. keep "Sprint" and "T-Mobile" as separate companies who provide their own data backhaul & provide actual PSTN connectivity, sell phones (but require Sprint to fully support USIMs, require both companies to allow the use of any hardware that's physically compatible, and publish their standards and protocols in open format to allow end users to implement them on their own hardware as desired).

In other words, Let's suppose you're a "Sprint" customer. You might (or might not) buy your phone from them, but it has a USIM (which works on everything from UMTS to CDMA), so Sprint can't lock you into their own propr

Re:Good

[Legion303]

"T-Mobile has the best prepaid plans of any carrier."

I pay $25/month (it will be $35 if you aren't grandfathered) for unlimited data and 300 talk minutes on Virgin Mobile. Works for me, since I used about 14 of those talk minutes last month and a shitload of data. Plans were cheaper across the board than T-Mobile. Of course, you'd be CDMA on Sprint's network, which may or may not work for you. But regardless, T-Mobile is hardly the cheapest prepaid option.

Re:Good

[Reverand Dave]

Sir, If I could mod you up I would. Thanks for the info.

Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is going to happen to T-Mobile if AT&T doesn't buy them? Their parent company, Deutsche Telekom, has stated they no longer wish to own and run T-Mobile and aren't going to invest any more money in them.

Could they just shut down the company and sell of the spectrum? What else could happen?

Re:Serious question

[Nethemas the Great]

How about split it off and run it solo... That said, have you considered that DT might be interested in having T-Mobile purchased for the terms AT&T offered and is willing to make statements in support of the transaction?

Re:Serious question

[Desler]

They'll get $3 billion in cash, free wireless spectrum and reduced charges for calls that goes over AT&T's network.

Re:Serious question

[causality]

How about split it off and run it solo... That said, have you considered that DT might be interested in having T-Mobile purchased for the terms AT&T offered and is willing to make statements in support of the transaction?

What?! Perish the thought!

You can tell someone "you know, there are street criminals who would actually shoot someone for the $50 in their wallet" and they will readily believe you. Despite that, everyone knows that businessmen would never, ever use deception when millions of dollars are at stake. I mean, for fuck's sake, they wear suits. No one who dresses nicely would do bad things. You're a paranoid raving lunatic tin-foil hatter if you don't agree.

I hope they block it

[geekoid]

but if they don't, they should give the T-Mobile customer the ability to cancel/change their contract with no penalty or fees.. I sure as hell didn't avoindf AT&T and become a T-Mobile customer just to end up an AT&T customer.

Re:I hope they block it

[Kenja]

Change it to what exactly? The whole point is that the merger would reduce and in some cases eliminate consumer choice in celular carriers.

Re:I hope they block it

[Nethemas the Great]

I'm assuming consumer interests will not be served and AT&T will be allowed to proceed after greasing a few palms. With this in mind does anyone have any recommendations as to which carrier to switch off to and why?

Re:I hope they block it

[geekoid]

Change it to another company, where available. Is there anywhere that ONLY has T-Mobile and AT&T? I could at least got to sprint.

Re:I hope they block it

[Reverand Dave]

If this goes through, the only viable alternative is VZW because they will be the only real competition AT&T-mobile will have in the market.

Re:I hope they block it

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anywhere that ONLY has T-Mobile and AT&T?

The entire U.S. if you want to keep using your existing (GSM) phone.

Re:I hope they block it

[Anonymous Coward]

There likely are many spots where you don't get a usable signal from Sprint and you do from one or both of AT&T and T-Mobile (and likewise the other way around), but the percentage of people who actually live in one of those spots is quite small.

More to the point, I have upwards of a k$ original cost (maybe $400-$700 replacement cost) of GSM equipment that's so many paperweights on a CDMA-family network. (Particularly painful to me, that includes an N900, and there is no CDMA equivalent (i.e. Maemo device) -- though I'm aware that's a niche case that won't and shouldn't have appreciable impact on the big picture, when most people pick from a half-dozen more-or-less equivalent Android phones.)

Re:I hope they block it

[monkyyy]

it wouldnt surprise me isnt it only 3 nation-wide left

Re:I hope they block it

[Coren22]

I don't use them, but many coworkers really love their Sprint plans. I have been pretty happy with VZW, but I would not join them anymore as they no longer offer unlimited data.

Serious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd find another buyer - maybe even a leveraged buyout by senior management or it's employees.

They could also spin it off into it's own company.

There's way too many assets there to just let the company wither and die.

This is a no-brainer

[laing]

AT&T and T-Mobile are the only two GSM providers remaining in the USA. The other competitors (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA technology that uses different frequencies and different modulation schemes. GSM is a more popular format worldwide because it is not patent-encumbered. CDMA phones typically lag in technology by several years. A USA monopoly on GSM is not in the best interests of anybody but the monopoly holder. This is why they are willing to pay 10 times more for T-Mobile than they would spend to upgrade their 4G network to full coverage.

As much as I detest government interference in business, I hope that these anti-trust lawsuits are successful. This is exactly the sort of thing that the anti-trust laws were intended to prevent. Given the resources ($$$) of AT&T, I expect strong lobbying and eventual approval of the deal.

JSL

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Wrath0fb0b]

The other competitors (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA technology that uses different frequencies and different modulation schemes. GSM is a more popular format worldwide because it is not patent-encumbered. CDMA phones typically lag in technology by several years.

Which is why I have a CDMA Samsung Galaxy S2 from Sprint a month or so after the international launch and before AT&T and TMobile offer it. .

Also, Verizon and Sprint run on the same CDMA frequencies and have a bilateral roaming agreement. And CDMA is a more efficient modulation, allowing more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Microlith]

GSM is a more popular format worldwide because it is not patent-encumbered.

Really? I find it hard to believe that GSM is not patent encumbered. My impression was that the lack of being hard-tied to a device was what made it so popular in Europe (what with their quaint notion of Consumer Rights) and it spread from there (and has grown by inertia to everywhere CDMA is as well.)

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

CDMA doesn't allow data and voice at the same time. That is enough to keep me away.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, because when I'm talking with someone on my phone, what I really want to do is ignore them and check my email.

What a useless feature.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[zippthorne]

And the underlying multiplexing has changed from TDMA to CDMA anyway. Time division multiplex was a stupid idea from the beginning.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Desler]

Or you could be talking to someone and be looking up something relevant to your phone call.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Desler]

GSM is a more popular format worldwide because it is not patent-encumbered.

So it's not patent encumbered but Nokia sued Apple over GSM patents? Oh and this lack of patents was why Qualcomm Sued Nokia over GSM patents in 2005 as well, right? Are you an idiot, or what?

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T and T-Mobile are the only two GSM providers remaining in the USA. The other competitors (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA technology that uses different frequencies and different modulation schemes.

GSM in the Americas uses different frequencies (850Mhz and 1900Mhz) than the rest of the world (900Mhz and 1800Mhz). GSM phones purchased in the US do not work overseas unless they are labeled "quad band" or "world phone".

CDMA phones typically lag in technology by several years.

4G is a CDMA technology.

You can also buy world phones from any US carrier, even Verizon and Sprint. There is no functional difference or advantage in going with a US GSM carrier over a CDMA one. You need to take the exact same precautions of making sure your phone is compatible with overseas networks and you can buy such phones from any US carrier.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[schnikies79]

I bluetooth calls in my car while using my phone as a GPS. The maps download on the fly, as well as traffic info, etc.

It is in no way a useless feature.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Ironhandx]

I do the same thing... on CDMA. I have no idea what the fuck you guys are talking about for this "no voice and data at the same time" garbage.

Its a technical limitation, sort of. All it actually requires is that the phone be set up to be able to handle two connections. Not a big deal on an Android device, or any current-gen smartphone for that matter.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that un-informed? Everything your wrote was an old man rambling for the sake of rambling.

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

China says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TD-SCDMA

What the original AT&T Wireless switched to was GSM and called it "2.5G" or "3G" depending on who you talked to. Cingular had exactly the same, when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless there was whole hell breaking loose because Cingular unlocks their phones and AT&T Wireless does not. Everyone on AT&T Wireless who wanted Cingular plans had to get a new phone.

This will be a repeat should it go through.

Cingular is also a lot more anti-consumer than the original AT&T Wireless. The original AT&T Wireless you had the option of your bills being rerated if you asked nicely. The post-Cingular AT&T Wireless will not. On the other hand, The eWallet (SMS short code billing) was such a fuckup on AT&T Wireless's side that 99% of the customer service staff did not know how to handle calls dealing with it. This is why the Telco's need to stay the hell out of being a payment processor, they fucked up enough to begin with 10 years ago and we're no better now then we were then.

Should AT&T buy T-Mobile, the first thing you'll see happen, based on what happened before, is that the Unlimited plans get axed, not grandfathered. If you're on them, you'll be told to switch to a new plan in 30 days or your data plan will be canceled and ETF waived.
Next, if you want to upgrade your phone, you will be forced to buy a new phone (particularly if you want the iPhone) on a new 2 or 3 year contract.

Should you want to port your number over to Verizon, you'll have to buy a new phone because very few models support both GSM/UMTS/HSPDA and Verizon's antique CDMA2000/1X network. You're better off waiting for everyone to be running LTE. That could still be 2 years off. By then they'll have solved the power problems in the LTE chipsets for mobile devices. In theory anyway. Even the Canadians knew CDMA2000 was a dead-end technology and they all jump-shipped for GSM at the 2010 Olympics because they didn't want to be left behind and the cell carrier that was the official sponsor has ZERO towers in Vancouver (They partner with Telus, so they're all Telus towers.)

The relationship between Telus and Bell in Canada is not unlike AT&T and T-Mobile in the US. Their coverage maps are made up of towers that both carriers have. So they (AT&T and T-Mobile) effectively have been one carrier since the advent of the Digital One Rate plan. If you weren't on that plan (or "the National plan") you were charged roaming fees every time you used T-Mobile or Cingular's towers. So buying T-Mobile would make their coverage area effectively complete, and save some roaming costs, but it's a drop in the lake. Verizon buying Sprint would do the same for Verizon, though Sprint is a mishmash of 3 or so technologies in addition to CDMA, as they have legacy Nextel, Clearwire and Lightsquared.

If you had told me in 2004 that AT&T Wireless, Cingular, and T-Mobile would merge, I'd have laughed, as part of the difficulty in selling plans to people was that they wanted Cingular's roll-over minutes or T-Mobile's devices and unlimited plans. AT&T had nothing to compete with this. You have to wonder how much spectrum was divested in the mergers. What is the point of 3 mobile carriers being merged when you have to divest one carrier's worth of spectrum to the competitors?

Re:This is a no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

The other competitors (Verizon and Sprint) use CDMA technology that uses different frequencies and different modulation schemes.

You do realize that Verizon LTE is GSM?

Where was the love?

[todrules]

Where was the love for T-Mobile before the merger or even since? Customers a leaving in droves. They lost 280,000 net subscribers last quarter. I bet most of these people saying that they don't want the merger to go through aren't even T-Mobile customers or never plan to be. It's the economics that are putting T-Mobile out of business. DT is just trying to get out now before the only option they have left is to part it out. So, unless you're a T-Mobile customer, please quit whining against the merger.

Re:Where was the love?

[tgeek]

It's perfectly valid for anybody - T-Mobile customer or not - to argue against the formation of a monopoly. It's won't be easy to stop this one before it forms. But if it is allowed to form, it will be virtually impossible to fix later.

Re:Where was the love?

[todrules]

First, it won't form a monopoly. There will be 2 other major carriers besides AT&T. Second, yes, anybody can argue against the merger, but all it does is put off the inevitable. Hell, I bet in a ways AT&T might even hope it gets blocked. Then, they could just buy the spectrum at firesale prices. But, either way, just the announcement of the merger sealed T-Mobile's fate. At least with the merger, the employees have a chance at a job. If DT piece-meals out the assets, then nobody at T-Mobile will have a job, and there will still just be 3 major carriers.

Re:Where was the love?

[jnork]

I'm a T-Mobile customer and I'm whining against the merger.

a) I've been pretty satisfied with their customer service over the years. I've never heard anything good about AT&T's customer service (except from AT&T employees of course). None of my own experiences with AT&T have been particularly good.
b) We need more competition, not less.

And I happen to think that b) is just as valid a reason to whine as a). So please -- if you're not a T-Mobile customer, feel free to whine against the merger all you want.

Thank you.

Re:Where was the love?

[tgeek]

After the inevitable, as you put it, merger goes thru go find some GSM service not controlled by AT&T and then come back and tell us they don't have a monopoly.

Re:Where was the love?

[Desler]

First, it won't form a monopoly.

So what other GSM provider is there for someone to switch to who doesn't want to be forced to be an AT&T customer or to have to buy a brand new phone?

Re:Where was the love?

[Belial6]

Have you considered that they are leaving BECAUSE of the merger? Who wants a 2 year contract with a company that is destine to be sold to someone you don't want to do business with? The 280,000 lost customers isn't a sign that people don't like T-Mobile. It is a sign that people don't like AT&T

Re:Where was the love?

[todrules]

Yes, they were 318,000 in Q4 2010 - before the announcement of the merger.

Re:Where was the love?

[todrules]

Is GSM really that important? AT&T quit using the same frequencies after EDGE/2G. So, if you don't mind turtle-like data speeds when using the same phone on the other's network, then it's really a moot point. More than likely, if somebody switches carriers, they're going to get a new phone that works on all of their new carrier's frequencies anyways, whether or not they're GSM or CDMA.

Re:Where was the love?

[todrules]

I see your point, and Apple has a monopoly over iOS. Of course, I could buy a Windows or Linux computer.

Re:Where was the love?

[tepples]

That's the point: in order to keep the same level of wireless service and customer service that you currently have, you'll have to re-buy hardware.

Re:Where was the love?

[Desler]

Is GSM really that important?

Considering my Samsung Vibrant only works on GSM, yes, it is important.

AT&T quit using the same frequencies after EDGE/2G.

Great, so I can get gimped speeds after being forced to become an AT&T customer? AWESOME!

So, if you don't mind turtle-like data speeds when using the same phone on the other's network, then it's really a moot point.

Yes, I do mind since I use 3G all the time so, no, it's not moot.

More than likely, if somebody switches carriers, they're going to get a new phone that works on all of their new carrier's frequencies anyways, whether or not they're GSM or CDMA.

That's the whole point: I DON'T WANT TO SWITCH CARRIERS. Nor do I want to have to buy another phone. I only just bought my Vibrant 10 months ago and I don't think I should have to choose between a shitty company who is going to give me shittier service at a higher price or having to spend another $300-$400 to get a comparable phone on another network.

Re:Where was the love?

[Anonymous Coward]

todrules - you work for AT&T, don't you? lolzorz or something.

Re:Where was the love?

[GameboyRMH]

I hope you're not implying that Sprint or Virgin are "major carriers."

Re:Where was the love?

[GameboyRMH]

GSM works in most places outside the US, unlike CDMA, and allows you to switch carriers (unless you were dumb enough to buy a carrier-locked phone) simply by changing SIM cards. And therefore, for obvious reasons, most phones are GSM phones.

So yeah, it's a big deal.

Re:Where was the love?

[jonbryce]

If you want a phone that works outside of the US, Canada and a couple of other countries, then yes, GSM is important. Here in the UK, I bought a SIM free phone, and I can use it on any of the carriers that operate here. If I go to another country, I can buy a pay as you go SIM from a local carrier there to avoid expensive roaming fees.

Re:Where was the love?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a monopoly of GSM.

Re:Where was the love?

[Rich0]

I'm a T-mobile customer, and I don't want the merger to go through. If I wanted to be an AT&T customer I'd have signed on with AT&T. I picked T-Mobile because their plans are cheaper, are more flexible, their phones are better (in my opinion), and they have less of a tendency to try to extort $800 out of you when somebody on your plan messes up.

If they get bought I suspect that they won't get around to dismantling 4G coverage for my phone before my contract ends. If they try to get rid of my plan I'll leave without an ETF. If they significantly scale down 4G coverage I'll claim failure to perform and leave without an ETF. At that point I'll figure out what my best option is and go with it, but most likely it won't be AT&T unless they REALLY get their act together.

Re:Where was the love?

[monkyyy]

while having 3 main players isnt a monopoly in the truest since it still has most of the drawbacks, namely they can all meet and all decide all at once to rise prices by 900%, none of them will be taking the "risk" of upgrading their network more then they "should" do

Everything is CDMA now, including GSM

[erice]

Which is why I have a CDMA Samsung Galaxy S2 from Sprint a month or so after the international launch and before AT&T and TMobile offer it. .

Also, Verizon and Sprint run on the same CDMA frequencies and have a bilateral roaming agreement. And CDMA is a more efficient modulation, allowing more users per MHz of bandwidth than any other technology.

True with 2G but GSM 3G uses Wide Band CDMA so the special efficiency is essentially the same.

Re:Everything is CDMA now, including GSM

[Wrath0fb0b]

True with 2G but GSM 3G uses Wide Band CDMA so the special efficiency is essentially the same.

Good point, although I think you meant 'spectral' efficiency. :-)

They will never just shut it down

[intellitech]

They'll sell it.. to somebody.. but somebody's not going to get what they want.

Does It Matter Anymore?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Not to be baiting the flame, but does it matter if this merger gets blocked anymore for us T-mobile customers? I realize the merger has not gone through officially, but something has happened on T-mobile's end already that has turned the provider to shit.

Prior to the merger announcement way back when, I could access T-mobile's website and easily find a few different customer service numbers that would connect me to operatives almost immediately. There was even one number specially reserved for existing customers that would connect me to operators who were specifically trained to keep me as a customer and treat me with respect and dginity. Nowadays I have a hard time even finding a basic T-mobile customer service number on their website. I cannot connect to the existing-customers-only help line anymore. And when I do connect to regular customer service, I am met with someone who hardly speaks any English, and cannot listen long enough to think their way out of a paper bag, much less properly address any issue I may have.

Prior to the deal T-mobile would offer no-contract plans, and would work with existing customers to cut them a deal on their grandfathered plans that made them competitive with new or monthly plan specials. Nowadays if I try to ask for anything outside of the pre-packaged 2 year contract plans offered on T-mobile's website, I am told that T-mobile, "just can't do that." Even if I explain I plan to leave the company they act like they don't care.

Prior to the merger announcement, T-mobile's network was not everywhere, but where I could get T-mobile signal, I would get a strong, steady connection that would always maintain a call. Ever since the merger announcement, all I can pick up (even from the same locations prior) are AT&T towers. I may get more AT&T signal now, but my call gets dropped every 40 minutes or so. It happens so commonly I could almost set my watch by it.

So merger or not, does it matter? I don't know if other T-mobile customers have experienced these same types of things, but from what I can tell T-mobile is letting itself go to hell with or without AT&T. Would these degradations in service be reversed if, all of the sudden, the merger was blocked? Tha;'s an honest question. Does T-mobile care enough anymore to treat its customers with the respect it used to? The message I am steadily recieving from them is a big, fat, clear, "No!"

Re:Does It Matter Anymore?

[cbhacking]

I haven't seen any of these problems. TMO in the Seattle the area is still fast and reliable, and I have more coverage (first-party, not roaming) than I did last year. The month-to-month plans are harder to find now, but they still exist. I've only had to call support once, but it was easy. The response was quick, the guy spoke English with an American accent, and he fixed one problem immediately and helped find the cause of the other.

I'm going to be very upset if TMO-US no longer exists independently when my contract is up. (I was going to go contract-free, but a discount from my employer that only applied to contract plans made the two-year plan the cheapest option all up.)

Re:Does It Matter Anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a secret that Deutscher Telecom has been trying to get read of its T-Mobile American subsidiary for quite some time. That explains their lack of investment into T-Mobile and search for a buyer.

Re:Does It Matter Anymore?

[grumling]

I just noticed a new 3G area lit up this afternoon, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Anecdotal I know, but they have been upgrading their network for some time now.

Where are you, Colorado?

[grumling]

With 2 call centers at risk, you would think CO would be all over this. Time to get involved...

So who do I write if I want the merger to go...

[MBC1977]

As a T-Mobile customer who hates T-Mobile, but refuses to go to Sprint (their coverage sucks), Verizon (too damm expensive), and both of these providers use CDMA, (I want a phone I can take overseas if I travel). So I personally would LOVE to have AT&T take over T-Mobile, if for nothing else then the added phone selection that I will be able to access.

Look, Deutsche Telekom is not going to invest any more money into T-Mobile, so someone will have to buy it, AT&T is as good a choice as any.

Re:So who do I write if I want the merger to go...

[Daetrin]

Have you considered the rather drastic step of, i dunno, switching providers?

As long as we're speaking of the issue as if our opinions mattered at all, certainly there's far less grief involved in that than in forcing everyone who actually likes T-Mobile to have to switch to AT&T against their will.

I'm in a congress so to speak

[Anonymous Coward]

and already am smelling the cocaine, hookers, and $100 bills :)

Effects of monopoly

[crazyvas]

It's already turning out that with most carriers, I can't use a smartphone on their network without being automatically charged for a data plan. ATT uses IMEI lookups to charge you:
http://www.bgr.com/2009/08/21/att-to-require-smartphone-data-plans-starting-september-6th/

This should be illegal! Just because I want to jot down notes on my phone doesn't mean I should be forced to pay $30 every month to ATT! This is just one of the effects of few large monopolies. Another well known example: texting plan rates were hiked up in lockstep by the monopolies. Yet another effect of a market with few, large monopolies: high rates for customers.

On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year. And cell phone users in Sweden only pay $137.94 per year. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10307726-94.html

Why on earth would we want to allow even fewer and even larger monopolies?

Re:Effects of monopoly

[zyzko]

On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year.

I don't know (because anything but the summary is behind paywall) if this takes into account that in USA you are really paying for the handset for credit when in Finland and Netherlands it is far more common to pay separately for the handset (easily $500-$600 cost for a new highend-smartphone) and then select the carrier, this evens out the difference because basic plans are here dirt cheap (I have unlimited data for two SIM cards (phone and a USB adapter for laptop) for 9€/mo and phone calls - initiating them, not recieving - are 0.059€ / min - cheaper if you want a package but my usage is mostly data so I don't bother taking one) - but I guess they are at least partially right prices in the USA for mobile service are terrible even when counting in the subsidy compared to Finland - but at least you have cheap clothes and food...

Effects of large monopolies

[crazyvas]

It's already turning out that with most carriers, I can't use a smartphone on their network without being automatically charged for a data plan. ATT uses IMEI lookups to charge you:
http://www.bgr.com/2009/08/21/att-to-require-smartphone-data-plans-starting-september-6th/

This should be illegal! Just because I want to jot down notes on my phone doesn't mean I should be forced to pay $30 every month to ATT! This is just one of the effects of few large monopolies. Another well known example: texting plan rates were hiked up in lockstep by the monopolies. Yet another effect of a market with few, large monopolies: high rates for customers.

On a yearly basis, American cell phone users are spending about $635.85 on cell phone service. [...]By contrast people in the Netherlands and Finland pay the lowest amount for cell phone service, only $131.44 per year. And cell phone users in Sweden only pay $137.94 per year. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10307726-94.html

Why on earth would we want to allow even fewer and even larger monopolies?

Re:Effects of large monopolies

[GameboyRMH]

Dude you broke Slashdot, double-posts should be impossible.

Oligopoly

[sjbe]

First, it won't form a monopoly. There will be 2 other major carriers besides AT&T.

An oligopoly is hardly much better. Oligopolies have a reliably tendency to act a lot like monopolies. Each of the firms is well aware of the actions of the others and while they will compete, in general prices will generally be higher and the firms will retain more profits. If you want to see this in action look at the pricing of text messaging. The cost of it to the carriers is a good approximation of zero and yet they are able to charge huge margins on it. In a competitive marketplace this should be impossible but instead we have an oligopoly where each of the carriers is smart enough to not rock the boat on text message pricing. Technically it's not collusion but the net effect is identical.

Furthermore, one of those other major carriers (Sprint) is limping along and is very likely to be absorbed by someone else. I really would be surprised if they were around in another 10 years. I figure they'll either be bought by Verizon or sell their assets to some other players. Wouldn't entirely shock me to see Apple or Google or even Microsoft (maybe all three even) buy Sprint's data network though that is a rather remote possibility.

nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

Again and again there is nothing wrong with the merger, it will create more pressure in this market, notice that it is not consumers, who are coming out with the lawsuit, just as always, it is the competing companies, who are afraid they will have to do actual real competition, find ways to cut prices, figure out how to increase customer satisfaction.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[andydread]

Your advocacy for giving recreating Ma-Bell and for powerful monopolies in general is astounding and quite an anti-free-market stance. The free market works best when there is competition. Duopolies damage the free market. Monopolies damage the free market. A free market cannot work if there is a lack of consumer choice. When companies get so powerful they then have the power to push other players out of the free market thereby reducing choice and dwindling the marketplace to the point where there is no free market. The basic fundamental of the free market is the ability for consumers to vote with their wallet. Take that away and the free market is no longer a free market. When customers are fee to chose between many players in the free market then you have a healthy free market. When they can only chose between 3 players the free market suffers. You argument that government blocking monopolies, duopolies, and triopolies is bad is ridiculous and quit frankly against free market principles.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

Monopolies are only created by government intervention. The lawsuit is brought forward by companies, who are afraid of incoming competition from a larger entity, but the only real monopolies are always enjoying government protection.

Free Market is market that is free of GOVERNMENT intervention, not a market that has no larger economies of scale. Consumers gain from economies of scale, and in this case especially, this is a good move for consumers, as they will see increase of competition, not decrease of it. Government cannot create free market by decree, it only destroys free market by regulations, taxes, subsidies and by creating franchises.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[andydread]

Thanks for this info. Can you explain to me how the government created the Microsoft monopoly? Thanks.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[Rich0]

Uh, I'm a customer and I oppose the merger.

What do you propose - that I file a lawsuit against AT&T and T-Mobile? They'll no doubt have the jurisdiction transferred to some court halfway across the country, no doubt citing some provision in my contract that allows this. Then they'll probably try to dismiss it. I don't have the luxury of taking a year off of work to write legal briefs, or the money to fly out to deposition corporate shills and show up in courtrooms who knows where. It would be a hardship for me to try to spend a week in small claims court if that were even a legal option.

Generally speaking consumers react to these sorts of things by complaining to the government. You know, it is actually their job (FTC, FCC, etc) to regulate these things...

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

Can you explain to me what is your specific problem with Microsoft?

Free Market allows economies of scale to exist, if a company dominates the market for some time it only means that this is the cheapest product that can be provided at the best quality that can be provided for some time.

Obviously competitors were forming while Microsoft had its success. From Apple to Free software, competition was coming on line.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company that dominates market for some amount of time, of-course Microsoft gained tremendously from government providing it the protection of copyright law as an example. OTOH Microsoft gained tremendously from getting its first real sales contract with IBM, which is a large company and enjoyed various government protections as well as contracts for a century.

You are welcome.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[andydread]

I did not say I have a problem with the Microsoft monopoly. You claimed that all monopolies are created by government. I just wanted you to elaborate on the government's involvement in creating the Microsoft monopoly. I am having a hard time finding any information to that effect. As far as the Google monopoly goes I think i figured that one out. Government created the Internet (apranet) and now Google has a monopoly on searching the Internet. So government created the Google monopoly. Just want to know how did they create the Microsoft monopoly. Since all monopolies are created by government intervention.

As far as copyright law goes. Everyone that writes software has the same equal protection. How did copyright law give microsoft the advantage over their competitors that benefit equally from said law?

thanks.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

Uh, I'm a customer and I oppose the merger.

- excellent. Then you have the most important vote of all - vote of your dollars.

You can spend your money elsewhere, and that's the only message that counts. Getting government into this will only worsen the situation in the long run, as all government involvement does.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

You claimed that all monopolies are created by government.

- I am still claiming it.

Monopolies are systems that are maintained by government regulations, taxation, laws, subsidies. Monopolies do not form in absence of government, in absence of government economies of scale can form, but if they are not serving the public interest of low cost and high value, then they will lose customers to somebody who will provide lower cost and higher value.

Government created the Internet (apranet) and now Google has a monopoly on searching the Internet.

1. Google is not a monopoly.

2. TCP/IP was only one protocol out of variety of other protocols that already existed prior to government involvement. Internet did not have to start from Arpanet, it did only due to money, which as usually was stolen from the people and thrown at military and other government agencies.

PSTN did not need government intervention to become reality. Phone and radio communications are not far removed from other types of communications, so Internet can as well form with completely private entities.

As far as copyright law goes. Everyone that writes software has the same equal protection. How did copyright law give microsoft the advantage over their competitors that benefit equally from said law?

- Nobody was in business of selling software, systems were sold prior to Gates realizing what he had in front of him with government copyright protections.

Open Letter to Hobbyists by Bill Gates.

He understood the value of government protection of copyright and was the first to use it to his advantage in software development and incidentally he became probably the richest person due to software sales.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[andydread]

Yes but how did the government stop others from competing with Microsoft on the same grounds of copyright thereby allowing Microsoft to gain monopoly status? DId copyright stop others from competing with Microsoft? Did the copyright laws only apply to Microsoft at the time? Just don't understand how the government through copyright laws created the Microsoft monopoly. thanks.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

Copyright is part of regulations, which inhibit business formation.

In this case the inhibition comes in form of protection of Microsoft against redistribution of the product bought from them by third parties. Copyright laws do not allow alternative channels of distribution, which would compete with the original creator/provider. You may or may not see this is a 'good' thing, but regardless of the moral objections it prevents competition in distribution of the material from forming by government protection. Also copyright laws are used to prevent variations of work from being distributed, so if somebody bought a disk with any MS application, modified the code and started selling it as well, they would be prosecuted for copyright violation.

It applies to all such works, for example music, writings, software, movies, etc.

Then there are patents, which are even worse in many ways, because they prevent distribution of implementations of ideas by third parties.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[Rich0]

Uh, who do you propose I give my money to? I want to give it to T-mobile, and the forces of monopolization are slowly getting rid of that option for me.

Natural monopolies are a perfectly valid place for government interference. If you don't want the government to dictate how you operate, then don't buy cell phone towers.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

There is no such thing as a 'natural monopoly', but there are economies of scale and there are government created monopolies - franchises and AT&T was one of these, and over 3000 companies were destroyed by the government to achieve that.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[Rich0]

Well, I'm fine with splitting up the cell companies if that is what you're proposing.

My solution would be that companies that provide cell phone service should not be permitted to own either towers or spectrum. Just standardize the protocols and have utilities run the towers and sell bandwidth to cell phone providers. You'd have multiple utilities in any given area, and no utility could cover more than so many square miles. Now no one company holds enough sway to control prices.

In any case, the original post said that none of the people complaining were actual customers, and when I spoke up as an actual customer the response was "well, don't complain." :)

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[roman_mir]

No, my response is not that you shouldn't complain. My response is that customers who don't like the service should vote with their wallets, not try and destroy the free market by attacking it with government dogs.

Re:nothing wrong with the merger

[Rich0]

I do like the service. How do I vote with my wallets for an option that the "free market" is about to get rid of?

Besides - a situation where there are only 3-4 companies in a given space is hardly a "free market."