Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Issues Scathing Response To FCC Report
An anonymous reader writes "AT&T has issued a scathing letter in response to the FCC's decision to release a staff report on its findings surrounding AT&T's planned $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA. 'We expected that the AT&T-T-Mobile transaction would receive careful, considered, and fair analysis,' Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs, said. 'Unfortunately, the preliminary FCC Staff Analysis offers none of that.'"
I'm pretty sure that AT&T's response is simply a toddler's temper tantrum with a midlife crisis and an expensive suit.
at this point, i wonder if AT&T has actually bought its own story, or if they have to practice keeping a straight face in the mirror every morning.
AT&T buying T-Mobile is a bad thing for consumers. The original cell phone plan was that there would be two providers, the local Ma Bell and a start-up. AT&T as SBC bought up the East Coast start-ups, Verizon bought the West Coast ones, and T-Mobile and Sprint came to the party as national big-city carriers on at the time open space adjustments.
AT&T of the 1980s was busted up as a monopoly. If AT&T is allowed to have T-Mobile, what's stopping Verizon and Sprint from joining up? Less competitors always leads to higher prices. Anybody remember what cellphones cost in the early 1990s?
I guess giving quite a bit to Obama didn't help them out... makes sense to change sides.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Lol - I just love this whole thing. ATT is like the giant internet forum troll, throwing a temper tantrum because they got banned from the forums, and sprint is like the even keeled bystander, explaining to the banned individual why trolling is wrong.
They should break that company up again, it seems the first time wasn't enough to curb their arrogance.
I'd love to see just one video of "Obama's screaming Bolsheviks." Can you provide one? Please include a historic screaming Bolshevik video for comparison. I bet the Russians are just darling in those little furry hats.
AT&T can use that money to upgrade and expand their broadband circuits. I'm in south Texas and AT&T openly admits that our lines are over subscribed. Every Tech sent to check low signal strength has confessed to over subscription. Well use that money to improve the service they are collecting for and not providing!!
ATT: "We didn't get our request rubber stamped like we expected it to be after we spent all that money to get the current crop of legislators and executives elected. We spend money on campaign contributions for a reason people! The FCC's review of our proposed acquisition of T-Mobile totally neglects to take these facts into account, and instead harps on things like abusive monopoly paractices and leaked memos from our executives. Obviously the FCC is not doing its job as a captured regulator, and we are voicing our displeasure publicly so as not to oust our purchased politicians. We fully expect them take action against this FCC ruling, and further insist that they take the DoJ to task on the pending antitrust case, if they want any more of our money; we understand that elections are just around the corner. Just a reminder guys. We don't get what we want, you don't get what you want."
Sprint: "We applaud the FCC for finally doing what it was really supposed to do, and appreciate its dedication to fact finding and for ensuring a balanced economic foundation for the telecom industry. We strong urge everyone to read the FCC's report."
AT&T hates business, since business means competition.
Gone!
No, but I can imagine silence. Or a one-sentence 'we respectfully disagree'.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
The FCC's directive is not to ensure the value of your stock. The FCC asked AT&T why the merger was good for consumers and AT&T wasn't able to provide a reasonable one. You know why? Because there wasn't one. So the FCC decided that they could not support the merger.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Notice that every rebuttal made by AT&T is simply a statement by AT&T that they PROMISE not to do what is in their own best interest!
For example, if there is 1 fewer wireless company, there WILL be less total job positions needed. That is an obvious truth of economics : one fewer company means more consolidation, fewer independent cell towers needed, etc. Yet AT&T PROMISES to hire more Americans as CSRs, despite the fact that it would be cheaper for them to keep outsourcing.
AT&T will find it easier to raise prices with the merger because with 1 fewer competitor, the Nash Equilibrium inches closer to monopoly prices. AT&T PROMISES to do otherwise.
AT&T has no competitor to fight for rural broadband market share, yet they PROMISE to build the wires anyway.
And so on and so forth. Every rebuttal basically says "well, maybe it doesn't make market sense, but we have plans to do X if we get our way".
Think about who made this report : some lawyers and marketing folks in AT&T's executive branch. Those people are not going to be unbiased.
Of course not.
The firmly worded letter is for appearances.
The bribed senators and congressmen are the ones that will actually move things for them.
Did AT&T really think they could do this anti-competitive $39 billion dollar move? When the provider with the most expensive plans buys out the provider with the cheapest plans it can't be anything but anti-competitive.
The Executive Department offers an alternative that reduces the number of palms that must greased in order to achieve one's ends.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
This is awesome. A few posts ago I got to read about how Obama is pro-AT&T and pro big business because they gave him so much money during the '08 campaign.
Could you dipshits make up your minds and at least keep your rhetoric consistent?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
The main problem I see with what you say is this: very few people believed the AT&T-T-Mobile merger was a good thing before the Analysis. I only skimmed it briefly, but it seemed to approach the issue from the point of view that the onus is on AT&T to show that the merger is in the public interest, and not just AT&Ts (which they seem to grant.)
The "commitments" of a company with AT&T's history are worth less to me then the photons my screen used to display them to me. It should come as no surprise that the report is unbalanced: the truth is this merger is a bad idea, at many levels. If AT&T wants it to go through, they basically need to show that both companies absolutely needed it. The report seems to say they didn't show that, but only made broad claims.
In other words, the FCC is calling AT&T liars, and I agree. AT&T doesn't like that, and their response is laden with innuendo and falsities. For example, "The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece..." So if you don't agree with AT&T's interpretation, you clearly aren't "fair minded." Yeah, that sort of language is only going to make me like you even less. If they really have valid points, fine. But even if they do, using that language is going to make me discard it as manipulative marketing.
Add in the fact that AT&T tried to withdraw the merger application so the report wouldn't be made public, and it really is a poor showing overall for AT&T.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I disagree. I'm no lover of AT&T, I got screwed by them once on international calls and had to fight for a couple of months to get my money back. This was at a time when money was in really short supply, and the $500 or so that I had to get back would have made a big difference. If you actually read FCC's Analysis, and look at what AT&T disagrees with, you can't but agree with AT&T. Their rebuttal is backed by facts, and an hour of googling later you will see for yourself that they are certainly right in the issues they have enumerated. I would have personally really wanted AT&T's response to turn out to be made up shitty troll, but it turns out not to be so.
Sprint's "short and sweet" response turns out to be completely unfounded. It essentially translates to "yeah, yeah, we don't like AT&T either, kudos to FCC for sharing in our dislike". FCC did a pathetic job in their Analysis, that's all there's to it.
Calling AT&T's response "scathing" is uncalled for. We have a saying in Polish: the truth stings you in the eyes. As far as I'm concerned, the submitter takes "factual" for "scathing". It's silly. People often take a defensive stance when presented with facts that clearly contradict whatever they previously claimed, so I can at least understand the psychology in the mostly negative reaction to AT&T's rebuke to FCC. What I don't get is why people side with FCC without spending the time necessary to verify the sources. It only takes a couple of hours.
It sounds like you only read the rebuttal and didn't consider the context. In this case the context is reality. The assertions AT&T makes and the way they try to cherry pick their issues just don't jive with reality. Even if they can factually tell us that they'll create N jobs in the U.S., that doesn't mean it's a good thing when independent analysis done months ago (and common sense) concluded that in addition to creating those N jobs they'll be eliminating 3N jobs.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
We thought we had this one bought and paid for.
Maybe their lobbyists should have gotten receipts....
Check your premises.
The argument that monopolies raise the price of cell phone service is well-supported.
Cell phone service voice and data plans are extraordinarily high in the U.S., Japan and Canada, compared to other nations. America is way above the international average. We're the most expensive when it comes to texting. For the whole package of cell phone service America and Canada are the most expensive. Guess which countries keeps coming up as among the most expensive? The U.S. and Canada.
http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/an_international_comparison_of_cell_phone_plans_and_prices
As for PC prices, the number of competitors had very little effect compared to the power of Moore's Law. Had we had more competitors, PC prices might be 25% less right now. A huge part of what we pay for PCs is Windows. If we had more competition there we certainly would see lower prices.
So yes, oligopolies mean higher prices. And Jesus WAS/is in fact a liberal. :D
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Who does AT&T think they are fooling?
They think, and are correct, that they are fooling the people who believe that Fox News is fair and balanced.
This is a technique used regularly in controlling public opinion about policy. The further out you can pull one side of the argument, the further out you can pull the middle. This is a very effective approach, because so many people believe that justice means being reasonable, and that being reasonable means giving each side half of what they are asking for.
People are social animals and have a natural tendency to believe that both sides in a debate are being fair in their assessment and sincere about what they believe is just. They believe that each viewpoint must have merit. They believe, therefore, that any point roughly halfway between the two views must fall on reasonable ground. Trusting to this belief, they believe they do not have to know he details to know a fair solution. Any entity with a stake in public policy -- corporations, politicians, power-brokers -- knows about this mechanism. The big guys all have public relations people whose job is to manipulate this, and many other similar flaws.
This results in self-feeding bias. Left unchecked, it creates a disadvantage for entities that do not exploit the problem. In an otherwise competitive system, this selects for the entities most willing and capable of exploiting the flaw. This naturally breeds ever stronger abusers of such flaws.
Eventually, there comes a correction. If it happens early, it can be mild and the problem will be abated without a significant disturbance. The longer it goes, the stronger the distortion becomes -- as does the associated correction and disturbance.
If one believes in the value of economic stability as a path toward economic advancement, it is important to seek to avoid such extremity and correction.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
what shit? what's funny about it is that at&t says that fcc is making shit up and that shit they're making up is that at&t would increase their network coverage regardless of if the merger happens - at&t is implying they wouldn't increase their lte coverage if they can't buy out their competition. basically at&t here is saying they're sitting on a pile of money and will not invest it if there's competition and that they would "commit" to creating more jobs only if the merger went through, otherwise they wouldn't bother to try to compete.
also at&t seems to go to great lengths to explain how _neither_ company, tmobile or at&t has sufficient spectrum to serve their current customers. how is putting them together going to help with that, exactly? they should increase the fucking cell-count and bitch less.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
More than that, Ars Technica actually has an interesting quote from the FCC report:
AT&T claims it cannot now build enough additional sites and obtain sufficient additional spectrum in a few localities to expand an existing and successful business. Yet AT&T simultaneously argues that the smaller providers would solve any competitive problem by installing entirely new networks over most of the country, a task that would require substantially more cell construction and integration than AT&T's claimed requirements absent the transaction.
Basically they're claiming that they can't expand their business because they can't get enough spectrum or build enough sites, but that smaller regional competitors with less money and less spectrum available to them than either AT&T or T-Mobile alone would somehow miraculously be able to expand enough to become a meaningful competitor.
By that rationale, IBM isn't IBM because it's run by different people than when it was founded. Likewise, I'm not the person in my driver's license photo because cell turnover has rendered an almost completely new person.
In other words, they bought AT&T, they market themselves as AT&T, and they behave like AT&T. What's that saying about a duck?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere