The DOJ has blocked the purchase of T-Mobile by AT&T! So 2 parties that freely entered into an agreement, that would have benefitted customers of BOTH companies and would have added jobs here in America as well as swelled the ranks of the communication workers of America, has effectively been cancelled by our government! What gives them the right? Who are they to decide what 2 free and independent corporations can do? Who are they to decide what is best for the customers, and workers of these companies? Socialist scum!
Good. Do you really believe that monopolies are good for anybody but the shareholders?
Where is the monopoly??? We have plenty of wireless competition!
But with T-mobile and AT&T combined there would be considerably less.
Still, you're another turkey voting for Christmas, eh LadyLove?
Read the reasoning here:-
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/31/g … bile-deal/
Aren't three companies owning 90% of the market close enough to a monopoly for you?
Not even with a 90% share of the market? Though I use the word "share" rather lightly, I think it might be more honest to see a cartel.
Really, "share" Funny, I do not see the word share, I see you using the word "owning"
"Aren't three companies owning 90% of the market close enough to a monopoly for you?" HMMMMM
Voting for CHRISTmas when did we start doing that?
True, there would be only three instead of four competitors. AT&T is one of the most sinister of the big companies.
Number 2 merging with number 4. That's not a monopoly?
"AT&T and T-Mobile compete nationwide, in 97 of the largest 100 cellular marketing areas, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.
It says AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a competitive factor through low pricing and innovation."
So again, that's NOT a monopoly??
Who occupies 97% of the market? Here is a list if wireless providers in the USA.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ … _providers
So naturally adding all the players together would equal the bulk of the market in any business so your comment is meaningless. The question to ask is who should decide how many companies should make up any market? The government? Or the marketplace itself?
Monopoly means no competition, or there is one. There are far more wireless companies. Sprint/Nextel I believe is one large company that comes to mind. And no one stopped them from merging
Actually no, i have no financial stake in the deal that I know of. I do have friends that have AT&T service and its horrible! Dropped calls, and smart phone network access is slow and frustrating. This would have been a perfect match that would gave been good for everybody. Without this deal AT&T customers will be leaving and going to Verizon and maybe Sprint. T-Mobile will be getting a huge influx of cash from A T&T and thats good for them but they're a german company. Both of these companies will remain accquisition targets though.
" Without this deal AT&T customers will be leaving and going to Verizon and maybe Sprint."
Isn't that the much vaunted supply and demand operating as it should?
Oh my! If the government would mind its own business, then yes it would be supply and demand at work, instead it is government interference and infringement of freedom and free markets ruining everything and likely producing the result they intended to prevent. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic.
Don't you mean maintaining the free market? There's nothing free about a company owning the lions share of the business.
I don't see how preventing the merger will end up making the companies merge.
I do not care what busuness you choose, there is always a company that owns the "lions share". Thats like saying out of all the doctors, one has to be the worse. Duh. Its like everything, One is in first, one is in last. But when onely one is first last and everything in between, that is a monopoly.
ATT merger would not have been a problem. Amzingly, there are many other comanies that exist to compete and that is what a free market is. I have T moblie, in reality, with the possible merger, T mobie revamped there programs and offered more than they ever did before and at a lower price. Now that the merger did not go through, those assest they had acsees to will now dry up, service options will change and the prices will go up.
Now lets say the merger went through. You argument is they would raise the price. Not likely, Verizon, Sprint/Nextel and the likes will gladly accept all those who leave because their plans prices went up. Happens all the time when someones contract expires.That is called compitition. You cannot get that when there is a true monopoly.
No, it is nothing like saying one Doctor is worse, nothing at all. It is much more like saying "you will use this doctor".
Do you not wonder why T-Mobile revamped and offered lower prices than ever before? Couldn't be to make their competitors unviable could it? And what guarantee that when you had no choice but to use T-Mobile/AT&T they would remain cheap?
Verizon, Sprint/Nextel and the likes would no longer exist after a year or two of the big give away, then what would you do?
I'm flummoxed here, here's the socialist arguing for capitalist ideals and the capitalists arguing for what they see as socialism!
You should be Flummoxed, for it is you that applies labels to everything and you are alway wrong. I mearly post a thread, you attack it and say I am a righty, which of course everyone that knows me knows I am not. Then I post a different thread, then you attack I am a lefty, another laugh. then I post another different thread andyou call me a capitalist, Now I post this thread and you call me socialist. When I show how wrong you are you deflct, now your deflections and name changing has caught up to you.
John if you want to argue for the sake of it, go somewhere else. You are wasting all of our time
By the way, T moblie made thase changes AS A PART OF THE MERGER. ATT gave them access to technology that Tmobile did not have. Hence why Tmoblie was able to offer things and plans they did not have before. But that will all go away now thanks to people like you who do not believe in capitalism, you just want freebies. Guess you want your government to pay your phone bill to
No, I merely stated that you were arguing in favour of a relief that was socialist. That wasn't an attack, it was an observation.
And stop spouting on about me wanting freebies all the time, it is wrong and getting a little boring.
The relief is not socialist, perhaps you do not understand how that works here. When a disaster is declare, the people are eligible for low interest loans. The government guarentees those loans, but the money comes from banking institutions. And the people pay them back. Big difference in socialism, the government would give them the money in that scenario, and the people do not pay it back. Huge difference. That is called a freebie Like getting welfare despite the fact you could work but choose not to. That to is a freebie. That is what you have aregued for in other threads. That is why I said you are for freebies. IF it is getting boring, stop being for freebies
So, when a disaster is declared and the government sends in the troops, the fire service et al, everybody who is given aid is billed!
Beleive me, a socialist government does not give people money to rebuild their homes and not ask for it back, least ways, not any government that I've heard of.
And how many people could work but choose not to compared with the number who could work but can't find any?
Do try at least to follow my arguments even if, like the Muslim's in Britain, you can't be bothered to answer me.
Really, the US send in the fire service? Are you not aware firefighters are on a local level, not federal.
"Beleive me, a socialist government does not give people money to rebuild their homes and not ask for it back"
I find you cannot follow anything which is why you spill your babble, Second time you mentioned Muslims,which of course have nothing to do with the topic, and for the second time show me.
Wonder when the US will get all that aid money for disaster countries back, after all you sadi they pay it back.
Local, Federal,makes no difference, they still don't bill the victims they assist do they?
I hardly think you are in a position to accuse others of spilling their babble, you are incapable of sticking to a topic.
I bumped the Muslim thread up to the top for you, about four hours ago. I didn't think it would be so difficult for a fine upstanding man such as yourself to spot it!
"Wonder when the US will get all that aid money for disaster countries back, after all you sadi they pay it back."
See, you are easily confused, isn't that the socialism that you rail against But really, most foreign aid is paid back in the purchase of goods and services from the donor nation.
Babble babble babble, same old story, still not getting it, still changing subjects, still deflecting
Bumped up, curious, it is nowhere to be found. Something is bumping though
But you babble, change subjects and deflect so perfectly!
The missing thread is directly under this one at the moment, it takes an effort to miss it.
Amusing, the thread after this one is titled Tea Party Hypocrates. I never even posted there. You cannot even get that right.
Good Day, Lady. Hope all is well where you are.
I see you're passionate in your support for big business getting bigger. I’m sure you have some good reasons for disagreeing with the DOJ, but it is a shame you didn’t share them with us. Instead of a rant and insults, facts and logic would do more for the message that you want to deliver.
This merger is totally detrimental to the best interests of their present customers. It will deny millions of their wireless customers the benefits of consumer choices between products and services that formerly competed on the basis of quality and innovative features. Competition between T-Mobile and AT&T has always been heated. Consumers as a result enjoyed lower prices, higher quality, and more frequent innovation. Eliminating competition always leads to higher prices. It reduces pressure from the market place to eliminate waste. Eliminating competition is the major reason corporations merge.
Under this arrangement, jobs will be lost for sure. Both firms now have a presence in every potential market place. Combining the sales and retail assets of both firms will lead to redundancy that will be quickly eliminated. You can expect nearly half of the combined sales staffs to be laid-off as leases for retail space expire. Manufacturing jobs, if any, will not be in the US unless American workers can compete with the wages and quality found in foreign labor markets.
That’s an easy question. I suggest you bone up on the parts of the Clayton Antitrust Act that apply to mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
Even a civics dummy like me knows “They” is the U.S. Department of Justice authorized by the constitution and the Act to Establish the Department of Justice within the executive branch to handle the legal business of the United States. (http://www.justice.gov/about/about.html)
This question is even easier than the last. “They” don’t decide anything! The DOJ would not start this action without convincing evidence this contract violates federal law. However, a federal judge gets to decide.
Now is that nice talk coming from a lady?
Fortunately, not many Americans believe enforcing the law is “hating freedom” although I’m sure there are some on the fringe that do. Legal issues aside, it seems to me only the stockholders and shills employed to advocate for corporate greed will benefit from this merger.
My sincere thanks, Lady, for launching this thread. I love simple questions for my simple mind. I really don't mind taking the time to research data that support my statements.
Even the unions supported this deal! This justice dept is the most corrupt of all!
You expect the unions to be in favour of their members losing their jobs!
And wouldn't you be the first to start another anti Obama thread about how his failure to act and prevent this merger had resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs?
The unions were in favor. And the justice dept us corrupt. It has a policy of not orosecuting blacks that violated voter intimidation laws, sold guns to drug dealers in mexico to change gun laws, sued AZ for enforcing immigation laws the feds refused to.
it is interesting to note that starting in March of this year George Soros did not want the deal to go through and worked through his groups like media metters to protect against it. I did a lot of research and will be writing a piece on it probably today.....
Even if that were so, don't you think I could look it up?
Relache, when the banks get all the profits and the losses are socialized, I don't think that is the historic definition of socialism. I call it crony capitalism.
Please ignore every other anti trust suit ever brought up during any other adminstration.
This is yet another thread that serves no purpose but to rail at a system that was in place prior to Obama's entry into the political arena.
Do you have anything of value to argue, or just mindless rhetoric?
I could argue that you bring nothing but mindless rhetoric but then I am a gentleman so I wont......if you think its so bad why bother reading it and taking the time from your busy schedule to post?
Because I feel the right to exercise my freedom of speech. I've misplaced the rock you asked me to crawl under.
well, I am sure you will find it! However, in all seriousness I may not agree with you but you are right and do have the right to exercise you right to freedom of speech.....thanks to conservatives......
So you lied in the other thread. You were directing that comment at me.
As to conservatives ensuring our freedom, both sides have done their part to not only preserve it, at times, but to chip away at it at others. Too bad some people choose to be blind.
This anti trust thread is silly, though. Do any of you remember Ma Bell? Do you know what the average phone bill was before they broke that company up? Competition ensures low prices. That is what the DOJ is attempting to protect. Competition. Freedom for companies to not be choked out by the big boys.
This is what they do and have done for many years. It is not a left wing conspiracy.
Yes I am a true liar, a conservative, and just down and out mean.....and I dont like Obama or the DOJ's decision so I must also be a racist....lol
No. I wouldn't say you are mean or racist for not liking this, but I don't think the DOJ would have done any differently in this instance, under any administration.
Sometimes it just appears as if it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario with either the left or the right. Both sides seem to pick at everything.
It is true that both sides pick at everything...I agree!
then why was there no opposition to Sprint/Nextel merger under Bush administration? I am sorry, the current administration has shown they are willing to block and drag companies looking to expand or grow into court if the administration does not want to let it happen. Just ask Boeing
Well you are consistant, name calling, attacking, deflecting lefty because you know you are wrong and cannot say anything else
By the way, you may vote for holidays in the UK, but we do not here
Erm, you reckon I can't say anything else! What about the question that I asked you on the British Muslim thread which you have ignored for several days now?
And, no, I don't know that being for competition is wrong. I thought the right were heavily in favour of it. Or is that only when Obama's admin is not trying to preserve it?
No, I was against the actions taken against Microsoft too.
What british Muslim Thread are you talking about? Perhaps you answer was so ridiculas that it did not deserve an answer. But I will search to find that thread
You do like your monopolies don't you!
Er, there was no answer from me, just a very simple question for you.
Lets see again what do you call Apple, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, well Ican keep lisitng them but they are not competition according to you. Do you even know the definition of monopoly MONO as in ONE. Get it!!! I guess the NY Yankees are a monopooly because they are on top, they won more world Series than any other team. Guess we ned to disabn them. Accoring to John, no one can be in first place, or on top in their field. Now thats socialism John
No that's silly AV, I've all ready covered your argument re Apple,Dell, etc, no need to go into it again is there?
No, the Yankees aren't a monopoly but if they also owned most of their major competitors then they would be.
And again, you show your ignorance, socialism isn't about no one being in first place.
No John you did not cover it, you just think you did.
Once more owning "MOST" does not make a monopoly. Socilism is about making sure no one is in first. You want to take away someone hard work and give it to someone who has not earned it. FREEBIE. I understand all to well Shame you do not
Did not cover what, the fact that Apple only have about 10% of the market, the fact that most Dell computers actually use MS operating systems? The fact that HP do not produce any operating systems?
I think you'll find that I did.
I can assure you that that owning most does constitute a monopoly, maybe not in the true sense but in the eyes of the law, they get very jittery when anybody owns much more than 50% of any market.
I don't want to take away anybodies hard work,rather I seek to preserve the hard work of all those employees that would have been made jobless as a result of the merger.
I honestly don't know. I'd have to read up on it, but you can't just say that this is unfair because one merger was allowed and another not. It honestly depends on the size and the landscape that will be left afterwards. We don't want a situation where it looks like a monopoly
You guys think in little business terms. Trust me. Big business is not you. Given the opportunity for a monopoly prices would sky rocket. They would strong arm anyone that tried to break into the market.
This is not infringing on free enterprise. Anti trust laws ensure that free enterprise stays intact.
Why don't you like the DOJs decision?
You really want to pay more for your phone?
I just dont like the Gov doing anything in the free market. Mergers are a part of business....the laws of supply and demand will dictate prices...
Not if one company owns the monopoly, thus CONTROLLING supply and demand.
if one company owns the market for awhile and people are not happy a new one in a free market will come about with better services and prices thus no monopoly......the only time a monopoly could happen is if the gov outlawed any new business which they have not and will not for now anyway.....
Until there is only one company dictating the prices!
Funny,I all ways thought that the right favoured competition and those lily livered liberals were opposed to it!
woudlnt happen in a free market as it never truly happened with claims microsoft had a monopoly.....look at mac computers that dont use windows
Microsoft don't have a monopoly! You are joking, aren't you?
Who is Apple ? Who is Dell?, Who is Sun Micro systems? Who is Hewlett Packard? Sounds like it is not a monopoly to me
With around 10% of the market Apple is hardly a contender.
Last time I looked most/all Dell computers had Microsoft operating systems.
Last year Sun ceased to exist but before then Sun supported Microsoft systems.
John, Are you aware since the two were thought to have merged their prices on plans went down and optinos went up. I do believe you will see those plans go up in price now
It's called "staccato propaganda". Or "stiletto programming".
Keep it up and up and up, no let-up.
Soon, people crack.
They will start saying..."hey, maybe Obama DOES hate freedom?"
"A lot of people say so".
No, it's a few people with a lot of money.
Yes, but even with all that money do they honestly think the American public is that ignorant? If so, it's a little insulting.
Doh!!! You're right. I guess some Americans are that easily led.
THey are, Obama being elected is proof of that
I'll admit he has been a disappointment. But, think about it. He was up against McCain. With that race, how could he have lost?
What these people dont realize is AT&T now has to pay a break up fee that could cost 7 billion. In addition they needed the merger to deal with demand placed on their networks by smart phones. AT&T will now be weaker and may end up going out of business so the intent of having more competition will actually lead to LESS! Idiots!!
You are of course joking!
And why do they have to pay a break up fee when they haven't merged?
And why do they need the merger to deal with demand from smart phones, the merger would not provide them with any more capacity.
The fact that you're asking those questions reveals how totally uninformed you are on this issue. I dont have time to explain it all to you.
While I think that monopolies in general a bad thing, there are tons of other wireless companies out there. The government may site they don't want any one company to own the lion's share of the market. But, in my opinion that is a case of the pot calling the kettle back. Our, own Federal Government is the biggest monopoly on the block, particularly after all the bail outs. If for no other reason these companies should be allowed to merge so jobs can be created and the economy can start to grow.
How will merging two companies create jobs? On the contrary, it will destroy jobs, they won't have two sales outlet where one will do, they won't keep two accounts departments where one will do.
They might fly in the face of experience and create jobs where companies more usually shed jobs, but I would be very surprised and would not like to take that risk.
Interestingly, Amazon aim to take over another bookseller. This move has been referred to the Office of Fair Trading because Amazon already has a 75% share of the on line book selling market and is considered to be a monopoly!
There are of course thousands upon thousands of other on line book sellers!
So what is your position, you appear to be against your government interfering in this Amazon taking over a bookseller.
How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
There are of course thousands upon thousands of other on line book sellers!
The exclamation on the end of the sentence. As if it was there becuse you could not believe what you gov. wants to do because you exclame there are thousands of other sellers. Of course you are right and hence this is not a monopoly.
No, the exclamation mark was at the end of the sentence because some were arguing that because there are other mobile phone companies the T-Mobile/AT&T merger could not be a monopoly.
I sell books on line and I know exactly what a stranglehold Amazon have on the market.
I understand your position, but they way you posted it comes across different.
I do to as I have an Amazon associates store. I have sold just over 100 books in the last month from the back to school college crowd. I am sure you sell there too.
I do not mean this to be critical so do not take it that way. Amazon started as a small nobody and grew their business. I take it you have a website as your book store. Perhaps if you advertise as they did you could grow as they did. IT would be nice to say we knew you when.
I can not afford to run for five years without making a profit!
Who says you would go 5 years without making money, maybe it will only take 2. My point was only those who make the effort reap the rewards of their work. I do not deprive them reaping the fruits of their labor.
by tobey1008 years ago
In trying to ignore the media, both left and right, and 'discover' what I can about this President, I came across a perfect example of the disarray and lack of direction characteristic of this administration. If...
by muhammad abdullah javed2 years ago
How do you interpret "might is right"?
by junko3 years ago
I remember when I was growing up in a community where there were small community supermarkets and appliance stores all around the town. There were Drug stores and hardware stores, bakeries, and fish markets in walking...
by lady_love1586 years ago
"Many of our group told the boys that we were doing it for them and their future, because if the unions were not stopped they would be the ones to pay for their fat pensions and benefits when they were grown up....
by Don W5 years ago
The N.R.A. is often characterised as defending the freedom of U.S. citizens, or defending the constitution. But the organisation happens to be funded by firearms manufactures, and its sponsors and board members are also...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.