Obama Administration Sues AT&T to stop its Merger with T-Mobile.

Henrin said:

Lol, not exactly what I said or meant.

Click to expand...

Let's see what you said:

"The purposes isn't to make sure competition stays alive but that commerce stays flowing the way the members of the commerce desire."

How is what I stated wrong in the context of your quote?

Or are you out of tricks once someone cites your own words you can't weasel out of?

I'm not sure. Are you sure you understand what I even said? From what you just said I'm going with no.

Click to expand...

If you are using English, then I completely understand your point. I'm also correct in pointing out it's asinine. Now if you meant you were using another language that appears to look like English but really means something entirely different, please inform us of what you actually meant in your native tongue.

I have a feeling you got pegged and you don't have a way to weasel out of this.

So far from the Cons in this argument:

No legal, Constitutional, or economic arguments. "I hate Obama for being alive" argument -- check.

rocket88 said:

So far from the Cons in this argument:

No legal, Constitutional, or economic arguments. "I hate Obama for being alive" argument -- check.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that Obama is actually at fault for defending consumer choices. Keeping competition alive something Obama should be criticized. It's no wonder that Apdst is running away from that question.

What amuses me is that Adpst seems to think that 5,000 short term jobs is something to be in awe of. Considering the payroll of both T-mobile and AT&AT any merger is likely to result in far more then 5,000 people losing their jobs. There are going to be major cuts as departments are consolidated and technology removed. Remember that AT&AT and T-Mobile don't use the same network systems. Likely T-mobile is going to get the axe. All of the jobs related to that tech are going to be cut. Harping on 5,000 new short term jobs while ignoring the coming job cuts is a sign you either didn't bother to think your argument though, or you're jumping on anything to attack Obama on.

latest from dailytech :

DailyTech - AT&T Admits Consumers May See Some Harm if It's Granted GSM Monopoly

Helix said:

latest from dailytech :

DailyTech - AT&T Admits Consumers May See Some Harm if It's Granted GSM Monopoly

Click to expand...

:lol:

AT&T has a monopoly on GSM now... not the market but GSM instead of CDMA. They're really struggling to find anything to block it.

If this went through there is still competition

1. Verizon
2. Sprint Nextel
3. ATT

In addition there are plenty of other prepaid/regional carriers to go with, monopoly my ass.

Cold Highway said:

If this went through there is still competition

1. Verizon
2. Sprint Nextel
3. ATT

In addition there are plenty of other prepaid/regional carriers to go with, monopoly my ass.

Click to expand...

How about Virgin?

Cold Highway said:

If this went through there is still competition

1. Verizon
2. Sprint Nextel
3. ATT

In addition there are plenty of other prepaid/regional carriers to go with, monopoly my ass.

Click to expand...

Sprint is a lot smaller than Verizon and AT&t, and smaller than T-Mobile on it's own. They'll basically be sitting there waiting for Verizon to buy them. The pre-paid carriers...well that's like saying a guy rebuilding engines in his garage competes with Ford. Theoretically, I suppose, but not really.

I really don't have a vendetta against the merger, but I understand why the administration would want to stop it. It'll probably end up going through in some form anyway.

Something else to think about : allowing a few monoliths to control the vast majority of the market does not just reduce competition among existing companies. It also makes it more difficult for startups to get into the game. And startups contribute to innovation; especially in the tech sector.

obvious Child said:

Let's see what you said:

"The purposes isn't to make sure competition stays alive but that commerce stays flowing the way the members of the commerce desire."

How is what I stated wrong in the context of your quote?

Or are you out of tricks once someone cites your own words you can't weasel out of?



If you are using English, then I completely understand your point. I'm also correct in pointing out it's asinine. Now if you meant you were using another language that appears to look like English but really means something entirely different, please inform us of what you actually meant in your native tongue.

I have a feeling you got pegged and you don't have a way to weasel out of this.

Click to expand...

Tell me, when I say the commerce clauses doesn't give this power and tell you its interest how can you be so ****ing stupid to get "government" in general can't do something? Why don't you stop lying about what I said?

And frankly, giving me an opinion on what they should be interested in does not in any way mean anything, Dumbass.

American said:

How about Virgin?

Click to expand...

Virgin is prepaid

rocket88 said:

Sprint is a lot smaller than Verizon and AT&t, and smaller than T-Mobile on it's own. They'll basically be sitting there waiting for Verizon to buy them.

Click to expand...

I agree in the market size but I dont think Verizon wont buy Sprint. They wont buy AT&T because it will cost too much money to convert the GSM network into CDMA, to this day the Sprint Nextel merger is still considered a bad idea on par with the Time Warner/AOL merger. In addition Sprint is more willing to take more risky customers than Verizon is.

The pre-paid carriers...well that's like saying a guy rebuilding engines in his garage competes with Ford. Theoretically, I suppose, but not really.

Click to expand...

In away but the big boys still get their cut of the money from the prepaid guys because they use the big boys network.