• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

DontDoIt

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
391
Reaction score
72
Location
Illinois, Land of Liberals
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I mean how is this even close to constitutional...am I missing something here?

Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.

The merger is nationwide (not just in one state), therefore it is "interstate" and subject to the Federal Government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.


It might raise cell phone prices so its justified to do it? You've got to be kidding...there's no way in hell this should be legal...like the government has never had any influence on raising the price on anything else in our daily lives huh? What a joke.

It's not about prices going up it's about competition. Competition is the lifeblood of a free market economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure that less competition is not good for a market economy.

Conservatives love the market economy and Constitution, yet apparently you couldn't be bothered to understand either. At least not if it gets in your way of hating Obama.
 
Well - I don't care. Businesses buy businesses up all the time, auction off and share assests. . . blend their scopes together.

:shrug:

But suddenly - this time - it's a problem?
 
Heartland Institute Reacts to Obama Administration Suit to Stop AT&T/T-Mobile Merger | The Heartland Institute

But hey he's a business friendly president right? I mean how is this even close to constitutional...am I missing something here? It might raise cell phone prices so its justified to do it? You've got to be kidding...there's no way in hell this should be legal...like the government has never had any influence on raising the price on anything else in our daily lives huh? What a joke.

Haven't you ever heard of the words "antitrust" "oligopoly" and "Baby Bells"?

I doesn't take a genius to figure out the microeconomic effects of a duopoly (Verizon and AT&T) possessing 80% of the market share...
 
Last edited:
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.

The merger is nationwide (not just in one state), therefore it is "interstate" and subject to the Federal Government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.




It's not about prices going up it's about competition. Competition is the lifeblood of a free market economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure that less competition is not good for a market economy.

Conservatives love the market economy and Constitution, yet apparently you couldn't be bothered to understand either. At least not if it gets in your way of hating Obama.

While I agree somewhat, The at&t - T-Mobile merger wouldn't create a monopoly by a long shot. Thus there is no grounds for the lawsuit in the first place.


On a personal level, I hate the idea of at&t owning T-Mobile because I hate at&t.
 
While I agree somewhat, The at&t - T-Mobile merger wouldn't create a monopoly by a long shot. Thus there is no grounds for the lawsuit in the first place.


On a personal level, I hate the idea of at&t owning T-Mobile because I hate at&t.

T-mobil isn't that big, anyway - are they? :shrug:

At&T bought out Cingular a few years ago and the world didn't end - or did it? ;)
 
T-mobil isn't that big, anyway - are they? :shrug:

At&T bought out Cingular a few years ago and the world didn't end - or did it? ;)

T-Mobile is not as big as Verizon or At&t, but bigger than Sprint.
 
nice graphic:

web-at&t22.jpg

Yeah, I can kinda see the part where the competition gets reduced...
 
This is perfectly constitutional, it says it right in the constitution :lol:
 
While I agree somewhat, The at&t - T-Mobile merger wouldn't create a monopoly by a long shot. Thus there is no grounds for the lawsuit in the first place.


On a personal level, I hate the idea of at&t owning T-Mobile because I hate at&t.

American antitrust laws don't solely govern monopolies, but oligopolies as well, along with other unfair business practices. We can argue about how useful or necessary the antitrust laws in this country really are, but the grounds for the suit are there according to the laws currently on the books. Now it's up to the US District Court in DC...
 
Last edited:
While I agree somewhat, The at&t - T-Mobile merger wouldn't create a monopoly by a long shot. Thus there is no grounds for the lawsuit in the first place.


On a personal level, I hate the idea of at&t owning T-Mobile because I hate at&t.

And on some level, I'm OK with the merger too. Especially if it means that I can get an iPhone (as a t-mobile subscriber).

However, I think it's right for the government to at least look at it before letting it go through. Most cellular traffic already goes through 4 carriers. This would reduce the number to 3, and eventually would force Sprint to sell because they won't be able to compete against the other 2. It's not a monopoly, but it does set the stage for a duopoly.
 
I like Stillballin75's graph (see post #9). Talk about the potential lack of choice and competition!

I think people forget just how big and how powerful a monopoly like Bell Systems once got. AT&T is headed in that same direction. Thank God for other VOIP service companies like Vonage and Packet 8X8....assuming one wants or needs to retain a landline to the world. For cell phone communications, it looks like eventually there will only be three companies to choose from: Verizon, Sprint-Nextell and AT&T. Honestly, this scares me because we could easily see a repeat of the Bell Systems monopoly if we're not careful.
 
What makes people think that any dominating companies aren't working in tandem together?

Most oligopolies do this: swap CEO's, share trade 'secrets', predetermine prices . . .
Monopoly or not - the dirty work happens regardless of what the gov permits or doesn't permit.
 
What makes people think that any dominating companies aren't working in tandem together?

Most oligopolies do this: swap CEO's, share trade 'secrets', predetermine prices . . .
Monopoly or not - the dirty work happens regardless of what the gov permits or doesn't permit.

I hear what you're saying, but there are two sides to this debate.

On the one hand you have successful monopolies like the TVA.

Then you have others like Blue Cross/Blue Shield operating nearly unopposed in some states.

I guess it all depends on the ethical practises of the company - are they all-in for profits by dominating market share or are they moreso for providing the best service(s) at a fair price to their customers?
 
Last edited:
Haven't you ever heard of the words "antitrust" "oligopoly" and "Baby Bells"?

I doesn't take a genius to figure out the microeconomic effects of a duopoly (Verizon and AT&T) possessing 80% of the market share...

So why is it OK for the government to have a monopoly on health care?
 
I hear what you're saying, but there are two sides to this debate.

On the one hand you have successful monopolies like the TVA.

Then you have others like Blue Cross/Blue Shield operating nearly unopposed in some states.

I guess it all depends on the ethical practises of the company - are they all-in for profits by dominating market share or are they moreso for providing the best service(s) at a fair price to their customers?

Per the Blue Cross/Blue Shield thing: part of their monopolization (and they're not the only one like this) is becaues they're not permitted to function nation-wide without having a physical hold in the state itself.

Insurance companies are relegated and restricted to certain areas under certain pretenses and requirements - the government, therefor, has removed the 'open and competitive market' required to be an 'evil' monopoly and, instead, made it harder for new companies to gain a foothold and not legal for existing companies to spread out easily.

Ironic - but there it is.
 
Last edited:
People who oppose anti-trust regulation should really read some freakin history books.
 
Haven't you ever heard of the words "antitrust" "oligopoly" and "Baby Bells"?

I doesn't take a genius to figure out the microeconomic effects of a duopoly (Verizon and AT&T) possessing 80% of the market share...

The question to ask is why do they have 80% of the market share? It may not all be economics. Is it they actually do have better coverage, service and plans? My experience in Arizona is Verizon has the best remote area coverage. It also seems to have great coverage when I travel to other States.
 
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.

The merger is nationwide (not just in one state), therefore it is "interstate" and subject to the Federal Government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.




It's not about prices going up it's about competition. Competition is the lifeblood of a free market economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure that less competition is not good for a market economy.

Conservatives love the market economy and Constitution, yet apparently you couldn't be bothered to understand either. At least not if it gets in your way of hating Obama.

AT&T was going to re-import 5,000 jobs back to the United States, if this merger went through.

I reckon we can kiss those good-bye, now.

So much for our pro-job president.
 
AT&T was going to re-import 5,000 jobs back to the United States, if this merger went through.

So you believe what AT&T tells you.

You Cons are supposedly all economic genius, so riddle me this: How does less competition = good for the economy?
 
AT&T was going to re-import 5,000 jobs back to the United States, if this merger went through.

I reckon we can kiss those good-bye, now.

So much for our pro-job president.

Even better idea.

Stop the merger, then discontinue global trading privileges, forcing them to bring every job back.
 
So you believe what AT&T tells you.

You Cons are supposedly all economic genius, so riddle me this: How does less competition = good for the economy?

Obviously, you believe everything that a lame duck president, who desperately wants to get re-elected, tells you. Along with the same DOJ that raided the Gibson guitar company, because if the wood they were using for their finger boards.
 
Even better idea.

Stop the merger, then discontinue global trading privileges, forcing them to bring every job back.

Would that even be legal? Probably not, but who cares about the law. Right?
 
Last edited:
Would that even be legal? Probably not, but who cares about the law. Right?

The global financial structure is a result of treaties (trade agreements) made with the governments of other countries. The American people don't have to continue these, or spend money from our public treasury maintaining the worldwide military and diplomatic presence to make them work.

Put simply, there is no constitutional right for an American business to do business anywhere other than the United States, except "possibly" what they can work out for themselves with the governments and businesses of other countries, within the limits of their rights as private citizens (they can't risk antagonizing another country against ours in anyway). Even then, Congress can close our markets to any goods or services not manufactured or provided in the United States (both formally and through outrageous fees and import taxes). Both procedures are constitutionally legitimate.

A country's laws and protections, only apply within the territory that belongs to that country. Any economic activity we support beyond our borders is optional.

To be honest, I don't think we should end globalization outright. I'm just making a point that American companies enjoy it as a privilege, not a right.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom