• 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!

Should AT&T and T-Mobile be allowed to merge?

Should AT&T & T-Mobile be allowed to merge?

  • Total voters
    32
Mmmm....oligopoly.
 
Kandahar said:
I think it depends on the industry. The telecom industry is already one of the most uncompetitive industries in America.

...
Click to expand...
Your continuing to say that does not make it true. Got anything to back it up from an unbiased source or are you once again just pulling crap from your nether regions.
 
PeteEU said:
Bull****. Problem is that it is very expensive to expand in the US because there is no legislation requiring sharing of infrastructure. It is easier for Deutche Telecom to expand in other markets at a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

Hardly. In the first quarter of this year they reported a 37% lose in profits from weak performance around the globe and lost 471,000 customers in the us alone.

As a result of Deutsche Telekom is going to shrink its focus in Europe to just investing in its fixed lines and get out of the US market.

Cheaper product? You do realize that mobile rates, especially the data rates have gone up in the US right?
Click to expand...

Expanding the network will allow more customers to join allowing AT&T to give their product for cheaper as they will be spending less money on infrastructure.
 
Sorry if its already mentioned isnt T_mobile on another parent network than AT&T... American cellular service is pretty lame as it is, I don't see how this would help anything.
 
That was at&t's problem to begin with.... They were too big and controlled too much of the market. After they were forced to stop being the monopoly that they were, choices got much better. I dont know if they should be allowed to merge or not, but seems to me that they are just getting closer and closer to doing the same thing that got them in trouble to begin with!
 
BamaBrat said:
That was at&t's problem to begin with.... They were too big and controlled too much of the market. After they were forced to stop being the monopoly that they were, choices got much better. I dont know if they should be allowed to merge or not, but seems to me that they are just getting closer and closer to doing the same thing that got them in trouble to begin with!
Click to expand...

They really didn't. What happened is a bunch of small bells popped up that didn't have what it took to stay alive in the market so they sold themselves back to AT&T. The only bell to survive that was a result of the split was Verzion and they just bought the pieces that AT&T didn't buy. In the end the driven came out on top and the clueless got left behind, like always in these things. The split cost AT&T billions of dollars and violated their rights, and all you got out it personally was one more piece. Was it really worth it? The problem that existed in those days isn't even what is going on now, and new technology is always popping in the field that leaves the door open to competitors.
 
All I know is the only choice I had at one point in home phone product...was at&t. I was never so glad to see other companies become available to me. I wont ever have at&t again...for anything. Thank goodness for cell phones!
 
Kandahar said:
I don't understand why (some) conservatives/libertarians support huge business agglomerations in industries that already aren't very competitive. It's almost as though for some people, a lack of government intervention is an end itself, instead of a means to an end (i.e. a more competitive marketplace). Capitalism should be about competition, not about a total lack of any government intervention whatsoever. Anti-monopoly laws are absolutely necessary because capitalism simply doesn't work very well if you don't have a competitive marketplace. And the US telecom industry is atrociously uncompetitive, thanks to the fact that four carriers essentially dominate the landscape.
Click to expand...

I don't get their stance either. It is as if they are saying "the free market is great" and then promptly forget what a free market is. Here is a clue, conservatives: a free market does not exist where monopoly or oligopoly exists.
 
Dezaad said:
I don't get their stance either. It is as if they are saying "the free market is great" and then promptly forget what a free market is. Here is a clue, conservatives: a free market does not exist where monopoly or oligopoly exists.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they feel there is already plenty of competition within the marketplace, and if AT&T and T-Mobile think it is in their best interests to go forth with the deal they should? There are typically at least 4 providers of wireless in a community, we have vi-op, lots of people have cable and satellite TV/phone or even use the internet, and also local and long distance telephone. Plus there is industry specific competition, one example would be Verizon and AT&T competing for the iPhone. Contrary to what you believe, technology has made the telecom industry very competitive.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Perhaps they feel there is already plenty of competition within the marketplace, and if AT&T and T-Mobile think it is in their best interests to go forth with the deal they should? There are typically at least 4 providers of wireless in a community, we have vi-op, lots of people have cable and satellite TV/phone or even use the internet, and also local and long distance telephone. Plus there is industry specific competition, one example would be Verizon and AT&T competing for the iPhone. Contrary to what you believe, technology has made the telecom industry very competitive.
Click to expand...

We disagree on how competitive 4 players are in a market system. But, that aside, I don't think any merger should be allowed unless it can be shown that it has an inherent, clear advantage for consumers and workers. We presumably have this capitalistic free market system in place to increase the well being of society, not the well being of stockholders.
 
Dezaad said:
We disagree on how competitive 4 players are in a market system. But, that aside, I don't think any merger should be allowed unless it can be shown that it has an inherent, clear advantage for consumers and workers. We presumably have this capitalistic free market system in place to increase the well being of society, not the well being of stockholders.
Click to expand...

The telecom industry has large fixed costs. Communications company's spend roughly 15% of their revenue on capital improvements every year. They have to do this to keep their coverage, capacity, speeds, etc competitive. It makes sense that large companies tend to dominate, since big companies like AT&T and Verizon have cost advantages over small companies in this industry. The mobile market in the US has become very mature and has led to decreasing prices and many subscribers changing providers every year. Broadband and data services have been growing rapidly. Think about it, What are we on now, 4G? How many commercials do you see for wireless providers on TV compared to other industries? There are numerous substitutes and rapidly changing technology in the market forcing these companies to stay competitive.
 
drz-400 said:
The telecom industry has large fixed costs. Communications company's spend roughly 15% of their revenue on capital improvements every year. They have to do this to keep their coverage, capacity, speeds, etc competitive. It makes sense that large companies tend to dominate, since big companies like AT&T and Verizon have cost advantages over small companies in this industry. The mobile market in the US has become very mature and has led to decreasing prices and many subscribers changing providers every year. Broadband and data services have been growing rapidly. Think about it, What are we on now, 4G? How many commercials do you see for wireless providers on TV compared to other industries? There are numerous substitutes and rapidly changing technology in the market forcing these companies to stay competitive.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the US market, but in Europe there is regulation that states that major communications companies can rent out space on their networks to competition and this has resulted far easier access into the market for competition. Orange in Spain for example rents out its network to low price competitors and it is very successful at that. This means we have 6+ providers that cover the whole country. This has driven prices down considerably... I pay 5 euro cent plus tax a minute with no monthly contract.
 
Frankly I just don't know. We've had lots of mergers in the past. I don't care much for the plans the way they are now. I have four phones and pay about $200/month. One phone is on a data plan. I know Cox Communications has recently gotten into the wireless phone business.
 
There is no legal reason that they shouldn't merge. So, we should have no say in whether they do or not. Personally I hope they don't, because I love the way T-Mobile is now and I really hate AT&T.
 
The government has no place telling private companies they can't merge.
 
CarlF said:
The government has no place telling private companies they can't merge.
Click to expand...

.... of course they do, if that merger is detrimental to the consumer and competition in the market. If there was no government control, then there would be monopolies almost everywhere. Walmart would have driven every single competitor out of business, and Standard Oil would be the only oil company in the US.
 
As I said a week ago "In the real market monopolies are hard to maintain and hard to come by".

Your assessment might be popular but its very uninformed.
 
The merging of AT&T and T-Mobile would hardly create a monopoly.
 
DashingAmerican said:
The merging of AT&T and T-Mobile would hardly create a monopoly.
Click to expand...

Not a monopoly persay...but it would definitely create an even more concentrated oligopoly, in an industry that is already too concentrated and uncompetitive. IMO we should be moving in exactly the opposite direction. AT&T and Verizon should be broken apart, as they utterly dominate the telecom landscape. Having AT&T acquire T-Mobile will make matters even worse.
 
I find it interesting that the same people who are so quick to rail against government monopolies are often fully supportive of corporate monopolies. I think that people often repeat the "government is inefficient" meme without really understanding WHY that is (sometimes) the case. It's not just because it's government, it's because of the inherently monopolistic nature of government. When government services are inefficient, it is often because of the fact that the government has no competition for some of its services...exactly the same reason that corporate monopolies are often inefficient and overly expensive.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I find it interesting that the same people who are so quick to rail against government monopolies are often fully supportive of corporate monopolies. I think that people often repeat the "government is inefficient" meme without really understanding WHY that is (sometimes) the case. It's not just because it's government, it's because of the inherently monopolistic nature of government. Often it is because of the fact that the government has no competition for some of its services...exactly the same reason that corporate monopolies are often inefficient and overly expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of oligopoly.
 
Kandahar said:
I find it interesting that the same people who are so quick to rail against government monopolies are often fully supportive of corporate monopolies. I think that people often repeat the "government is inefficient" meme without really understanding WHY that is (sometimes) the case. It's not just because it's government, it's because of the inherently monopolistic nature of government. When government services are inefficient, it is often because of the fact that the government has no competition for some of its services...exactly the same reason that corporate monopolies are often inefficient and overly expensive.
Click to expand...

That is fail.

Government can make it so you can't get out from their fingernails.

In the shear chance that monopoly forms( and no not that subjective definition nonsense) its still just a service you can perfectly ignore.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is fail.

Government can make it so you can't get out from their fingernails.

In the shear chance that monopoly forms( and no that subjective definition nonsense) its still just a service you can perfectly ignore.
Click to expand...

Yep, you could just get out of a telecom monopoly by living as a hermit and sending letters on pigeons. :roll:
Just like you could just get out of a DMV monopoly by moving next door to your office and biking everywhere.
 
Kandahar said:
Yep, you could just get out of a telecom monopoly by living as a hermit and sending letters on pigeons. :roll:
Just like you could just get out of a DMV monopoly by moving next door to your office and biking everywhere.
Click to expand...

There is not a monopoly in the telecom industry and even if there was if you didn't want to be part of it you would live just fine, and all your freedom would still be intact.

Btw, your biking argument is fail. If you ride your bike on the road you are still under governments command. :) Even the bike is under their command. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom