FCC to Take More Time to Review Merger Between Sprint and T-Mobile

[MrXiro]

Whether you agree with this merger or not... this certainly does smell like something that a former VZW employee (and current government official in the back pocket of VZW) has something to do with.

I'm not saying I am remotely correct in my assumption, but if it's brown and smells like poop...

 

[AppleFan910]

Biggest scam scumbag company in USA is Comcast. Now THATS a monopoly.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Whether you agree with this merger or not... this certainly does smell like something that a former VZW employee (and current government official in the back pocket of VZW) has something to do with.

I'm not saying I am remotely correct in my assumption, but if it's brown and smells like poop...

Ajit pai has nothing to do with the merger itself, but I certainly believe he will endorse it!

 

[1applerules1]

Could someone hurry through the merger of UK and USA as well please? We do so admire your Herr Trump

Yes!

 

[Sefstah]

Break 'em all up. Capitalism is evil in the first place.

Haha, all while typing on your capitalist cell phone and paying a capitalist network provider. Capitalism is evil you say, yet you still support it. Go figure
[doublepost=1536737908][/doublepost]

Block the merger and then divide up ATT and VZW into various companies that can compete.

Yes, lets divide your family business as well. Why? Because we can.
Ha! Not the world I want to live in. Get outta here with that nonsense logic.

 

[Kabeyun]

“We’ll take as much time as we need to be as thorough as possible, without missing any important information we know is available.”

Pathetic that this applies to a business decision about two corporations but not to the lifetime appointment of a US Supreme Court justice.

Companies aren't really people.

Speaking of the SCOTUS, sure they are, thanks to the Citizens United decision.

 

[Rychiar]

Just do it already! I want my damn phone to work in my city and hope it helps!

 

[4jasontv]

So, forcing the breakup of companies into smaller entities isn't punishment?

No. That's what I said.

I don't think you grasp the concept of how capitalism or market trading works. Imagine breaking up a company like Apple, so that it's forced by the government to become 4 separate companies. Let's also assume that everyone keeps their job (which wouldn't happen because smaller companies don't need as many employees, but let's say they do).

Stop right there. Yes, they would.

First thing that would happen at the mere whisper of a breakup, would be a collapse of the entire tech sector on Wall Street.

Evidence?

Trillions of dollars would be lost.

It would be shifted, not lost.

The next thing that would happen is the valuation of the entire company would drop.

But you would have many companies whose sum value is worth more than the original.

Additionally, any bonds the company has would become due forcing an even quicker drop in share prices. This would kill any company smaller than Apple, Microsoft, Google, and their like.

That's why we do it when one company is overly influential and uses their market dominance to prevent competitors to enter. The only reason we only have 4 nationwide telcoms is because the other options were bought up by them.

[/QUOTE]Forcing the break up of a company up is really, really bad![/QUOTE]
Or, put another way, it can be really, really good!
[doublepost=1536751697][/doublepost]

Yes, lets divide your family business as well. Why? Because we can.
Ha! Not the world I want to live in. Get outta here with that nonsense logic.

Yes, a company that uses its government granted monopoly over a limited resource to force most competitors out of the market and has shown repeated interest in delayed development and restricted roll out should be protected. They are exactly the same as fourth-generation donuts shop. VZW and ATT didn't get big because they had the best product, they got big because they didn't allow anyone else to have spectrum at a reasonable price.

You don't want them broken up, fine, but lets redivide the spectrum so that other companies can compete. After all, that's ours, they are only licencing it from us.

 

[Sefstah]

No. That's what I said.


Stop right there. Yes, they would.


Evidence?


It would be shifted, not lost.


But you would have many companies whose sum value is worth more than the original.


That's why we do it when one company is overly influential and uses their market dominance to prevent competitors to enter. The only reason we only have 4 nationwide telcoms is because the other options were bought up by them.

Forcing the break up of a company up is really, really bad![/QUOTE]
Or, put another way, it can be really, really good!
[doublepost=1536751697][/doublepost]

Yes, a company that uses its government granted monopoly over a limited resource to force most competitors out of the market and has shown repeated interest in delayed development and restricted roll out should be protected. They are exactly the same as fourth-generation donuts shop. VZW and ATT didn't get big because they had the best product, they got big because they didn't allow anyone else to have spectrum at a reasonable price.

You don't want them broken up, fine, but lets redivide the spectrum so that other companies can compete. After all, that's ours, they are only licencing it from us.[/QUOTE]
You speak of “monopoly” then you talk about AT&T and Verizon. You need to stop right there and learn the definition of a monopoly.

 

[seinman]

Haha, all while typing on your capitalist cell phone and paying a capitalist network provider. Capitalism is evil you say, yet you still support it. Go figure

Because we are forced to participate unless we want to live on the streets. Your argument here is essentially the same as "taxes are evil you say, yet you still pay them. Go figure." Because we all have to, regardless of our opinions. The way our society is set up requires it for survival. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with how the system is run.

 

[4jasontv]

Forcing the break up of a company up is really, really bad!

Or, put another way, it can be really, really good!
[doublepost=1536751697][/doublepost]

Yes, a company that uses its government granted monopoly over a limited resource to force most competitors out of the market and has shown repeated interest in delayed development and restricted roll out should be protected. They are exactly the same as fourth-generation donuts shop. VZW and ATT didn't get big because they had the best product, they got big because they didn't allow anyone else to have spectrum at a reasonable price.

You don't want them broken up, fine, but lets redivide the spectrum so that other companies can compete. After all, that's ours, they are only licencing it from us.[/QUOTE]
You speak of “monopoly” then you talk about AT&T and Verizon. You need to stop right there and learn the definition of a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.

No one except VZW can use the 700 band. Not even ATT. That frequency has characteristics no other frequency has, and VZW has a monopoly on it. Instead of investing in improving the 700 frequency they buy up other frequencies. It’s the equivalent of having sole control over beavers, and then buying all the minks in order to make it harder for other people to sell coats and hats. VZW collects spectrum instead of investing in ways to use what they have more efficiently.

ATT does the same thing. They have a monopoly on their spectrum, but instead of beavers and minks, they control cattle and pigs.

Wireless isn’t a free market. You need to stop talking like it is.

 

[foodog]

How dare you ruin a perfectly good idea with facts!

So, forcing the breakup of companies into smaller entities isn't punishment? I don't think you grasp the concept of how capitalism or market trading works. Imagine breaking up a company like Apple, so that it's forced by the government to become 4 separate companies. Let's also assume that everyone keeps their job (which wouldn't happen because smaller companies don't need as many employees, but let's say they do). First thing that would happen at the mere whisper of a breakup, would be a collapse of the entire tech sector on Wall Street. Trillions of dollars would be lost. The next thing that would happen is the valuation of the entire company would drop. Additionally, any bonds the company has would become due forcing an even quicker drop in share prices. This would kill any company smaller than Apple, Microsoft, Google, and their like.

Forcing the break up of a company up is really, really bad!

 

[Mousse]

Yes, lets divide your family business as well. Why? Because we can.
Ha! Not the world I want to live in. Get outta here with that nonsense logic.

So you'd prefer the timeline where Ma Bell was never broken up. I too liked paying $1-3 a minute for a long distance call...not. Right after the break up of that monopoly, long distance calls soon dropped to 10 cents a minute.

 

[Sefstah]

Because we are forced to participate unless we want to live on the streets. Your argument here is essentially the same as "taxes are evil you say, yet you still pay them. Go figure." Because we all have to, regardless of our opinions. The way our society is set up requires it for survival. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with how the system is run.

Why are you here then? You are 100% free to leave. I actually agree with paying taxes so your argument is invalid.
[doublepost=1536775446][/doublepost]

So you'd prefer the timeline where Ma Bell was never broken up. I too liked paying $1-3 a minute for a long distance call...not. Right after the break up of that monopoly, long distance calls soon dropped to 10 cents a minute.

No, Id prefer another company start up and make the market competitive. You know, kinda like the timeline we live in now.
[doublepost=1536775832][/doublepost]

Or, put another way, it can be really, really good!
[doublepost=1536751697][/doublepost]

Yes, a company that uses its government granted monopoly over a limited resource to force most competitors out of the market and has shown repeated interest in delayed development and restricted roll out should be protected. They are exactly the same as fourth-generation donuts shop. VZW and ATT didn't get big because they had the best product, they got big because they didn't allow anyone else to have spectrum at a reasonable price.

You don't want them broken up, fine, but lets redivide the spectrum so that other companies can compete. After all, that's ours, they are only licencing it from us.

You speak of “monopoly” then you talk about AT&T and Verizon. You need to stop right there and learn the definition of a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.

No one except VZW can use the 700 band. Not even ATT. That frequency has characteristics no other frequency has, and VZW has a monopoly on it. Instead of investing in improving the 700 frequency they buy up other frequencies. It’s the equivalent of having sole control over beavers, and then buying all the minks in order to make it harder for other people to sell coats and hats. VZW collects spectrum instead of investing in ways to use what they have more efficiently.

ATT does the same thing. They have a monopoly on their spectrum, but instead of beavers and minks, they control cattle and pigs.

Wireless isn’t a free market. You need to stop talking like it is.[/QUOTE]
We have a choice of which network we give our money to for their products and services. There is no monopoly in the cell phone provider market.

 

[Markoth]

And this is the conclusion we hope the FCC and gov’t regulators come to.

Who knows. Perhaps T-Mobile will be able to make something out of Sprint's hilarious diversion into WiMAX tech. As if that was ever going to work out.

 

[Mousse]

No, Id prefer another company start up and make the market competitive. You know, kinda like the timeline we live in now.

Now we enter into Barriers to Entry territory. Barrier #1: What spectrum can these new start up use? It's all been gobbled up by the 2 major carriers and 2 minor carriers (T-mo and Sprint). Barrier #2: Big companies WILL undercut the little guy to eliminate the competition. Amazon used that tactic to "buyout" Diapers.com. Wally World (Wal-mart) also uses those tactics. Barrier #3: Corporate America will use lobbyist to have the Gub'ment throw up all manners of licensing requirements that makes entry into a certain market impossible.

Name one start up carrier--it doesn't even need to be successful--that has to attempt to break into the market. BTW, MVNO (ie. Cricket, Boost) are not carriers.

 

[blackfox]

I don't know the details of this merger, but there have certainly been some larger ones in recent past that made it past any scrutiny.

 

[Sefstah]

Now we enter into Barriers to Entry territory. Barrier #1: What spectrum can these new start up use? It's all been gobbled up by the 2 major carriers and 2 minor carriers (T-mo and Sprint). Barrier #2: Big companies WILL undercut the little guy to eliminate the competition. Amazon used that tactic to "buyout" Diapers.com. Wally World (Wal-mart) also uses those tactics. Barrier #3: Corporate America will use lobbyist to have the Gub'ment throw up all manners of licensing requirements that makes entry into a certain market impossible.

Name one start up carrier--it doesn't even need to be successful--that has to attempt to break into the market. BTW, MVNO (ie. Cricket, Boost) are not carriers.

You’re making it sound like we don’t have a choice when it comes to the network market. Choices are limited, but they are there. If one company decides to sell to another, that’s their choice.
Remember Cingular? So yea, it’s not impossible for another network company to startup.

 

[4jasontv]

Why are you here then? You are 100% free to leave. I actually agree with paying taxes so your argument is invalid.
[doublepost=1536775446][/doublepost]
No, Id prefer another company start up and make the market competitive. You know, kinda like the timeline we live in now.
[doublepost=1536775832][/doublepost]
You speak of “monopoly” then you talk about AT&T and Verizon. You need to stop right there and learn the definition of a monopoly.

mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.

No one except VZW can use the 700 band. Not even ATT. That frequency has characteristics no other frequency has, and VZW has a monopoly on it. Instead of investing in improving the 700 frequency they buy up other frequencies. It’s the equivalent of having sole control over beavers, and then buying all the minks in order to make it harder for other people to sell coats and hats. VZW collects spectrum instead of investing in ways to use what they have more efficiently.

ATT does the same thing. They have a monopoly on their spectrum, but instead of beavers and minks, they control cattle and pigs.

Wireless isn’t a free market. You need to stop talking like it is.[/QUOTE]
We have a choice of which network we give our money to for their products and services. There is no monopoly in the cell phone provider market.[/QUOTE]

You have no choice over provider. I want TMobile on the 700 MHz band. How do I get that? Oh wait... no. Verizon has a monopoly on that. Stop trying to say that cell phone providers sell the same product.

 

[TheHateMachine]

You’re making it sound like we don’t have a choice when it comes to the network market. Choices are limited, but they are there. If one company decides to sell to another, that’s their choice.
Remember Cingular? So yea, it’s not impossible for another network company to startup.

Cingular wasn't a plucky little startup though coming fresh into the communications scene. It was an amalgamation of multiple carriers and communication companies (some from the big Bell breakup) and eventually they bought up AT&T wireless.

 

[Sefstah]

Cingular wasn't a plucky little startup though coming fresh into the communications scene. It was an amalgamation of multiple carriers and communication companies (some from the big Bell breakup) and eventually they bought up AT&T wireless.

Ok I’ll name another one. T-Mobile. Want another? Sprint. They all started from somewhere.

 

[TheHateMachine]

Ok I’ll name another one. T-Mobile. Want another? Sprint. They all started from somewhere.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Sefstah]

mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs.

No one except VZW can use the 700 band. Not even ATT. That frequency has characteristics no other frequency has, and VZW has a monopoly on it. Instead of investing in improving the 700 frequency they buy up other frequencies. It’s the equivalent of having sole control over beavers, and then buying all the minks in order to make it harder for other people to sell coats and hats. VZW collects spectrum instead of investing in ways to use what they have more efficiently.

ATT does the same thing. They have a monopoly on their spectrum, but instead of beavers and minks, they control cattle and pigs.

Wireless isn’t a free market. You need to stop talking like it is.

We have a choice of which network we give our money to for their products and services. There is no monopoly in the cell phone provider market.[/QUOTE]

You have no choice over provider. I want TMobile on the 700 MHz band. How do I get that? Oh wait... no. Verizon has a monopoly on that. Stop trying to say that cell phone providers sell the same product.[/QUOTE]
A monopoly in the network market would be control over the complete spectrum. Which isn’t the case.
Some fast food restaurants only offer Coke. Others offer only Pepsi. Thats not a monopoly.

 

[blackfox]

You’re making it sound like we don’t have a choice when it comes to the network market. Choices are limited, but they are there. If one company decides to sell to another, that’s their choice.
Remember Cingular? So yea, it’s not impossible for another network company to startup.

well, cingular is now owned by att...so...and speaking of...the ATT/TimeWarner merger seemed to work out.

 

[seinman]

So you'd prefer the timeline where Ma Bell was never broken up. I too liked paying $1-3 a minute for a long distance call...not. Right after the break up of that monopoly, long distance calls soon dropped to 10 cents a minute.

To be fair, the reason long distance was so expensive in the Bell System days was because it was mostly used by businesses, who could afford it, so they charged higher rates to subsidize local rates. That made everyday phone use by everyday folks more affordable. After the breakup, long distance rates dropped, but local rates spiked. Everything leveled out after a few years, but it was rough for a little bit for the average Joe.

Who knows. Perhaps T-Mobile will be able to make something out of Sprint's hilarious diversion into WiMAX tech. As if that was ever going to work out.

Another "to be fair..." at the time there was no clear winner when it came to 4G technology. LTE was in its infancy. There was a third technology being developed too, though I can't recall the details offhand. Sure, Sprint chose the wrong one. But to say "as if that was ever going to work out" is a big short-sighted, as it very well could have worked out, if LTE development hit a road block or didn't pick up support as quickly as it did.

The same thing is happening now with 5G. People over in the iPhone forum keep asking when the iPhone will have 5G support. It's WAY too early because right now we're in the good ol' WiMax-vs-LTE stage of development. There are a few technologies, all with support from different companies, being developed and tested simultaneously. A winner won't be chosen for a few years. Widespread availability is a few years behind that. Adding 5G to a phone now would be colossally stupid. But people hear the buzzword "5G" and think it's a solid standard that's ready to roll out... it isn't. Companies will make the same mistake Sprint did with WiMax. And Apple doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the battle, so they're doing the wise thing and letting it play out.