DOJ blocks ATT-T Moblie Merger
(Orangutan, 309
Points)
on 8/31/11 at 11:57am
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/31/justice-departme...
Cites higher prices for consumers if merger were to go through. Which for ATT customers would mean that your first born would be required to enter slavery for 2 years and if you break the contract they will kill him.
At least that what i feel like having to pay any more money to ATT each month then i already do would feel like.
seemed like this would happen
seemed like this would happen considering the concentration of firms in this space. i wonder if anyone else will make a bid for T-Mobile who is not a strategic.
I would be beside my self
I would be beside my self with rage after all that work and the fucking governement cock blocks the deal. Unreal.
To add insult to injury,
To add insult to injury, there's a $3B cash break-up fee too. I doubt a PE firm would take a stab at these guys so strategic's (Sprint?) would make the most sense.
Is this the same Department
Is this the same Department of Justice that blocked the Blockbuster/Hollywood Videos merger for fear they would "unfairly" dominate the consumer movie market? Fast-forward a couple of years and both companies are bankrupt- cannibalized by Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and even Amazon Prime. Thank God those geniuses prevented them from merging. The sad part is that perhaps together they could have stood a slim chance. This whole "anti-trust" policy is perverse. The Department of Justice has no vision- they can't even see next week, nevertheless the market forces that will utterly disrupt the current market players.
Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
rls wrote: Is this the same
Is this the same Department of Justice that blocked the Blockbuster/Hollywood Videos merger for fear they would "unfairly" dominate the consumer movie market? Fast-forward a couple of years and both companies are bankrupt- cannibalized by Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and even Amazon Prime. Thank God those geniuses prevented them from merging. The sad part is that perhaps together they could have stood a slim chance. This whole "anti-trust" policy is perverse. The Department of Justice has no vision- they can't even see next week, nevertheless the market forces that will utterly disrupt the current market players.
Just my opinion but i gotta believe that it requires less infrastructure to start a movie distribution system then it does to start a global smart phone network....
Cardinal wrote: rls
Is this the same Department of Justice that blocked the Blockbuster/Hollywood Videos merger for fear they would "unfairly" dominate the consumer movie market? Fast-forward a couple of years and both companies are bankrupt- cannibalized by Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and even Amazon Prime. Thank God those geniuses prevented them from merging. The sad part is that perhaps together they could have stood a slim chance. This whole "anti-trust" policy is perverse. The Department of Justice has no vision- they can't even see next week, nevertheless the market forces that will utterly disrupt the current market players.
Just my opinion but i gotta believe that it requires less infrastructure to start a movie distribution system then it does to start a global smart phone network....
Until some mode of communication that uses less equipment that reaches more is discovered, or a breakthrough in VOIP over wireless networks, or Phil Falcone's LightSquared, or some other disruptive technology that not you, nor I, nor the Department of Justice can conceive of completely upsets the cart of the present players. The most egregious assumption is that they know how allowing this merger will play out. Also, notice who "encouraged" the U.S. to bring this case- Sprint. Historically, anti-trust cases are brought to the court by competitors, not consumers. Read the language of the filing- the merger would "substantially lessen competition". We don't need or want competition for competition's sake. We want the best goods and services at the lowest prices we can obtain- regardless if that means fifty providers or one. Otherwise, Apple's iron grip on the MP3 player market needs to be addressed...judiciously.
Bene qui latuit, bene vixit- Ovid
rls wrote: Cardinal
Is this the same Department of Justice that blocked the Blockbuster/Hollywood Videos merger for fear they would "unfairly" dominate the consumer movie market? Fast-forward a couple of years and both companies are bankrupt- cannibalized by Redbox, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and even Amazon Prime. Thank God those geniuses prevented them from merging. The sad part is that perhaps together they could have stood a slim chance. This whole "anti-trust" policy is perverse. The Department of Justice has no vision- they can't even see next week, nevertheless the market forces that will utterly disrupt the current market players.
Just my opinion but i gotta believe that it requires less infrastructure to start a movie distribution system then it does to start a global smart phone network....
Until some mode of communication that uses less equipment that reaches more is discovered, or a breakthrough in VOIP over wireless networks, or Phil Falcone's LightSquared, or some other disruptive technology that not you, nor I, nor the Department of Justice can conceive of completely upsets the cart of the present players. The most egregious assumption is that they know how allowing this merger will play out. Also, notice who "encouraged" the U.S. to bring this case- Sprint. Historically, anti-trust cases are brought to the court by competitors, not consumers. Read the language of the filing- the merger would "substantially lessen competition". We don't need or want competition for competition's sake. We want the best goods and services at the lowest prices we can obtain- regardless if that means fifty providers or one. Otherwise, Apple's iron grip on the MP3 player market needs to be addressed...judiciously.
I agree that no one knows what will be the next big move to shake up the telecom industry. I'll take a stab at playing some devils advocate. At this point though i think of the giants in this space as almost like utility companies. It takes a massive amount of infrastructure to run their networks so the barrier to entry is high. Also the consumers have little choice in what carrier to use. After this merger Sprint would have been left in the cold (which as you said is why they sued) and it would have been ATT vs Verizon for domination over the national carrier market. In the MP3 market their are lots of choices to pick from AAPL just makes the most popular products. If you want cell phone use with national coverage however you would have been stuck with either ATT or Verizon. While competition doesn't always lead to better results, lack of competition, and high barrier to enter the competition, on a service that we all use is not good for consumers.
ShawnDU2009 wrote: To add
To add insult to injury, there's a $3B cash break-up fee too. I doubt a PE firm would take a stab at these guys so strategic's (Sprint?) would make the most sense.
Shut up Shawn, you have no clue what you're talking about. Ha-ha, I joke, you own this shit I know, love DDubya.