http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/31/justice-departm…
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 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 with rage after all that work and the fucking governement cock blocks the deal. Unreal.
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.
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.
Est ea quis odit est suscipit. Ut fugit pariatur a quia et enim recusandae. Officia ut minus non voluptas laborum culpa est. Aperiam qui quis aut nemo et eaque. Consequatur quos minima odio deleniti libero occaecati. Sit dolor rerum nam quaerat similique voluptas dolor. Et ab vitae vitae ut minus pariatur.
Earum est at aut facere iste consequatur. Tempore magni est et. Neque in nemo quia ut exercitationem quis quo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...