“Cell phone owners rejoice! Last week, the Department of Justice announced it would sue to block AT&T’s proposed $39 billion merger with T-Mobile,” John R. Quain writes for FoxNews.com. “And that is a very good thing—for consumers, for other carriers, for T-Mobile, and even for AT&T.”
“Granted, T-Mobile and AT&T, the number four and number two mobile carries in the U.S., have both made official statements saying they would fight the move in court,” Quain writes. “They’ll have a tough time convincing anyone that this is a good deal.”
Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.
Quain writes, “The Justice Department said the merger would decrease competitiveness, hurt consumers, and result in fewer innovative products. An examination of the marketplace would seem to show that the government has a slam dunk case.””
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Jack F.” for the heads up.]
If I’m not mistaken, FoxNews is an American news outlet with a heavily conservative bent (i.e. politically, on the opposite side of the party currently in power). So, for them to say something that may be supportive of the government must meant that they really like it so much.
Interesting and unusual (for the American political landscape).
I dont watch Fox News mainly because it’s to news what professional wrestling is to sports.
But they actually said that?
Of course CNN is a REAL news channel…
Funny how CNN is incensed when Rick Perry makes a comment about Texans “doing harm” to the Fed Chairman should he visit the state, if he dares screws up the economy more by printing more money and yet when they interview Hoffa, hours after Hoffa when introducing Obama talks about the TEA Party people and how the “workers” are Obama’s army and that they are “gonna take the Sons of Bitches out”, not one question to Hoffa regarding such language by CNN’s John King… and when the WH Press Secretary is asked to elaborate, not one peep! Guess that “Civility” BS that Obama blathered at the Gabby Giffords Memorial was just that… BULLSHIT!
Yeah, ‘Fox News and wrestling’! Give me a ‘efen break!
If you read the idiotic comments from readers on the CNN website, it’s enough to make Fox News seem like a better alternative. CNN readers are on the same level as YouTube posters or those that post on android fan sites. It’s bad when your audience reflects that poorly on you. Which is not to say that Fox News viewers wouldn’t reflect poorly on Fox News, it’s just to say that Fox news doesn’t allow their idiot viewers a venue. I read Macdailynews comments because the posters here actually contribute to an informative dialogue, not a reactionary/inflammatory dialogue.
Seriously? The comments on MDN sometimes make me embarrassed to be a Mac/iPhone guy.
Over-the-top fans on *any* site tend to make their champions’ followers look like frothing-at-the-mouth.
I didnt say they were “real”. Regardless what other outlets say, that doesn’t make Fox look any better or worse.
Your drivel is what I would expect out of a brain dead Fox News viewer. Go learn to read fool.
Indeed…very interesting. You would expect a message along the lines of the “government should get out of the way of the private sector.” Sometimes beliefs are a matter of convenience.
Real conservatives believe in open and free markets, not rigged markets or crony capitalism. So if Fox News comes out against this deal, it’s still consistent with their conservative leanings.
In all fairness, it is really very difficult to imagine how would a merger such as this benefit consumers and the economy. Overlapping jobs would be eliminated, reduced competition would reduce motivation to carriers for improving service/lowering prices, etc.
The only argument against the DOJ action could possibly be made by those who prefer zero regulation, in favour of unhindered free market economy. We all know what unregulated financial markets brought to the world (to mention just one example). Keeping an eye on the large corporations in order to protect healthy competitive environment benefits everyone, and that even includes the corporations themselves (in the long run).
I think the DOJ has a pretty lame reason for blocking this. There’s no reason for the government to get involved based on speculative possible future outcomes, and a remote threat of anti-competitive scenarios. If the DOJ was so good at predicting and regulating economies, like… where have they been?
Unfortunately you are totally incorrect, because financial markets have been under several layers of regulation since before either of us were born. Only by stoking mythical monopoly fears and a emotional view that government interference is inherently beneficial can someone try and paint regulation as a good thing. There’s certainly little historical or hard economic evidence.
In fact I challenge you to find one instance of “unregulated” action by financial markets that resulted in some kind of economic disparity in the last 30 years (keep it relevant). In fact, let’s broaden the scope, name off the benevolent acts of the federal government’s 30 year recent economic history. Have fun, though I’m betting you’ll whip into Team mode and weasel out completely.
“…a remote threat of anti-competitive scenarios”??? You must be joking!!!
So again with the vague ‘anti-competitive’ sentiment? Weasel much?
How does a bigger AT&T hurt Verizon unfairly? Is it healthier that the government maintains an artificial barrier to growth? Couldn’t Verizon and Sprint merge later down the road to compete with AT&T? How does the government know what’s best?
“How does a bigger AT&T hurt Verizon unfairly?”
It isn’t about hurting Verizon, it’s about fucking the public even harder by reducing telecom competition and taking one step closer towards a single carrier, again.
If AT&T eats T-Mobile, then it will gain a broader captive audience and its prices will skyrocket, as well as new fees will be dreamt up.
Verizon will look on in approval and quickly add new fees of their own, and increase prices to match, because collusion fosters far more profit then competition.
As for your “challenge”…
Complete deregulation leads to consumers getting bled dry and driven into poverty by extortionate corporations that pay their lower employees shit wages and funnel all the cream to upper management. If this goes on for long enough it eventually results in a society where over 99% of the population is dirt poor and under 1% is hyper wealthy.
If you can’t figure out why that’s a bad thing, then you probaby are or aspire to be one of the under 1% .
…”you probaby are or aspire to be one of the under 1% .”
In all fairness, most people aspire to be one of the “under-1%”, even if they don’t like with the way the “under-1%” had acquired their wealth.
But you are certainly right. America has the least amount of regulation, and the disparity between highest- and lowest-paid full-time employed workers is by far the greatest of all developed countries.
This is myth, superstition and fear. Deregulation created multiple phone companies, regulation created the monopoly. Get your facts straight and stop regurgitating prepared Team propaganda. It’s bullshit
Your assumption that a merger will create higher consumer prices is erroneous is pure fear. It’s not economic certainty, in fact it’s counter intuitive to all economic history. However it is the justification given whenever the government wants more regulatory control.
There is an active PR attempt to convince you that the government is the only one who knows best and will be able to save poor hapless consumers “if” some terrible economic apocalypse happens. That’s mythology. Economies reality is that AT&T will have to pay for this merger by getting consumers to buy their product.
Besides reading the future of the economy in any sense is not an ability the government has ever had. It’s best not to trust them. Also you have a lot of fear, you should be more mindful of your easily cultivated emotions, they make a very lousy base for critical thinking.
Heathen you are a dumbass, a lawsuit, like this one, not “deregulation”, created multiple phone companies.
Imagine the following non-merger scenario: where both companies would start sharing their transmissioon equipment and towers
Imagine the following non-merger scenario: where both companies would just enter into a close operating agreement, i.e., start sharing their transmission equipment and towers, not to mention, some administrative duplication.
Further, suppose, instead of further rationalizing to the metal (a technique that has already proven itself in condemning merged companies), they would instead use the freed resources TO IMPROVE SERVICE drastically. BTW coverage can also be virtually increased by letting each other’s customers roam on each other’s networks. Technically, the arrangement would be equivalent. to a merger.
DOJ is run by far left lunatics so cannot be a good thing!
Good thing those far left loonies took on Microsoft 15 years ago. And after they won against Microsoft and were on the verge of having them broken up, they were promptly neutered, and defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, by the incoming Bush administration.
The Justice Department will look stupid when T-Mobile goes into receivership.
T-Mobile was still profitable in a recent quarter.
Right. The only reason T-Mobile is for sale is becausde Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile’s owner) wants to exit American mobile market for strategic reasons that have nothing to do with T-Mobile’s business performance.
It is quite amusing to find comments that come from a very clear political point of view, and little else (i.e. full of ignorance). It took me about 15 seconds to Google T-Mobile USA’s business performance and discover that it continues to be profitable. It took another 10 seconds to find out the reasons why DT wants to sell it.
I guess it is easier to post ignorant responses, as long as there is some political angle to it…
So? Why is the government protecting the number 1 and 3 players, from competition of the merger between number 2 and 4? Why does AT&T’s competition need the DOJ’s help? If Verizon is already number one, they need Feds to help them maintain that position? Sorry, that’s completely bat shit crazy.
The only thing the government is doing is killing potential growth, which means killing potential jobs. That kind of economic speculation is something the government is not very good at, they are far too insulated from market economic risks and far too susceptible to political graft.
How on Earth is anyone killing potential growth by blocking this merger??? That is absolutely absurd!
Consolidation of two large companies in the exact same industry can only result in massive elimination of overlapping jobs. No amount of growth could possibly compensate for such job losses.
You can’t even recognize when you are arguing for regulation or against it, so splitting hairs and looking for any traction at this stage isn’t helping your original premise.
But let’s try getting past your weak grasp of modern finance and employment. Here’s a softball Econ 101 question for you:
Corporate growth requires more _____?
A. Infastructure
B. Employees
C. Benefit expenditures
D. Parking spaces
E. Cafeteria services
F. Skyrocketing consumer prices
You don’t get to be a big company without attracting customers. You don’t get customers by offering a lousy product unless you have government gaming the system for you. Why do we need the government to regulate phones? Their history demonstrates a 100% shitty job of regulation, corruption and unfair business practices. Especially in the phone biz, you couldn’t have picked a worse economic example to try and hype ‘deregulation’ fears.
Again, cite an example to prove otherwise, until then – jebem te u mozak, chump.
Until now. No guarantee when AT&T, VZ are moving to LTE while T-mobile stuck in 3G (don’t matter what T-mobile marketing claims). One of two will pick up T-mobile cheaply then. Fundamental questions is how many wireless operators this country can financially support? If 4, then block it. If more, then encourage new one. If 3 or 2, then let them do it.
althegeo will look stupid when T-Mobile rolls out the iPhone 5 and pulls in significant numbers of customers who are unimpressed with AT&T and Verizon.
Is that even confirm?
Absolutely agree that this merger is a terrible idea. AT&T hasn’t improved its network at all. They have dropped unlimited data on the cell network, and are capping data usage for it’s DSL and U-Verse services. So, would merging with T-Mobile give me back truly unlimited data on my iPhone. Hells no.
AT&T is sitting on it’s ass like a typical corporation.
So is Verizon.
Please, there are a variety of viewpoints on all the news outlets, particularly when it comes to business. And in my experience, few business writers deeply understand antitrust law. More importantly, few folks, and clearly some here, seem to understand that being conservative is not the same as being either pro-business or anti-government. As a consumer, I think there are plenty of reasons to favor and oppose this deal. It would be rare for a deal of this size and complexity to be all good or all bad. Personally, I favor this deal, but speaking as a conservative, I actually think the government has to challenge, or at least closely scrutinize this deal, if only to ensure that it is not violative of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. While I think those laws are long overdue for an overhaul, they and the case law represent the law of the land.
As far as the Sherman Act is concerned, I would say that the case laws also validates its purpose, letter, as well as spirit. Among many times it was invoked, the big AT&T case seems most persuasive. Before the big Bell break-up, I was paying $1.80 per minute of long-distance to (at the time) Yugoslavia. Domestic long distance was $0.20. Shortly after break-up, MCI and Sprint began competing with AT&T (the remaining long-distance business) and my international rate to Yugoslavia came down to $0.80 (domestic was $0.10, with Candice Bergen peddling it in Sprint commercials). Today, domestic long distance is practically free (or bundled with a set of other services), and I pay $0.06 per minute for calls to Serbia.
I doubt there is a more clear example of the anti-trust breakup aftermath.
The phone industry has always been regulated. That’s the problem.
The 1984 breakup was as close to de-regulation as you can get in the phone biz, and your own tale explains why regulation is a bad thing.
In 1913 AT&T become a regulated monopoly. Their monopoly would be allowed, but they had to connect competing local companies and let the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) approve their prices and policies. The FCC with the DOJ providing the teeth, soon established a very tainted history of corruption in harassing competition to phone service and phone equipment.
Because of the 1984 ‘deregulation’ you enjoy cheaper long distance service. Now let me ask you, why we want the government to get back into the game? Why should former AT&T division Bell South (Verizon) be unfairly protected from competition by former AT&T division Southwestern Bell? That’s what started this mess.
A better idea would be to let them fight to the death. If AT&T merges with T-mobile, Verizon will have to find ways to keep their customers. AT&T will also have to find a way to make this expensive merger profitable and keep up with competition from Verizon, Sprint and even Boost.
If anyone hasn’t noticed, the primary reason for this DOJ action is to protect consumers; not necessarily to encourage (or prevent) competition.
Consolidation of two large players in any market brings about fewer choices for consumers, and those choices are always worse than they were before such consolidation.
Protect consumers from what? Why do I give two shits as a cell phone user if AT&T merges with T-Mobile? I didn’t give two shits when they merged with Cingular, in fact I get cheaper service and products after the merger than I did before, as a Cingular customer who got all merged-ed up into the big evil AT&T. Forget 200+ years of easily researched American economic and political history, my direct experience with corporate acquisition, blows your silly emotional fears about the future out of the water.
AT&T changed the data pricing structure for smartphones, benefiting consumers with lower prices, and without government regulation. Regulation always costs revenue from the tax payers (consumers) and impedes revenue from business, there’s no amount of mental gymnastics that will make the opposite true. There’s no economic history of it.
Its fine that you’re a proud Democrat, but recognize that Teams have been around for a long time, and that the results of their hyperbole are as easily dismissible as they are Google searchable. You better be getting some good Media Matters money to be such a persistent useful idiot, otherwise you’re getting totally ripped off.
I haven’t read what the basis for the DOJ decision other than speculation. I’m being subjective with this but I think it would be good if we get the merger. The merger would combine services and would provide services that are good for customers.
Sure there is opinions against the merger but what about the benefits. This merger would allow for an expansion of 4G wouldn’t that be good? Expanding the use of the iPhone, isn’t that good? Already both At&t and T-Mobile have competitive rates and services, the merger could enhance these services, wouldn’t that be good?
Of course the competitors would argue against this but realize but have already had their mergers.
Just my 2 cents.
There is no indication that merger would allow for an expansion of 4G any faster than without merger. AT&T wants to spend massive amounts of money to acquire T-Mobile, which would (for that money) bring (among other things) its 4G network. Nobody in their sane mind could argue that if AT&T were to take that money and, instead of spending it on T-Mobile, invest into building their own network, that they couldn’t match the coverage and performance that they would get from the T-Mobile purchase.
AT&T wants to waste massive amount of money to reduce the most direct competitor (the only other GSM carrier), even if it is at the expense of building a better 4G network. The only long-term winner here will be AT&T (once T-Mobile customers are “upgraded” to AT&T’s more expensive plans). Consumers lose, both short- as well as long-terrm.
I like Tmobile right where she is. Out from underneath Ma Bell’s skirt. This isn’t about some perceived kindness by ATT but purely elimination of a whipper snapper that makes Ma get off her fat tail and do something.
How about this for scenarios. Tmobile and Sprint rolled up to form iMobile, the choice for the rest of us. Come on Tim… Do it!
If the government wants to affect the price of mobile service, please regulate Verizon and AT&T – but don’t think for a second that opposing the merger is going to help anyone because T-mobile, as it stands, is not a choice in so many areas. Sure Sprint and T-Mobile are cheaper, but their service sucks and you get what you pay for. A price war between Verizon and AT&T is what we really need.
…”A price war between Verizon and AT&T is what we really need.”
And if you allow AT&T to gobble up T-Mobile, such price war would never happen. The likely scenario would see Verizon falling to No. 2, nudging them into buying out Sprint (a comfortable fit, it being also CDMA), not having to worry about any regulatory approval, since AT&T – T-Mobile deal just went through.
And what a wonderful world it would be, once American mobile market is reduced to the Verizon – AT&T duopoly, with their legendary customer service…
Spreading more hyperbole and fear, I see. Still no facts? Remember, you’re the one who can’t even identify regulation vs. deregulation.
Time for you to back up the childish hysterics, and cite tangible economic or at least industry specific examples.