Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Alpine
Re: don't worry, be happy quote:
And why would they? No one has yet shown evidence that this merger is really anti-competitive.
There isn't enough evidence in the world to satisfy individuals who vehemently believe corporations should not be impeded in their quest for profit by the rule of law amd consumer advocacy. No evidence on Earth will convince them that any consumer complaint is ever valid.
If you're actually interested in data suggesting the negative impact for consumers of such a merger, there is plenty of it available in the commentary to the FCC.
»gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···18537214
Obviously there's plenty supporting your view as well from economists who believe deregulation is the wisest path.
quote:
You mentioned naked DSL above. How does imposing naked-DSL in ANY way make this deal somehow more competitive within the telco industry? How would net-neutrality? All of these are simply bribes being demanded by consumer groups and telco competitors to stop whining for a minute so this deal can go through.
Naked DSL was simply an example of a potential condition they could be arguing over. I do not proclaim to be suggesting it is a functional solution for any anti-competitive ramifications of the merger.
Equally, I do not believe net-neutrality should be a condition as the people deciding these issues have yet to understand what it is, much less how to regulate it. |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | said by Karl Bode: No evidence on Earth will convince them that any consumer complaint is ever valid. I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the first people to cry foul (including me) when BellSouth and others kept charging the "regulatory recovery fee" after it was repealed were proponents of deregulation and less big-gov intervention. And it worked - all of those companies (AFAIK) backed off in a hurry.
Naked DSL was simply an example of a potential condition they could be arguing over. I do not proclaim to be suggesting it is a functional solution for any anti-competitive ramifications of the merger.
Equally, I do not believe net-neutrality should be a condition as the people deciding these issues have yet to understand what it is, much less how to regulate it.
I agree on both counts, but I think many people disagreeing with the merger are just grasping at straws to either improve their own bottom line or simply to make themselves publicly known as anti-consolidation.
I wonder what opponents of this merger think they're going to achieve if, per chance, the merger was denied or AT&T decided there were too many restrictions to make it viable. Would the competitive landscape suddenly be up to their standards? Would two separate telcos with less resources be able to compete with the big national cable companies who already have an infrastructure advantage?
I understand people's concerns about consolidation. I really do! I'm a consumer, too. But the reality is that the competition in broadband is NOT intra-telco industry. It's INTER-industry - telcos versus cable companies. In my view giving the telcos the resources to compete against the cable companies is the best way to foster further competition in the long run. Handicapping telcos and preventing them from really bulking up for the fight is really shooting true competition in the foot.
Adam
Edit: Mixed up "Intra" and "Inter."  |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the first people to cry foul (including me) when BellSouth and others kept charging the "regulatory recovery fee" after it was repealed were proponents of deregulation and less big-gov intervention. And it worked - all of those companies (AFAIK) backed off in a hurry.
That was such an egregious example of skulduggery, people couldn't really help but take an opposing position. Including the companies themselves, ultimately. Obviously for more complicated situations like the impact this merger will have, you're going to have more muddy levels of debate. Personally I don't believe the merger will result in the end of the world, but I do reserve worry that rabid ideological deregulation and endless consolidation does little more than fatten investor wallets while leaving terminated employees and other minutae in its wake. quote:
In my view giving the telcos the resources to compete against the cable companies is the best way to foster further competition in the long run.
Fortunately for you, you'll get to see if this is the case. |
|
AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | said by Karl Bode: Personally I don't believe the merger will result in the end of the world, but I do reserve worry that rabid ideological deregulation and endless consolidation does little more than fatten investor wallets while leaving terminated employees and other minutae in its wake. I believe there's a place for a certain amount of regulation, and we have a large amount now. What about the other side of the coin: gridlock, lack of flexibility and insane overhead costs brought about by rabid ideological REGULATION? Those burdens aren't exactly a recipe for agile companies able to quickly serve their customers' needs.
As for the oft-used "what about the layoff employees" argument, it's a non-starter here. AT&T is estimating 10,000 layoffs out of 350,000 total people in the company over -two years-. That's absolutley nothing. That's vastly less than those who lost their jobs in the dot-com bust. And remember what happened the last time BellSouth offered their employees a buyout. Those who wanted it were offered 7% of their salary for each year of employment with the company up to a max of 150%. Mid-level people (NOT executives) were walking away with $100,000+ in cash. That's not to mention the continued benefits and offer to pay for a year of continuing education. People I know from BellSouth were almost literally begging to be chosen. Not exactly like getting a pink-slip in the mail. Anything AT&T would do will be similar.
Fortunately for you, you'll get to see if this is the case. Not just fortunately for me. I think it'll be fortunately for all of us. The alternative, I believe, is the cable companies dominating. And even the telco-haters can't be happy with that idea.
Adam
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
As for the oft-used "what about the layoff employees" argument, it's a non-starter here. AT&T is estimating 10,000 layoffs out of 350,000 total people in the company over -two years-.
That's a pretty big deal to the estimated 10,000 employees. Here's to hoping your optimistic severance scenario is accurate. quote:
The alternative, I believe, is the cable companies dominating.
Putting DSL on equal footing with cable as an "information service" is part of a different discussion. I had no problem with that classification.
I do remain skeptical about, as I said, this quest for total deregulation (cable or telco) as it is currently presented: some gift from the gods that results in full deployment, low prices, and laughing children playfully dancing in sunbeams.
As-so-far as I've ever been able to see, deregulation as it exists in the minds of Libertarians and Conservatives is nothing more than a push to maximize revenue and weaken the law, dressed up as a panacea. |
|
AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | said by Karl Bode:I do remain skeptical about, as I said, this quest for total deregulation (cable or telco) as it is currently presented: some gift from the gods that results in full deployment, low prices, and laughing children playfully dancing in sunbeams. Maybe, but I could say the exact same thing about "total regulation."
Adam
PS. My God. Were we just able to have an intelligent debate on this site without people jumping in to scream, curse and accuse people of being shills or commies? Miracles never cease! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Maybe, but I could say the exact same thing about "total regulation."
I don't know anybody who advocates for total regulation. Nor do I know any person or organization intentionally pushing for bloated, dysfunctional regulation that cripples industry. Not to say that isn't the residual effect of some idiot legislators, but it is not an actual position.
I could however rattle off about fifty well funded telecom think tanks who do in fact push for an extreme position where Uncle Sam has absolute no regulatory authority over industry. That really is their goal, it is not hyperbole.
I would have fewer issues about this if this goal was presented honestly (we want maximum profits, and a weak Uncle Sam), but it's frequently sold under the guise of consumer advocacy, and that will venomously annoy me until the day I'm buried. |
|
