| reply to kapil
Re: No said by kapil:What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position.
AT&T and VZ are Comcast's primary competitors. Both of them have wireless divisions that are ridiculously successful and profitable (~60% of wireless market combined).
Wireless is significantly more profitable than wireline for them, and have added billions to their bottom line. If it weren't for wireless, they'd be closer to Qwest's situation right now.
Why wouldn't Comcast want part of that market? If nothing else, to remain competitive. Sprint and Clearwire are the fastest way there. |
|
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | said by Samsonian:said by kapil:What the fuck kind of "synergies" are there to be had by merging a TV provider and a wireless phone company? It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position. Buying out another company is in no way "competitive" in my book.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
| said by koitsu:said by Samsonian:It's not so much about "synergy," as it is about competitive position. Buying out another company is in no way "competitive" in my book. First of all, that's a very simplistic view of business. One not shared by most, including anti-trust regulators.
Second, did you not read the rest of what I wrote in that post?
Comcast competes against AT&T and VZ on the wired side, but not (yet) in wireless.
Yet you apparently think Comcast entering that market would result in less competition? |
|
