| why do companies merge? 1. to eliminate a competitor that may merge with another competitor and so they can stop racing to the bottom on pricing due to competition with each other
2. So that the top 10 stockholders in the co can make a killing as well as the few bankers and insiders on the deal...
Again show me a merger that resulted in lower prices and better service after as opposed to before the merger
I know its sounds communist to tea partiers (who already have their nest egg) but I cant see that any merger should ever be allowed where one of the cos merging has more than 30-40% of the market |
|
NeosumPremium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA | Or when a company isn't very profitable and is looking to sell before they eventually go bankrupt. This isn't exactly a merge though, it's an acquisition.
Let's see... The original ATT (telephone service) broken up, all rates have increased. Microsoft broken up, prices increased. PG&E broken up, prices increased.
People complain about poor coverage, then complain again when att makes a bold move to improve it radically. I'd rather see this move approved. It'll take at least a few years before we see the results but it's a bet I'd take.
If I wanted cheap service, I'd go with metropcs or one of the smaller companies. |
|
|
|
| reply to VerizonCynic
Att broke up but many mergers later its back |
|
| reply to Neosum
"The original ATT (telephone service) broken up, all rates have increased. Microsoft broken up, prices increased. PG&E broken up, prices increased."
Links? Go look for some. I think you'll find that telephony prices for local and long distance service have declined in both real and nominal terms.
On Microsoft, the DOJ settlement did NOT break the company up, and just consisted of open API requirements, which only lasted for 5 years. And the third party applications market seems to have benefited from it, as well as consumers. Prices increased how, and where?
On PG&E, they were never broken up. What you are referring to is the energy market deregulations in the 1990s that allowed PG&E to get out from under certain monopoly price controls. They sold off their generating unit, then this deregulation manipulated by a host of other generating companies to drive electricity costs up in Calif. at the turn of the century.
If you are arguing that a merged AT&T-T-Mobile will benefit from scale, you are making an argument that this is a natural monopoly market. Fine. But with such scale comes market power, and with market power comes higher prices and reduced innovation and output. Regulations can solve some of those problems, but poorly. We should be careful here. |
|
| reply to Neosum
said by Neosum:Or when a company isn't very profitable and is looking to sell before they eventually go bankrupt. This isn't exactly a merge though, it's an acquisition.
Let's see... The original ATT (telephone service) broken up, all rates have increased. Microsoft broken up, prices increased. PG&E broken up, prices increased.
People complain about poor coverage, then complain again when att makes a bold move to improve it radically. I'd rather see this move approved. It'll take at least a few years before we see the results but it's a bet I'd take.
If I wanted cheap service, I'd go with metropcs or one of the smaller companies.
You're a complete fool. How is MetroPCS going to keep their prices down when all backhaul and network towers are owned by AT&T and Verizon? The duopoly will raise prices in tandem and MetroPCS will be out of business in no time.
And you think AT&T is going to keep up T-Mobile's towers? Most of the coverage overlaps. They've already embarked on expanding their fiber backhaul to the majority of their cell towers. Once they buy T-Mobile they're just going to decommission the extra towers and dismantle the customer service redundancies.
AT&T's network problems were a result of decreasing capex to pump up their stock prices. They were forced to restore their normal capex spending after enormous amounts of bad PR and the threat of losing customers to their competition.
You have no idea how the wireless market actually works. You just blindly support your wireless carrier, not understanding the sociopathic tendencies of its executives and CEOs. |
|
| reply to VerizonCynic
said by VerizonCynic:Att broke up but many mergers later its back
The problem here, and the reason Reagen didn't do anything to stop the breakup, is that AT&T should have been broken up horizontally, not vertically.
By breaking it up vertically AT&T's old monopoly requirements, most important of all *Bell Labs*, were completely eliminated.
Bell Labs has been crucial to producing the technology that leapfrogged the US into the world leadership of technology innovation.
Now all we have are search engine and "social networking" innovation, and the crucial basic research needed to ensure long-term leadership and innovation is mostly gone. Bell Labs hasn't existed in any form for at least 10 years, and Ma Bell is slowly reforming. It's pathetic how incompetent and corrupt our last few decades of politicians have been. |
|
| supposedly bell labs is still around under another name
»www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/porta···QV81TEY! |
|
NeosumPremium
join:2000-06-03
Oakland, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
Actually, I probably know more on this issue that the general public but that's not important. I'm just supporting this deal simply because in my opinion the pros outweigh the cons.
You must have inside info to know that ATT will decommission the towers. They must not have plans for LTE and have no use for the tmobile's spectrum.
What a complete idiot. If that was profitable, don't you think tmobile would've done it? These companies are in a business to make money. Consumers speak with their pocketbooks not on forums pretending to be a professional. Consumers getting screwed? No, we have the choice of not buying att service.
Why do you think tmobile is trying to sell in the first place? ATT prices won't be much more than they are now. Sure text and data is outrageous, but we have a choice not to use it. In fact, just 15 years ago it cost atleast $50 a month per line for cellular service with NO free daytime minutes. I've been there and prefer today's plans.
I don't blindly support any carrier. I purchase service that works for me and products that appeal to me and me only. If I don't like it, I simply don't buy it. Until another carrier comes along and provide better service for me, I'm all for att expanding and growing and I'm willing to pay a premium for it.
Everyone talks about price hikes. If enough people cancelled their service, I guarantee you the prices will drop like flies. |
|
