dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4672

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

1 recommendation

Somnambul33t

Premium Member

The idea that the government has the right

to tell 2 private companies that they are not allow to merge is counter to the history of this country and to free market systems. i don't care if a leaked document stated that ATT would have 99% market share, i would still not want some paper pusher telling them who can and can't merge.

Everyone rightly complains about what i call Crony Capitalism, or the government picking winners and losers. the FCC and FTC do this every.single.day. Anyone (rightly) complaining about government bailouts, special political deals, and monopolies can't praise the FTC or FCC for blocking a merger without being the epitome of a hypocrite.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

3 recommendations

fifty nine

Member

said by Somnambul33t:

to tell 2 private companies that they are not allow to merge is counter to the history of this country and to free market systems. i don't care if a leaked document stated that ATT would have 99% market share, i would still not want some paper pusher telling them who can and can't merge.

Everyone rightly complains about what i call Crony Capitalism, or the government picking winners and losers. the FCC and FTC do this every.single.day. Anyone (rightly) complaining about government bailouts, special political deals, and monopolies can't praise the FTC or FCC for blocking a merger without being the epitome of a hypocrite.

Those companies are using public airwaves and utility easements to conduct their business. In other words, they are using a natural resource and forcibly seized private property to conduct business.

The Government has every damn right to tell them how to use those things.

Alex K
@sunwave.com.br

Alex K to Somnambul33t

Anon

to Somnambul33t

to tell 2 private companies that they are not allow to merge is counter to the history of this country

Those are publicly-owned airwaves.

and to free market systems

Which free market system? Telecom involves AT&T and Verizon enjoying regulatory capture and writing most of the regulations that cover the sector.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
Okay, fine, let AT&T and T-Mobile merge. But then strip them of the 850 and 1900 MHz spectrum that was given to them for free by the gov't years ago with the only requirement being a promise to build out voice service to X% of the population within a given area.

Oh wait, that would leave 100% of AT&T customers and a significant percentage of T-Mobile customers without cellular service. Maybe AT&T would be willing to buy that spectrum back...

I'm not a fan of government intervention into our daily lives more than absolutely necessary, however as long as the gov't is doing the thumbs-up/thumbs-down game with mergers, they should give this one the boot. It's the single worst merger for customers in the telecom industry...ever. Name me one area where T-Mobile has service that AT&T doesn't. T-Mobile's service may be better in some areas, but otherwise it's a complete overlap situation, with the beneficiary being the #2 wireless carrier in the US. Not fun.
cewagy
join:2004-02-03
Santa Barbara, CA

cewagy to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
Finally someone is thinking the right way about this thing. After the t-mobile merger goes through, there is only one more hurdle (verizon) and we can be back to the golden age of telecom.

Hooray for monopolies.

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

Somnambul33t to Alex K

Premium Member

to Alex K
said by Alex K :

to tell 2 private companies that they are not allow to merge is counter to the history of this country

Those are publicly-owned airwaves.

and to free market systems

Which free market system? Telecom involves AT&T and Verizon enjoying regulatory capture and writing most of the regulations that cover the sector.

publicly-owned airwaves doesnt mean 2 companies can be barred from merging. the business of the companies means naught. they could be the only 2 companies in the country making breakfast cereal and the philosophy of this country's founding allows them to merge if they think it best for each other.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight to fifty nine

Member

to fifty nine
Oh gosh, something from the government that actually benefits consumers. It's pure evil incarnate and must be smitten down!

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

Somnambul33t to cewagy

Premium Member

to cewagy
said by cewagy:

Finally someone is thinking the right way about this thing. After the t-mobile merger goes through, there is only one more hurdle (verizon) and we can be back to the golden age of telecom.

Hooray for monopolies.

only the government creates monopolies by denying new players entry into the market, issuing tax breaks to one company over another, by creating mandates, by selectively issuing/denying permits, by creating price ceilings, etc etc etc. the SOLE source of "monopolies" IS GOVERNMENT! you CAN NOT complain about a monopoly or duopoly without first complaining about the government that created it.

Alex K
@apexcovantage.com

Alex K to Somnambul33t

Anon

to Somnambul33t

publicly-owned airwaves doesnt mean 2 companies can be barred from merging. the business of the companies means naught. they could be the only 2 companies in the country making breakfast cereal and the philosophy of this country's founding allows them to merge if they think it best for each other.

This post doesn't even make sense. Randomly saying something is at the base of a country's philosophy doesn't really mean anything. Only in Ayn Rand fantasyland is there no regulatory authority. Oh, and in financial markets, where in 2008 we saw the glorious end product.

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

2 recommendations

Somnambul33t to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

Oh gosh, something from the government that actually benefits consumers. It's pure evil incarnate and must be smitten down!

it's not the Federal government's role to pass legislation, regulate, or promote ideas that "benefit" consumers. it's their job to ensure disputes between inter-state parties (including businesses) are settled. There is no direct Constitutional authority for the Federal government to be telling which businesses can merge and which can't, what a business can build on its own property and how much electricity aka carbon dioxide it can produce. These are left to the states to regulate, if they so choose.

THe government wasn't created to "protect" consumers from businesses, it was designed to secure our natural human rights and to protect the country from other countries. anything outside of that scope is immoral and counter to our founding.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

said by Alex K :

to tell 2 private companies that they are not allow to merge is counter to the history of this country

Those are publicly-owned airwaves.

and to free market systems

Which free market system? Telecom involves AT&T and Verizon enjoying regulatory capture and writing most of the regulations that cover the sector.

publicly-owned airwaves doesnt mean 2 companies can be barred from merging. the business of the companies means naught. they could be the only 2 companies in the country making breakfast cereal and the philosophy of this country's founding allows them to merge if they think it best for each other.

Actually, mergers have been regulated since at least 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Act. Please take a few minutes to at least Google the history of mergers and the reasons why it was necessary to introduce regulation on this particular activity before you spout generalities about things you have no knowledge of...

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

Somnambul33t

Premium Member

said by coldmoon:

Actually, mergers have been regulated since at least 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Act. Please take a few minutes to at least Google the history of mergers and the reasons why it was necessary to introduce regulation on this particular activity before you spout generalities about things you have no knowledge of...

eh we werent founded in the 1890s...and the Sherman Act was one of worst laws this nation has ever seen. it is EASILY one of the worst economic laws in our history.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
you know who talked the government into those decisions? It might be big businesses..

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

said by coldmoon:

Actually, mergers have been regulated since at least 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Act. Please take a few minutes to at least Google the history of mergers and the reasons why it was necessary to introduce regulation on this particular activity before you spout generalities about things you have no knowledge of...

eh we werent founded in the 1890s...and the Sherman Act was one of worst laws this nation has ever seen. it is EASILY one of the worst economic laws in our history.

Please tell me then why you think monopolies are good for this country. you will need to be specific here as I have a degree in economics so the usual talking points will not be accepted as a legitimate answer...

jslik
That just happened
Premium Member
join:2006-03-17

jslik to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

eh we werent founded in the 1890s...and the Sherman Act was one of worst laws this nation has ever seen. it is EASILY one of the worst economic laws in our history.

Yes, it really hurt the economy in the 20th century...horrible!

gettagrip
@141.191.20.x

gettagrip to coldmoon

Anon

to coldmoon
That's easy. It's because he works for AT&T and will directly benefit from AT&T/Verizon eventually being able to charge customers $1,000 per month for basic cellphone service.

He'll be swimming in a solid gold swimming pool while the average joe will need to take out a loan to call his mother on Sunday evening.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

THe government wasn't created to "protect" consumers from businesses, it was designed to secure our natural human rights and to protect the country from other countries. anything outside of that scope is immoral and counter to our founding.

You have not only only done a dis-service to your own beliefs you have done an absolutely disgraceful & miserable job of seeing that your Country remain true to it's purpose.

coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY

coldmoon to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t

Obligatory Animal House quote required

said by Somnambul33t:

said by cewagy:

Finally someone is thinking the right way about this thing. After the t-mobile merger goes through, there is only one more hurdle (verizon) and we can be back to the golden age of telecom.

Hooray for monopolies.

only the government creates monopolies by denying new players entry into the market, issuing tax breaks to one company over another, by creating mandates, by selectively issuing/denying permits, by creating price ceilings, etc etc etc. the SOLE source of "monopolies" IS GOVERNMENT! you CAN NOT complain about a monopoly or duopoly without first complaining about the government that created it.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son..."

While Government can and has created monopolies through misguided or broadly formatted laws (ref: copyright), pandering to special interests, etc; it is not the core creator or progenitor of ALL monopolies. Most monopolies formed either through industry collusion or through natural forces related to the industry itself.

To help you on your path to knowledge, you can start reading here and then move through the references:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Scatcatpdx to PapaMidnight

Member

to PapaMidnight

Re: The idea that the government has the right

said by PapaMidnight:

Oh gosh, something from the government that actually benefits consumers. It's pure evil incarnate and must be smitten down!

I notice you are unable to say how this befits the individual. Leave to the collectivists lump everybody in one group ie "the consumer" the pompously declare what is bifacial to the consumer. The problem what is beneficial to one individual is a nightmare to another. You cannot speak for all individual consumers. For some this is bad, for others neutral to a good thing. Let the merger happen and let the individual decide with one's wallet.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to Somnambul33t

Premium Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

said by coldmoon:

Actually, mergers have been regulated since at least 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Act. Please take a few minutes to at least Google the history of mergers and the reasons why it was necessary to introduce regulation on this particular activity before you spout generalities about things you have no knowledge of...

eh we werent founded in the 1890s...and the Sherman Act was one of worst laws this nation has ever seen. it is EASILY one of the worst economic laws in our history.

What does this county not being founded in the 1890's have to do with the quoted post?
mbrianc2
join:2008-08-16

mbrianc2 to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
That is until this theoretical cereal empire starts pricing itself so low as to prevent any competition or other unethical deeds designed to prevent other cereal companies from entering the market. Then you have what is known as a trust. That is why we have a little law called the sherman and clayton acts that has already been used once to bust AT&T into smaller pieces.

The philosophy of this countries founding was never to include giant multibillion dollar companies who strive to control Washington for their own gain. It was inconceivable in the 1700's. If our founding fathers could have thought of it, it would have been illegal from the start. They would not have drafted papers to declare independence from Britain only to hand it to the private sector. Our constitution was designed to protect the rights of the individual, not the corporation.
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

itguy05 to coldmoon

Member

to coldmoon
Explain why monopolies are bad then. Why when there is near perfect competition prices are essentially the same. (Think gas stations, Wal-Mart vs Target vs Kmart)

Since the optimal price is where the supply and demand curves intersect why would having 1 or 100 sellers be a good thing? If I and my fellow consumers think $x is too high, me as a company will lower the price to spur sales. Doesn't matter if there is 1 or 100 companies.

Competition does nothing to drive prices lower that the consumer couldn't do with their power. It just makes us feel better.
itguy05

itguy05 to mbrianc2

Member

to mbrianc2
said by mbrianc2:

That is until this theoretical cereal empire starts pricing itself so low as to prevent any competition or other unethical deeds designed to prevent other cereal companies from entering the market. Then you have what is known as a trust.

You're forgetting the other piece of the puzzle. Shareholders. Shareholders will not put up with reduced profits for long. Since the company is making less, there will be less for raises, so employees will not be content and they will leave the company. Keep at it long enough and the company will go out of business or shareholders will vote the board out.

That's how it should work....
itguy05

itguy05 to Alex K

Member

to Alex K
quote:
Oh, and in financial markets, where in 2008 we saw the glorious end product.
Most of it was the government's fault. They mandated mortgages be made to people who couldn't afford them. Those people would have never qualified for a mortgage before but after the Community Reinvestment Act were able to get one...

It wasn't until they couldn't pay (shocker) that the house of cards started to crumble.

It should have been allowed to crumble. It would have been painful but we would have gotten through it and been stronger. Instead we spend billions that didn't work, people are still not accountable for their actions, and those of us that live within our means will foot the bill.
Expand your moderator at work

notCRAsFault to itguy05

Anon

to itguy05

Re: The idea that the government has the right

If it was the fault of the CRA, then explain how:
"institutions fully regulated by CRA made 'perhaps one in four' sub-prime loans, and that 'the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight'.

I don't understand why some people are so intent on defending the bankers who sold us all out.
Expand your moderator at work

DrChaos
@fairisaac.com

DrChaos to itguy05

Anon

to itguy05

Re: The idea that the government has the right

:Most of it was the government's fault. They mandated mortgages be made to people who couldn't afford them. Those people would have never qualified for a mortgage before but after the Community Reinvestment Act were able to get one...

It wasn't until they couldn't pay (shocker) that the house of cards started to crumble."

This is a 100% unfiltered right-wing LIE. They repeat it over and over but it is not true.

a) The CRA was around for decades, the bubble was only a few years
b) many of the most egregious subprime loans were made by companies NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA
c) there was a huge bubble in commercial real estate, again not covered by the CRA.
d) most obviously, ***no bank ever markets like crazy and gives huge bonuses to loan officers and executives for products that they feel are unprofitable and are forced to make.***

The obvious fact from their actions is that everybody in it was in it FOR THE MONEY. They thought could make a huge amount of money RIGHT NOW and shaft somebody else. That's the only reason why they did it. And they got away with it, and we got the shaft.

Fannie and Freddie do bear some responsibility but that is because they were deregulated (i.e. to be more like private businesses)---previously they were only allowed---thanks to government regulation---to buy and insure normal low-risk conforming loans with 20% down and better credit scores.

Other than that, it was a 100% free market financial industry greed-fueled blowup and it infuriates me that certain groups can once again blame everything on them brown people.
jweller
join:2011-08-12
West Hollywood, CA

jweller to Somnambul33t

Member

to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:

said by coldmoon:

Actually, mergers have been regulated since at least 1890 with the passage of the Sherman Act. Please take a few minutes to at least Google the history of mergers and the reasons why it was necessary to introduce regulation on this particular activity before you spout generalities about things you have no knowledge of...

eh we werent founded in the 1890s...and the Sherman Act was one of worst laws this nation has ever seen. it is EASILY one of the worst economic laws in our history.

You're a libertarian, who of course believe there should be no government regulation, right?

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm to notCRAsFault

Member

to notCRAsFault
said by notCRAsFault :

If it was the fault of the CRA, then explain how:
"institutions fully regulated by CRA made 'perhaps one in four' sub-prime loans, and that 'the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight'.

I don't understand why some people are so intent on defending the bankers who sold us all out.

Because 1. they are some barely educated IDIOTS, thinking this will make them look smarter (HINT: it won't) or 2. they are profiting from the misery of everybody else aka scumbags.
There is the 3rd one, which is the combination of 1-2 - take your pick...