|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Aug 31, 2011 14:32:17 GMT -5
Thoughts? I just have a "SMFH" for this. This is what their worried about? Whether or not 2 cell phone companies merge? Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by sean™ on Aug 31, 2011 14:35:23 GMT -5
I'm still confused on how AT&T is the number 1 when I can't get a ing signal in my own house, in the middle of the coverage map, about a mile away from a tower.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 31, 2011 14:37:31 GMT -5
Typical government.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Aug 31, 2011 14:48:05 GMT -5
As much as I don't like gov't getting involved in these types of issues, I hate that the big 3 U.S wireless carriers are 'oligopolizing' the whole entire industry within the country.
|
|
|
Post by el kay are oh on Aug 31, 2011 15:30:37 GMT -5
I'm still confused on how AT&T is the number 1 when I can't get a ing signal in my own house, in the middle of the coverage map, about a mile away from a tower. "No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T" This merger has potential to be amazing. The different variety of phones will pull people towards AT&T, and eventually the prices should be stable and relatively cheap. Shouldn't be too bad.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Aug 31, 2011 15:36:33 GMT -5
I'm still confused on how AT&T is the number 1 when I can't get a ing signal in my own house, in the middle of the coverage map, about a mile away from a tower. "No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T" This merger has potential to be amazing. The different variety of phones will pull people towards AT&T, and eventually the prices should be stable and relatively cheap. Shouldn't be too bad. Actually prices could potentially be higher due to lack of competition.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 31, 2011 16:57:25 GMT -5
Actually prices could potentially be higher due to lack of competition. Very true. The thing is, whether the prices are going to go up or down, the government has no business stepping in and saying that businesses can or cannot merge. That is, unless said business is receiving money from the government... And then I say that the government needs to get out of the business and let them run independently. If AT&T and T-Mobile merge and prices do go up, the free market would dictate that another company would open/expand to fill the void of the people who cannot afford the AT&T/T-Mobile prices.
|
|
|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Aug 31, 2011 17:31:26 GMT -5
I'm actually hoping this merger doesn't happen. AT&T.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Aug 31, 2011 17:46:01 GMT -5
If AT&T and T-Mobile merge and prices do go up, the free market would dictate that another company would open/expand to fill the void of the people who cannot afford the AT&T/T-Mobile prices. That's true. The merge still sucks for consumers in the long run which is my main problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 31, 2011 18:41:42 GMT -5
That's true. The merge still sucks for consumers in the long run which is my main problem with it. Not if we support the businesses that grow in their place.
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Aug 31, 2011 20:32:58 GMT -5
I'm actually hoping this merger doesn't happen. AT&T. T-Mo user here, and I want to keep it that way. AT&T can bugger off.
|
|
|
Post by roddypiper on Aug 31, 2011 20:36:36 GMT -5
Actually prices could potentially be higher due to lack of competition. Very true. The thing is, whether the prices are going to go up or down, the government has no business stepping in and saying that businesses can or cannot merge. That is, unless said business is receiving money from the government... And then I say that the government needs to get out of the business and let them run independently. If AT&T and T-Mobile merge and prices do go up, the free market would dictate that another company would open/expand to fill the void of the people who cannot afford the AT&T/T-Mobile prices. I disagree man. I think they should step in when a merger could result in higher prices for the consumer. Also, I might be wrong..but monpoloys are illegal to an extent by the govetrment right? Someone has to stand up for the consumer.
|
|
|
Post by matteliswin on Aug 31, 2011 21:12:33 GMT -5
"No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T" This merger has potential to be amazing. The different variety of phones will pull people towards AT&T, and eventually the prices should be stable and relatively cheap. Shouldn't be too bad. Actually prices could potentially be higher due to lack of competition. Exactly. look at Comcast. they used to be VERY affordable, now their prices are riduculous, because they have no competition.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 31, 2011 22:36:55 GMT -5
I disagree man. I think they should step in when a merger could result in higher prices for the consumer. Also, I might be wrong..but monpoloys are illegal to an extent by the govetrment right? Someone has to stand up for the consumer. So if I own a restaurant and another competing restaurant and I are struggling to stay in business because of a third restaurant that is dominating the market in our city... Then we decide to merge our two restaurants in order to consolidate costs and increase our profits while providing a better experience for the user and increasing our prices at the same time.... The government should step in and stop us from doing that? This isn't a monopoly. There are other businesses providing the same service. The only "monopolies" are government controlled to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Aug 31, 2011 22:58:45 GMT -5
I disagree man. I think they should step in when a merger could result in higher prices for the consumer. Also, I might be wrong..but monpoloys are illegal to an extent by the govetrment right? Someone has to stand up for the consumer. So if I own a restaurant and another competing restaurant and I are struggling to stay in business because of a third restaurant that is dominating the market in our city... Then we decide to merge our two restaurants in order to consolidate costs and increase our profits while providing a better experience for the user and increasing our prices at the same time.... The government should step in and stop us from doing that? This isn't a monopoly. There are other businesses providing the same service. The only "monopolies" are government controlled to begin with. Too bad that's not the case with AT&T. They'll continue to rip people off even after the merge.
|
|
|
Post by roddypiper on Aug 31, 2011 23:08:17 GMT -5
I disagree man. I think they should step in when a merger could result in higher prices for the consumer. Also, I might be wrong..but monpoloys are illegal to an extent by the govetrment right? Someone has to stand up for the consumer. So if I own a restaurant and another competing restaurant and I are struggling to stay in business because of a third restaurant that is dominating the market in our city... Then we decide to merge our two restaurants in order to consolidate costs and increase our profits while providing a better experience for the user and increasing our prices at the same time.... The government should step in and stop us from doing that? This isn't a monopoly. There are other businesses providing the same service. The only "monopolies" are government controlled to begin with. I think resturants are a bigger medium than Cell phones. You see more resturants then anything else..if they are going under them. When you are talking about a medium like communications though it is a whole other story. You can count on one hand the big cell phone service providers.. Verizon AT&T Sprint T- Mobile T mobile have excellent prices and it is not fair to the consumer if the merge with AT&T and drive up their prices. And that is what will happen. You think AT&T will give unlimited everything to two lines at 49.99 each? No, they will not. Further more you have these sections of the goverment that probably have contracts with T-mobile. They probably don't want their prices going up hence why they are stepping in.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Aug 31, 2011 23:24:10 GMT -5
I disagree man. I think they should step in when a merger could result in higher prices for the consumer. Also, I might be wrong..but monpoloys are illegal to an extent by the govetrment right? Someone has to stand up for the consumer. So if I own a restaurant and another competing restaurant and I are struggling to stay in business because of a third restaurant that is dominating the market in our city... Then we decide to merge our two restaurants in order to consolidate costs and increase our profits while providing a better experience for the user and increasing our prices at the same time.... The government should step in and stop us from doing that? This isn't a monopoly. There are other businesses providing the same service. The only "monopolies" are government controlled to begin with. 3 companies controlling 90% of the market sounds about as close to a monopoly as youd get in 2011. as the article says, T-Mobile competes through low-pricing and innovation. if the merger goes down, it takes more power from the consumer by forcing those customers into a corner of expensive plan A, B, and C. now you say, if youre unhappy with the alternative, just support one of the other carriers. do you know how terrible metroPCS is? cricKet? or any other crap phone company outside of CA & AZ? people will be forced to the top 3 because the others are complete crap. purely from the perspective of the consumer, i find it hard to argue in favor of the merger
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 1, 2011 1:26:05 GMT -5
Too bad that's not the case with AT&T. They'll continue to rip people off even after the merge. Well yes, but it's the consumers' fault if they continue to buy the crapproduct. I think resturants are a bigger medium than Cell phones. You see more resturants then anything else..if they are going under them. So small businesses should go under while large corporations flourish, basking in their large handouts and tax breaks from the federal government? Do you really not see the problem with this? You can count on one hand the big cell phone service providers.. Verizon AT&T Sprint T- Mobile And? You don't NEED a "big" cell phone provider. If you do, then you need to deal with their shit. T mobile have excellent prices and it is not fair to the consumer if the merge with AT&T and drive up their prices. How is that not fair to the consumer? Consumers are under contract, thus the company cannot raise their prices until they want to resign. At that point, the consumer is free to leave and find another, cheaper provider, if they so choose. And that is what will happen. You think AT&T will give unlimited everything to two lines at 49.99 each? No, they will not. Businesses raise their prices every ing day. Literally. This isn't some big change. Further more you have these sections of the goverment that probably have contracts with T-mobile. They probably don't want their prices going up hence why they are stepping in. Are you serious? Do you really think that the government pays retail prices for their cell phone plans? 3 companies controlling 90% of the market sounds about as close to a monopoly as youd get in 2011. That's not a monopoly. An oligopoly, sure, but not a monopoly. Not illegal. Shouldn't be illegal even if it is a monopoly. These things only happen because the government ALLOWS and often even ASSISTS them in happening. If they stopped sticking their noses in things and just let these companies run, there would be actual competition. as the article says, T-Mobile competes through low-pricing and innovation. if the merger goes down, it takes more power from the consumer by forcing those customers into a corner of expensive plan A, B, and C. Obviously they aren't competing very well if they are merging with another company. They have seen a MASSIVE drop-off in their subscribers because they cannot provide the same service that the other companies can, likely due to their lower prices. This is capitalism. now you say, if youre unhappy with the alternative, just support one of the other carriers. do you know how terrible metroPCS is? cricKet? or any other crap phone company outside of CA & AZ? people will be forced to the top 3 because the others are complete crap. purely from the perspective of the consumer, i find it hard to argue in favor of the merger I argue in favor of their ability to do what they want to do with their own business, because it is their ing business and NOT the government's. Allowing the government to decide the futures of companies is a dangerous precedent to set.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Sept 1, 2011 1:46:00 GMT -5
lol I never said those things. I have been falsely quoted.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 1, 2011 3:05:05 GMT -5
That's not a monopoly. An oligopoly, sure, but not a monopoly. Not illegal. Shouldn't be illegal even if it is a monopoly. what exactly would be the provisions for the consumer then, if monopolies were made legal? say AT&T was the only phone company in the US, where would the consumer go if the prices were too high? and what would stop AT&T from cranking up prices to where they themselves saw fit rather than what the market wouldve determined it to have been had monopoly stayed illegal? its one thing to say something and its another to know it. how do you know the govt allows and assists corporations like AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile in dominating the market? and spare the "do your own research" card please so what they could also do to respond to losing those subscribers would be to emulate the people who are taking their customers rather than buying that company up and forcing the consumer back into the arms of these ridiculously expensive phone companies. a much more consumer friendly approach. but obviously, they dont want to lower prices so theyve decided to try and buy up the cheaper alternative, hindering competition rather than encouraging it. what good is capitalism if there isnt any competition behind it? the future of the company isnt the only narrative to consider in the story. you must decide the impact the merger will have on the consumer as well and then decide whether or not the American people are better off with or without the merger. and just because the govt can sue AT&T and T-Mobile doesnt mean they have the power to go out and interfere with any and every little matter in all American businesses
|
|