View Full Version : Finally one good news coming from washington
ruthabagah
08-31-2011, 15:11
The doj is against the AT&T takeover of t-mobile. I'll drink to that (not that I need any excuses to drink, but...)
mcantar18c
08-31-2011, 15:13
Why?
ruthabagah
08-31-2011, 15:23
Well: it will reduce the number of carrier and increase the price for consumer. In addition: AT&T only wants t-mob network and will most likely fire everybody.
Drilldov2.0
08-31-2011, 15:26
So spending tax-payer dollars to sue private companies is a good idea in your opinion?
Nope, The real reason is ATT said if it went through, They would bring back 3000 jobs from foreign call centers to the USA..
The Bamster, can't have that..
streetglideok
08-31-2011, 15:38
AT&T is trying to strong arm the govt and the public with that idea, that, let us buy up our competition, and we will bring back jobs. Now, those 3k jobs, are they already ATT jobs overseas, or Tmobile? I know Sprint likes to use some country around the world, but does ATT? To me, these companies could bring back jobs, if they really wanted to. They choose not to. ATT and SW Bell, I believe, were forced to split under anti-trust laws once. They let them remerge some time back. Adding yet another company under their belt would be counterproductive IMO. Several companies need to be broken up as well as blocking this merger. Capitalism is great, but you cant have total anarchy. You let companies get too big, there is no competition, and they wont let there be competition. You also run the greater risk of dire consequences if that company becomes insolvent, and can severely affect the entire country. Then we get some muslim president/communist who tries to use that to nationalize the economy. Wait, that happened a few years ago! Thats why we have anti-trust laws, just need a president with the balls to use it.
Thats why we have anti-trust laws, just need a president with the balls to use it.
It's already been established that Obeyme is only enforcing laws he wants... immigration? Don't like it, I really don't see how we [.gov] need to actually enforce it. Corruption? Not in my administration! The BATFE and DOJ are saints!
I've had a number of cell carriers over the years and NONE have been as truly terrible as AT&T. I only have a month left on my contract and I'm then quite excitedly jumping ship - to any other company, none could possible drop every single call the way AT&T does!
Whether or not AT&T and T-Mobile get together won't influence my deep-seated hatred for AT&T [Mad]
Zundfolge
08-31-2011, 15:57
The truth is that AT&T + T-Mobile would be big enough to stand up to Google (who plan on being Obama's Ministry of Truth once Obama collapses the US economy and government and institutes himself as king).
Seriously though, I don't trust ANYTHING this administration nor their DOJ do, so if they're doin' something it must be wrong/evil/stupid/destructive.
I've had a number of cell carriers over the years and NONE have been as truly terrible as AT&T. I only have a month left on my contract and I'm then quite excitedly jumping ship - to any other company, none could possible drop every single call the way AT&T does!
Whether or not AT&T and T-Mobile get together won't influence my deep-seated hatred for AT&T [Mad]
I agree- that's why I got charged for early cancellation ($185!) when I switched to Verizon... I was so fed up with GAYT&T!
ruthabagah
08-31-2011, 18:33
I worked for all 3 carrier: T mob for 3 years, ATT for 13 month and Verizon for 8 month. All in regional / national management position. T mob is the company that treat their employee the best. They have over 3500 job here in Colorado, and no overseas call center (sorry Marlin). T mob management is mostly western state/florida folks, and they are conservative. When working in the 2 call center here, I could bring my cased firearm to work without anybody asking question... Not so much with att.... My team was so... Gay, that the other departments called it "the birdcage". Verizon, was just a bunch a mean people put together to bind their employee to slavery.
ruthabagah
08-31-2011, 18:34
So spending tax-payer dollars to sue private companies is a good idea in your opinion?
they are not suing them they are refusing to sign on the merger.
Damn I thought this was an Obama resignation topic.
Zundfolge
08-31-2011, 18:59
T mob management is mostly western state/florida folks, and they are conservative.
There you go ... the DOJ's actions are motivated by politics.
Rooskibar03
08-31-2011, 19:05
When Sirius and XM merged there were a shitton of Libtards, lefties, and others who stood to make a fortune and move their cause forward.
Funny how there was no outcry to that merger?
Zundfolge
08-31-2011, 19:08
Just remember kids, Crony Capitalism is simply Fascism without the snappy uniforms, military parades and death camps.
BigNick73
08-31-2011, 19:16
They have over 3500 job here in Colorado, and no overseas call center (sorry Marlin).
They do now. I almost switched to T-mobile from ATT a couple months ago, but had to talk to someone overseas that I couldn't understand in order to activate (ordered online). I called some other numbers and got a call center in the US but they said I had no choice but to deal with the Indians so I sent the phone back.
The doj is against the AT&T takeover of t-mobile. I'll drink to that (not that I need any excuses to drink, but...)
HUGE +1
Drilldov2.0
08-31-2011, 19:23
they are not suing them they are refusing to sign on the merger.
Well then, I guess no taxpayer dollars were harmed by the DOJ.
blacklabel
08-31-2011, 20:35
T-Mobile and ATT have call centers in other countries. The 5000 jobs that would be returned to the US would probably be a mix for both companies.
I had to deal with the Cingular and ATT merger. That was a nightmare and I doubt that this would be handled any better.
ruthabagah
08-31-2011, 20:40
T-Mobile and ATT have call centers in other countries. The 5000 jobs that would be returned to the US would probably be a mix for both companies.
I had to deal with the Cingular and ATT merger. That was a nightmare and I doubt that this would be handled any better.
I just spoke with one of my contact at T Mob and he just confirmed that T mob does not have a call center outside of the US BUT that HTC (handset provider) has an activation center in India (some kind of tier 2 thing)
Once again the gov sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
Who are any of you to tell ATT and T-Mobile shareholders and owners what they can and cannot do with their own companies?
There are also people who have immigrated here from other countries, working in American call centers.
Sharpienads
09-01-2011, 01:57
Who cares if these two companies merge? If you don't like it, don't do business with them. And to think that the government does ANYTHING because it's in your best interest is naive. The more the government does "for our own good" the less we take care of ourselves.
And the bigger point, where does the DOJ get the authority to stop this merger? Where's the constitutional authority? Sure, maybe you agree with the decision to stop the merger, and if you do, that's fine. But if they can stop this one, they can stop any.
Capitalism is not anarchy. In fact, I would argue that capitalism is the purest form of democracy. Every dollar spent at a business is a vote to keep them in business. If you don't like the way they operate, don't spend your money there. If enough people agree with you they will go out of business. Will the government bail them out? Maybe, but that's on the government, not capitalism. But what if you hate Walmart but can't afford to shop anywhere else? Bullshit. If you really wanted to stand on your principles, you wouldn't shop there, regardless of income. It's just a lot easier to make excuses than it is to be true to your principles.
The way I see it, anything that the federal government does that is not expressly authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the constitution should not be done by the federal government, regardless of the outcome.
The more the government does for you, the less you do for yourself.
Who cares if these two companies merge? If you don't like it, don't do business with them. And to think that the government does ANYTHING because it's in your best interest is naive. The more the government does "for our own good" the less we take care of ourselves.
And the bigger point, where does the DOJ get the authority to stop this merger? Where's the constitutional authority? Sure, maybe you agree with the decision to stop the merger, and if you do, that's fine. But if they can stop this one, they can stop any.
Capitalism is not anarchy. In fact, I would argue that capitalism is the purest form of democracy. Every dollar spent at a business is a vote to keep them in business. If you don't like the way they operate, don't spend your money there. If enough people agree with you they will go out of business. Will the government bail them out? Maybe, but that's on the government, not capitalism. But what if you hate Walmart but can't afford to shop anywhere else? Bullshit. If you really wanted to stand on your principles, you wouldn't shop there, regardless of income. It's just a lot easier to make excuses than it is to be true to your principles.
The way I see it, anything that the federal government does that is not expressly authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the constitution should not be done by the federal government, regardless of the outcome.
The more the government does for you, the less you do for yourself.
Exactly.
We have too much government at all levels.
n8tive97
09-01-2011, 07:51
Who cares if these two companies merge? If you don't like it, don't do business with them. And to think that the government does ANYTHING because it's in your best interest is naive. The more the government does "for our own good" the less we take care of ourselves.
And the bigger point, where does the DOJ get the authority to stop this merger? Where's the constitutional authority? Sure, maybe you agree with the decision to stop the merger, and if you do, that's fine. But if they can stop this one, they can stop any.
Capitalism is not anarchy. In fact, I would argue that capitalism is the purest form of democracy. Every dollar spent at a business is a vote to keep them in business. If you don't like the way they operate, don't spend your money there. If enough people agree with you they will go out of business. Will the government bail them out? Maybe, but that's on the government, not capitalism. But what if you hate Walmart but can't afford to shop anywhere else? Bullshit. If you really wanted to stand on your principles, you wouldn't shop there, regardless of income. It's just a lot easier to make excuses than it is to be true to your principles.
The way I see it, anything that the federal government does that is not expressly authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the constitution should not be done by the federal government, regardless of the outcome.
The more the government does for you, the less you do for yourself.
And the winner goes to....... ^^^HIM^^^
CMP_5.56
09-01-2011, 08:07
AT&T is trying to strong arm the govt and the public with that idea, that, let us buy up our competition, and we will bring back jobs. Now, those 3k jobs, are they already ATT jobs overseas, or Tmobile? I know Sprint likes to use some country around the world, but does ATT? To me, these companies could bring back jobs, if they really wanted to. They choose not to. ATT and SW Bell, I believe, were forced to split under anti-trust laws once. They let them remerge some time back. Adding yet another company under their belt would be counterproductive IMO. Several companies need to be broken up as well as blocking this merger. Capitalism is great, but you cant have total anarchy. You let companies get too big, there is no competition, and they wont let there be competition. You also run the greater risk of dire consequences if that company becomes insolvent, and can severely affect the entire country. Then we get some muslim president/communist who tries to use that to nationalize the economy. Wait, that happened a few years ago! Thats why we have anti-trust laws, just need a president with the balls to use it.
I can tell you this, AA a former t-mobile customer I know I never had to talk to anyone overseas. My best friends wife is in upper management at t-mobile, and all their call center jobs are in the U.S., including one of their largest call centers right here in Colorado. On 84th and I-25 as a matter of fact. So if at&t is saying they are moving 3000 jobs here from overseas, it just means they will be firing all of t-mobiles employees and taking over their call centers.
I like where this has headed- I see some concerned because now instead of the big 3 cell carriers there maybe only two and that could venture into monopoly territory- because we all know Boost, Virgin and Cricket don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming powerful enough to get nation wide coverage at the same level AT&T and Verizon currently have and grow at the rate they are. The main reason I moved from AT&T to Verizon was because of the service where I live. Evergreen is home to more dead zones for AT&T than the middle of the Nevada desert, whereas Verizon is expanding their coverage area in the mountains to accommodate the population increase (we've seen a 250% increase in population in the last 5 years, despite the economy). AT&T is clearly lagging in that respect while upgrading their services in Denver, Ft. Collins, CO Springs and Pueblo. It's estimated that by mid 2012 all of Evergreen/Conifer will be on 4G, with Bailey, Pine, Jefferson and maybe Fairplay by the end of 2012/early 2013. AT&T is estimated to be 4G in Evergreen/Conifer by early 2013 if not Summer 2013... no estimates yet for further down the 285 corridor. And good news for western slope, Verizon has plans to upgrade early next year in the Gunnison Valley to get a wider coverage area for those living in more rural areas.
I am not a Verizon employee, these are facts I looked at from a friend who works for a cellular data company in the Springs.
hollohas
09-01-2011, 10:10
Who cares if these two companies merge? If you don't like it, don't do business with them. And to think that the government does ANYTHING because it's in your best interest is naive. The more the government does "for our own good" the less we take care of ourselves.
And the bigger point, where does the DOJ get the authority to stop this merger? Where's the constitutional authority? Sure, maybe you agree with the decision to stop the merger, and if you do, that's fine. But if they can stop this one, they can stop any.
Capitalism is not anarchy. In fact, I would argue that capitalism is the purest form of democracy. Every dollar spent at a business is a vote to keep them in business. If you don't like the way they operate, don't spend your money there. If enough people agree with you they will go out of business. Will the government bail them out? Maybe, but that's on the government, not capitalism. But what if you hate Walmart but can't afford to shop anywhere else? Bullshit. If you really wanted to stand on your principles, you wouldn't shop there, regardless of income. It's just a lot easier to make excuses than it is to be true to your principles.
The way I see it, anything that the federal government does that is not expressly authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the constitution should not be done by the federal government, regardless of the outcome.
The more the government does for you, the less you do for yourself.
^this.
And I have a different question too. T-Mobile, USA is currently owned by Deutsche Telekom AG (http://www.telekom.com/dtag/cms/content/dt/en/30782) (not American). So if AT&T acquires T-Mobile, that means Deutsche Telekom no longer holds it so T-Mobile becomes an American company, owned by an American company. Right? Sounds ok to me...
Everytime there were M&A with other celluar companies, we had rate hike.
It also happened to cable/broadband side as well (after AT&T sold cable/broadband unit to Comcast).
People can show over 10 economic models with properly ran regression/econometrics that this M&A will "most likely" not benefit the consumers.
If someone argued that t-mobile was owned by Deutsche Telekom, Verizon wireless is mainly owned by Vodafone.
DOJ and FTC does overlook some M&A due to antitrust. They look over possible monopoly that can create deadweight loss to consumer, and possible price fixing.
This is why Robinson–Patman act, Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act , and other acts were created.
Where is their authority? In the ant-trust laws.
I have an idea for all you guys who think the government should stick their nose into ATT / T-Mobile's business.
How about if the government sets YOUR prices, salaries and profit margins and makes sure you don't take home too much money no matter how hard you work?
What do you think of that huh? I'll bet you don't like it one bit.
The ignorance and stupidity displayed in this thread is simply astounding, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
streetglideok
09-01-2011, 22:13
I never said capitalism was anarchy, just that capitalism, without some regulation, is just like a country without laws, you have a real mess on your hands. How many of you have really studied, not read a biased history book, but studied the panic of '93, as in 1893, or the crash of 1929, and what led up to it? In the case of '29, they let the good times roll, and stayed out of everyone's business. Let capitalism run its course. It did, out of control and then it imploded on itself. Those who are chanting, no interference by the feds will drastically rethink their idealogy when suddenly you have little money, everything costs alot more, you have no job, and a quarter of the country has no jobs either. What we are in now is a spat over coffee compared to the '30s, as it was worse in all ways you can imagine. I think the feds have gone too far in some respects, but because of greed, and the lack of good sense, we have to be babysitted. Otherwise, we will get ourselves back in trouble. For those who dont understand why there is anti-trust laws, again, some history studies are in order. Research the Standard Oil Company. Thats a well known one. Big guy comes in, drops his prices to gain market share, sounds capitalistic, right? His competitors fall, and finally, no more comeptition. Now he is free to raise prices to whatever he sees fit, dispite demand. If anyone tries to compete, he simply drops prices, and smashes them back out. People say one thing now, but when its their turn to take the ride, the vast majority will change their mindset and cry foil. Some good light reading would be the Roosevelt presidency, not FDR, the incestous socialist,lol, I am talking Theodore.
I have an idea for all you guys who think the government should stick their nose into ATT / T-Mobile's business.
How about if the government sets YOUR prices, salaries and profit margins and makes sure you don't take home too much money no matter how hard you work?
What do you think of that huh? I'll bet you don't like it one bit.
The ignorance and stupidity displayed in this thread is simply astounding, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
You'd think differently about this if you tried to start a business and an established company purchased all your goods out from under you and killed all your employees.
Monopoly laws are interesting. It's a pretty fine line and for sure a slippery slope. Government intervention into the private sector is generally bad, but so is having 5 different power lines running right next to each other all over town.
Research the Standard Oil Company. Thats a well known one. Big guy comes in, drops his prices to gain market share, sounds capitalistic, right? His competitors fall, and finally, no more comeptition. Now he is free to raise prices to whatever he sees fit, dispite demand. If anyone tries to compete, he simply drops prices, and smashes them back out. People say one thing now, but when its their turn to take the ride, the vast majority will change their mindset and cry foil.
The reason there are no American television manufacturers (well, there might be a few now trying to come back) was because the American government didn't interfere with the Japanese in the 80's when they _________ the television industry. I can't remember the term. It is price dumping or something.
Basically, Japan came to America with their televisions, and sold them for way less than American televisions and flooded the market. Japan is very good at long term business strategies. America doesn't even know that there is such a thing a long term business strategy. Anyway, not only was Japan selling the tv's for less than the US brands, but they were selling them for less than they were selling them for back in Japan. Actually, they were selling them for less than they even cost to make, and were jacking UP the price in Japan to make up some of the difference. As a result, Japan ended up taking a loss on their product for a few years, but completely destroyed the American tv market. And now you know why there are no US TV manufacturers.
China apparently did the same thing with garlic in the early 2000's.
The term is called Market Dumping by the way.
And didn't Regan ask the Japanese to back off with their cars in the 80's, under the threat that if they didn't, he would ban their import all together? I'm under the impression that he did that because he was afraid that they were going to utilize Dumping in the car market and destroy the US Auto industry the way they did with the TV's.
The car thing might have happened earlier than the TV's though. I didn't pay much attention back then.
Sharpienads
09-02-2011, 01:07
Where is their authority? In the ant-trust laws.
I must have missed the anti-trust clause in the constitution.
Sure you could argue interstate commerce, but that clause has been abused. It's currently being argued that the federal government can mandate private citizens to buy a product from a private company because if they don't, they're affecting interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government can intervene. Not saying that has anything to do with the current topic, just showing how far the federal government has skewed the meaning of the clause. They did the same thing to a farmer and his wheat. I can't remember what the Supreme Court case is, but basically since the farmer grew wheat for his own consumption instead of selling it, he was affecting interstate commerce and therefore could be regulated. Ridiculous.
Sharpienads
09-02-2011, 01:24
I never said capitalism was anarchy, just that capitalism, without some regulation, is just like a country without laws, you have a real mess on your hands. How many of you have really studied, not read a biased history book, but studied the panic of '93, as in 1893, or the crash of 1929, and what led up to it? In the case of '29, they let the good times roll, and stayed out of everyone's business. Let capitalism run its course. It did, out of control and then it imploded on itself. Those who are chanting, no interference by the feds will drastically rethink their idealogy when suddenly you have little money, everything costs alot more, you have no job, and a quarter of the country has no jobs either. What we are in now is a spat over coffee compared to the '30s, as it was worse in all ways you can imagine. I think the feds have gone too far in some respects, but because of greed, and the lack of good sense, we have to be babysitted. Otherwise, we will get ourselves back in trouble. For those who dont understand why there is anti-trust laws, again, some history studies are in order. Research the Standard Oil Company. Thats a well known one. Big guy comes in, drops his prices to gain market share, sounds capitalistic, right? His competitors fall, and finally, no more comeptition. Now he is free to raise prices to whatever he sees fit, dispite demand. If anyone tries to compete, he simply drops prices, and smashes them back out. People say one thing now, but when its their turn to take the ride, the vast majority will change their mindset and cry foil. Some good light reading would be the Roosevelt presidency, not FDR, the incestous socialist,lol, I am talking Theodore.
You are correct, you did not say capitalism is anarchy. I should have specified in my post the "Pure capitalism is not anarchy". But we do have laws, laws that the federal government has made with no constitutional authority. Whether you agree with the laws or not doesn't change the fact that the federal government doesn't have the power to make them in the first place. And just because I don't want the federal government to do it doesn't mean I don't want it done (in some cases).
If you price you products lower than your competitor, it's called price gouging.
If you price them higher, you practice predatory pricing.
If you price them the same, then you are colluding.
WTF are you supposed to do then?
You'd think differently about this if you tried to start a business and an established company purchased all your goods out from under you and killed all your employees.
Monopoly laws are interesting. It's a pretty fine line and for sure a slippery slope. Government intervention into the private sector is generally bad, but so is having 5 different power lines running right next to each other all over town.
Government regulations hurt big business, but they hurt small business even more. Small businesses can't afford to negotiate the constricted path weaved by the government. The government is enabling large businesses to get larger and the government is taking the little guy right out of the equation.
Small business is the backbone of the American economy. I wouldn't try to start a small business in this economic climate, there are too many rules and fees and red tape to work through.
We need freedom of choice in the marketplace. Since these regulations hamstring small business to such a degree they can't properly engage in their ability to innovate, develop and invent we don't get the choices of products that we could have.
I work for a large company, my company buys small companies that can't make it in large part to over-regulation by the government. These small companies employed many people in the regions they operated in, now those people don't have jobs as a direct result of government intervention in the smaller companies they were working for.
We need some regulation but not nearly as much as there is now.
This country is about freedom and big government is all about suppression of freedom, this government interference with ATT / TMobile is just another example of suppression of freedom. Don't worry though, the government might be slow but they'll get to us peons eventually.
streetglideok
09-02-2011, 06:49
Remember, freedom is never truly free. That sentence is much deeper than one initially thinks.
I agree with the last three posts.
The Federal government has WAY over stepped itself.
The Federal government does interfere with business big and small. Anyone paying attention to what is happening with the tech industry right now with patents? Ridiculous.
Freedom isn't free. Foxtrot once wrote a great explanation of this statement. It's not about soldiers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.