Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 21, 2011 11:50:29 GMT -6
ATT has apparently been given permission to buy up T-mobile, in a typically 21st Century manner to wipe out it's competition. ATT's justification was that it would improve access, services, and be better for all involved blah, blah, blah. ATT also falsely implied it would reduce costs to consumers, and perhaps "allow" them to drop rates.
Group urges Democrats
to reverse support of AT&T/T-Mobile merger
By Brendan Sasso -
08/18/11
"The media-reform group Free Press on Thursday urged 76 House Democrats to reconsider their support of AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile.
The group told the lawmakers there is new evidence that AT&T misled them about the benefits of the merger for consumers.
The Democrats, led by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.), voiced their support for the deal in a June 24 letter. They cited as key to their support AT&T’s plan to deploy 4G wireless broadband to more than 97% of the country if the deal is approved.
But according to Free Press, information that AT&T accidentally released last week undermines the company’s claim that it needs to buy T-Mobile to expand broadband access.
Documents unintentionally posted on the Federal Communications Commission’s website revealed it would cost AT&T $3.8 billion to expand its 4G coverage to 97% of the country — far less than the $39 billion cost of acquiring T-Mobile.
“The numbers don’t add up,” Free Press Political Director Joel Kelsey wrote in a letter to the lawmakers. “It’s clear that AT&T is willing to pay a hefty premium to kill the competition.”
Kelsey argued the deal would create a duopoly, with AT&T and Verizon controlling most of the wireless market. He claimed it would reduce consumer choice, lead to higher monthly bills and destroy jobs."
This should never have been approved to begin with, regardless of the validity of ATT's claim that it would expand access. In a free market economy, everything possible should be done to prevent mergers and buyouts. The ultimate goal of ATT and other big firms is to control markets to achieve pricing power from the resultant lack of competition.
Shame on the Democrats who went along with this.
Haven't we learned anything from our too-big-to-fail banking industry?
What ever happened to all those politicians wailing about "competitiveness"
Doesn't monopolization of markets destroy "competitiveness" ??
Group urges Democrats
to reverse support of AT&T/T-Mobile merger
By Brendan Sasso -
08/18/11
"The media-reform group Free Press on Thursday urged 76 House Democrats to reconsider their support of AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile.
The group told the lawmakers there is new evidence that AT&T misled them about the benefits of the merger for consumers.
The Democrats, led by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.), voiced their support for the deal in a June 24 letter. They cited as key to their support AT&T’s plan to deploy 4G wireless broadband to more than 97% of the country if the deal is approved.
But according to Free Press, information that AT&T accidentally released last week undermines the company’s claim that it needs to buy T-Mobile to expand broadband access.
Documents unintentionally posted on the Federal Communications Commission’s website revealed it would cost AT&T $3.8 billion to expand its 4G coverage to 97% of the country — far less than the $39 billion cost of acquiring T-Mobile.
“The numbers don’t add up,” Free Press Political Director Joel Kelsey wrote in a letter to the lawmakers. “It’s clear that AT&T is willing to pay a hefty premium to kill the competition.”
Kelsey argued the deal would create a duopoly, with AT&T and Verizon controlling most of the wireless market. He claimed it would reduce consumer choice, lead to higher monthly bills and destroy jobs."
This should never have been approved to begin with, regardless of the validity of ATT's claim that it would expand access. In a free market economy, everything possible should be done to prevent mergers and buyouts. The ultimate goal of ATT and other big firms is to control markets to achieve pricing power from the resultant lack of competition.
Shame on the Democrats who went along with this.
Haven't we learned anything from our too-big-to-fail banking industry?
What ever happened to all those politicians wailing about "competitiveness"
Doesn't monopolization of markets destroy "competitiveness" ??