Your continuing to say that does not make it true. Got anything to back it up from an unbiased source or are you once again just pulling crap from your nether regions.I think it depends on the industry. The telecom industry is already one of the most uncompetitive industries in America.
...
Bull****. Problem is that it is very expensive to expand in the US because there is no legislation requiring sharing of infrastructure. It is easier for Deutche Telecom to expand in other markets at a fraction of the price.
Cheaper product? You do realize that mobile rates, especially the data rates have gone up in the US right?
That was at&t's problem to begin with.... They were too big and controlled too much of the market. After they were forced to stop being the monopoly that they were, choices got much better. I dont know if they should be allowed to merge or not, but seems to me that they are just getting closer and closer to doing the same thing that got them in trouble to begin with!
I don't understand why (some) conservatives/libertarians support huge business agglomerations in industries that already aren't very competitive. It's almost as though for some people, a lack of government intervention is an end itself, instead of a means to an end (i.e. a more competitive marketplace). Capitalism should be about competition, not about a total lack of any government intervention whatsoever. Anti-monopoly laws are absolutely necessary because capitalism simply doesn't work very well if you don't have a competitive marketplace. And the US telecom industry is atrociously uncompetitive, thanks to the fact that four carriers essentially dominate the landscape.
I don't get their stance either. It is as if they are saying "the free market is great" and then promptly forget what a free market is. Here is a clue, conservatives: a free market does not exist where monopoly or oligopoly exists.
Perhaps they feel there is already plenty of competition within the marketplace, and if AT&T and T-Mobile think it is in their best interests to go forth with the deal they should? There are typically at least 4 providers of wireless in a community, we have vi-op, lots of people have cable and satellite TV/phone or even use the internet, and also local and long distance telephone. Plus there is industry specific competition, one example would be Verizon and AT&T competing for the iPhone. Contrary to what you believe, technology has made the telecom industry very competitive.
We disagree on how competitive 4 players are in a market system. But, that aside, I don't think any merger should be allowed unless it can be shown that it has an inherent, clear advantage for consumers and workers. We presumably have this capitalistic free market system in place to increase the well being of society, not the well being of stockholders.
The telecom industry has large fixed costs. Communications company's spend roughly 15% of their revenue on capital improvements every year. They have to do this to keep their coverage, capacity, speeds, etc competitive. It makes sense that large companies tend to dominate, since big companies like AT&T and Verizon have cost advantages over small companies in this industry. The mobile market in the US has become very mature and has led to decreasing prices and many subscribers changing providers every year. Broadband and data services have been growing rapidly. Think about it, What are we on now, 4G? How many commercials do you see for wireless providers on TV compared to other industries? There are numerous substitutes and rapidly changing technology in the market forcing these companies to stay competitive.
The government has no place telling private companies they can't merge.
The merging of AT&T and T-Mobile would hardly create a monopoly.
I find it interesting that the same people who are so quick to rail against government monopolies are often fully supportive of corporate monopolies. I think that people often repeat the "government is inefficient" meme without really understanding WHY that is (sometimes) the case. It's not just because it's government, it's because of the inherently monopolistic nature of government. Often it is because of the fact that the government has no competition for some of its services...exactly the same reason that corporate monopolies are often inefficient and overly expensive.
I find it interesting that the same people who are so quick to rail against government monopolies are often fully supportive of corporate monopolies. I think that people often repeat the "government is inefficient" meme without really understanding WHY that is (sometimes) the case. It's not just because it's government, it's because of the inherently monopolistic nature of government. When government services are inefficient, it is often because of the fact that the government has no competition for some of its services...exactly the same reason that corporate monopolies are often inefficient and overly expensive.
That is fail.
Government can make it so you can't get out from their fingernails.
In the shear chance that monopoly forms( and no that subjective definition nonsense) its still just a service you can perfectly ignore.
Yep, you could just get out of a telecom monopoly by living as a hermit and sending letters on pigeons. :roll:
Just like you could just get out of a DMV monopoly by moving next door to your office and biking everywhere.