and so it begins: dems take first swipes at business

Well, actually yes you do. You could go completely cellular. You could get cable and use Vonage. You could pick another carrier. That AT&T merges with SBC doesn't affect your CHOICES which is the crux of a monopoly argument.

If they charged outrageous fees that would make them LESS competitive.

 

What advantage do skinny phone lines have over cable? Add ubiquitous cell phones ... they're getting their butts kicked.

...although I admit some pleasure watching ATT squirm since they suck.

 

I can't go cellular because reception at my house is spotty at best. I'll admit I haven't asked recently about the availability of other companies, but when the house was built 7 years ago, it was. Since I can get DSL through Cameron I guess I could use Vontage but I still need a regular phone line, they won't do a dry DSL line.. I asked.


If Cam Tel, for example, charges another phone company outrageous fees to use their infrastructure, that makes them less comptetitive? How do you figure?

 

The point is that your situation is not changed by a AT&T/Bell South merger. If you have one option now, you'll still have one option then. If you have multiple options now, you'll still have multiple options then.

That's still subject to government regulation, just as AT&T couldn't price MCI out of the market for long distance.

 

I think you mean Haliburton and the GOP.

 

Companies with larger shares of infrastructure have a bigger stake in the debate. If their plan for a tiered and toll system works, the combined company would profit immensely than say two or more seperate competitors w/ 80% of the infrastructure waging a price war for the best toll.

This merged company would have less incentive to compromise with the opposition and more incentive to push their lobbyists for favorable legislation.

 

AT&T and Bell South are not competitors. This doesn't remove competition from the market.

 

In the tiered internet scenario, AT&T and Bell South wouldn't be competitors with end users, but they would be competitors when it comes to content providers such as Google or Yahoo.

While they traditionally supply regional services, the internet is less geographically restrictive. Google might not pick a merged AT&T for its better infrastructure but rather from its influence or marketshare.

 

That Democratic majority has gotten a free-ride for too long!!

NO MORE!!!

 

My point is that they offer different services, this isn't like a merger of two competitors in one market which would then form a monopoly in that market. These are two vendors with complimentary services. An argument like you make above could be made about any acquisition or merger. It doesn't unfairly prevent competition, which was the basis for the Sherman Act and other anti-trust legislation. That a merged company might be selected because they offer a good value to customers and hence have influence and marketshare does not merit a charge of monopolistic practices.

 

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. The telecom industry is already functionally monopolized as is. Bell South, AT&T, Verizon, etc.. are all regional monopolies. They control different segments of the country. Currently, we only have one choice when it comes to landline telephone service as is. The same goes with broadband. I only have one choice for a cable provider (two if you count earthlink but they just use roadrunner and charge the same prices as well) and one DSL service (SBC/AT&T).

When they broke up the baby bells, they created regional monopolies because they falsely assumed that regional competition would sprout in the different regions. That never happened and each baby bell formed its own regional niche market. The broadband and cable television industries are the same story. They are all dominated by regional monopolies.

Point being, a merger of this sort doesn't make anything less competitive. It already has zero competition because the massive startup and overhead costs required to create legitimate competition to any of the regional telephone/cable/broadband companies are just too high. That's why in many countries those services are a public utility because the government can at least subsidize and reduce the costs somewhat.

 

basso is just anti-democrat. there's no point in getting worked up by anything he wwrites. it's just to get a reaction out of liberals. fact is, he probably is a liberal himself deep down inside, but has some self-hatred complex which makes him be a seething anti-democrat.

but engaging him is just what he wants...not to debate, but just to instigate.

 

The state of broadband today is because of the political influence of telecoms and cable companies who wanted to funnel customers onto their older infrastructure. Other countries like Korea have faster and cheaper access because they aren't saddled with regionally accepted monopolies that use legislation to stifle startups. They have companies that provide cheap wifi and fiber optic broadband along with the others.

This merger would solidify the status quo. Those who accept the current 2 mainstream broadband choices (cable and dsl) wouldn't have a problem with the merger.

For most people DSL is good enough and at $20 or less, it's cheap enough. Yet our broadband (speed and % who use it vs. dialup) isn't among the best compared to other countries. It's relative to what's considered good value.

 

S Korea has faster and cheaper access for a variety of reasons including massive government investment and loans in new infrastructure, government directed goals (including in the partially state owned former state monopoly Korea Telecom), and a denser population. I don't think you can draw direct comparisons.

You have not only two competing companies but two competing industries to provide these services. That isn't a monopoly. The merger doesn't create a monopoly.

"Nevertheless, natural market forces seem to be pushing the U.S. industry in a similar direction (as Korea). Competition between cable modems and DSL, even as muted as it is in many places, has helped drive down DSL prices and boost speeds offered by cable companies. A first generation of rivals that used the DSL lines have largely vanished, but new competition could be offered in a few years by wireless, power line and satellite broadband companies. "The presence of those competing technologies will drive things forward," said Floyd Kvamme, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist who co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. "If (broadband) is worthwhile, competition will drive it into anyone's home who really wants it."

South Korea Leads the Way

 

Poor big business. They might have to relinguish parts of their welfare our tax dollars give them. The Welfare Kings may even lose some of the billion-dollar subsidies that we pay for to enrich corporate coffers.

They may even have to pay taxes! Damn! Those are nasty swipes!

 

What does this have to do with subsidies or taxes?

 

Nothing.

 

Nothing at all. But seriously, look at his user name. You know he probably wakes up in the morning and says a ritualistic curse against big corporations as part of his wake up routine.

 

You guys are so worked up for nothing, ATT and Bell South merger doesn't come close to be a monopoly. In fact their business compliment each other, that's why they want to merge.

There are plenty of competition out there for telecom companies. Cable/Wireless all are take big chucks of customs away from traditional RBOCs. They are entering each other's market (phone company providing TV content, cable providing phone service etc). The last mile cooper is becoming very much unnecessary. As for google, they have plenty of choices regarding who carries their traffic, they might even build their own network. ATT and Bell South would have minimal impact on their business.