« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The nonsensical, astroturf campaign against AT&T and T-Mobile

I’ve said before that the case against the AT&T/T-Mobile deal makes no sense. Not only does the historical record suggest that the merger will increase competition, but the actions of key players are the opposite of what we’d predict if the merger were expected to reduce competition and raise margins.

There’s something more to it, though. That something is astroturf pushing a basic agenda of an expanded government role in the media. Why yes, the same forces were behind Net Neutrality that are now behind the anti-AT&T coalition, in addition to Sprint who wants to keep prices higher and competition lower, by preventing AT&T and T-Mobile from getting together and being more effective.

As Amanda Carey says at the Daily Caller:

The new coalition is called NoTakeover.org, and was launched soon after the announcement of the merger with the support and backing of Sprint. It also includes many of the pressure groups that took part in the net neutrality battle: Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and New America Foundation.

But while NoTakeover.org is passed off as a public interest group looking out for consumers, it recycles the same media reform activists. One of its features is called the “Angry T-Mobile Customer-of-the-Week,” where average citizens are able to blow off steam and explain why they’re against the merger.

The first angry customer was someone named Ben Byrne. But Byrne is far from the average consumer. From 2003 to 2008, he served as Creative and Technical Manager of the media reform group Free Press. Byrne did not return TheDC’s request for comment.

Funny how we just linked in Free Press, the final part of the Marxist Media Reform band, with the rest of the gang already involved with No Takeover. Public Knowledge is openly OSI/George Soros-funded. Free Press won’t disclose its funding despite promising the House to do so.

But, astroturf and deception are all the opponents have, because as AT&T points out, they don’t have the facts on their side:

Unfortunately for merger opponents like Sprint, facts matter. We have presented a detailed fact-based showing of the enormous benefits of this transaction to consumers, workers, rural Americans, and others. It is for that reason that I am confident that we will win approval of this transaction. And as we move forward with the process, we will continue to focus on the facts.

AT&T shows that Sprint knows the market is strong and healthy, but is skewing the facts for corporate gain at the expense of the public. I’m all for free competition and the profit motive, but using government to try to harm a competitor is out of bounds in my book.

The deal must go through. Astroturf and bad behavior must not be rewarded.

COMMENTS

  • wstagner

    TM has considerably better customer service than ATT, simpler billing/plans. If the merger goes thru (it will… I’m already seeing ads about ATT incorporating TM on TV) my family will be switching to some other service that caters to old people, like us, such as Jitterbug aka Greatcall.

  • calvinedwards

    AT&T has gotten support from every union in the country . In return AT&T has promised to support every union come negotiation time .
    AT&T has also promised to spread wireless broadband to 97 percent of America even though it isn’t profitable . That being said they have already filled out the government paperwork for it to be subsidized by the American taxpayers . So Obama’s goal will still be reached just on the taxpayers dime not AT&T’s .

    Why does Red State allow you to astroturf for AT&T ? There are several conservative reasons why this merger should be blocked .

  • Aaron Gardner

    Or should we just show you to the door right now.

  • streiff

    1. RedState doesn’t “allow” or “disallow” very much in the way of opinions by contributors.

    2. Neil is hardly AstroTurf, he’s more of a hardy variety of crabgrass.

    Further mindless ad hominems will receive a frowny face from the moderators.

  • gekster

    I guess you need a little crabgrass in you to be an effective hall monitor.
    Thanks for the smile I got from that. :)

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    http://www.usatoday.com/community/profile.htm?plckPersonaPage=PersonaComments&plckUserId=7339c2fdbf7f5c0c&UID=7339c2fdbf7f5c0c

    Just so people understand that you just don’t like conservatives very much. I especially enjoyed this comment:

    Comment on: Helen Thomas retires after controversial comments on Israel – The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency at 6/7/2010 2:20 PM EDT
    Helen I agree fully with what you said . You were smart to apologize . They would hunt you & kill you .

    And by enjoyed I mean ‘was disgusted by.’

    Normally this would be a bit of mean-spiritedness on my behalf, but then you did try to anonymously attack one of my colleagues.

    Moe Lane

    PS: Blam.

  • Bill S
  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

    I’m guessing you have about as good a handle on this term as you do terms like “swiftboating” and “neocon”: a very poor one.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Bill S

    It implies that we’re getting paid.

    If only…

  • gekster

    Did you really want that.
    Just to warn ya, my Mom gave me a good recipi for dandylion wine, so watch out.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Jay_Cee

    T-mobile has always undercut ATT/Verizon by $5-$10/month on most plans and services. I tearfully abandoned T-mobile for the glitter of the Iphone4 last year, but I still appreciate having them around to assert some sort of price pressure on ATT/Verizon (who seem to largely copy each other’s pricing – see Verizon’s recently announced retreat from unlimited data).

    I don’t see how T-mobile going away is going to be anything but bad for the consumer.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Jay_Cee

    But I’ve read your arguments a couple of times now and they don’t make sense to me. Given the choice between all the “yeah, buts…” I have with your theory and my gut reaction and limited experience, I’ll stick to my poorly researched view. Good luck convincing others!

  • powertothepeople

    and what you seem to be missing is that you opinion on the merger matters none. Historically, mergers have created more products, jobs, new business, and competition. But since this is a free market where companies can decide their own fate, you liking it or blindly stating there is no upside to the merger has little bearing on the company decision or historical benefits from mergers. And that includes past mergers of phone providers.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Ignorant, baseless speculation just reflects poorly on the person making such comments, when they try to argue with anyone who’s read actual, in-depth research on the subject.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m dismissing your opinion as irrelevant to a reasoned, informed discussion of the subject.

  • jiminga

    that include the loss of redundant jobs after the merger. Logic dictates that fewer players equals less competition, creating more dominant players that can dictate pricing.

    But if our goal is to get unemployment back up to 10% then I say approve the merger, and others like it.

  • jccbin

    loathe AT&T and wish them doom in everything they attempt.

    Of course, if I were a global nuclear power, I’d have nuked LA, NYC, and DC and solved the Political Elitist Class Problem, too.

    So much for wishful thinking.

  • blarman

    Merging T-Mobile and AT&T will do nothing for customers because they both serve the same markets – not different ones. All AT&T is trying to do is eliminate a competitor. Check out the coverage maps and you will see that T-Mobile’s acquisition doesn’t bring any more coverage to AT&T, and T-Mobile doesn’t have cell services that would immediately improve AT&T’s network (neither has 4G). This merger is about eliminating competition, not increasing it.

    I’m neither for nor against the merger itself, I just take issue with this being turned into a political story proclaiming that this merger is inherently good because other mergers have been good. That is a generalization fallacy.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I never said that. You put up a straw man to further your big government agenda.

    On top of that, your comment completely lacks in fact and logic. It’s just handwaved opinion, and is therefore worse than useless.

    Have a nice day.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Get educated and try again.

  • MF
  • powertothepeople
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Big government buffoons have the spectrum locked up tight, preventing AT&T from buying what it needs, let alone T-Mobile.

    So they decide to get together… and then big government buffoons try to block it.

    Big government is harming competition, harming improved service, and shivving America to further some radical socialist agenda.

  • http://sleepyeyedwhiners.blogspot.com Jay

    I am amazed by the idiotic level of discussion on this subject.

    The merger makes sense for AT&T, and to argue otherwise, well, I don’t know if people look at the facts. T-Mobile and AT&T use the same technology, and share a path to 4G. Spectrum is key in this industry, and this is a way for T to get more of that, in addition to gaining T-Mobile’s customers, and returning to being the largest wireless carrier. If you don’t think THAT is important to T, you don’t know anything about this company.

    At the same time, it’s going to add needed bandwidth in particular markets, and result in quite a few synergies, meaning cost-cutting.

    I don’t think any company goes into a merger with “increasing competition” as a goal, unless, of course, they’re coming from the bottom of the market (i.e., where Sprint sits). But, does this merger ultimately help the customer? I can’t say for sure, but T-Mobile has been a lower cost alternative to AT&T and Verizon, but, the reason T-Mobile is for sale is that they are not making enough money being #4 in this market.

    When this is done there will still be 3 major players in the market, and, generally, that’s about the max number of large players any national market can sustain.

    It’s not anti-competitive, it’s at worst neutral.

  • acat

    Does anyone complain that there are “only” three big car companies in the U.S.? Did anyone think the HP/Compaq merger would hurt consumers?

    Every industry consolidates, wireless is no different. Yes, this merger is going to force some T-Mobile customers to take a closer look at Verizon and Sprint. So what?

    The GM buyout of Oldsmobile and Chevrolet forced their respective buyers to take a closer look at Ford, and we seem to have survivied … the HP/Compaq merger got some people looking more closely at IBM and Dell, and we seem to have survived.

    Every industry tends to shake out to a big three or big two scenario, with a host of smaller companies in niche plays, waiting for the next “disruptive” technology to come along, hoping they’ll be in the right place to pick it up. I don’t see a problem with wireless following along this perfectly predictible path.

    Mew

  • http://www.shezphoto.com bryansix

    Neil,

    You ask the commenter to get educated but nowhere in your article do you cite any sources for your fantastical arguments. You state that a merger will INCREASE competition but don’t say how or point to any studies or past experiences. In fact your entire article is lacking of any facts of any kind whatsoever.

    Look, ATT merging with T-Mobile will be good for two groups of people. Those are ATT and the stockholders of ATT. This is because there will be redundancies that are eliminated and economies of scale will allow efficiency. This means more money for ATT and its stockholders which is a good thing. This also means providing the service ATT does to the consumer will cost lest per subscriber.

    Will the consumer see any of this passed along in rate decreases or better service? Ha! This is ATT we are talking about. The company with the WORST customer service record out of all the mobile phone service providers out there. The truth is, this is BAD for competition and probably going to be a net negative for the consumer. Its much better when there are four major players and with this merger there will be three and Sprint will be gobbled up by someone and then there will be two. How is this good? How does this spur competition?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Get lost, you socialist punk, and tell your F?hrer that you followed orders.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You’re replying to an two week old post.

    The only thing worse than totalitarian shills are lazy, incompetent astroturfers like you.

    Get out of here.

  • http://www.shezphoto.com bryansix

    Ridicule is the lowest form of argument. Worse, you just sunk to an Ad Hominem argument because you cannot argue the facts so you attacked me personally.

    The reason I replied to a two week old article is because I was so blown away at the audacious claims of your post that I registered right away to reply. However this website has a cooling off period for new accounts so I could not post my reply until the very date that I did post it.

    Please Neil, if you have any arguments over the facts of my post then argue them. If you are just going to attack me and paint me into a corner then do yourself a favor and step away from the keyboard.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Nobody cares what the Soros line is this week.

    Do humanity a favor and step away from the Internet where adults are taling.

  • Pingback: My Homepage