[...] Informations on that Topic: redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/06/22/the-nonsensical-astroturf-campaign-against-att-and-t-mobile/ [...]…

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

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.

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

Get out of here.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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