The government is soon going to authorize the sale of some more of our mobile phone spectrum.
Should the goal of the auction be:
(1) Get as much as possible from that auction, regardless of who buys the spectrum?
(2) Manage the sale for the long term good of consumers?
(3) Get government off the back of god-fearing, job-creating businessmen?
Okay, okay, you're right. It was a trick question.
Next month, bills will be introduced in Congress that may include language that allows the FCC to structure who can bid on the spectrum. The "Government is bad! Always bad!" crowd will of course scream "Freedom! Let capitalism work!"
Except we know that market capitalism can harm market capitalism. Where limited resources are concerned, like oil or railroads or tobacco in the 19th century when the Sherman Anti-trust act was enforced, sometimes the government has to protect market capitalism from itself.
In the 1890s, the Rockefellers crushed many companies and put many people out of work with their money. The same threat exists today. We need competition in the mobile phone industry and there is national interest in seeing that competition can flourish.
Fighting monopoly is fighting for free market. Fighting concentration of power is fighting for small businesses and is pro-business.
This is even more true of the mobile industry than it was with oil. This is our spectrum. And if We, The People decide to foster competition and protect free markets by selling that spectrum to competitors of AT&T and Verizon, that is advocating for the free market, it is not "socialism," despite what the fear mongers on the right, the pro-monopolists and their lackeys like Rep. Greg Walden, would have you believe.
Promoting free enterprise in this case means potentially limiting who can bid on the spectrum and potentially taking a loss in the short run so that competition can, in the long run, keep prices competitive.
(By the way, I almost included the Boston Tea Party as an example. I'll submit, just for the joy of it, that the East India Company was in collusion with the British Crown. It was their tea! That's the history of influence of business on government. If the "Tea Party" wanted to be true to its namesake, it would join the Occupy Wall Street folks and demand that corporate scofflaws go to jail.
Big pharma, Goldman Sachs, the insurers, those are the East India Company of today. Don't tread on me!
At some point, some smart grad student at Berkeley or Stanford or the University of Chicago or Wharton will do a study on the minimum number of competitors required for a market to remain healthy, and how barriers to entry into that market affect that number.
My theory is that markets with higher barriers to entry require more existing competitors to be healthy, because companies outside a market that see the attractive profits will find it more difficult get in.
I will join the right wing in saying the Supreme Court has failed America. The overturning of campaign finance laws was to allow the East India Company to marry into the royal family. Talk about protecting an institution from incest! )
Showing posts with label T-Mobile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label T-Mobile. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Verizon, on the other hand...
... just bought about $4 billion worth of spectrum from Comcast.
Why do I like this deal, after showering AT&T's takeover over of T-Mobile with so much bile?
Because Verizon's deal brings new, unused spectrum to the market, actually doing what AT&T falsely claimed their deal with T-Mobile would accomplish. Because the Verizon deal still leaves the competitors on the field, especially the scrappy one (T-Mob) known for good prices and good deals. Because, in the final look, Verizon isn't AT&T.
Did you note last week that Verizon was the one major cell phone provider that did not use the sneaky software from Carrier IQ that knows more (a lot more) about you than your mother?
There is an obvious difference between Verizon and AT&T. One is good, the other is ... well, not so good. The corporate cultures seem vastly different. It's like going into a restaurant where staff is smiling and professional and eager, versus going into one where the first words you hear are "We close in fifteen minutes." Don't you just wonder what they're doing to your burger back there in the kitchen?
AT&T just seems to be in it for themselves, ya know?
We post this to let our conservative friends understand that we are not anti-business. We like business, and we like functioning markets, where they exist. Which does not include the U.S. pharmaceutical industry or anything that travels in the same wheel rut as AT&T.
That is not to say Verizon only wears a white hat. They were astoundingly silent about the AT&T and T-Mobile deal. Verizon's execs knew even if AT&T succeeded in swallowing T-Mobile and moving past Verizon to become the largest cell provider, even being second largest would increase Verizon's bottom line in a less competitive market. That's how oligopolies work.
But being silent is not the same as openly trying to undermine market competition. Verizon bought $4 billion of spectrum and will bring it online, while AT&T was taking a $4 billion charge for likely blowing a deal with T-Mobile that was a blatant attempt to subvert market dynamics so beloved of the right wing if in name only.
AT&T is anti-business, except their own. Rep. Greg Walden is anti-business,too, except for AT&T's business which Walden conducts quite well as a mole for AT&T at the government level. He is not working for small Oregon companies that need a functioning market in which to buy phone service. But then, we don't give Rep. Walden nearly as much money as he gets from AT&T.
Verizon is the nation's leader in customer service, the leader in basic service, the leader in high speed service, and it appears that lead will continue with this recent purchase of spectrum and marketing deals with cable companies.
Why do I like this deal, after showering AT&T's takeover over of T-Mobile with so much bile?
Because Verizon's deal brings new, unused spectrum to the market, actually doing what AT&T falsely claimed their deal with T-Mobile would accomplish. Because the Verizon deal still leaves the competitors on the field, especially the scrappy one (T-Mob) known for good prices and good deals. Because, in the final look, Verizon isn't AT&T.
Did you note last week that Verizon was the one major cell phone provider that did not use the sneaky software from Carrier IQ that knows more (a lot more) about you than your mother?
There is an obvious difference between Verizon and AT&T. One is good, the other is ... well, not so good. The corporate cultures seem vastly different. It's like going into a restaurant where staff is smiling and professional and eager, versus going into one where the first words you hear are "We close in fifteen minutes." Don't you just wonder what they're doing to your burger back there in the kitchen?
AT&T just seems to be in it for themselves, ya know?
We post this to let our conservative friends understand that we are not anti-business. We like business, and we like functioning markets, where they exist. Which does not include the U.S. pharmaceutical industry or anything that travels in the same wheel rut as AT&T.
That is not to say Verizon only wears a white hat. They were astoundingly silent about the AT&T and T-Mobile deal. Verizon's execs knew even if AT&T succeeded in swallowing T-Mobile and moving past Verizon to become the largest cell provider, even being second largest would increase Verizon's bottom line in a less competitive market. That's how oligopolies work.
But being silent is not the same as openly trying to undermine market competition. Verizon bought $4 billion of spectrum and will bring it online, while AT&T was taking a $4 billion charge for likely blowing a deal with T-Mobile that was a blatant attempt to subvert market dynamics so beloved of the right wing if in name only.
AT&T is anti-business, except their own. Rep. Greg Walden is anti-business,too, except for AT&T's business which Walden conducts quite well as a mole for AT&T at the government level. He is not working for small Oregon companies that need a functioning market in which to buy phone service. But then, we don't give Rep. Walden nearly as much money as he gets from AT&T.
Verizon is the nation's leader in customer service, the leader in basic service, the leader in high speed service, and it appears that lead will continue with this recent purchase of spectrum and marketing deals with cable companies.
Friday, December 2, 2011
More falsehoods from AT&T
AT&T does not like the report from the Federal Communications Commission on its takeover of T-Mobile. They don't like that the report was released. Surprise.
So they trot out a smart man to try to cast doubt. Let's look at what he had to say.
So they trot out a smart man to try to cast doubt. Let's look at what he had to say.
"The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece, and not a considered analysis," Jim Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, wrote in a blog post.
Actually, no. The report simply states reasons why FCC staff do not support the merger. The "analysis" is elsewhere. For nine months AT&T filled the atmosphere with falsehoods about how "what's good for AT&T is good for America." FCC disagreed, and said why. That's all.
AT&T claimed acquiring T-Mobile would help the rollout of its 4G LTE network. The FCC agreed with AT&T rivals who argued that AT&T is going to build out its 4G network with or without T-Mobile because of competition. Cicconi denied that, pointing to "sworn declarations" about its 4G LTE plans.
Oh, please. "Sworn declarations?" And we should wait for AT&T to say "Oh, that sworn declaration? Yeah, about that, well, our plans have changed." That's what always happens when the consequences for lying are less than the benefits. Guess we'll see if AT&T will let Verizon be the only company with a nationwide 4G network.
"The report apparently assumes a high enough level of competition exists in rural areas to compel billions of dollars in investment," Cicconi wrote. "Yet the report elsewhere argues that the level of wireless competition in more populated areas of America is so fragile that the merger must be disallowed. At the very least, these conclusions show a logical inconsistency."
Mr. Cicconi is a smart man. So he must be a lawyer to use the word "competition," which means different things in different situations, and claim it only means one thing and the FCC is being inconsistent.
There is nothing inconsistent in saying AT&T will roll out 4G in rural areas with or without T-Mobile, and loss of competition in 99 out of 100 urban markets (where the money is) would be bad for consumers. This is just a tricky trap of language, common to a certain political class.
The FCC says the deal will kill jobs, Cicconi says AT&T has "promised" to create jobs. No. AT&T was going to recoup the $39 billion it was willing to spend on T-Mobile instead of spending $4 billion to build out its own LTE by cutting jobs and raising prices, which it will be able to do in a duopoly with Verizon across most of America. Somewhere there is a document that shows that, an email, meeting notes. Let's find it and send perjurers to jail.
Cicconi says the FCC is hypocritical in saying there is a national spectrum shortage but saying two national companies face "no such constraints." He thinks we're stupid.
Yes, more spectrum is needed for new phone technology for the public good. But the public, as a whole, does not benefit from one company gobbling the spectrum of another. If you agree with his argument, walk into the coffee shop with a dollar in in your right pocket, move it to your left, tell the server you have a dollar in each pocket for a $1.50 cup of coffee, and, of course, you plan to leave a 50¢ tip.
Cicconi says the report lacks credibility, and distorts the facts. We think the report was a good summation of reasons why the merger should not go through, and Cicconi's response validates that conclusion.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
AT&T Randall Stephenson to jail?
It's one thing to lie in advertising. We all expect that.
It's another thing to lie in newspaper stories. Most of us expect that.
It's another thing to lie in applications to the Federal Communications Commission. That becomes a little more troubling.
But it's another thing altogether to lie to Congress. That's against the law. And there is some indication that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson did exactly that. If so, and if it can be proven he did so knowingly, he should go to jail.
By the way? THAT'S what the Occupy Wall Street protests were about.
It's another thing to lie in newspaper stories. Most of us expect that.
It's another thing to lie in applications to the Federal Communications Commission. That becomes a little more troubling.
But it's another thing altogether to lie to Congress. That's against the law. And there is some indication that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson did exactly that. If so, and if it can be proven he did so knowingly, he should go to jail.
By the way? THAT'S what the Occupy Wall Street protests were about.
AT&T's lies for all to see
How wonderful this last week to see the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission protecting markets, small businesses and consumers from a rapaciously hungry corporate monster.
Even "The Economist" magazine, hardly a liberal rag, opposed the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile.
AT&T's discomfort at the release of the FCC staff report on the merger is understandable, and wrong. That is OUR government staff, that is OUR report, transparency is GOOD, the people have A RIGHT TO KNOW. The company wasn't opposed to putting its falsehoods out there during the process. It's blatant hypocrisy to affect outrage when the government releases its findings.
In fact, ALL the documents of the proposed merger should be released. They were filed with a public body to get something from the public. We should be able to see them. Distortions and other bad things, like AT&T, grow in the mouldering dark.
Anyone who watched the AT&T CEO in action before Congress, read the canned pro-merger crap AT&T regional presidents planted in newspapers around the nation (it all reads the same!), watched the callously manipulated spectacle of gay and lesbian organizations, Latino advocacy groups, Black community leaders giving pay back by advocating outside their interest, watched AT&T lawyers preen with false outrage, read anything about this corporation or even just dealt with an indifferent AT&T representative after the company attempted to rip them off, knows that AT&T is a company without a soul.
Yeah, yeah, we get there are people working for AT&T who have souls. So far. Leave it alone.
AT&T will eat whatever it can until gorged and then eat some more, the only thing stopping it something larger.
Which is why we have laws against monopolies, why AT&T had to be broken up once before, and why this last couple weeks of courage on the part of the justice department and FCC is only the beginning. AT&T has already said, somewhat ominously, they will pursue "alternate means" to get what they want.
One day, see the ancient James Coburn movie, "The President's Analyst."
At&T's representative from Oregon, Greg Walden, a man corrupted by campaign contributions and who knows what other spores AT&T may have planted in his brain, must be sweating bullets. He will now have to work harder for his host, and risks even greater exposure.
Even "The Economist" magazine, hardly a liberal rag, opposed the AT&T takeover of T-Mobile.
AT&T's discomfort at the release of the FCC staff report on the merger is understandable, and wrong. That is OUR government staff, that is OUR report, transparency is GOOD, the people have A RIGHT TO KNOW. The company wasn't opposed to putting its falsehoods out there during the process. It's blatant hypocrisy to affect outrage when the government releases its findings.
In fact, ALL the documents of the proposed merger should be released. They were filed with a public body to get something from the public. We should be able to see them. Distortions and other bad things, like AT&T, grow in the mouldering dark.
Anyone who watched the AT&T CEO in action before Congress, read the canned pro-merger crap AT&T regional presidents planted in newspapers around the nation (it all reads the same!), watched the callously manipulated spectacle of gay and lesbian organizations, Latino advocacy groups, Black community leaders giving pay back by advocating outside their interest, watched AT&T lawyers preen with false outrage, read anything about this corporation or even just dealt with an indifferent AT&T representative after the company attempted to rip them off, knows that AT&T is a company without a soul.
Yeah, yeah, we get there are people working for AT&T who have souls. So far. Leave it alone.
AT&T will eat whatever it can until gorged and then eat some more, the only thing stopping it something larger.
Which is why we have laws against monopolies, why AT&T had to be broken up once before, and why this last couple weeks of courage on the part of the justice department and FCC is only the beginning. AT&T has already said, somewhat ominously, they will pursue "alternate means" to get what they want.
One day, see the ancient James Coburn movie, "The President's Analyst."
At&T's representative from Oregon, Greg Walden, a man corrupted by campaign contributions and who knows what other spores AT&T may have planted in his brain, must be sweating bullets. He will now have to work harder for his host, and risks even greater exposure.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Greg Walden for Sale
Rep. Greg Walden is a representative for ATT. The telephone companies have bought themselves a congressman from Oregon.
Walden, Republican Representative for Oregon's second district, signed a letter designed to fire a shot across the bow of the United States Department of Justice for suing to block ATTs purchase of T-Mobile. Read more here.
The DOJ fears ATT's acquisition of T-Mobile would harm competition.
Walden isn't willing to let the DOJ lawsuit play out in courts. He wants to haul the DOJ and Federal Communications Commission before congressional staffers to explain “the extent to which each agency has been considering the impact on jobs and economic growth.”
How absurd. Should the DOJ also justify the extent to which they considered the impact on plate tectonics, or global warming? The issue is competition and the long term harm to the markets and consumers if ATT gobbles up the only other national GSM wireless provider.
Walden is the top recipient of cash from the telecom services and equipment companies AND telephone utilities. Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, ATT, they LOVE Greg Walden. Read more about that here. They give him a lot of money, so he does them favors. It is that simple.
Walden's letter is just a ploy to threaten the DOJ and FCC, force them to face more work, more explanations. He wants to let them know that he might look hard at their funding if they don't buckle under. Because he wants to protect the source of his income.
Oregon, one of our congressmen is back in Washington, threatening the justice department for trying to protect the market from a duopoly (Verizon and ATT are the remnants of old Ma Bell), because he is in their pocket and owes them big.
Would you like to give him a call?
Rep Greg Walden
2182 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Main: 202-225-6730
Fax: 202-225-5774
Central Oregon office:
1051 NW Bond St., Suite 400
Bend, OR 97701
Main: 541-389-4408
Fax: 541-389-4452
Southern Oregon Office:
14 N. Central Ave., Suite 112
Medford, OR 97501
Main: 541-776-4646
Fax: 541-779-0204
Toll free: 800-533-3303
Eastern Oregon office:
1211 Washington Avenue
La Grande, OR 97850
Main: 541-624-2400
Fax: 541-624-2402
Walden, Republican Representative for Oregon's second district, signed a letter designed to fire a shot across the bow of the United States Department of Justice for suing to block ATTs purchase of T-Mobile. Read more here.
The DOJ fears ATT's acquisition of T-Mobile would harm competition.
Walden isn't willing to let the DOJ lawsuit play out in courts. He wants to haul the DOJ and Federal Communications Commission before congressional staffers to explain “the extent to which each agency has been considering the impact on jobs and economic growth.”
How absurd. Should the DOJ also justify the extent to which they considered the impact on plate tectonics, or global warming? The issue is competition and the long term harm to the markets and consumers if ATT gobbles up the only other national GSM wireless provider.
Walden is the top recipient of cash from the telecom services and equipment companies AND telephone utilities. Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, ATT, they LOVE Greg Walden. Read more about that here. They give him a lot of money, so he does them favors. It is that simple.
Walden's letter is just a ploy to threaten the DOJ and FCC, force them to face more work, more explanations. He wants to let them know that he might look hard at their funding if they don't buckle under. Because he wants to protect the source of his income.
Oregon, one of our congressmen is back in Washington, threatening the justice department for trying to protect the market from a duopoly (Verizon and ATT are the remnants of old Ma Bell), because he is in their pocket and owes them big.
Would you like to give him a call?
Rep Greg Walden
2182 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Main: 202-225-6730
Fax: 202-225-5774
Central Oregon office:
1051 NW Bond St., Suite 400
Bend, OR 97701
Main: 541-389-4408
Fax: 541-389-4452
Southern Oregon Office:
14 N. Central Ave., Suite 112
Medford, OR 97501
Main: 541-776-4646
Fax: 541-779-0204
Toll free: 800-533-3303
Eastern Oregon office:
1211 Washington Avenue
La Grande, OR 97850
Main: 541-624-2400
Fax: 541-624-2402
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Google + Motorola + T-Mobile = ?
I can't be the only one thinking this.
Smart or stupid or ridiculous or common sense, someone with a lot more horsepower than me has thought of this. So why haven't I read anything about it?
Now that ATT's bid to stifle competition -- with Verizon's tacit if silent support -- has hit rough water, why doesn't Google tender a bid for T-Mobile? Say $25 billion or so? Google can afford it, and if my recently demised (not Google's fault, I dropped it corner-first to my concrete floor) Nexus S is any indication, the "pure Google" experience would draw many fans.
What a wonderfully disruptive party that could start.
I think a Google purchase of T-Mob should pass anti-trust concerns. It could increase competition in the market rather than diminish it, with Google cash shoring up T-mob's weak position. With software/hardware/network integration, it would possibly speed up the rate of innovation and lower prices across the market.
Why not? We could anticipate ATT, Verizon and Sprint would pretty much stop selling Android phones immediately. Since Google's business model has a primary strategy of market penetration, that would be a problem.
But the same argument could be made that Samsung and HTC would stop making Android phones after Google's purchase of Motorola's phone business. While that hasn't happened yet, it's still early. We also don't know what Google execs told the manufacturers to allay their concerns.
Still, it makes one smile to think of buying an Google Android phone made by Google Motorola to run on a Google T-Mobile.
I wouldn't be able to have one, though. T-Mobile reception sucks where I live in the mountains, even worse than ATT. And since I can't even have a land line ... where's my Bionic or Nexus Prime, Verizon?
Of course, now that I think about it, another contender for T-Mobile might be... oh no, it can't be ... might be ... I can't stand it ... he owns my music, his computers fill my house, he wants my TV ... oh, Mr. Jobs, please let go of my future ...
Smart or stupid or ridiculous or common sense, someone with a lot more horsepower than me has thought of this. So why haven't I read anything about it?
Now that ATT's bid to stifle competition -- with Verizon's tacit if silent support -- has hit rough water, why doesn't Google tender a bid for T-Mobile? Say $25 billion or so? Google can afford it, and if my recently demised (not Google's fault, I dropped it corner-first to my concrete floor) Nexus S is any indication, the "pure Google" experience would draw many fans.
What a wonderfully disruptive party that could start.
I think a Google purchase of T-Mob should pass anti-trust concerns. It could increase competition in the market rather than diminish it, with Google cash shoring up T-mob's weak position. With software/hardware/network integration, it would possibly speed up the rate of innovation and lower prices across the market.
Why not? We could anticipate ATT, Verizon and Sprint would pretty much stop selling Android phones immediately. Since Google's business model has a primary strategy of market penetration, that would be a problem.
But the same argument could be made that Samsung and HTC would stop making Android phones after Google's purchase of Motorola's phone business. While that hasn't happened yet, it's still early. We also don't know what Google execs told the manufacturers to allay their concerns.
Still, it makes one smile to think of buying an Google Android phone made by Google Motorola to run on a Google T-Mobile.
I wouldn't be able to have one, though. T-Mobile reception sucks where I live in the mountains, even worse than ATT. And since I can't even have a land line ... where's my Bionic or Nexus Prime, Verizon?
Of course, now that I think about it, another contender for T-Mobile might be... oh no, it can't be ... might be ... I can't stand it ... he owns my music, his computers fill my house, he wants my TV ... oh, Mr. Jobs, please let go of my future ...
Friday, May 27, 2011
I want a dumb pipe
I don't want to be a captive of AT&T or Verizon. I want them to serve me.
In Europe, the owner of T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, prohibits its subscribers from using Skype in its terms and conditions. AT&T and Verizon would love to be able to impose the same terms and conditions here.
What's it going to be, Congress? Oregon representatives DeFazio, Wu, Walden, Blumenauer and Schrader need to stand up and protect the market from the power of the duopoly. You too, Wyden and Merkley. Be heard on this.
I love the iPhone, and I love my Evo 4G and my Nexus S. I think it is wonderful to be able to buy these phones with all the features preloaded and have a two-year contract and a high value added by Sprint or AT&T or Verizon. They should be able to sell that.
But I want more choice. I want to be able to use the phone I want in the way I want and pay a fair price for access that I control.
I don 't want AT&T or Verizon to dumb down my phone so I can't use it on my home's wifi network the way they do now. I want to use my home's broadband conveniently to make a call and not be forced to kludge a solution.
I don't want AT&T or Verizon to cut sweetheart deals with Samsung or HTC or Motorola so that I can't get the phone I want to work on the technology I want, the way they do now.
I want to pay for megabytes I choose to download and upload, and not be forced to pay for data sent by automatic programs that AT&T or Apple or Google have loaded on my phone that suck up my personal data and sneak it to their servers without my knowledge.
I don't want NFL or NASCAR or anybody else's bloatware on my phone, or at least be able to get rid of it, which I can't do now. At what point does "protect network security" become an excuse for "keep competition out?"
And by the way, I want to pay for my call minutes in tenths: a call that lasts two minutes and six seconds should be billed at 2.1 minutes, not three, which is nothing but a 30% theft by the phone company.
If the telecom's don't want to become "dumb pipes," then I want our government to ensure, through the mechanism of the free market, that I have the right to choose a "dumb pipe" for my mobile phone and data services.
In fact, I need to be able to choose between two dumb pipes, either GSM or CDMA technology. I want to be able to use any phone I want on whichever pipe that I choose. I want to own the phone, and be able to customize it in any way that I want, use it in any legal way that I want.
The current system is being abused, protections for the consumer are few, because the market has failed to be transparent enough to drive the abuses out through the mechanism of consumer choice.
That will get worse if the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is approved.
We need competition in the market place and a government that has reduced barriers to entry into the market of access to airwaves, "spectrum," that is owned and licensed by "We the People."
Our founding fathers would have been as outraged by the threat of corporate power as they were of royal power had such a thing existed in their day. It is up to us to stand up and demand our rights in a this new world. We do this by protecting the free market, doing what we need to foster competition and freedom of choice.
It is time our representatives in government took the threat to the future of communications seriously. We cannot let the consolidation continue by those who seek a monopoly. It is bad for markets, bad for America.
Hooray for Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) who earlier this week held a news conference urging regulators to block the deal, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Thank you for your free market stance that helps small business and consumers.
Power corrupts, even the economic power of private enterprise. The best antidote for that corruption is competition, functioning markets, and effective oversight.
Wake up.
In Europe, the owner of T-Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, prohibits its subscribers from using Skype in its terms and conditions. AT&T and Verizon would love to be able to impose the same terms and conditions here.
What's it going to be, Congress? Oregon representatives DeFazio, Wu, Walden, Blumenauer and Schrader need to stand up and protect the market from the power of the duopoly. You too, Wyden and Merkley. Be heard on this.
I love the iPhone, and I love my Evo 4G and my Nexus S. I think it is wonderful to be able to buy these phones with all the features preloaded and have a two-year contract and a high value added by Sprint or AT&T or Verizon. They should be able to sell that.
But I want more choice. I want to be able to use the phone I want in the way I want and pay a fair price for access that I control.
I don 't want AT&T or Verizon to dumb down my phone so I can't use it on my home's wifi network the way they do now. I want to use my home's broadband conveniently to make a call and not be forced to kludge a solution.
I don't want AT&T or Verizon to cut sweetheart deals with Samsung or HTC or Motorola so that I can't get the phone I want to work on the technology I want, the way they do now.
I want to pay for megabytes I choose to download and upload, and not be forced to pay for data sent by automatic programs that AT&T or Apple or Google have loaded on my phone that suck up my personal data and sneak it to their servers without my knowledge.
I don't want NFL or NASCAR or anybody else's bloatware on my phone, or at least be able to get rid of it, which I can't do now. At what point does "protect network security" become an excuse for "keep competition out?"
And by the way, I want to pay for my call minutes in tenths: a call that lasts two minutes and six seconds should be billed at 2.1 minutes, not three, which is nothing but a 30% theft by the phone company.
If the telecom's don't want to become "dumb pipes," then I want our government to ensure, through the mechanism of the free market, that I have the right to choose a "dumb pipe" for my mobile phone and data services.
In fact, I need to be able to choose between two dumb pipes, either GSM or CDMA technology. I want to be able to use any phone I want on whichever pipe that I choose. I want to own the phone, and be able to customize it in any way that I want, use it in any legal way that I want.
The current system is being abused, protections for the consumer are few, because the market has failed to be transparent enough to drive the abuses out through the mechanism of consumer choice.
That will get worse if the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is approved.
We need competition in the market place and a government that has reduced barriers to entry into the market of access to airwaves, "spectrum," that is owned and licensed by "We the People."
Our founding fathers would have been as outraged by the threat of corporate power as they were of royal power had such a thing existed in their day. It is up to us to stand up and demand our rights in a this new world. We do this by protecting the free market, doing what we need to foster competition and freedom of choice.
It is time our representatives in government took the threat to the future of communications seriously. We cannot let the consolidation continue by those who seek a monopoly. It is bad for markets, bad for America.
Hooray for Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) who earlier this week held a news conference urging regulators to block the deal, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Thank you for your free market stance that helps small business and consumers.
Power corrupts, even the economic power of private enterprise. The best antidote for that corruption is competition, functioning markets, and effective oversight.
Wake up.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Verizon is complicit
In a story (read it here) on May 24, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal, under the headline "These Companies Hate the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger," it was noted by reporter Shira Ovide that Verizon, which would drop from largest to second largest wireless company after AT&T swallows T-Mobile, has not come out against the proposed merger.
Duh.
Ovide notes the Verizon CEO is saying only “We’re not going to get distracted by this.”
Ovide refers to analysts who opine that the reason for Verizon's calm reaction is that "Verizon Wireless ... could get a lift if AT&T strips low-cost rival T-Mobile from the market. At the same time, AT&T could be distracted for a year or more securing all the necessary government clearances for the deal, and then integrating T-Mobile into the fold. The lull might help Verizon poach subscribers from its biggest competitor."
Sometimes it is hard to believe what passes for journalism. Distracted? Please.
One would think that a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would understand the value of a duopoly (like a monopoly, but with two) to one of the duopolists. In other words, if AT&T becomes the only GSM wireless company, and is able to hammer suppliers and gouge consumers, then Verizon, as by far the largest of the CDMA wireless group, would also benefit. Even without direct collusion.
Markets require competition to work effectively. AT&T and Verizon are doing everything they can in the media, in Texas, and before the U.S. Senate to cloud the issues.
"We don't know if the market is best served by three or four carriers," burbles one wireless exec. "If we don't have more spectrum, ambulances will be unreachable," growls another from AT&T.
Nonsense. This merger is about AT&T sucking up spectrum now, dollars and dollars later, from a distortion of a market that rides on licenses to use airways owned … by… us.
We need more choices of which carrier to use, not fewer choices. We need three or four GSM carriers, and three or four CDMA carriers, for there to be a truly competitive "free" market. There is less competition if there are only three, if Sprint hobbles along as a distant 3rd, or two if Verizon sucks up Sprint.
Verizon is sanguine about the AT&T and T-Mobile merger because Verizon executives know that even as number two, they will still get a larger slice of porker pie than they do now, even if it is not the largest one on the table.
The U.S. government should protect consumers and small business and refuse to go along with this merger. Communication is the economy's lifeblood now more than ever. Republicans should live up to their ideals of doing what is good for business, and that does not mean just doing good for one of their largest political donors. Where the hell is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
AT&T was broken up once before. We should look at this power grab as a reason to consider doing it again.
Duh.
Ovide notes the Verizon CEO is saying only “We’re not going to get distracted by this.”
Ovide refers to analysts who opine that the reason for Verizon's calm reaction is that "Verizon Wireless ... could get a lift if AT&T strips low-cost rival T-Mobile from the market. At the same time, AT&T could be distracted for a year or more securing all the necessary government clearances for the deal, and then integrating T-Mobile into the fold. The lull might help Verizon poach subscribers from its biggest competitor."
Sometimes it is hard to believe what passes for journalism. Distracted? Please.
One would think that a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would understand the value of a duopoly (like a monopoly, but with two) to one of the duopolists. In other words, if AT&T becomes the only GSM wireless company, and is able to hammer suppliers and gouge consumers, then Verizon, as by far the largest of the CDMA wireless group, would also benefit. Even without direct collusion.
Markets require competition to work effectively. AT&T and Verizon are doing everything they can in the media, in Texas, and before the U.S. Senate to cloud the issues.
"We don't know if the market is best served by three or four carriers," burbles one wireless exec. "If we don't have more spectrum, ambulances will be unreachable," growls another from AT&T.
Nonsense. This merger is about AT&T sucking up spectrum now, dollars and dollars later, from a distortion of a market that rides on licenses to use airways owned … by… us.
We need more choices of which carrier to use, not fewer choices. We need three or four GSM carriers, and three or four CDMA carriers, for there to be a truly competitive "free" market. There is less competition if there are only three, if Sprint hobbles along as a distant 3rd, or two if Verizon sucks up Sprint.
Verizon is sanguine about the AT&T and T-Mobile merger because Verizon executives know that even as number two, they will still get a larger slice of porker pie than they do now, even if it is not the largest one on the table.
The U.S. government should protect consumers and small business and refuse to go along with this merger. Communication is the economy's lifeblood now more than ever. Republicans should live up to their ideals of doing what is good for business, and that does not mean just doing good for one of their largest political donors. Where the hell is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
AT&T was broken up once before. We should look at this power grab as a reason to consider doing it again.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Monopolists harm America
A number of politicians (mostly Republican) have come out in support of the AT&T / T-Mobile merger. But their arguments do not make sense. Primarily, they cite benefits to America of competition in wireless before the merger. These very benefits would decrease if the merger goes through, despite false promises by AT&T.
These politicians are not in favor of the "free market." They are advocating a consolidation that would be bad for the market, and bad for America, while benefiting a monopolist in an industry where freedom is vital for economic security.
America has had to act against monopolists and oligopolies in the past. It needs to be vigilant again, and do what it must to preserve competition in the market place. Like railroads and the oil companies two centuries ago and AT&T itself in the last century, a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would result in less innovation, higher prices, and less freedom of information. This process is common when new technologies foster a consolidation of power.
In fact, we need more communication companies in America, not fewer. We need more competition, not less. Much of the innovation in America's communications industry came after AT&T was broken up last time.
AT&T and T-Mobile both run on the GSM technology, most common in much of the world. The other two major carriers, Sprint and Verizon, run via CDMA. By allowing only one major player on the GSM side, there will be no one to challenge AT&T if a technological innovation comes to GSM.
AT&T would be the sole buyer of GSM technology in the U.S., giving it monopolist power over cell phone makers and software providers, to the detriment of consumers.
It is extremely expensive to build out a new cell network, acquire customers and put in place a cell phone company, and nearly impossible to acquire radio spectrum on which cell phones communicate.
In economics speak, the "barriers to entry" into the market are extremely high, and would be more so if dominated by a company is as well-heeled and politically powerful as AT&T.
Communications and information flow are the life blood of our nation, and becoming more critical every day. Control should not be allowed to slide toward fewer and fewer companies, especially when vertical integration may allow them to control what we see, how we see it, what we can buy and how easy it might be to find it.
It is naive to think that AT&T in that position would not use its power to fill its coffers at the expense of anyone and everyone. It would be its duty, in fact. We expect companies to make the highest profit allowable under the law.
For these reasons, government must preserve the free market in any way it can, and right now, the best way to do so is to deny the AT&T and T-mobile merger. The alternative, over the long run, is some form of regulation, which would have fewer benefits and higher cost.
If T-Mobile is to be sold, it should go to another company -- Google or Apple come to mind, though there may be issues there. Berkshire-Hathaway, perhaps. But its independence should be preserved.
In a market as difficult to foster competition as mobile communications, a market as critical to our future, America can not afford to allow monopolists to gain control.
These politicians are not in favor of the "free market." They are advocating a consolidation that would be bad for the market, and bad for America, while benefiting a monopolist in an industry where freedom is vital for economic security.
America has had to act against monopolists and oligopolies in the past. It needs to be vigilant again, and do what it must to preserve competition in the market place. Like railroads and the oil companies two centuries ago and AT&T itself in the last century, a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would result in less innovation, higher prices, and less freedom of information. This process is common when new technologies foster a consolidation of power.
In fact, we need more communication companies in America, not fewer. We need more competition, not less. Much of the innovation in America's communications industry came after AT&T was broken up last time.
AT&T and T-Mobile both run on the GSM technology, most common in much of the world. The other two major carriers, Sprint and Verizon, run via CDMA. By allowing only one major player on the GSM side, there will be no one to challenge AT&T if a technological innovation comes to GSM.
AT&T would be the sole buyer of GSM technology in the U.S., giving it monopolist power over cell phone makers and software providers, to the detriment of consumers.
It is extremely expensive to build out a new cell network, acquire customers and put in place a cell phone company, and nearly impossible to acquire radio spectrum on which cell phones communicate.
In economics speak, the "barriers to entry" into the market are extremely high, and would be more so if dominated by a company is as well-heeled and politically powerful as AT&T.
Communications and information flow are the life blood of our nation, and becoming more critical every day. Control should not be allowed to slide toward fewer and fewer companies, especially when vertical integration may allow them to control what we see, how we see it, what we can buy and how easy it might be to find it.
It is naive to think that AT&T in that position would not use its power to fill its coffers at the expense of anyone and everyone. It would be its duty, in fact. We expect companies to make the highest profit allowable under the law.
For these reasons, government must preserve the free market in any way it can, and right now, the best way to do so is to deny the AT&T and T-mobile merger. The alternative, over the long run, is some form of regulation, which would have fewer benefits and higher cost.
If T-Mobile is to be sold, it should go to another company -- Google or Apple come to mind, though there may be issues there. Berkshire-Hathaway, perhaps. But its independence should be preserved.
In a market as difficult to foster competition as mobile communications, a market as critical to our future, America can not afford to allow monopolists to gain control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)