I'm glad to comment on this subject - I feel that NY is the most controversial state, if not the one that is killing off it's middle-class. First, if this state is opposed to mega-merger's why did it allow the Time-Warner/AT&T merger to happen that resulted in increasing prices for everyone? Second, why is the MTA allowed to enjoy a monopoly on transport that results in horrible metro service, but some of the highest transport prices in the nation?
What is the state attorney general doing about this? I think nothing - I know as I used to work for an engineering firm contracted with the city in Manhattan with ex-engineers indicating this. This article is a ploy to serve as an opinion and PR stunt to oppose a merger that people favor. T-Mobile has amongst the best leadership that has kept it's promises and is willing to divest Boost. In fact what the state attorney general fails to realize is without T-Mobile Sprint will go bankrupt, and there still will be only three major national carriers despite what her flawed judgment says.
Additionally, if this attorney general is in favor of crushing monopolies why don't they go after drug companies that have raised the prices on life saving drugs or even more importantly regulate, and spur on more competition so the MTA lower's it's prices? I hope she also realizes that the USA wasn't the initial leader in 4G, but China. The problem is there are so many flaw's in this article, and nowadays people are so well-informed and educated that it's hard for these useless politicians to spread their propaganda - I hope this merger goes through - T-Mobile deserves it.
Victor Selles - 5 years ago
First, I’d like to understand whether you are opposed to the merger no matter what remedy the companies offer to get clearance, or would there be a scenario in which you’d accept the merger? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to first hear what the companies are proposing to clear the merger before opposing it?
Second, I believe the main reason these companies want this merger is because of the benefits they’d reap from the combined infrastructure. As their argument goes, their capacity would increase 5-fold. Forgive me if I’m being too naïve, but when you have that kind of increase in supply, the only way you’re going to fill that capacity is through lower, not higher prices. What do you make of this argument?
Finally, if one goes to rural areas, it is clear from prices there that Verizon and AT&T run a duopoly. Network infrastructure have huge benefits of scale, which metropolitan areas offer through higher density. The reason there is no competition in rural areas is because no third player has ever had enough scale to build a greenfield network there. Isn’t opposing this merger also protecting these high prices in rural areas, and essentially perpetuating the Verizon/AT&T duopoly?
Leave a Comment
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
I'm glad to comment on this subject - I feel that NY is the most controversial state, if not the one that is killing off it's middle-class. First, if this state is opposed to mega-merger's why did it allow the Time-Warner/AT&T merger to happen that resulted in increasing prices for everyone? Second, why is the MTA allowed to enjoy a monopoly on transport that results in horrible metro service, but some of the highest transport prices in the nation?
What is the state attorney general doing about this? I think nothing - I know as I used to work for an engineering firm contracted with the city in Manhattan with ex-engineers indicating this. This article is a ploy to serve as an opinion and PR stunt to oppose a merger that people favor. T-Mobile has amongst the best leadership that has kept it's promises and is willing to divest Boost. In fact what the state attorney general fails to realize is without T-Mobile Sprint will go bankrupt, and there still will be only three major national carriers despite what her flawed judgment says.
Additionally, if this attorney general is in favor of crushing monopolies why don't they go after drug companies that have raised the prices on life saving drugs or even more importantly regulate, and spur on more competition so the MTA lower's it's prices? I hope she also realizes that the USA wasn't the initial leader in 4G, but China. The problem is there are so many flaw's in this article, and nowadays people are so well-informed and educated that it's hard for these useless politicians to spread their propaganda - I hope this merger goes through - T-Mobile deserves it.
First, I’d like to understand whether you are opposed to the merger no matter what remedy the companies offer to get clearance, or would there be a scenario in which you’d accept the merger? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to first hear what the companies are proposing to clear the merger before opposing it?
Second, I believe the main reason these companies want this merger is because of the benefits they’d reap from the combined infrastructure. As their argument goes, their capacity would increase 5-fold. Forgive me if I’m being too naïve, but when you have that kind of increase in supply, the only way you’re going to fill that capacity is through lower, not higher prices. What do you make of this argument?
Finally, if one goes to rural areas, it is clear from prices there that Verizon and AT&T run a duopoly. Network infrastructure have huge benefits of scale, which metropolitan areas offer through higher density. The reason there is no competition in rural areas is because no third player has ever had enough scale to build a greenfield network there. Isn’t opposing this merger also protecting these high prices in rural areas, and essentially perpetuating the Verizon/AT&T duopoly?