You've got to remember that "at&t" (the current one) is not AT&T, the remains of The Bell System resulting from the 1983 divestiture.
SBC, which started out as a Regional Bell Operating Company named "Southwestern Bell", bought the old AT&T at firesale prices back in 2005 and assumed its corporate livery.
SBC and Southwestern Bell before it, never made a secret of thinking that the 1983 Bell System breakup was a mistake, and has spent the last 28 years trying to put the Bell System monopoly back into place.
Wait...but it is the AT&T from the Bell System. The fact that it was one of the spin-offs buying back the mothership probably has little consequence in terms of attitudes and/or business strategy. I imagine the AT&T ethos of old was pretty well spread between all the "Baby" bells and "Mama" Bell.
Also, you forgot the part where shortly after SBC bought AT&T, the "new" AT&T bought Cingular, a partnership between Bell South and the former AT&T. Oh, and the part where before buying AT&T, SBC also bought Ameritech, the parent company of the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin "Baby" Bells, and Pacific Telesis, the parent company of Pacbell and Nevada Bell.
...and what of the other "Baby" Bells? Well, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX combined to form a company you may have heard of: Verizon!
Amazing that a monopoly could eventually go bankrupt. People get paid millions a year to run companies like that into the ground. Charlie Sheen could do no worse.
My proudest accomplishment in law school was a research paper I wrote entitled "Anti-Antitrust: The Need for Antitrust Law Reform."
In that paper, I argued that antitrust law as applied today totally misses the point: the issue shouldn't be whether a company, otherwise satisfying the elements of a monopoly, is harming competitors, but whether a company is actually harming consumers. Put another way: who is complaining about the alleged anticompetitive tactics: competitors, or consumers?
If one studies all the big antitrust cases of the 20th century -- from Alcoa, to DuPont, to Microsoft -- a curious trend emerges: it was always those companies' competitors who took issue with seemingly anticompetitive tactics of the big evil "trusts," and rarely -- if ever -- was it the consumers themselves.
A great example of this is Microsoft in the 1990s: do any of you -- aside from our realm of early adopter computer savvy tech types -- genuinely remember any everyday computer users actually complaining that Windows came preinstalled with IE instead of Netscape? Were consumers actually harmed, were they actually suffering? No: the only "people" who had an issue with MS bundling IE with Windows -- frankly, a brilliant strategy -- were Microsoft's competitors, and not, in fact, MS's customers.
So my take on this ATT & T-mobile merger is simple: the investigation should not focus on whether ATT/T-mobile is a monopoly from competitors' points of view, but whether it is anticompetitive to the point of actually harming consumers, e.g., with higher prices, etc.
Frankly, a good example of a company that really deserves a DOJ investigation is Apple -- IFF customers start to actually complain, and not not just Apple's competitors' start to complain.
Put more simply: a DOJ investigation into whether a company is a monopoly should be based upon whether consumers -- not competitors -- are actually being harmed by the allegedly anticompetitive tactics of a "monopoly."
After all, a company could not become a monopoly without customers' support in the first place. So clearly they have done something right that customers appreciate.
A "monopoly" that is not causing harm to consumers, either directly or indirectly, is not necessarily so terrible a thing. In fact, as with Apple, it is often the case that consumers enjoy a net benefit from such a company.
Well in this case I have a grudge against AT&T, specifically as a consumer. I don't like that they can get away absurd customer relations, and I think we need to check them. If Sprint goes away one day I'm not sure what I'll do.
EDIT: You know what I'll do? I'll say screw the paradigm, and start looking into VOIP, and other alternatives, and encouraging everybody else to do it so economies of scale work out.
Being a monopoly is the only way AT&T knows how to survive. Do you see them competing ever in a non-regulated field? Even the iPhone deal was a monopoly for 5 years....that's AT&T's DNA.
Do you really think it's a regulation issue? This is essentially the corporatist end game dream scenario. What major corporation would ever willingly sacrifice growth, market share & profit for the sustainability of a fair market & the wellbeing of the consumer?
It's not an AT&T thing... all big guys would want it, especially the market share. I am not liking the news of AT&T buying T-Mobile. There so many things fed up about it. AT&T data usage is not "truly" unlimited. AT&T's customer service sucks big time. When I missed to read the detail of my bill one month, the support rep told me I need to grow up and pay attention to my bill every month. True, I accept it but that also means AT&T cannot be trusted to accurately report on our billing, auto withdrawal, etc. They are bunch of a*holes. They do this to us while we have other carriers and other options. Imagine how they would treat us if they were the only guys.
[+] [-] bediger|15 years ago|reply
SBC, which started out as a Regional Bell Operating Company named "Southwestern Bell", bought the old AT&T at firesale prices back in 2005 and assumed its corporate livery.
SBC and Southwestern Bell before it, never made a secret of thinking that the 1983 Bell System breakup was a mistake, and has spent the last 28 years trying to put the Bell System monopoly back into place.
So, yes, AT&T is a monopoly in the making.
[+] [-] IdeaHamster|15 years ago|reply
Also, you forgot the part where shortly after SBC bought AT&T, the "new" AT&T bought Cingular, a partnership between Bell South and the former AT&T. Oh, and the part where before buying AT&T, SBC also bought Ameritech, the parent company of the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin "Baby" Bells, and Pacific Telesis, the parent company of Pacbell and Nevada Bell.
...and what of the other "Baby" Bells? Well, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX combined to form a company you may have heard of: Verizon!
(source...and a fun read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company...)
[+] [-] markszcz|15 years ago|reply
(AT&T old and what has spawned out from there.)
[+] [-] mbrubeck|15 years ago|reply
http://www.neatorama.com/family-tree-of-telecommunication/
[+] [-] astrodust|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokipin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
The spin on this will be fascinating to see if it plays out as the a lot of jobs are expected to be eliminated as part of a merger.
[+] [-] raganwald|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoag|15 years ago|reply
In that paper, I argued that antitrust law as applied today totally misses the point: the issue shouldn't be whether a company, otherwise satisfying the elements of a monopoly, is harming competitors, but whether a company is actually harming consumers. Put another way: who is complaining about the alleged anticompetitive tactics: competitors, or consumers?
If one studies all the big antitrust cases of the 20th century -- from Alcoa, to DuPont, to Microsoft -- a curious trend emerges: it was always those companies' competitors who took issue with seemingly anticompetitive tactics of the big evil "trusts," and rarely -- if ever -- was it the consumers themselves.
A great example of this is Microsoft in the 1990s: do any of you -- aside from our realm of early adopter computer savvy tech types -- genuinely remember any everyday computer users actually complaining that Windows came preinstalled with IE instead of Netscape? Were consumers actually harmed, were they actually suffering? No: the only "people" who had an issue with MS bundling IE with Windows -- frankly, a brilliant strategy -- were Microsoft's competitors, and not, in fact, MS's customers.
So my take on this ATT & T-mobile merger is simple: the investigation should not focus on whether ATT/T-mobile is a monopoly from competitors' points of view, but whether it is anticompetitive to the point of actually harming consumers, e.g., with higher prices, etc.
Frankly, a good example of a company that really deserves a DOJ investigation is Apple -- IFF customers start to actually complain, and not not just Apple's competitors' start to complain.
Put more simply: a DOJ investigation into whether a company is a monopoly should be based upon whether consumers -- not competitors -- are actually being harmed by the allegedly anticompetitive tactics of a "monopoly."
After all, a company could not become a monopoly without customers' support in the first place. So clearly they have done something right that customers appreciate.
A "monopoly" that is not causing harm to consumers, either directly or indirectly, is not necessarily so terrible a thing. In fact, as with Apple, it is often the case that consumers enjoy a net benefit from such a company.
[+] [-] orblivion|15 years ago|reply
EDIT: You know what I'll do? I'll say screw the paradigm, and start looking into VOIP, and other alternatives, and encouraging everybody else to do it so economies of scale work out.
[+] [-] rch|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modeless|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masti2100|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Klinky|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saidulislam|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AndrewWarner|15 years ago|reply
Sprint & Verizon are going to have to hook up next.
[+] [-] cheald|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isuarez|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astrodust|15 years ago|reply
Wireless data is not something you want locked up by one company.
[+] [-] s3graham|15 years ago|reply
Or is there other near-term transmission protocols that you expect to be viable?
[+] [-] Klinky|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amitraman1|15 years ago|reply
No. We still have Verizon and Sprint. We may get a duopoly in 5-10 years, but for now, AT&T is not a monopoly.
[+] [-] technomancy|15 years ago|reply
Not if you're on GSM. Not everyone wants to consider investing in SIM-less devices that only work in the US.
[+] [-] dryicerx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukeqsee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suking|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleitz|15 years ago|reply