

Is AT&T a Monopoly in the Making? - sasvari
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2011/03/an-ex-regulators-take-on-at-t-buying-t-mobile/72761/

======
bediger
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.

So, yes, AT&T is a monopoly in the making.

~~~
IdeaHamster
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!

(source...and a fun read:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company#.22Baby_Bells.22))

~~~
graywh
AT&T (formerly SBC) bought BellSouth to gain complete control over Cingular.

------
brown9-2
_Expect AT &T to make major public commitments to increasing the number of
American jobs through this transaction._

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
The chocolate ration has been increased to 25 grammes.

------
hoag
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.

~~~
orblivion
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.

~~~
hoag
Great, and that's precisely what _should_ happen: the consumers should make
their complaints heard ... _not_ competitors who are (usually) just
complaining about having not made such a good business decision themselves.

------
rch
The headline should probably read: 'AT&T Remaking a Monopoly.'

~~~
modeless
The Once and Future Monopoly

------
masti2100
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.

~~~
Klinky
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?

------
saidulislam
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
f __ _ed 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.

------
AndrewWarner
No. It's a duopoly in the making.

Sprint & Verizon are going to have to hook up next.

~~~
cheald
Who's the other GSM carrier? I'd like to take my bought-and-paid-for Nexus One
and switch to them.

~~~
kgermino
at&t _is_ the other GSM carrier. If your lucky you might live in a place where
you can get another regional carrier (U.S. Cellular, Virgin, etc) but odds are
you'll still be stuck using at&t towers.

~~~
cheald
I'm aware of that, which is why I'm asking why it would be a duopoly. at&t
will have a monopoly on GSM celluar service, and I'm left without options.

They're saying that all T-Mobile 3G devices would need to be replaced as well
( <http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9M3LNPO0> ) which means that my
Nexus One is a $550 paperweight, since it won't be useful on any US carrier. I
won't even be able to resell it to recoup some of the cost.

~~~
kgermino
O. Ok sorry about that. The duopoly comment is referring to the US cell phone
market as a whole. Andrew was saying that because of the merger he believes
Sprint and Verizon will be forced to merge, leaving only Verizon and at&t.

------
isuarez
One since for sure is that now there is one less choice for the consumer. Not
good.

------
dr_
You can only believe AT&T is a monopoly if you believe the future of voice and
data is through cell towers. My guess is, it's probably not.

~~~
astrodust
Left to an open market, it won't be, but if AT&T has its way, it will be. They
will buy up or buy control over everything if they can.

Wireless data is not something you want locked up by one company.

~~~
Criztoph
Definitely - competition played a huge role in making text message plans
cheaper. With 1 less network that's available for consumers to choose from
kills other chances of networks introducing agressive pricing, etc.

------
amitraman1
My answer:

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
> We still have Verizon and Sprint.

Not if you're on GSM. Not everyone wants to consider investing in SIM-less
devices that only work in the US.

~~~
fuzzmeister
Both Verizon and AT&T are using LTE for 4G, though, so Sprint will become the
odd one out in that situation.

------
dryicerx
So T&AT&T

------
lukeqsee
Here we go again…

------
suking
The FTC is going to allow this - yet they spend time and money on Google and
AdMob?

~~~
fleitz
Thats one of the advantages you get when you wiretap the country.

~~~
chc
I have a feeling your comment will get dismissed as irrelevant snark, but I
have a sinking feeling it's much more accurate than anyone would like to
admit. AT&T is pretty well in bed with the government, which gives it
political cachet that Google can't dream of getting without wrecking its
credibility.

~~~
fleitz
Fully agree with you, this whole NSA wiretap business isn't some low level
tech grunt and a low level bureaucrat. If someone at the FCC/FTC gets a call
from whoever authorized wiretapping the nation they'll listen. And if they
start screwing around with the merger they'll get a call from exactly that
person.

If Eisenhower was scared of this cabal the FCC/FTC will fold like a house of
cards.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

