SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
DOJ to approve T-Mobile/Sprint merger despite 13 states trying to block it
The Justice Department plans to approve the T-Mobile/Sprint merger as part of a settlement involving the sale of spectrum licenses, wholesale access, and a prepaid wireless business to Dish Network, The Wall Street Journal reported today.
"The companies have spent weeks negotiating with antitrust enforcers and each other over the sale of assets to Dish to satisfy concerns that the more than $26 billion merger of the No. 3 and No. 4 wireless carriers by subscribers would hurt competition," the Journal wrote, citing people familiar with the matter.
As a result of those negotiations, the DOJ is "poised to approve" the merger and could announce a settlement with T-Mobile and Sprint "as soon as this week, but the timing remains uncertain," the Journal wrote.
Even if the DOJ approves the merger, T-Mobile and Sprint will still have to defend it in court because of a lawsuit filed against them by 13 states and the District of Columbia.
Would you rather they each fail and get gobbled up by AT&T and Verizon, or join forces to have a chance to compete against them... and join in a battle against the the consumer?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @12:11AM (9 children)
t-mobile claims the motivation for the merger is that they need the spectrum licenses to compete.
How about we do away with licensing spectrum to the highest bidder, and force all the telcos to share spectrum? That would also allow mom & pop rural telco to operate, and serve those folks that att, verizon, et al will never bother with since they can't make unseemly profit from them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday July 26 2019, @01:19AM (2 children)
I. Love. You!
Yes!
Open and spread competition instead of reducing it! Brilliant, huh!?
Why can't the politicians see that? Oh...right. All they can see is the lobbyists money. Reducing competition is good for executives, shareholders and the rich...who cares about what is right.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday July 26 2019, @01:51AM (1 child)
Yeah, unfortunately the "Mom and Pop" ISP's that might spring up won't be able to supply the levels of "campaign contributions" that the ruling class have become so fond of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @06:30PM
so we all know what the problem is, but they know we know. they just don't care because we never do anything about it. they only respect power. the people need to assert theirs for things to change.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 26 2019, @04:45AM (5 children)
Force them to share the spectrum how? I'm all for open solutions where the government manages a complex system that's vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons for the benefit of its citizens rather than trying to capitalismify it by creating de jure monopolies. But such plans often hinge critically on a coherent strategy of achieving that end, not just saying "let's do it".
How can you regulate the spectrum in a sharable way? Minimizing the following: incentive to pollute airways, wasted bandwidth. Maximizing the following: access, infrastructure.
That's a hard problem, and you need a strategy, not a handwave.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 26 2019, @06:41AM (1 child)
Bandwidth that's used isn't wasted. If people use the bandwidth it's being used. It may be wasted to a monopolistic corporation that wants to monopolize it but it's useful to those using it.
As far as tragedy of the commons, that's just a fake term that monopolists made up to justify monopolizing bandwidth in favor of corporate interests. That was never really a problem other than the fact that big corporations pretend that it was and government goes with it.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 26 2019, @02:41PM
It's reasonable to say that the supposed tragedy of the commons that the phenomenon was named for is a fake thing that basically represented 18th century propaganda, but the conceptual abstract version of it is real as hell in cases like climate change. The net effect of sensible individual incentives can be deleterious to all.
And we've seen unregulated broadcasting become an arms race hell of trying to outpower your competitors and drown out their signal in your noise in history once already. Hell, home wifi seems a bit like that now.
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Friday July 26 2019, @07:01AM (2 children)
Topic on hand: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
In honor of the men who set foot on the moon 50 years ago, it can be done. Anything we (as a species) put our minds to can be resolved, improved and implemented. Whether we put our collective minds to it is another story. Considering the economic/political climate of the last 40 years...well, I don't realistically see it being even considered very soon. And even so, we all know the old song-and-dance: "...absolute power corrupts absolutely." Have a nice day!
Off-topic: I loved CAPITALISMIFY!
Pedant: it's du jour. Then again, yr username says it all! :D I KID! I KID!!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 26 2019, @02:43PM (1 child)
Du jour is french for "of the day." De jure is latin for "in a purely legal sense." It is a contrast term to de facto, meaning "in reality."
(Score: 2) by gtomorrow on Friday July 26 2019, @03:25PM
Mod me -1 D'oh!