Monopolized U.S. Telecom Industry Eyes More Consolidation, Because What Could Go Wrong
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
The ink is barely dry on Verizon’s $20 billion proposed acquisition of Frontier, but industry analysts — ever excited to boost stock valuations via speculation — are already pushing for greater consolidation in the very broken U.S. telecom industry.
Telecom industry trade magazines are all frothy at the potential for even more mergers, including a potential Verizon purchase of Lumen (formerly CenturyLink):
“Analyst Jonathan Chaplin wrote in a research note issued Friday that an unnamed person pitched that idea to New Street Research about two weeks ago. Such an acquisition could help shore up Verizon’s fiber base and convergence strategy. “It is speculative. But it makes a lot of sense,” Chaplin wrote.”
…”I think Lumen is up for grabs. They are probably the next one to drop,” Jeff Heynen, a VP at The Dell’Oro Group focused on broadband access and home networking, tells Light Reading.
Ah yes, the “convergence strategy” of gobbling up every single provider of an essential service in order to create a barely regulated monopoly over broadband access across much of the country. What could go wrong? Where in history has that ever shown to be folly?
As we’re currently seeing in streaming, pressures for continued quarterly returns are challenged when your market starts to saturate and subscriber growth slows. So then companies turn to cutting corners (usually labor, customer service) and nickel-and-diming subscribers (usage caps, hidden fees) to goose earnings.
When those efforts are taxed out, they then turn to often mindless mergers and acquisitions to temporarily boost stock valuations and drive massive tax reductions. That consolidation not only leads to less competition generally (resulting in high prices, spottier broadband access, and crappier service), but as we saw with previous deals between Verizon and Frontier, the huge debt loads created by such deals result in additional cuts, usually impacting labor, service quality, or users.
This kind of stuff isn’t of any real interest to most telecom industry analysts, whose primary function is to ensure that shareholders get their sweet, justified returns. And it’s amusing to watch everybody involved in this self-serving chain utterly refuse to learn absolutely anything from history. Almost none of the debate considers, even for a fleeting second, the impact debt-fueled consolidation has on employees and users. It’s just deemed a tangential irrelevance.
U.S. broadband is a patchwork of regional monopolies, coddled by corrupt federal and state lawmakers, who’ve worked tirelessly to demolish anything closely resembling competition in local broadband markets. More mindless consolidation is the exact opposite of what the broken industry needs, but the zeal in which folks pursue such “synergy creation” and “convergence” is unrelenting all the same.
Filed Under: broadband, competition, consolidation, high speed internet, mergers, telecom
Companies: centurylink, frontier, lumen, verizon


Comments on “Monopolized U.S. Telecom Industry Eyes More Consolidation, Because What Could Go Wrong”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Syco Pedia - All You Need To Know About World
Discover the Syco Pedia: Dive into the world’s most intriguing aspects of wit, intelligence, and innovation. Uncover secrets, tips, and fascinating facts that will inspire and inform. Read more now!
https://sycopedia.co.uk/
Re:
Please; die slowly, and in horrible pain, in a fire.
Trying to reassemble the monopoly?
The former SW Bell has already swallowed up most of its Baby Bell siblings along with their mother, and put on her skin like some cautionary Greek myth.
Verizon spun off a lot of their former-GTE acquisitions to Frontier in the early 00’s and now wants it all back.
Now they’re suggesting the sole holdout among the Baby Bells (US West -> Qwest -> CenturyLink -> Lumen) may get assimilated as well?
Can some high-level necromancer please resurrect Judge Greene and set him on Deathstar-Prime and its northeastern sibling before they start talking about consolidation?
Why merger consolidation tax breaks?
I’m quite familiar with taxes, but less so corporate ones. Why or what is the source of these massive post merger tax breaks? Id guess it’s a function of the debt perhaps but with individuals we make mortgage interest deductible to stimulate or incentivize home purchasing, a deemed net positive for society.
This is certainly not so in corporate world, why/where does this perverse “massive tax reductions” manifest?
Re: Why merger consolidation tax breaks?
Corporations don’t pay taxes on their debt. So, with enough debt, they don’t pay any taxes at all.
I wonder when corporate overlords like the noble classes before them will start demanding peasants give them their daughters.
They lied...
Captain Obvious here, they lied.
Not just about everything, but not a single one of them knows anything that I learned in business school.
1) Once you can no longer increase the income of the company by doing whatever it is you do, your company has outgrown its life cycle and will become like a wounded zebra in a heard surrounded by lions.
2) Growth for the sake of Growth is not growth but a slow death.
3) If your company goes public, you no longer are in the business of being in business. You are just a water Troff filled with sand trying to get horses to drink.
Re:
I just searched on ‘Sustainable Business Model’, there were a lot of returns. Many books, articles, studies. Some of our business leaders should read some of that stuff instead of Fox News.
Re: Re: 'The numbers must ALWAYS go up' -modern business mindset
The main ‘problem’ with a sustainable business model in the current system is that it requires those running a company and/or it’s investors/stockholders to be willing to settle for making ‘just’ a healthy amount of profits on a regular basis, as opposed to buying into the belief that if a company is not always making more profits each quarter than it made the previous one that means that it’s a failure.
Re: Re:
These people aren’t interested in such things. They go in, strip everything to the bone, and get out while the stock is still good. They operate on what’s good for their bottom line this quarter, not what the company will be like 5 years after they take their golden parachute.
Re:
2) Growth for the sake of Growth is not growth but a slow death.
In biology, we call it cancer.
Can’t wait for the AT&T – Verizon merger.
It’ll have everything except the good stuff the old AT&T Bell System used to have.