Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
For much of this year, Sprint and its Japanese owner Softbank have been buttering up the Trump administration in the hopes it will sign off on a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. Sprint tried the same merger back in 2014, but found the attempt wisely blocked by regulators because it would have killed one of just four major wireless competitors in the space. Said buttering up has involved letting Trump falsely claim responsibility for murky Softbank job creation claims that were originally planned years ago, have nothing to do with the merger, and even less to do with Donald Trump.
Obviously the wireless market is enjoying a bit of a resurgence lately courtesy of T-Mobile, which has been giving bigger competitors fits by simply listening to what consumers want (fewer hidden bullshit fees, no contracts, cheaper international roaming) and providing it. In turn, wireless consumers have seen some notable improvements in the last year or two, including AT&T and Verizon being forced to bring back unlimited data plans they had previously tried to claim consumers didn’t want. It’s a resurgence that wouldn’t have happened if regulators hadn’t blocked AT&T’s own attempted takeover over T-Mobile back in 2011 (something telecom giants and the “who needs government oversight?” sect would have you forget).
Yet here we are once again. With the Trump administration now acting as little more than a rubber stamp for telecom sector incumbents (see the killing of privacy protections, net neutrality rules, attempts to bring competition to the cable box, efforts to bring broadband to the poor, etc.) most analysts believe the Trump DOJ and FCC will happily approve this deal, the obvious competitive repercussions be damned. To help make sure, Sprint this month hired a lobbyist connected to Trump in the hopes of further greasing the skids for deal approval.
As a result, the proposed superunion between Sprint and T-Mobile appears to be quickly gaining steam, with a deal to be formally announced sometime in October:
“The transaction would significantly consolidate the U.S. telecommunications market and represent the first transformative U.S. merger with significant antitrust risk to be agreed since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump in January. The progress toward a deal also indicates that T-Mobile and Sprint believe that the U.S. antitrust enforcement environment has become more favorable since the companies abandoned their previous effort to combine in 2014 amid regulatory concerns.
With the deal set to make headlines, you can expect an absolute torrent of pay-to-play editorials to start popping up in newspapers and websites nationwide, all of them trying to insist this deal will be of indisputable benefit to consumers. A wide variety of groups take telecom cash to repeat whatever they’re told, whether it’s rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association or co-opted minority groups, and you can be damn sure the dollar-per-hollar voices paid to support shitty policy will be out in force making a littany of false claims about the supposed perks of this latest, attempted union.
But as John Oliver just got done exploring, history isn’t murky on this particular point: the elimination of a major competitor by merger undermines competition in a sector that’s already well-known for a lack of it. Removing one of four competitors in the space will drive up prices, and could result in the elimination of unlimited data plans that only just re-appeared on the market. Apparently, this isn’t a historical reality many T-Mobile customers are particularly tuned into, if this informal poll is any indication:
T-Mobile customers: Are you okay with @TMobile merging with @Sprint if @JohnLegere stays CEO, and T-Mobile absorbs the Sprint brand?
— Logan Abbott (@loganabbott) September 22, 2017
Many of these looming pay-to-play editorials selling this turd of a deal will try to argue that Sprint needs the deal to remain viable, but under SoftBank Sprint has notably improved its balance sheet and network, and there’s a litany of possible suitors that could help Sprint manage its debt load (Comcast, Charter, Dish) that don’t involve killing one of four major wireless competitors. Others will try to claim immeasurable job creation from the merger, when history repeatedly indicates that these kinds of mergers are indisputable job killers — thanks to the elimination of countless redundancies at the acquired company.
The real challenge in selling this merger will fall in the lap of John Legere, the admittedly amusing T-Mobile CEO that has built a reputation for saying fuck a lot on Twitter and for being a consumer ally (even if this dedication has proven skin deep on subjects like net neutrality and the EFF). Leaks suggest Legere will stay on at the freshly-merged company, but may face headwinds in convincing some of the more alert T-Mobile customers that dramatically reducing market competition will somehow, magically, be immeasurably good for them.
Filed Under: competition, consolidation, merger, wireless
Companies: sprint, t-mobile
Comments on “Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger”
T-Mobile is starting to add 'bloat' even before the merger.
So I noticed that T-Mobile was offering Netflix for ‘free’. I use T-Mobile. I use Netflix. If I could save myself $10, sure, why not sign up for the ‘free’ thing. It was the same plan I had… until I checked their website. I noticed their T-Mobile One plan, which I am on, is now $20 more expensive than what I am paying (for the exact same plan signed up for 6 months ago)… but it includes Netflix now…
I’m not a math whiz, but I’m pretty sure a $20 price hike and giving me a $10 video streaming option isn’t free…
Oh well… we had a good run while it lasted!
Re: T-Mobile is starting to add 'bloat' even before the merger.
Data on T-Mobile One plans went up $5 in July. “End of a promotional period” was the claim, though the cynic in me says “started nearing a deal with Netflix” is more accurate.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/6/15929574/tmobile-one-plus-unlimited-data-hd-video-tethering-price
don't wory
regulation is gonna save us!
right?
Re: don't wory
Nobody’s actually as stupid as you’re portraying yourself right now.
Re: Re: don't wory
you are right, they are even dumber… like you!
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Wow that’s the best you got? All that lead paint must be taking a toll.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
“I know you are but what am I.” Fucking incredible.
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
Seriously? How is it incredible? None of you guys ever explain yourselves, you just drop ad hominem attacks and then cry like little babies when you get one back.
I am sue sorry I hurt ur widdle feewings!
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
Sorry you got triggered.
Re: Re: Re:4 don't wory
it’s all good friend!
Re: Re: Re:5 don't wory
Allow me to save this pointless thread where ACs on both sides say basically nothing.
Yes, regulation could help the public here.
If you like free markets, then you should dislike monopoly, and its ugly step-sister, oligopoly. In Oligopoly markets, the vendors have price control and the ability to impede market entry from new competitors.
This market control results in NOT a free market, but one controlled by the oligopolists. The most obvious results are: reduced quality of services and/or higher prices.
Well-placed anti-trust regulations can interfere in the market in such a way as to raise competition, and actually make the market more closely resemble a “free market”.
The obvious example here is the Anti-trust breakup of the AT&T monopoly 1982, which had incredible payoff in terms of lower prices, and creating more efficient competitors that out-performed the old Ma Bell.
So, ah…yeah. Regulation can save us.
Re: Re: Re:6 don't wory
“Allow me to save this pointless thread where ACs on both sides say basically nothing.”
Further down, before you came along I stated…
“I have noted several times that I support strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations.”
Then in the same post where you said I say nothing, you provide a story about the part of regulation I have already said that I agree with.
“The obvious example here is the Anti-trust breakup of the AT&T monopoly 1982, which had incredible payoff in terms of lower prices, and creating more efficient competitors that out-performed the old Ma Bell.”
The part about that is this was anti-trust/anti-monopoly action, which I have already stated that I agree with.
You just literally agreed with me while simultaneously stating that I had nothing to say. And you wonder why I consider many of you to be imbeciles?
Re: Re: Re:7 don't wory
♪ If anyone cared, and you never lied
♪ If you ever took just one step outside
♪ If you ever posted without any snide
♪ Then we‘d see the day where we’d never hide
♪ Your comments, hey…
♪ You got a reply, you got a reply—I replied
♪ You got a reply, you got a reply—I replied
Re: Re: Re:8 don't wory
Posting as AC or with an account does not change any of that. I read more an enough reddit to know how it all goes down.
Re: Re: Re:9 Oi.
Well, that sucks for you, then.
Re: don't wory
Yes, if the merger is blocked under current regulations that deal with monopoly and the FCC doesn’t roll back what has been put in place it will help a lot.
Re: Re: don't wory
Hence my point. The FTC has an epic track record for failure here. Current regulation is not even being enforced and yet there are calls for more. The fact along that these companies are even attempting to move forward with this merger means they have been given a thumbs up behind closed doors in chats with regulators.
We have been doing this for so long, I don’t think any of the rules, new or old are being followed. they just read a couple of laws and then twist them to mean what they need them to mean as needed for the situation.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Yeah, we should just disband the government and let everybody fend for themselves and companies will magically create the perfect free market utopia. Amirite?
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
as opposed to regulation “magically” making it all better? We are here watching regulation fail and you still cling to it? The titanic is not going to suddenly defy the laws of physics and start floating again!
The problem is that you think regulation is a cure, it is not.
the other problem is that you think I am advancing the notion that we need to completely deregulate, I am not.
Once you can get past your horse blinders and tunnel vision you can learn there are other paths forward than what you have been hand fed by the machine for regurgitation.
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
okay, I’ll bite…what are the other paths?
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
"the other problem is that you think I am advancing the notion that we need to completely deregulate, I am not."
The perhaps you should stop talking as if that’s exactly what you want, and explain what your miracle third option is.
Re: Re: Re:4 don't wory
“The perhaps you should stop talking as if that’s exactly what you want,…”
I have done it many times, but you won’t listen. Read the other posts I have made in this article. How many times do I have to correct you lot before you will learn?
I say one thing, it ruffles your feathers, and the next step is for a long train of zealots to begin misrepresenting everything I say because it does not conform to their narrow ways of thinking. When the boys and girls can grow up and look beyond their party politics, we can have a real discussion. Until then, there is no reason to discuss it because they don’t wish to hear it!
When we are ready to discuss the real solution, we will have people dropping their political facades and willing to actually say they will listen without claiming everything other than what they say is a “magical” solution.
Or as in you case… A miracle option. Before you are even ready to talk, first get rid of your own bias and blindness!
See I can talk down to you “triggered” snowflakes too. The only difference? I am not a crybaby about it will not flag any of your posts.
Re: Re: Re:5 don't wory
Your statement “ruffles feathers” because it is a simplistic, single-minded, “fuck all regulations” type of statement that offers neither nuance nor an opportunity for deeper discussion. The majority of your posts in this thread “ruffle feathers” because you insult everyone rather than offer a comment without a snide attitude. You “ruffle feathers” specifically because you undercut whatever cogent argument you might have by using meaningless insults such as “triggered snowflakes” or comparisons to farm animals.
Try posting without the bile attached. A venomous voice will earn you no friends, but a lack of one will earn you at least a civil conversation.
Re: Re: Re:6 don't wory
Hey, I did not say fuck all regulations, that’s just you misrepresenting what I have said.
I said regulations are bad and mentioned that I support anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation.
O yea, I am the ONLY ONE here insulting others… of course. I notice that you don’t see you going after the others. Okay for them, but I need to be a good boy and do as you say right? I can smell the hypocrisy on you, easy!
How I post is how I post, it is no different than the rest of you all posting the way you want to post. I don’t like the way you post and you don’t like the way I post. Why should I be the one to conform to your posting rules, why don’t you conform to mine?
You are more worried about juvenile decorum than real substance, and that attitude is why regulation fails because the politicians see right through your calls for regulation. They know you are inept and willing to buy the BS so they keep selling it!
More than enough mergers happened Under Obama!
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/08/news/obama-mergers-antitrust/index.html
But like I said, you are quite easy to fool, just as your excessive attention to decorum reveals!
Re: Re: Re:7 don't wory
You implied it. In the absence of a direct statement, an implied one will be considered. Make your position clear from the start and you will avoid such a fate.
How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance in that statement?
If your opening statement had been less insulting to the intelligence of the community, I would fault those flinging insults your way. But you set out the bait first—and while I do not condone those who bait you in return, neither will I condemn them. You set the tone; you have to live with that.
You are free to post however you wish. But if your way of posting gets you nothing but insults, maybe the problem is with you.
…says the poster who trots out comparisons to barn animals and the tired “snowflake” insult¹ as if those comments have any depth beyond the surface-level “I think I’m clever” mindset of the person who posted them.
So what?
¹ ~ When you call someone a "snowflake", you are quoting Fight Club, a satire written by a gay man about how male fragility causes men to destroy themselves, resent society, and become radicalized. Tyler Durden is a personification of the main character’s mental illness; his "snowflake" speech is both a mockery and an example of how fascists use dehumanizing language to garner loyalty from insecure people. In other words: If you use “snowflake” as an insult, you are quoting a domestic terrorist who uses bombs to destroy skyscrapers because of his insecurity about his sexual prowess.
Re: Re: Re:8 don't wory
“You implied it. In the absence of a direct statement, an implied one will be considered.”
So you openly admit to intentionally corrupting or misrepresenting a general statement intended to be general so that you can press an agenda, how politician like of you!
Well, at least thanks for admitting that you are corrupt, not sure I would have admitted it.
“How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance in that statement?”
How do you deal with not having enough intelligence to understand that it is not dissonant. Just because I do not like something, does not mean that I will not support it until something better comes along. It’s called taking what you CAN get, does not mean I have to like it, getting the idea yet?
“If your opening statement had been less insulting to the intelligence of the community,”
The very nature of disagreeing with someone implies that they think they know better than you. If you can put your big boy pants on and jut get over it…
“But if your way of posting gets you nothing but insults, maybe the problem is with you.”
Kinda like all of those innocent black folks that go to jail… the problem is clearly with them. Do you not understand, that I am directly telling you it does not matter what I say or how I say it, as long as the agenda I am pushing is disagreeable to you, then you are going to take offense if you WANT TO! How about dem big boy pants… gonna get a pair?
I am okay with people insulting me or even calling me out on it, so long as you are equitable about it and call everyone else out about it. Can you be fair? I doubt it.
“So what?”
Then why do you even care about regulation and having this argument? If you don’t care, them maybe you should move along or something.
“¹ ~ When you call someone a “snowflake”, you are quoting Fight Club, a satire written by a gay man about how male fragility causes men to destroy themselves, resent society, and become radicalized…”
That is spot the fuck on right there! Which is why I call many of you snowflakes AND why I constantly tell you that you are being radicalized in support of regulation to such a degree that you are destroying yourselves!
“In other words: If you use “snowflake” as an insult, you are quoting a domestic terrorist”
It really does not matter who the truth comes from… just that the truth comes! I mean, if Hitler said that people should not kill each other, does it all of a sudden make it RIGHT to start killing? Even if a liar utters truth, it is still truth. You are not very fast are you?
The worst nightmare for Democrats, would be for all of their politicians wishes to come true.
The worst nightmare for Republicans, would be for all of their politicians wished to come true.
Re: Re: Re:9 Oi.
Do not act surprised when people misinterpret a statement lacking in nuance—especially if you make it with the underlying intent of having such a statement misread and misinterpreted for a “gotcha” moment.
You said “regulations are bad” and “I support anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation” in two separate clauses of the same sentence. How can you support something you think is bad? If I think something is bad, I try my best not to toss my support behind it.
The nature of disagreement is compromise: I compare my knowledge to yours and vice versa, we share that knowledge, then we try to hash out an agreement from there. You may know more about a certain subject than I do, even if I have an opinion on it; a disagreement on that subject comes from a lack of understanding between you and I based on the differences in our knowledge. I would gladly listen to you, even if I disagreed with you, if you could stop insulting others—even if they provoke you—and acting as if you are better than everyone else. None of us are getting out of here alive; that does not mean you have to act like a complete asshole all the time.
If I do take offense to it, and I do start insulting you by making comparisons to sex offenders that have an affinity for dead animals, how could you even refuse looking like the better person? Replying to my bait with insults of your own would only make both of us look like dickheads; refusing to take my bait would make you look much better than I.
As I said: I do not condone those who insult you, but if you sling the first insult, I cannot and will not condemn them. You intentionally provoked them into the mud in which you wallow; I will not blame them for believing the only way they can reach you is to bellyflop next to you and have a mudroll of their own.
And here I thought you said you would never lie.
I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law. You have lost the argument. IT’S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
Re: Re: Re:10 Oi.
“Do not act surprised when people misinterpret a statement lacking in nuance”
Ha ha ha… I am not surprised in the least because that is standard fare around here. But you folks sure do get bent about me correcting you over it. You know as well as I do, that most here ‘intentionally’ twist what I say. What you don’t realize is that it makes you look stupid. I don’t think most people are so stupid as to think that people that do not like regulations are actually advocating for the complete destruction of all regulation. This is why people laugh at you.
When many on the left talk about firing entire police departments and trash talking them, I am not stupid enough to think they are all advocating for the complete destruction of the police. If I am smart enough to figure this out, why are you not smart enough to figure this out? Oh right, if it does not fit your narratives, then its time to pull out the strawmen, false equivalents, twisty logic, along with the apples and oranges comparisons.
Big BIG thumbs up!
“The nature of disagreement is compromise:”
No sir, from where to you derive this logic? Disagreement requires no form of compromise!
“I compare my knowledge to yours and vice versa, we share that knowledge, then we try to hash out an agreement from there.”
This is the nature of debate, is that what you meant instead of “disagreement”?
“You may know more about a certain subject than I do, even if I have an opinion on it; a disagreement on that subject comes from a lack of understanding between you and I based on the differences in our knowledge.”
Knowing more is not the only issue at hand. There are 3 types of knowledge in general.
Superior Knowledge.
Volume of Knowledge.
Specialization of Knowledge.
Superior knowledge is more like Wisdom, the ability to gather disparate pieces of information and becoming able to make “quality” comparisons or truths. It is hard to obtain superior knowledge without detailed knowledge, but is possible. Also one it not guaranteed to have a large volume of knowledge either. These also tend to be ultimate truths as well. Like humanities tendency to get in its own way working on solutions to problems. This is an ultimate truth discovered through superior knowledge, or wisdom! This tends to be the corollary to the dunning-Kruger effect. Those with superior knowledge are often exasperated by those without it because it comes easy for them to understand.
Volume of Knowledge is just having gathered a large amount of information. You can lack detailed knowledge and superior knowledge in this state and get a great many thing wrong because of it. This tends to generate that dunning-kruger effect I talk about. This is also science where we develop our theories and test them. We have a lot of knowledge, but it does not mean that we are getting things right.
Specialization of Knowledge. This really gets people into trouble. They know a lot, but they still don’t see the big picture much. This is where theories are highly refined and start getting really fringe. Lot so arguments, pissing and moaning goes on here.
Having said all that, an ignorant person can still teach any one of these 3 types with the right question, if the person listening will listen.
There is also no requirement for both to misunderstand each other to have a disagreement. You can believe in regulation if you think that people are just to stupid or lazy to participate in a free market effectively. You just cannot hold the idea that regulation is a meaningful defense against monopoly without first introducing cognitive dissonance.
“As I said: I do not condone those who insult you, but if you sling the first insult, I cannot and will not condemn them.”
Anyone, at any time, can choose to interpret anything I say as an insult, even when that is not the intent. This is not a 2 wrongs make a right moment. If two people are fighting are you going to hold the one that threw the first punch down while the other keeps swinging? Do you hold that the first offender deserves no defense as an absolute truth? If so, then all I need to do going forward is find a way to get people to believe that someone else started it. If you have wisdom, you will understand why the law does not care who started anything. Both are going to be forced to calm down and stop any violence, regardless of who started it.
“And here I thought you said you would never lie.”
Point out how this is the case? If I made an error I will own up to it. I admit to calling folks snowflakes, where is the lie in this?
“I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law.”
Nice try idiot. A comparison is required for that invocation to work. I did not compare YOU or anyone else to Hitler. I simply asked if you would automatically take a stand against a truth if Hilter was the one uttering that truth.
Godwin’s Law
“Godwin’s law is an Internet adage that asserts that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches”
However, if you wish to take solace in a silly meme to gird your position, go right on ahead.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
“We have been doing this for so long, I don’t think any of the rules, new or old are being followed. they just read a couple of laws and then twist them to mean what they need them to mean as needed for the situation.”
Then you should like the blocking of this merger based on anti-trust policy. Because blocking a deal doesn’t involve very much gov’t interference, nor any ongoing rules or compliance. It’s a one-time gov’t intervention, then allow competition to work its magic.
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
“Then you should like the blocking of this merger based on anti-trust policy.”
If you would take the time to read my others posts you would not have even stated this. Instead, like the rest of the crowd here with horse blinds and tunnel vision, you didn’t do anything other than assume as you proceed to misrepresent what I said.
Kudos! Welcome to the farm with the rest of the animals.
Re: don't wory
deregulation is gonna save us!
right?
Re: Re: don't wory
Is that the only direction you are able to think in?
If I am not raving in favor of regulation then I am raving for its complete dismantling? This is why the conversation always goes wrong, because of blithering idiots like you. There is far more to this conversation other than sucking regulation dick you dumb-ass.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Do not fault him for following the example you set.
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
But you can fault me for following the example TD and it’s usual patrons set?
Ah yes, hypocrisy is such a sweet fruit. Are you sure your shit does not stink? I bet you go to the bathrooms and flush it down like everyone else.
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
Speaking of hypocrisy, how was the move to the free market paradise of Somolia? I’m sure you’re Galting over there just fine, and not say? Living under the tyrannical umbrella of a functional government, whilest you demean and decry anyone who would dare talk about the pluses and minuses of government oversight. Because that would make you a giant shit eating hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re:4 don't wory
Oh please, I say one little thing wrong about your regulatory sycophancy and your go to retort is to claim that I am advancing total deregulation and anarchy. Every time!
Don’t you silly little one-trick ponies ever get tired of sounding like a broken record? You have had decades of your regulations fucking you in the ass and yet you still have ask for more? Do you no understand that the only things the politicians are doing, it telling you what you want to hear while they do something else?
Why are you crying? This is what you asked for? As long as you let them lie to your face, they are going to lie to your face! What is that saying? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? How many times have you been fooled? I figured as much… you have already lost count, just as I have lost count!
Re: Re: Re:5 don't wory
Speaking of sounding like a broken record, I think that’s the one thousandth time you’ve said sycophant.
Re: Re: Re:6 don't wory
many here have provided occasion to use that word often.
It will be happy to retire it when… or should I say… IF the time comes. I doubt this to be the case.
Re: Re: Re:5 don't wory
In fairness, you do a good enough job of implying such a belief by way of your constant one-note bashing of regulations. If you would actually make note of regulations you support—which you do not—you would have an actual counter-argument here.
Re: Re: Re:6 don't wory
I have noted several times that I support strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations.
Take a quick guess on how many of you remember that the next time I trash talk the current regulations or rib people for supporting bad regulations?
I don’t falsely advance the notion that the left wants to eliminate the police every time they trash talk them for being corrupt, yet this is what I face every time I discuss most things in a way that is “not approved” by the TD community.
For those able to provide meaningful replies, I also reply in kind. For those that employ thinly veiled passive aggressive comments, I just serve it right back, and don’t the natives just go wild by flagging my post while letting the original offender’s stand? The double standards around here are thick enough to be its own subject of debate.
Re: Re: Re:7 don't wory
“I have noted several times that I support strong anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations.
Take a quick guess on how many of you remember that the next time I trash talk the current regulations or rib people for supporting bad regulations?”
Wait…am I supposed to know who TF you are? Like I will follow an Anonymous commenter from one article to the next?
Jeez, you could barely expect that kind of recognition if you used your real name, but you want me to put each of your comments into the context of your larger body of anonymous work?
Re: Re: Re:8 don't wory
“Wait…am I supposed to know who TF you are? Like I will follow an Anonymous commenter from one article to the next?”
I can understand that, but it carries little weight when so many others assume who I am anyways. And since the majority makes these assumptions I tend to cater my posts to that crowd. I do not hold this against you or anyone specifically, just against you all in general for your behaviors in your responses.
If you are willing to assume, then you have no right to complain when you turn out to be wrong… do you?
“Jeez, you could barely expect that kind of recognition if you used your real name, but you want me to put each of your comments into the context of your larger body of anonymous work?”
Within a single article yes, across articles no. That is why I check the graphics behind posts for AC’s.
Re: Re: Re:7 don't wory
The only reason for not picking a name to post under and sticking to it is so you can’t be held to your previous statements. So do not bleat to us about having your position misrepresented because we’re not remembering your earlier posts. It’s your own stupid fault.
Re: Re: Re:8 don't wory
“The only reason for not picking a name to post under and sticking to it is so you can’t be held to your previous statements.”
For a person of your limited intellect that may be true. The problem with the internet and people like you is that you have no forgiveness. I may misstate something or decide to change my mind later, but someone is going to go back in history and dig it all back up. I am well aware of your kind… you like to control or destroy, you do not create!
Re: Re: Re:9 don't wory
So what? If you truly misstated something, you can offer a follow-up correction. If you change your mind, you are allowed to do so; you can even say that you changed your mind if pressed on a given issue.
But without a history to look back on, no one can even know whether you misstated something or changed your mind. It also means no one can hold you to any previous statements—whether you want them to or not.
If you want people to think you are more than a one-note “fuck every regulation” troll, do yourself two favors: Grab an account so people can follow your comments, and try offering more than insults and “ha ha, fuck you leftists” drudgery when you write your comments. We want you to present an argument with meat on the bones; you want to shove the bone down our throats so you can complain when we vomit. Try guessing why nobody wants your bile-inducing garbage around here.
Re: Re: Re:10 don't wory
“So what? If you truly misstated something, you can offer a follow-up correction.”
I already do this, even as an AC. I prefer clarity over agreement.
“But without a history to look back on, no one can even know whether you misstated something or changed your mind.”
Why is this so important? It’s a forum, and these accounts can be easily hacked, I have no desire to have my words twisted, I am happy to remain as AC.
“If you want people to think you are more than a one-note “fuck every regulation” troll, do yourself two favors: Grab an account so people can follow your comments,”
Seriously? If my first post was “I only agree with anti-monopoly laws” the next one would be, “O yea, total anarchy will be a magical cure /s”. We have been there many times, stop trying to insult my intelligence.
“We want you to present an argument with meat on the bones;”
Been there done that. I have made it clear for you guys that what is happening now is directly because of your support for regulation. All you do is deny it and go back to YOUR bile-inducing garbage.
seriously, how many times do you think I am going to sit here and listen to you all spit garbage towards me before my default reaction is to just start off with it?
Lets put it this way, I am going to post how I want. You don’t have to read it if you don’t like it. You can even keep flagging my posts, but it will never stop me from being right about regulation and many of your blind spots and delusions regarding them.
These mega mergers will continue, umbrella corporations will get bigger, you will keep voting for snake-oil politicians, and you will keep berating and insulting people trying to help or teach you something.
We have had regulatory capture for a long time now and it has ensured the creation of the very monopolies many of you ‘mistakenly’ said it would prevent. History is clear, you guys got suckered so hard that you won’t dare admit it now! heck, if I made a mistake that idiotic, I might be inclined to double down on the stupid too… if I did not have any respect for myself that is.
I will never lie, and I will never hold someone’s past against them, IF there is reason for them to have genuinely changed.
You guys are not like that. Once someone has triggered you guys, they need to go down, and it does not matter how long ago they said it or even if they really meant it the way you decided they meant it for political expediency. You all are professionals at twisted logic.
Re: Re: Re:11 Oi.
The parent comment of this thread had no clarity. In the absence of a clear statement, an implied one will be considered.
Then you have little right to complain about being held to your word.
Offer an argument that takes more than a single sentence, then.
You first.
No, shit like this merger happens because of two things: a lack of strong regulations and a surplus of spineless regulators.
You tell me.
I know you believe you are right. But belief, no matter how strong, does not make it so.
Stop comparing people to barn animals and maybe they might listen. But if you really want to keep calling people “dumb animals”, go right ahead.
What evidence proves that the creation and enforcement of regulatory capture led to, and is the sole cause of, the monopolies that even you decry?
I suspect that you already do not respect yourself, considering the length of your reply and the venom in your voice. (And before you go “gotcha”: No, I do not respect myself. Makes it easier to write shit like this.)
I have no reason to believe you.
Ah, yes, the “trigger” comment—as if we suffer from PTSD and your comments make it worse. (By the by: Your posts are not traumatic, no matter how shitty they are.) Next time maybe trot out an insult that is less worn out than the shoes of a marathon runner.
Yes, that is the risk any of us here take when we attach our names to our comments. But most of us who take that risk do our best to explain any change in mindset or correct any misinterpretation of our words—all without having to insult others. When you start out with a simple, single-minded statement that we can imply to mean “fuck all regulations”, your job becomes that much harder—especially if you cannot point to older comments on older articles that back up whatever meaning or position you believe your comment represents.
If you dislike this, staying anonymous and whining about it will not help you. You could open an account or stop posting on a site where everything people say just pisses you off, but since having arguments such as this one probably thrills you to no end, I would not imagine you doing anything more than what you already do.
Re: Re: Re:12 Oi.
“No, shit like this merger happens because of two things: a lack of strong regulations and a surplus of spineless regulators.”
We already have strong regulations against this. You are also incorrect about the surplus of spineless regulators. Ajit is doing a find job of telling you to fuck right off, that is not a lack of spine, its a lack of giving a shit about you, JUST LIKE I SAID! You got played, it sucks, I know, so man up and accept it! Next time try to avoid voting in the politicians like Obama and Trump that are creating this mess!
“I have no reason to believe you.”
You are right, I blame no one for things like this, I don’t have any reason to believe you either. Trusting someones words because they are attached to an account is a false sense of security. Any account here could be curated for very specific purposes.
Posting as an AC means that people are NOT going to think I am less sincere about something to stave off public ridicule out of fear, of which many of you would like to visit upon me. This is why people want their names, so that they can go after them. This way, you can be more certain that I am sincere!
“Yes, that is the risk any of us here take when we attach our names to our comments.”
Have you ever had someone snap at you for saying “goodmorning!”?
I have, I learned a long time ago, people don’t care past the nose on their faces. And as proven by recent protests, people are more than willing to get in your face over stupid stuff.
“If you dislike this, staying anonymous and whining about it will not help you.”
Again, you did not pay attention. I yap at the people that “assume” that what I said meant something else. I have already said it many times before yet you still listen not! Any mention I make against regulations is twisted by you folks to be nothing more than a total call for anarchy.
You are your own worst enemy, you wind up creating enemies because you do not know how to properly identify them. I am NOT your enemy. I am trying to get you all to understand that your enemy is that nimrod in the mirror. I KNOW this because I figured it out a long time ago when I looked in the mirror. So when I make a decision, I immediately think, how can someone fuck this up? And that is why I have a generalize disdain for regulation, because I quickly see how someone can… fuck this up!
You want something done right? you better not give it to a fucking politician! NUT SHELL WISDOM!
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
See he made that insult all by himself!
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Poor baby – did I upset you by using your words right back in your face?
lol
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
you need additional education or something, I fully understand that many humans are as stupid as you, but I would recommend keeping your mouth shut to at least fool some of them into thinking you are not as dumb as you are.
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
You might want to follow your own advice.
Re: Re: Re:4 don't wory
I constantly try to stay educated about a great many things, unlike the average human who just, goes to work then comes home and fattens up as a couch potato then turn around an ask for a politicians to make decisions for me that I should be making for myself.
I follow ALL the advice I give, and because I know how lazy and ignorant I already am, I have less room for “sympathy” in regards to folks like you that know far less, but act as though they understand far more. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people often assume that they know far more than they actually do because they know a “little something” about things.
It is easy to spot the double standards you guys have, how about you spot mine?
your double standard is the idea that regulation will save you from monopoly, when regulation actually has a much higher chance of creating a monopoly than a real free-market.
What many like you fail to understand is that a Monopoly is NOT a product of free market, it is a product of corruption where businesses work to defeat competition for more money. The problem with Free-market is that it does not come packaged with an ultimate rule that prevents monopoly or oligarchy. But its nature will tend to avoid monopoly because if a business goes bad, a new one can easily start up and rob customers from them. This is not possible if the people are aware of the situation. And since people refuse to do their due diligence for the very obvious reasons we constructed the idea of regulations. Which brings me to another cognitive dissonance many like you hold. If we require regulation because the citizens cannot be responsible enough to avoid sending monopolistic businesses their money, then why do you think that they would ever successfully operate a democracy?
This is what an education could potentially teach you, if you only took advantage of a good one. You cannot stop human corruption, your best bet is to instead create the system most capable of fighting corruption, and that means free-market where the consumers have power. Under a regulatory market the consumers power has been removed in favor of letting a politician decide what is economically best for you.
Tell me… they have been doing quite the bang up job? Hence this very fucking article!
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
Yeah, it is always the other person that is stupid and is need of education because they do not agree with your bullshit.
What the hell is this … Junior High School Debate Team????
Re: Re: don't wory
yah trump save us with so much big bussiness
america great death to regulartos
Re: don't wory
Save us from our money, sure.
Re: Re: don't wory
you probably couldn’t even save yourself from a mirror.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Such witty repartee … this is why I read TD every day.
The juvenile pettiness is strong with this one
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
So the person responding to juvenile pettiness with the same is the problem?
Logic is not a friend of yours is it?
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
It certainly did not leave any money on your nightstand, despite how much you fucked it with your comments.
Re: don't wory
Yeah, regulation is the worst! Just this past Sunday I was watching a football game, and the whole thing was ruined by burdensome officials and their stifling oversight. Without a doubt the game would be much more exciting and move much faster if you could just rid of those pesky rules and the pin striped regulators dragging the whole game down.
Also, they should get rid of huddles. They are just plain ridiculous. Who in their right mind wants to go to that many meetings in one day?
Re: Re: don't wory
ung, one bad word about regulation and entire teams rush the field in attempts to win Gold in the Suck Regulatory Dick Olympics.
#1. “Yeah, regulation is the worst! Just this past Sunday I was watching a football game, and the whole thing was ruined by burdensome officials and their stifling oversight.”
not even in the same ballpark you silly twit… The NFL can create any rule they want, they are not the government and if I don’t like them, I can just go elsewhere for my entertainment.
#2. “Without a doubt the game would be much more exciting and move much faster if you could just rid of those pesky rules and the pin striped regulators dragging the whole game down.”
That… might be entertaining to watch, actually. I don’t watch football, but would consider watching in this case. Hell, I think it would be great to watch a game of football with 4 teams on a cross shaped field as they risk collision with each other as a way to mix things up.
#3. “Also, they should get rid of huddles.”
Why? Sure removing them while coaches have to call plays without any time to think about them could add to even more chaos and fun on the field but whatever.
#4. “Who in their right mind wants to go to that many meetings in one day?”
Work in IT, the only thing a meeting is good for is to serve as a marker for the amount time wasted where work is not getting done.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
Actually, there is not another option for professional football because they have an anti-trust exemption. Being free from regulation they are allowed to take steps that stifle competition and act as a cartel putting limits on their employees.
Yet you still have options to enjoy other activities which makes it different from the telecom industry. In the case detailed above the actions taken by Sprint will limit options and make the industry less competitive. The reason this is happening is due to a lack of regulations. So yes, this is a case where regulation can be a good thing. Regulations can be a bad thing, but they can also be good. Blanket statements about regulations are meaningless.
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
What is your objective here?
In short, I don’t care about NFL regs, because I am not legally required to participate in their bullshit!
I care about Utility regs because I am legally required to participate in their bullshit!
“Blanket statements about regulations are meaningless.”
On this we agree, now, are you going to be hitting the other “blanket statements” as well? Something tells me you are going to be trotting out a double standard on that one!
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
Which is the exact point: If you want to play football, you are not first required to join the NFL. If you want to watch TV, you are not required to watch only the NFL. But if you want to access and use services such as the Internet or mobile phone service, you may legitimately be limited to a single provider in your area. That means you either participate in their bullshit or go without. De-regulation makes that possible.
You and your anti-regulation stance—at least as expressed in the parent comment of this thread—seems concerned only with destroying all regulations. If you believe otherwise, you might want to say so without the “fuck leftists” sentiment and the insults that even Carlos Mencia would refuse to steal.
Re: Re: Re:4 don't wory
Don’t bother. This is the guy who considers it fit to criticize people who live outside the United States because their consumer habits either fund United States corporations, or they don’t contribute and have a say in United State corporate policy, or both at the same time. Regardless of how much you contribute or have a stake in things this fucker will blame you for it.
The only solution he’s come close to proposing is a retelling of his own life story: he didn’t complete the conventional education path most people would take, and instead has a bunch of friends willing to put up with him being an asshole. That is literally the main mechanism by which he gets to survive and get by using other platforms to insult others. Mr. Paint Chips’ solution to everything is to get born lucky.
Re: Re: don't wory
Wait … are describing soccer?
(what the rest of the world calls football)
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
in this case does it really matter?
Re: don't wory
Look, regulation can save us.
The government needs to put some serious preconditions on this unholy union.
How about: a twenty year requirement that their customer service must achieve being the equal of customer service from Comcast.
Re: Re: don't wory
The original problem does not change. The FTC already has a track record of not enforcing the already existing rules as they are now. It is open knowledge that utilities regularly falsely advertise their packages, intentionally lie about charges on your bill along with making them as cryptic as possible. Customer service is a joke and many of these companies have co-opts regulations meant to protect customers into protecting the businesses instead.
I would much rather either prosecute agency heads for well displayed corruption or dismantle them. After we trash a few agencies, the others will start to get the picture.
yes, regulation “could” save us, but not in it current form.
Re: Re: Re: don't wory
“The original problem does not change.”
Correct! …. because the root cause of your “problem” is corruption and no one is addressing that – wonder why.
Re: Re: Re:2 don't wory
Because people WANT corruption.
They just want the corruption to work in their favor. Those in support of regulation are making it clear that they desire government corruption to strong arm the economy into a direction they want. The politicians are definitely listening and learning that they can lie to these folks and cheat them sideways with a few empty promises.
Lets take John Oliver’s video that was linked in the article. Both political groups harp that small business is the backbone of the economy, but all of their laws and regulations “stifles” small business and “cements” big business.
The difference between me and pro-regulation folks.
I judge politicians by the fruits of their labors, and regulation is failing in a BIG way.
The pro-regulation folks, they just listen to the garbage the politicians are “promising” them but ignoring the results! Like Trump! Lots of promises… very little follow through and when there is follow through, it is usually some kind of subterfuge.
Dems and Reps quite literally deserve most of the misery they foist upon each other!
Re: Re: Re:3 don't wory
Because rich people WANT corruption.
ftfy
Corporate Welfare Entitlement Junkie Whining
I remember when MCI came on the scene and AT&T had a meltdown over the prospect of competition.
I’m hearing that same, sad old song all over again.
We need the “How it Should Have Ended” guys to start doing PR campaign parodies.
With the current administration in the White House, the DOJ, and FCC, they don’t even need to do much in the way of PR spin. It’ll be a rubber stamp.
No benefit to consumers.
Re: No benefit to consumers.
Google Fi will have to step up their game if it goes through, so at least for my cell coverage it’d be a win…eventually.
No benefit to consumers.
The two companies use two different cellular technologies that are incompatible with each other. CDMA (Sprint) and GSM (T-Mobile). Some like usatoday are spinning this off as a good thing by falsely claiming that existing customers of one company may suddenly get a boost in service quality / availability. But that’s only true if said customer’s device is a hybrid model that has two cell radios in it, (One for CDMA the other for GSM), and both have to be activated for use. (Massive battery drain.) Most people won’t get any additional benefit.
Worse, as we all know about acquisitions, there will be layoffs. No, I don’t mean the people kind. I mean the network kind. As in, eventually the resulting company will tire of maintaining two separate and incompatible networks. Further they will tire of their public perception going down the drain due to people attempting to buy service for use with an incompatible phone and people blaming the company for "poor coverage". Eventually, they will need to pick one or the other. If they choose GSM, the former Sprint customers will get screwed again. (They already had to pay to switch to CDMA previously due to another corporate maneuver.) If they choose CDMA, the only GSM network in the US will be AT&T and it’s resellers, making the US cell infrastructure mostly incompatible with international devices. (Tourism just can’t get a break can it?) Though I’d imagine they’ll play up such a decision by declaring the end of burner phones due to the end of SIM cards….
We get nothing out of this. It’s more jobs lost, greater lack of competition, and a cost for us to bare when the inevitable "We’re killing X" happens.
Re: No benefit to consumers.
Tmobile has absorbed a competing network tech before and transitioned quite smoothly (Metro PCS).
They won’t keep both going very long at all.
I am a happy Tmo customer, and am concerned about the deal, but I will say I’m a lot happier now that Tmo is the bigger side of it. When first announced and it was going to be Sprint/Softbank in charge, I was far more concerned.
Sprint has pretty much given up on competing, so this is a best case scenario merger (still not good though).
I think you are over estimating the trouble of merging the networks though.
Re: No benefit to consumers.
You would have thought Sprint had learned their lesson about “synergies” with incompatible network technologies and corporate cultures. But nope. Let’s Nextel it up all over again.
Ready, Set...
This buttercup has buckled up. Ready for the ride.
It’s an interesting point that unlimited plans have come back because of increased competition. If residential Internet ISPs had more competition, limited plans wouldn’t be as wide spread as they’ve become.
Had me until the end
I was with you right up until the end. Everything sounds right on until I read the part about Comcast buying Sprint. That was the exact moment I had my giggle fit at the idea that Comcast was used as a good example of capitalism in the context of competition.
FULL HOUSE!
Oh good, we get to play megamerger bingo again!
Nobody, but nobody, believes that small businesses are the backbone of our economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4