4 ms·

Even if this deal goes through, you'll have three national carriers to choose from and, depending on where you live, one or more regional carriers, plus VoIP. T

by Qo 16y ago

Even if this deal goes through, you'll have three national carriers to choose from and, depending on where you live, one or more regional carriers, plus VoIP. That's not pretty darn close to a monopoly at all. I think there's a stronger case for a GSM monopoly, but at some point the argument becomes silly - where do you draw the line between an uncompetitive market and a market with product differentiation? Would you have broken up Standard Oil because they were the only ones offering Super Unleaded?

Bud 16y ago
What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well. 1=1. This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.
- Qo 16y ago
  First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong. But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because the product that this company sells is going to be somewhat different than those of its competitors. Yeah, true, so what? (a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_...
  - Bud 16y ago
    Ah yes, because Northeastern Alaska Sanskrit 2400-baud Modem Wireless has sooooo many subscribers. Yeah, that argument will hold up. There are no other GSM providers of note which offer modern, up-to-date services (and handsets) and are a serious option now, besides ATT. I was snarky because I suspected obtuseness; I think that obtuseness has now been confirmed.
    - Qo 16y ago
      Of course my argument holds up. It's true by definition. But remember, my first post said that I thought there was a stronger case for a GSM monopoly. Look, the term "monopoly" is a pretty strong word, and it carries with it certain connotations that I don't think apply here. So if you want to use it in the strictest sense of "a market with only one seller" then I agree with you, but saying that "AT&T has a monopoly on GSM mobile coverage" has about as much weight as saying "Apple has a monopoly on iPods." Yeah, true, so what?
  - Bud 16y ago
    BTW, Qo, I note your account was created 5 hrs ago, seemingly for the purpose of posting your comment above. Karma is currently 1. Do you work for ATT, by chance?

by Qo 16y ago

Bud 16y ago

What do you mean, "a stronger case" for a GSM monopoly? There will now be one (1) GSM provider in the US. Near as I can tell, the "mono" in "monopoly" refers to "one", as well. 1=1. This isn't a debate about how "strong" my case is. It's a monopoly in the GSM space, by definition.

Qo 16y ago
First of all, below (a) is the list of mobile providers in the US. Note that, even if T-Mobile were removed, there would be more than one (1) GSM provider. So your "mono" comment is both unnecessarily snarky and wrong. But, if you really, wanted to push it, you could probably find a way to claim that T-Mobile/AT&T had a monopoly. You could also claim that any company had a monopoly on their product, simply because the product that this company sells is going to be somewhat different than those of its competitors. Yeah, true, so what? (a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_...
- Bud 16y ago
  Ah yes, because Northeastern Alaska Sanskrit 2400-baud Modem Wireless has sooooo many subscribers. Yeah, that argument will hold up. There are no other GSM providers of note which offer modern, up-to-date services (and handsets) and are a serious option now, besides ATT. I was snarky because I suspected obtuseness; I think that obtuseness has now been confirmed.
  - Qo 16y ago
    Of course my argument holds up. It's true by definition. But remember, my first post said that I thought there was a stronger case for a GSM monopoly. Look, the term "monopoly" is a pretty strong word, and it carries with it certain connotations that I don't think apply here. So if you want to use it in the strictest sense of "a market with only one seller" then I agree with you, but saying that "AT&T has a monopoly on GSM mobile coverage" has about as much weight as saying "Apple has a monopoly on iPods." Yeah, true, so what?
- Bud 16y ago
  BTW, Qo, I note your account was created 5 hrs ago, seemingly for the purpose of posting your comment above. Karma is currently 1. Do you work for ATT, by chance?