If there has ever been an obvious need to prevent a merger it's this one. I really hope that common sense outweighs AT&T's ability to purchase bureaucrats this time.
“AT&T’s elimination of T-Mobile as an independent, low- priced rival would remove a significant competitive force from the market,” the U.S. said in its filing.
That is an obvious need. There's too little real competition in the wireless space as it is. We don't need to be down to a single nationwide GSM provider.
Boost is an MVNO. I'm not sure if they really count in this discussion since they don't own their own network. They're really at the mercy of whomever they lease their capacity from.
I feel like this is kind of like making a case against the DOJ/Microsoft lawsuit in the late 90s by saying, 'it's ok if Apple exits the computer market, because there are still competitors out there like Amiga and Compaq.'
Edit: I'm curious why this comment was downvoted. I'm new here and am trying to understand the policy.
It's a nice theory that works on paper, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny outside of the USA, where people do have incredibly affordable (and quality) cell service in an environment with many players.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband...
Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space.
The article makes several other oversights. First, the big US carriers do not have regional pricing, and so the population density of the entire country is relevant.
Second, it neglects to mention that CDMA deployment was forbidden by law in many EU countries.
Finally, it neglects to mention that NIMBYism is a major driver of cellular network cost in the US, and differences in the legal climate around tower deployment can account for large differences in costs.
Isn't wikipedia great?
Beefman's argument is of the "who you gonna believe me or your own eyes" variety supplemented by an appeal to authority via some link. It's not just an argument I disagree with but an unfortunate style of argument.
Now, the government has (at least implicitly) chosen to attain a degree of price rationality through creating artificial competition in the wireless market via allowing multiple carriers to operate in single area. Whatever the pluses or minuses of this approach, lets not pretend that the Att merger would involve things attaining the "natural" condition of the wireless market - such a beast ipso facto doesn't exist given the whole arrangement is artificial (created hypothetically for "society's benefit" - which would normally presume is the consumer's benefit).
Your original post, i.e. "What is this obvious need?" is (IMHO correctly) perceived as a leading question. You want to make a point, but you're asking a disingenuous question instead. You're leading the other poster so you can tear him a new one - as evidenced by the fact that you seem to have a lot of stuff to say about this topic.
As a rule I (and much of HN, apparently) dislike questions that aren't genuine. Feigned ignorance as an argumentative crutch is pretty lame.
If you have a point, make it, this isn't some juvenile youth parliament or model UN, there are no victories here.
Nor have I complained about being downvoted, though it does seem obvious that some moderators here are totally high on power.