DOJ, anti-trust, AT&T and T-mobile

[suffragette]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017052213_tmobileattdeal20.html


AT&T ended its effort to buy T-Mobile USA on Monday, acknowledging that it could not overcome stiff opposition by the Obama administration to form the nation's biggest cellphone service provider.


~~~

The Justice Department took the aggressive step of suing to block the deal in late August, while the Federal Communications Commission had signaled its intent to fight the merger as well.

"People in this town didn't think that the department was willing to take the risk to litigate big, complex cases," said a senior Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to go beyond the department's public statement. "But this puts down a very firm marker that we are taking antitrust enforcement very seriously."

~~~

"Consumers won today," Sharis Pozen, the Justice Department's acting assistant attorney general for antitrust, said in a statement. "Had AT&T acquired T-Mobile, consumers in the wireless marketplace would have faced higher prices and reduced innovation."




Credit where credit is due. It's good to see the DOJ taking this stance in this are. I hope we see more in this direction.

[Laelth]

1. This is a nice change.

Here's the money quote: '"People in this town didn't think that the department was willing to take the risk to litigate big, complex cases," said a senior Justice Department official.'

Wonder where these "people" got that idea? Perhaps because, for three years now, the Justice Department has been unwilling to risk litigating big, complex cases. I am happy to see this changing.

-Laelth

[suffragette]

2. Good points

and agree with them all.

I poked around to try and find a little more info on Sharis A. Pozen and didn't find too much other than that she's an acting assistant attorney general. Looks like although she's temporary in the position they plan to keep her there. Hope she'll continue in this direction.

And good to see you!

[Laelth]

3. Nice to see you too.

-Laelth

[suffragette]

4. kick for the evening

[REP]

5. So nice to see AT&T lose

[suffragette]

6. There is that, too :)

I have an old plan with T-mobile, just the kind AT&T was talking about not being available anymore if this would have gone through.

[mmonk]

7. This is good. I wrote in The News & Observer newspaper about the planned

merger and was blasted by readers because I said it would encourage or advance monopoly. They said I didn't know what a monopoly was. Everybody these days tells me I don't know what I'm talking about even though economics was one of my post secondary fields of study with political science being the other.

[suffragette]

8. Well you were clearly correct

and it is good to see a stand being made on that issue through this case.

There have been so many years of pushes to redefine concepts/terms, 1984 naming and spin.
It's left some people confused, some stirring confusion and many sceptical/cynical.

You made me remember just now my PoliSci 101 instructor. Instead of just using a standard textbook, he chose an assortment of texts, all from specific points of view and we thoroughly examined and discussed what the points of view were and what the author's goals, so context as well as contents. We had one standard text (used as a reference piece mostly, but not accepted unquestioningly - which was his point), Machiavelli's "The Prince," "Nine Nations of North America" and a book whose title I don't recall that was written from a favorable stance on Reagan, who was President at the time. The latter book was one many in the class (not me - but I was in the minority there) would have read uncritically otherwise, but given his construction of the class, the students had to critically examine it, which also meant examining his policies in light of "The Prince" rather than the spin. Great class.