AT&T, T-Mobile, and monopolies
In the past few days, I’ve seen a lot of rage over the coming merger of AT&T and T-Mobile here in the states. Most of the anger has been swirling around the idea of monopolies and an increasing reduction in choice for consumers. But here’s my question: how do you avoid “monopolies” like this, and still provide the kind of bandwidth and service that a country of 300 million people over 3,794,101 square miles requires?
Unfortunately, I think the answer will bother a lot of people. I think the answer is Net Neutrality. Or more specifically, a government issued and regulated mandate to build out spectrum that everyone in the industry can use and no one can wholly own. That means that companies like Verizon and AT&T would have to compete on real things like phones, features, and pricing… instead of how much land they grabbed. It also means we need a government to act for its people, not lobbyists and big business.
Now of course, this sounds scary and foreign (literally) to a lot of people — but cell service is quickly moving from a luxury to a necessity (some might argue the move has already occurred), and if you want to blanket the USA, as a private company you basically have to have a monopoly. So either we need an override, a bigger force that allows a real free market play (which means we have to give up a little free market for just a short bit), or all of the carriers suddenly wake up and want to play nice to build out a shared spectrum.
But that seems unrealistic. I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too. I don’t think the carriers will work together, and I don’t think we can let 25 different carriers have 25 different spectrums — that’s ultimately bad for business and the end user. I know this is a more complicated idea that requires bigger brains than mine to be tackled, but I also know (or at least strongly feel) that it’s something that needs to happen if we’re going to move forward from a technological standpoint. We need something better, something smarter. But is there any way we can remove politics and greed from this debate and actually do what’s best for human beings for once? I don’t see that on the horizon just yet.
Moments of Unpleasant Irony
Peter and Jacque posted these around the same time:
- people are being killed by spoiled melons
- another right-wing idiot wants to get rid of regulation, leaving us all vulnerable to poisoned melons and more
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. ”
—James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
What Herman Cain Might Not Know About The ‘Chilean Model’
2012.talkingpointsmemo.comThe ‘Chilean Model’ was enacted by decree in the early 1980’s, during the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, to replace a Pay-As-You-Go public pension system (the sort of thing that has Rick Perry calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”)
…
However, despite the regime that originally imposed it, the overall system has ultimately met with at least some approval from the Chilean people, though it is far from perfect and remains a work in progress. Therefore, the Chilean system does merit at least a close examination on its own merits. But as it turns out, Herman Cain and his fellow Tea Partiers might not like what they find.
…
In short, the “Chilean Model” so touted by Cain is the individual mandate. What “Obamneycare” is to health care, Chile’s pensions system is to Social Security, with a system of mandates, regulation and subsidies.Under the Chilean system, workers must contribute 10% of their income, up to a certain limit — similar to Social Security taxes in this country — to a private pension fund administrator (the different funds are known by the Spanish initials “AFP,” for Administradoras de Fondos de Pensiones). As a 2001 OECD report makes clear, the Chilean Model actually does involve a significant amount of government regulation on AFP’s, in order to contain risks and ensure stability.
Huh. Imagine that - a pension fund needing government regulation. Damn government, mucking up Herman Cain’s talking points.
Coworkers...
That company’s behavior is anti-competitive.
It’s a good thing the US has government regulation and federal agencies like the FTC to police companies.
“Thankfully” the US has a more free market, at least in comparison with “the Communist markets”.
I am not going to start an argument at work.
I am not going to start an argument at work.
I am not going to start an argument at work.
MAD WORLD
Banks left to do what they please with other peoples’ money. Government which should be protecting us from crony capitalism looks the other way… in exchange for campaign “contributions.” A collective failure of Business and Government. So the cartoonist says.
Only these two MAD Magazine cartoons are from 1975, not 2008. They get to keep doing this over and over again because we believe in Free Enterprise. We really do. It’s a god who keeps failing, but nonetheless our god — promising Prosperity in exchange for enforcing Divine (“free enterprise”) Laws as cruelly and hypocritically as we can.
And this mindless, reflexive faith in a serially failed god is rewarded in the only way it can be. Over and over again.
Things I thought about tonight:
(1) How the price of gasoline has become THE rubric for judging the President’s performance. (2) How “job-killing” government regulation seems to create livable-wage jobs in socialist Norway (3.3% unemployment).
The people in my Anatomy class are stupid pieces of shit.
The majority of them think that the government putting out a new food pyramid is some kind of way for the government to regulate what you eat.
You can’t take away my deep fried shit! I’m gonna eat it every day!
What the fuck are you people on?!? The shit food you eat is affecting your brain.
Fines Slashed In Grain Bin Entrapment Deaths : NPR
npr.orgMore proof of the burdensome government regulations placed on poor companies. I mean $200,000 for negligently killing two teens by drowning them in corn is a bit harsh don’t you think?
