Cingular!....I thought there was a law against Monopolies!?

I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle the
business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences to
customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
there was a law against that.

---

› See More: Cingular!....I thought there was a law against Monopolies!?

"Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle the
> business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences to
> customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
> there was a law against that.
>
>

How can there be a monopoly when they will competing with 4 other national
carriers and a bunch of regional carriers?

Well, it's an "A" side monopoly............ ;-)

Scotty



"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle
the
> > business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences to
> > customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
> > there was a law against that.
> >
> >
>
> How can there be a monopoly when they will competing with 4 other national
> carriers and a bunch of regional carriers?
>
>

There will be a lot of "walking" for Cingular for this merger in congress.

"Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle the
> business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences to
> customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
> there was a law against that.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle the
> > business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences to
> > customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
> > there was a law against that.
> >
> >
>
> How can there be a monopoly when they will competing with 4 other national
> carriers and a bunch of regional carriers?

As usual Mr. Scottie knows not what he talks about....

In some small reginal areas where the new "Cingular" might have more
than 50% of the business, the Justice Department might make them divest !

"... Cingular likely would have to shed customers in six markets where
it would dominate: Dallas, Miami, San Antonio, Oklamoma City, Orlando
and Jacksonville."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...93&e=3&u=/usat
oday/20040219/tc_usatoday/cingularmayhavetoshedassetstogetok


I trust readers notice, I always put a confirming URL. Scottie just
hurls insults to support his tirades.

Don't think so Philly, those markets you highlighted still have very much
competition, both National and local. It has been whispered all through
this buy-out that they won't have to divest anything-ATTWS was not a major
carrier in any of their markets. What do you do, pull these posts out of
your asshole?

Chris

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle
the
> > > business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences
to
> > > customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I
thought
> > > there was a law against that.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > How can there be a monopoly when they will competing with 4 other
national
> > carriers and a bunch of regional carriers?
>
> As usual Mr. Scottie knows not what he talks about....
>
> In some small reginal areas where the new "Cingular" might have more
> than 50% of the business, the Justice Department might make them divest !
>
> "... Cingular likely would have to shed customers in six markets where
> it would dominate: Dallas, Miami, San Antonio, Oklamoma City, Orlando
> and Jacksonville."
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...93&e=3&u=/usat
> oday/20040219/tc_usatoday/cingularmayhavetoshedassetstogetok
>
>
> I trust readers notice, I always put a confirming URL. Scottie just
> hurls insults to support his tirades.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:02:57 -0500, "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote:

>It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
>there was a law against that.

You'd better check your definition of monopoly. cingular isn't the
only mobile phone provider around. You probably have at least four
others you could use. You are hardly forced to use cingular.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply

> I trust readers notice, I always put a confirming URL. Scottie just
> hurls insults to support his tirades.

I, for one, DO appreciate the links you post; however, think you could
try to post them unbroken? Cutting and pasting is getting old.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > I think its a damn shame Cingulars taking over AT&T, they cant handle
the
> > > business they already have without major screwups and inconveniences
to
> > > customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I
thought
> > > there was a law against that.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > How can there be a monopoly when they will competing with 4 other
national
> > carriers and a bunch of regional carriers?
>
> As usual Mr. Scottie knows not what he talks about....
>
> In some small reginal areas where the new "Cingular" might have more
> than 50% of the business, the Justice Department might make them divest !

So you are saying that more than a 50% market share constitutes a monopoly?
You need to read up on the meaning of word monopoly, because 50% market
share is not the benchmark for any government entity in determining
monopolistic entities.

>
> "... Cingular likely would have to shed customers in six markets where
> it would dominate: Dallas, Miami, San Antonio, Oklamoma City, Orlando
> and Jacksonville."
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...93&e=3&u=/usat
> oday/20040219/tc_usatoday/cingularmayhavetoshedassetstogetok
>
>
> I trust readers notice, I always put a confirming URL. Scottie just
> hurls insults to support his tirades.

Tirade? I don't see any tirade. I do see a troll trying to throw some mud,
but that's OK- you created your own bad reputation. I just point it out
from time to time.

Joseph <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:02:57 -0500, "Gabbo!" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
>>there was a law against that.
>

Monopolies are not against the law only the use of monopoly power is.
Example: Microsoft

Some monopolies are allow to use monopoly power.
Example: patent drugs ( limited time only )

Just because something is unlawful doesn't mean it can not happen
longterm till courts act.

Example: ATT vs Carterphone

At one time you could only purchase light bulbs from the local power
company.

Baseball is also allowed protection from laws governing monopolies.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> So you are saying that more than a 50% market share constitutes a monopoly?
> You need to read up on the meaning of word monopoly, because 50% market
> share is not the benchmark for any government entity in determining
> monopolistic entities.

I'm saying more than 50% share invites the interest of the Justice
Department.

I suppose you forgot about their quashing the Staples - Office Depot
Merger; or the MCI buyout of Sprint. Go read about the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before you pontificate here.

Reading this thread i think there is some confusion. Monopoly doesn't
even enter the picture as there are always choices. There are some
markets, some very large markets but only a small portion ot the big
Cingular/AT&T 'pie' where Cingular and AT&T both currently provide
service. In those areas, Cingular will have to basically surrender the
AT&T FCC license, and those customers in those areas who had AT&T will
simply become Cingular customers. True there will be 1 less
competitor, but there's still Sprint, Verizon, Nextel, T-Mobile, etc.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Peace - out

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:14:03 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]>
wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> So you are saying that more than a 50% market share constitutes a monopoly?
> You need to read up on the meaning of word monopoly, because 50% market
> share is not the benchmark for any government entity in determining
> monopolistic entities.

I'm saying more than 50% share invites the interest of the Justice
Department.

I suppose you forgot about their quashing the Staples - Office Depot
Merger; or the MCI buyout of Sprint. Go read about the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before you pontificate here.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So you are saying that more than a 50% market share constitutes a
monopoly?
> > You need to read up on the meaning of word monopoly, because 50% market
> > share is not the benchmark for any government entity in determining
> > monopolistic entities.
>
> I'm saying more than 50% share invites the interest of the Justice
> Department.

No, that's not what you said, or implied.

>
> I suppose you forgot about their quashing the Staples - Office Depot
> Merger; or the MCI buyout of Sprint. Go read about the
> Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before you pontificate here.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. Both of the proposed mergers you
referenced would have eliminated all major competition, and would have
involved companies that held MUCH more than a 50% market share in industries
with no other major national competition than the merger players. Unlike
the cellular industry, where there will still be four other national
carriers and a bunch of regional carriers.

Of course they are going to be forced to divest some assets to get merger
approval- that happens all of the time. In the grocery industry, the
companies are forced to sell stores in markets where the combined company
holds a large market share. Until recently, radio and TV mergers often
resulted in the divestiture of stations. Once again, you make it sound as
if something is happening that is brand new to the world of business. And
once again, you are making a huge deal out of nothing.

Take your head out of your ass and join the real world.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb
2004 01:14:03 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

>[SNIP] Go read about the
>Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before you pontificate here.

I strongly suggest you take your own advice, as well as some of the relevant
case law. You appear to be badly misinformed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > So you are saying that more than a 50% market share constitutes a
> monopoly?
> > > You need to read up on the meaning of word monopoly, because 50% market
> > > share is not the benchmark for any government entity in determining
> > > monopolistic entities.
> >
> > I'm saying more than 50% share invites the interest of the Justice
> > Department.
>
> No, that's not what you said, or implied.
>
> >
> > I suppose you forgot about their quashing the Staples - Office Depot
> > Merger; or the MCI buyout of Sprint. Go read about the
> > Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before you pontificate here.
>
> Now you are comparing apples and oranges. Both of the proposed mergers you
> referenced would have eliminated all major competition,

Nice try. The largest single seller of the office supply "staples" is in
fact Walmart, so competition for office products would in fact not have
been eliminated.