Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28
  1. #16
    Robert M.
    Guest

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

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

    > Take your head out of your ass


    Your childish insults do not help your credibility.



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




  2. #17
    Robert M.
    Guest

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

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Matt <madmonk<remove>@no.net> wrote:

    > 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.


    The problem comes in areas like Dallas, where if Cingular woere to
    simply sell off the AT&T infrastructure, what other GSM providers are
    there to bid on it? Just T-Mobile. Hard to get a bidding war going with
    one bidder, who knows you HAVE TO SELL.



  3. #18
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

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


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >
    > 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.


    No they aren't- nice try.





  4. #19
    Robert M.
    Guest

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

    In article <[email protected]>,
    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [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.


    With all due respect I disagree. And Cingulars press releases today
    support my position. They now admit they are prepared for $8 billion of
    divestitures, from which they might get less than 50 cents on the dollar
    in a mandated fire sale.



  5. #20
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

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


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Take your head out of your ass

    >
    > Your childish insults do not help your credibility.


    The word 'credibility' coming out of your trollish mouth is akin to the word
    'celibacy' coming out of Bill Clinton's. Neither one has much credence.





  6. #21
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

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


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Matt <madmonk<remove>@no.net> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > The problem comes in areas like Dallas, where if Cingular woere to
    > simply sell off the AT&T infrastructure, what other GSM providers are
    > there to bid on it? Just T-Mobile. Hard to get a bidding war going with
    > one bidder, who knows you HAVE TO SELL.


    The spectrum licenses don't have to be used for GSM.





  7. #22
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

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


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > [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.

    >
    > With all due respect I disagree. And Cingulars press releases today
    > support my position. They now admit they are prepared for $8 billion of
    > divestitures, from which they might get less than 50 cents on the dollar
    > in a mandated fire sale.

    \

    They admitted nothing- three hours ago, you were *****ing because the
    divestiture plan is secret, now you know everything about the plan. Has
    your Ritalin prescription run out?





  8. #23
    RM
    Guest

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

    Not to mention Ma Bell was declared a "Natural Monopoly" by the courts in
    the 50's I believe and that has never been overturned. Judge Green just
    chose to ignore that fact in the 80's.


    "Stanley Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.
    >






  9. #24
    John Navas
    Guest

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

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

    In <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 Feb
    2004 03:46:19 GMT, "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    >With all due respect I disagree.


    I've been doing anti-trust (as an expert) for the past 25 years. You?

    >And Cingulars press releases today
    >support my position.


    Not true.

    >They now admit they are prepared for $8 billion of
    >divestitures,


    What Cingular actually said is that it would walk away from the deal if more
    than $8 billion of divestitures would be required by regulators.

    >from which they might get less than 50 cents on the dollar
    > in a mandated fire sale.


    Cingular might also do much better than that, and probably would -- AWE was,
    after all, a fire sale too.

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



  10. #25
    Joseph
    Guest

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

    On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:14:28 -0600, "Brsmnky007"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.


    The person posting the URL has no control over whether the URL will
    break or not. That's the fault of the posting software and/or the
    client that reads the message. The only way to not have breaking URLs
    is to use one of the URL shortening services such as makeashorterurl
    or tinyurl. If you're going to blame anyone blame the webmaster who
    made the long URL.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply



  11. #26
    Brsmnky007
    Guest

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


    > The person posting the URL has no control over whether the URL will
    > break or not. That's the fault of the posting software and/or the
    > client that reads the message. The only way to not have breaking URLs
    > is to use one of the URL shortening services such as makeashorterurl
    > or tinyurl. If you're going to blame anyone blame the webmaster who
    > made the long URL.


    I am certainly not "blaming" anybody... in your post you stated that
    there are ways to solve this problem; I simply suggested that he look into
    one of these solutions.
    As an aside, I thought there was a command that one could type in while
    posting the URL that would cause the newsreader that is being used to treat
    the entire URL as the hyperlink and not just the first line. I could
    certainly be wrong on this.





  12. #27
    Nearl J Icarus
    Guest

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

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

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


    You can't have a monopoly in one field to control another. That's what M$ got
    busted for. Not for being a monoply, but for being an 800 lb. gorilla that
    wanted to sit on everybody's lap.




  13. #28
    Robert M.
    Guest

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

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Nearl J Icarus <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >
    > >customers. It looks like there will be a cell phone monopoly. I thought
    > >there was a law against that.

    >
    > You can't have a monopoly in one field to control another. That's what M$ got
    > busted for. Not for being a monoply, but for being an 800 lb. gorilla that
    > wanted to sit on everybody's lap.


    Microsoft did things like charge IBM a higher price for Windows since
    IBM refused to put Windows on every PC it sold.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12