Senators Taking Sides In AT&T/T Mobile Merger

Sniper98G writes "US senators have no official power to block the AT&T/T Mobile merger. But that has not stopped them from making strong recommendations to the FCC and the department of justice. This whole situation has left me asking 'If the US senate and house are so concerned about a Triploy in wireless communication, where are the hearings about why most US household only have access to one or two wired communication providers?'"

This is not what you think

[erroneus]

They had plenty of time to "take positions" earlier but remained silent. I have to wonder if this has more to do with collecting campaign funding than actually caring about a cause.

Hmm...

[AngryDeuce]

Clearly someone has missed their yearly bribe payment, oh wait, I mean "campaign contribution".

I'm sure this will all get sorted soon. Once that check gets deposited, it always does...

Wireless = National, Wired = Local

[CorporalKlinger]

In answer to the question from the original post... I think there are no hearings about wired communication "monopolies" because there are a variety of wired providers nationally, even if only one or two of them service each domicile or office. There's still comparatively heavy competition in most markets for wired communications services. Wireless, on the other hand, utilizes a finite resource (EM spectrum) and the 4 remaining carriers are largely the only ones available in the US. If I move from Miami, Florida, to Miami, Ohio, I probably have the same options available to me. Virgin Mobile, Boost, Wal-Mart Mobile, etc. all lease their spectrum from one of the big 4, so they aren't true alternatives or competitors. Three providers (or really two providers since I don't count Sprint) controlling all of the cell network EM spectrum seems like a very bad idea. I think that's why Congress is more concerned about the wireless merger than the paucity of wired communications providers serving Podunk, Montana. Other thoughts on this?

Telecom monopolies

[darjen]

The reason they aren't upset is that the telecom monopolies are and were always caused by explicit government policy.

Read The Myth of Natural Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf [mises.org]

The record of Congress in the telecom industry is so poor. Why would anyone even give two thoughts about what these politicians say?

Re:This is not what you think

[Grave]

The "Me too, I have input!" syndrome, as you put it, is still about getting re-elected, if you ask me. Why else would these people chime in on a subject they can't control and have little knowledge of? To stay in the public eye, and be able to say "I opposed this" or "I supported this" when their next opponent in the campaign cycle decides to challenge them.

End re-election concerns by going to single terms, and I bet most political posturing and useless activities like this would end (or at least become significantly less).