AT&T CEO Warns of Higher Prices in Wake of T-Mobile Failure

[Sauske]

AT&T Chief Says Blocked Deal Will Cost Consumers...Mods delete and/or move if needed! I just wanted to inform Att customers!

AT&T CEO Warns of Higher Prices in Wake of T-Mobile Failure (Phone Scoop)

 

[iowabowtech]

I think the thread location is fine. This has everything to do with ATT. What's interesting to me is ATT CEO's stance that more competition is an excuse for higher prices. I always thought more competition = lower prices and conglomeration = monopoly? :dontknow:

I may need to blow the dust off my econ 101 textbooks I guess.

 

[ardyer]

I think the thread location is fine. This has everything to do with ATT. What's interesting to me is ATT CEO's stance that more competition is an excuse for higher prices. I always thought more competition = lower prices and conglomeration = monopoly? :dontknow:

I may need to blow the dust off my econ 101 textbooks I guess.

Not necessarily. Often, increased efficiencies, such as economies of scale or access to infrastructure, can be the result of a merger. E.g., if it is cheaper for company a to buy company b and gain all their cell towers than for company a to pay to build its own.

 

[james515]

this issue is not needing to build more cell towers, its the Radio Frequency Spectrum thats in demand. More spectrum means more network capacity, and better quality.

there are only so many frequencies that can be used and the more carriers that have it, the less capacity each carrier can have.

carriers like T-Mobile and Sprint do not have near the customer base that Verizon and AT&T have, so for them its a non issue from a network capacity issue on the frequencies they have.

Verizon and AT&T are in dire need of extra spectrum,and thanks to the FCC, they wont get any, any time soon.

 

[Sauske]

I think the thread location is fine. This has everything to do with ATT. What's interesting to me is ATT CEO's stance that more competition is an excuse for higher prices. I always thought more competition = lower prices and conglomeration = monopoly? :dontknow:

I may need to blow the dust off my econ 101 textbooks I guess.

Agreed!