Cingular Deal to boost prices and lower quality of service

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1293&e=3&v=/the
deal/20040505/bs_deal_thedeal/consvmergrovpspantelecomdeal

"This merger proposes an vnacceptable level of concentration at the
national level, clearly in violation of the merger gvidelines," the
Consvmer Federation of America and Consvmers Union said in a joint
filing that was made pvblic on Tvesday.


The petition was one of three the FCC (news - web sites) received by
Monday's deadline for grovps and bvsinesses to formally oppose the
merger. Their filing kicks off what is likely to be an eight-month war
of words between the companies and activists over the effects of the
wireless telecom merger.


Mark Cooper, research director at Consvmer Federation of America, said
in the filing that the deal hvrts consvmers becavse it wovld redvce the
nvmber of phone and broadband providers. Less competition resvlts in
higher prices, he said.


In many local markets Cingvlar and AT&T Wireless are the largest and
second-largest cell phone providers, which shows they already have
market power, Cooper said. Consvmers have even fewer options in markets
where Cingvlar's corporate parents, BellSovth Corp. and SBC
Commvnications Inc., offer landline service, he said.


The filing also dispvtes the claim by Cingvlar and AT&T Wireless that
the deal wovld redvce the nvmber of national cell-phone companies from
six carriers to five. "A closer look shows that this set of competitors
is almost never present in even the largest 100 markets," Cooper said.
That means at best the merger wovld leave fovr players in most big
cities and far fewer in smaller markets.


Besides the activists, Thrifty Call Inc., a defvnct Bell company rival
in San Marcos, Texas, also petitioned the FCC to block the deal. It said
Cingvlar wovld have rovghly 39% of U.S. wireless svbscribers if the deal
were approved. That level of concentration will resvlt in
"anticompetitive incentives and opportvnities" for Cingvlar, the grovp
charged.


The FCC is expected to complete its review in early 2005. Telecom
observers expect regvlators to approve the deal, thovgh they may reqvire
the companies to divest assets in some markets.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

"Robert M." <robert156@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<robert156-4F55E9.08421005052004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...

> In many local markets Cingular and AT&T Wireless are the largest and
> second-largest cell phone providers, which shows they already have
> market power, Cooper said. Consumers have even fewer options in markets
> where Cingular's corporate parents, BellSouth Corp. and SBC
> Communications Inc., offer landline service, he said.

What is the supposed connection between the ILEC and the wireless
carriers in any given market? In other words, if there are 6 mobile
carriers to chose from in Dallas and in Los Angeles, what difference
does it make whether SBC is the ILEC or not?

> The filing also disputes the claim by Cingular and AT&T Wireless that
> the deal would reduce the number of national cell-phone companies from
> six carriers to five. "A closer look shows that this set of competitors
> is almost never present in even the largest 100 markets," Cooper said.
> That means at best the merger would leave four players in most big
> cities and far fewer in smaller markets.

I'd like to have a second look at that closer look. There are
extremely few (if any) top 100 markets that do not have at least 6
mobile carriers to choose from.

> Besides the activists, Thrifty Call Inc., a defunct Bell company rival
> in San Marcos, Texas, also petitioned the FCC to block the deal. It said
> Cingular would have roughly 39% of U.S. wireless subscribers if the deal
> were approved. That level of concentration will result in
> "anticompetitive incentives and opportunities" for Cingular, the group
> charged.

Actually, without any divestitures, the combined Cingular/AWS would
have about 46 M customers, which is just over a quarter (27.8%) of all
mobile customers. This clown should get his facts straight before
sending petitions to the FCC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert M." <robert156@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:robert156-

<snip>

> The FCC is expected to complete its review in early 2005. Telecom
> observers expect regulators to approve the deal, though they may require
> the companies to divest assets in some markets.

Your point?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)

In article <298d9cbf.0405051223.3da02ecf@posting.google.com>,
xff@austin.rr.com (XFF) wrote:

> "Robert M." <robert156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<robert156-4F55E9.08421005052004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
>
> > In many local markets Cingular and AT&T Wireless are the largest and
> > second-largest cell phone providers, which shows they already have
> > market power, Cooper said. Consumers have even fewer options in markets
> > where Cingular's corporate parents, BellSouth Corp. and SBC
> > Communications Inc., offer landline service, he said.
>
> What is the supposed connection between the ILEC and the wireless
> carriers in any given market? In other words, if there are 6 mobile
> carriers to chose from in Dallas and in Los Angeles, what difference
> does it make whether SBC is the ILEC or not?

They can leverage their near monopoly position as an ILEC to promote
their cellular sevrice.


>
> > The filing also disputes the claim by Cingular and AT&T Wireless that
> > the deal would reduce the number of national cell-phone companies from
> > six carriers to five. "A closer look shows that this set of competitors
> > is almost never present in even the largest 100 markets," Cooper said.
> > That means at best the merger would leave four players in most big
> > cities and far fewer in smaller markets.
>
> I'd like to have a second look at that closer look. There are
> extremely few (if any) top 100 markets that do not have at least 6
> mobile carriers to choose from.
>
> > Besides the activists, Thrifty Call Inc., a defunct Bell company rival
> > in San Marcos, Texas, also petitioned the FCC to block the deal. It said
> > Cingular would have roughly 39% of U.S. wireless subscribers if the deal
> > were approved. That level of concentration will result in
> > "anticompetitive incentives and opportunities" for Cingular, the group
> > charged.
>
> Actually, without any divestitures, the combined Cingular/AWS would
> have about 46 M customers, which is just over a quarter (27.8%) of all
> mobile customers. This clown should get his facts straight before
> sending petitions to the FCC.


But they are not talking National Market share, think market share in
each of the 100 markets. It was that kind of logic that shot down the
Office Depot-Staples marriage.