In the fast-paced, highly-competitive market of wireless phone and Internet access, this announcement stands out. The wireless carrier with the second-most subscribers, AT&T, is to acquire the number four carrier, T-Mobile USA. Some would say that this is a grave threat to competitiveness, risks reducing competition and increasing prices on everyone, and so should be stopped by the benevolent masters of the Obama administration. I disagree. This is a young and vibrant market, with many competitors already out there, and more yet to come . The acquisition of a lagging company by the #2 company only puts pressure on the #1 firm, Verizon Wireless. Not only that, but existing regulations are plenty strong, and will almost surely result in resources being made available to lesser firms, reshaping the market without reducing choice. Yes, it looks like T-Mobile USA was on the way down. While it was the number four wireless carrier in America last quarter , it was also the top carrier to lose subscribers in 2010Q4. Verizon added 1.1 million, AT&T gained 2.8 million, and Sprint gained 1.1 million as well, but T-Mobile lost 23,000 net subscribers. Even #5 MetroPCS grew much better, adding 290,000 of its own, and MetroPCS made less than a quarter of the revenue to begin with. And it seems unlikely that T-Mobile was going to be able to catch up without a true 4G plan in the wings. T-Mobile’s ads can say all they want that HSPA+ is “4G”, but people have ways of noticing that T-Mobile’s “4G” just can’t compete with true 4G offerings like Verizon’s, Sprint/Clearwire’s, and even MetroPCS’s. Yes, the company you may never have heard of is gradually rolling out its own LTE service centered around larger metro areas, not surprising given the company’s name. So of the top firms, #1, #3, #5, and #8 have 4G going today. #6 and #7 have announced definite plans to deploy 4G. Who’s that leave? #2 AT&T and #4 T-Mobile, the two companies who have been advertising the limited HSPA+ upgrade as 4G, even when it’s better described as an upgraded 3G. These are the two companies greatest at risk of falling behind technologically, while at the same time happening to use the same technology now (though at different frequencies; that’s the only thing that keeps an unlocked iPhone from running on T-Mobile at full 3G speed). If we don’t let these two firms merge, then what we’d risk seeing over time is both of them falling off. Better to let the two of them combine resources to compete better with Verizon and Sprint/Clearwire (yes, the #3 and #8 firms share the same WiMax 4G network), than to risk losing both. Sure, it seems unlikely looking at the numbers that AT&T would collapse, but consider factors like AT&T losing iPhone exclusivity, and the influx of true 4G phones hitting Verizon and Sprint, and that could change quickly. One would think that a big company like AT&T would be able to deploy 4G service. The company has previously talked about going 4G with LTE, and seems likely to do so in the future, but at this time there is nothing happening. Instead, AT&T seems content to upgrade its backhaul (the key Internet connections made to every wireless tower, which dictate how well it can serve its customers, and which got overloaded in the early days of the iPhone), waiting until it’s ready before offering true 4G. One imagines that adding T-Mobile’s resources could only help with that plan. It’s also been a huge point of contention between Verizon and AT&T that Verizon’s “map of coverage” is larger according to some metrics. If AT&T gets a rapid expansion into areas that T-Mobile covers that AT&T does not, then suddenly the race between the top two becomes that much closer, that much more competitive, and therefore that much better for customers. And besides, there’s a lot more to the world of wireless carriers than the big guys we see on television. The country is loaded with regional carriers that serve many people just fine. They get a phone, often free, and they can do what they want: make calls, send texts, get on Facebook and Twitter. It would be a mistake to declare the market non-competitive just because those of us with more specialized needs (national coverage, high-speed data) lose T-Mobile as an option, “only” being left with Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, MetroPCS, US Cellular, Clearwire, probably more I’m not thinking of, and any other firms that enter the market later such as LightSquared. Some monopoly situation there, eh? Let the merger happen. Let AT&T sell off redundant spectrum of T-Mobile’s that it no longer needs, let AT&T sell off redundant towers in areas that AT&T already covers well, two things the government can already demand AT&T do without blocking the deal, and the market will have a sudden opening for someone else to join in or even expand. In the end, life goes on and we’ll still see fierce competition in this market. Oh, were you worried about data caps? Then stop digging a hole of regulation and order the FCC to take its hands off of wireless ISPs, silly!
Read the original:
There is no need to block an AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile
Good evening. The Communication Workers of America are making a cowardly little statement in favor of Net Neutrality , as they simply must be team players even though they know the radical left’s agenda threatens to kill their own jobs, but for the most part the left still wants to move on from Net Neutrality. There are good reasons for that. First, one of our predictions from before is already coming true. They’re coming after content, already. Louise Slaughter is pressing the FCC to institute a sweeping campaign of censorship online. Free Press is on the case, too . Speech that regulators disfavor must be “curbed,” she thinks. Remember when we were assured that the FCC should show “forbearance,” and that the FCC’s Net Neutrality power grab wasn’t a free speech issue at all, but just a network management issue? Of course. Of course. Secondly, the case continues to grow for technological and market forces protecting customers better than the FCC ever could. Next year, worldwide, one billion people are projected to use wireless, high-speed Internet access . One billion people next year, and 3.8 billion by 2015. That’s how ready we are. After all, Verizon is already serving high-speed LTE access to users, and Sprint/Clearwire/Time Warner are serving WiMAX right now, today. That’s competition. That’s choice offered to people like never before under the old local government-mandated duopoly of Cable and DSL access. That’s innovation that we need government to keep off of in order to keep change and improvement going forward. One final note. For all the gnashing of teeth about William Daley , Sunlight was awfully quiet about Andrew McLaughlin . Funny that. Why is a former Google leader okay, but a former AT&T leader troubling, if not for a plain old political bias on Sunlight’s part?
Follow this link:
Tech at Night: Free Speech, Free Press, Net Neutrality, Louise Slaughter
Happy Weekend. As I write this it’s already the 11th, so you have two shopping weeks left before Christmas. Oops, is it still legal on the Internet not to say Holiday? Some quick hits for the weekend as we continue to wait on the FCC to explain itself and its plans for radical new Internet regulation. George Ou points out that if Netflix gets to demand free peering with Comcast, then Netflix ought to demand free shipping over the postal service. After all, if neutral means free, then that’s the next step, right? Just shows how absurd the radicals really are in all of this. Network investment costs money and that money must be recouped with profit, or else that investment isn’t going to happen. And again, if that investment stops happening, we all lose out. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn apparently wants to stick it to wireless providers despite wireless providers never being a monopoly. Monopoly utility providers were of course the original justification for regulation, because in theory you can only run so many wires to a person’s house. That justification never existed with wireless. Competition runs rampant. But the grabbing hands of the socialists grab all they can anyway. All for themselves. CrunchGear is now off my reading list (and should be off of yours, too) because of serial, in your face bias with respect to Net Neutrality and Wikileaks, but they’ve made a startling admission about the FCC’s broadband propaganda . Americans have lower speed Internet than advocates want because Americans are choosing slower, lower speed plans on purpose . Remember that as people claim we “lag behind” and so regulation is needed. Drudge Report is being sued for copyright infringement and in this Brave New World of criminalized copyright law, Righthaven LLC, a copyright troll form, is attempting to snatch the DrudgeReport.com domain. Great. Infringe on copyright, permanently lose your identity online. That’s the real identity theft crisis in America. Every time the iPhone-to-Verizon rumors came around in the past, I dismissed them as false. My standard line was that Apple would not move to Verizon until they had a reason to do so, and that reason was going to be LTE, Verizon’s “4G” high speed access technology. Well, Verizon has gone live with LTE, and sure enough Now the rumor is is that Verizon may get the iPhone exclusively now . iPhone 5 on Verizon exclusively would make good sense for Apple because the higher speed LTE network, which Verizon has gotten live ahead of AT&T’s LTE network, would make the iPhone look and feel like a more responsive tool. So for the first time, I’m saying iPhone on Verizon is a realistic thing to expect next year, with exclusivity not inconceivable.
Read more:
Tech at Night: Net Neutrality, Copyright, iPhone, Verizon
Oh boy, I’m tired tonight. It would be so tempting to give Tech at Night a pass tonight but I have clothes in the dryer anyway, so let’s go. Let’s talk about Net Neutrality. In fact, let’s talk about who’s funding the voices supporting Net Neutrality. Bob Parks of Black and Right and posting right here at RedState did some digging and found that CREDO Mobile is funding some Net Neutrality advocates . And the Net Neuties claim they have no Evil Corporate Interests™ behind them. Never let them forget that the FCC acting on this issue is the FCC choosing to favor one set of corporations over another. And the losers are those that invest in the Internet… and we all know what happens when we punish investment in the internet: we get less of it in the future. That’s why we’ve got to minimize the damage done by the FCC this month. We need a light, light, light touch if we have to have regulation at all. Former FCC Chairman (under Bush) Michael Powell believes the FCC will pass something this month , and I agree. The question is what will they pass? Interestingly, Computerworld points out that Free Press’s pet commissioner Michael Copps is saying, in a stunning view into his bizarro-land mind, that because the law prohibits the FCC from making mild regulations (per the Comcast v FCC case the FCC lost), the only legal option the FCC has is to go whole hog and try a total Internet takeover via Title II. We’ve got to hope he’s talked off of that ledge. Quick hits to close out the night: Google is getting proactive against copyright infringement and is in fact skewing the process of copyright claimant vs Google services user. Google is going to start assuming that DMCA claims by preferred copyright holders will be legitimate, and so will shoot first and ask questions later. Users of Google services should take note. Verizon LTE deployment is here and pricing is available. Verizon expects to have 85% of the country (I don’t know if that’s by geography or by population, but I’m assuming population) under LTE 4G coverage by the end of 2012. Not only does this mark a new era of ‘broadband’ competition in America, as wireless providers are starting to show up with serious competition with wired service, but I think that fans of the iPhone might be interested. I fully expect an LTE-friendly iPhone to come out as Apple’s entry into the Verizon market. Maybe in the fall of 2011? Google continues its efforts to change you and control how you operate online with an embrace-and-extend approach to standard keyboard layouts . They’ve issued a fatwa against Caps Lock. Molon Labe, Google. Molon Labe.
More here:
Tech at Night: Net Neutrality, CREDO, Google, 4G Wireless
Tonight, we start with a longer note that requires some setup, so bear with me as I break from the usual format for a moment. ––– The FCC’s attempt to reclassify broadband as if it were a telephone service had already encountered opposition from a strong, bipartisan majority of Congress – not to mention usually Democratic allies like the AFL-CIO, CWA, IBEW, LULAC, MMTC, NAACP, Urban League and Sierra Club. It is increasingly becoming a question of whether the FCC really wants to pick a Title II fight in the Courts, another with Democratic coalition members and yet another with Congress. That kind of path has the potential to be lose-lose-lose for the FCC and for Democrats. But another story that emerged last week may be the most interesting fight of all. Last week, Ben Chandler (D-KY) and Alan Grayson (D-FL) announced their opposition to the FCC’s Title II reclassification. Grayson’s opposition is interesting. Consider… Grayson is a “ darling of the online left “, which has fetishized net neutrality In fact, he is so aggressively left wing that he hired progressive blogger-bombthrower Matt Stoller as his Senior Policy Advisor Matt Stoller was formerly a consultant for the main net neutrality advocacy group, Free Press, and a leader in organizing the online left to support net neutrality In fact, as Seton Motley pointed out at Big Government , Matt Stoller was such a vocal, aggressive net neutrality activist that he was once “ physically removed from a meeting at the AFL-CIO for making a scene over the refusal of the Communication Workers of America to support net neutrality.” Now, the man who hired Matt Stoller to advise him on policy has decided that Title II reclassification is bad policy. One of two things is happening here. Either this is a signal that the progressives have finally realized they went too far and alienated a lot of their coalition that realizes how radical their net neutrality regulation is. Or the progressives don’t realize this and, as Seton pondered at Big Government, Matt Stoller is now trying to decide whether he wants to be physically removed from Grayson’s office, too. Either way is good for America. ––– Oh, and just another reminder: despite what Free Press does say in its neo-Marxists missives, we truly don’t need Net Neutrality regulation. LTE is coming nearer to Verizon customers and combined with WiMAX from Sprint and others, the two technologies from a number of wireless providers will provide tremendous competition in the world of high-speed Internet access, and give unprecedented freedom for Internet users from the world of highly regulated wired Internet access. Adding the same stifling regulation to the new technologies can only hinder that. Especially regulation from an FCC that has a loose grasp on the concept of ethics. Daily Caller reports on Kevin Werbach who works by day for a group called Supernova, funded by industry groups, and moonlights as an advisor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Werbach’s efforts are funded in part by the firms the FCC regulates or plans to regulate. He claims that because he gets money from both sides of certain issues, such as Net Neutrality, that there’s no problem. Yeah, he would think that. Of course, there are regulators other than the FCC that are problematic as well. In California , the the Fair Political Practices Commission may be gunning for the Internet and attempt to regulate sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Free speech just threatens those with power. So does privacy, which is why per a Forbes Magazine report I was emailed and thus have no link for, Indonesia is joining the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in attempting to shut down the use of RIM ’s encrypted Blackberry services, because RIM will not play favorites and give select governments special treatment. Privacy aids free speech, and the two are a threat to anyone who seeks to gather and maintain power over people. The State Department has expressed “disappointment” about the Blackberry announcements (which the UAE in turn called disappointing), which surprises me as RIM is a Canadian firm, plus it’s not as though the US hasn’t passed laws requiring firms to aid in government wiretaps of telecommunications. That law is called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Is the administration disappointed with the US, too? If so, what action is being taken to rectify that? Nothing, of course. It’s all talk. The Justice Department is pretty worthless, too, claiming that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits colleges from shifting to digital textbooks from their paper equivalents. They claim that the requirement to use Amazon ’s Kindle hurts the blind… except that the blind can’t read a non-braille textbook anyway. Your taxes at work, folks. I couldn’t make this up. And to cap off the night, here’s something to think about on a dark, quiet night: data gathering and database searching firm Google is developing a relationship with the CIA . Chew on that.
Read the original:
Tech at Night: Free Press, FCC, Google, LTE, RIM, Amazon, California
