Skip to comments.The Only Winner in Opposing AT&T/T-Mobile Merger – Big Government
Posted on 05/12/2011 6:42:49 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
John Donne famously said no man is an island. He didnt live to see the Media Marxists and their absurd policy positions.
These Leftist alleged media reformers incessantly demand massive government insertion into and interference with every free market-media nook and cranny.
Insertion and interference in which almost no one else has any interest.
Save, of course, for the other forces of Big Government Big Government being always interested in expanding its authoritarian sway.
We have noted this previously. For instance, the Media Marxists have all along been strident proponents of Network Neutrality a government takeover of the Internet that was and remains the kid sitting by himself in the high school cafeteria almost no one else wanted anything to do with it.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Everybody buy a new phone and a new non-ATT/TMobile plan ....
I oppose the merger because having fewer companies in the industry make it easier for the government to control the industry, they inevitably become ‘too big to fail’, and the taxpayers are on the hook when they do.
This is just a game the Feds play in order to regulate and shake down AT&T for more money. That’s it nothing else. It will happen.
Seton makes an excellent point here:
-—————And then there were the unions.
Which are almost always Leftist, overwhelmingly pro-Democrat and were in 2008 vociferously pro-Obama and they oppose Net Neutrality.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) all opposed.
Why? In a word jobs.
Net Neutrality will kill tech sector investment (and by the way, the tech sector requires huge coin to grow).
How do we know this? Because Robert McChesney the Godfather of the Media Marxist movement says thats the point:
(T)he ultimate goal (of Net Neutrality) is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.
And that investment while it still exists means lots and lots of jobs.
High-paying gigs that must be done here you cant pay someone in China or India to hardwire Chicago or Indianapolis.
Large swaths of the tech sector are unionized so they know of which they speak.
And is why they rightly oppose the Media Marxist push for Net Neutrality.———————
I hate to say this, but I’m thankful that the Unions are thinking selfishly in this.
He gives great insight into the underpinnings of this ATT deal and the role that the media marxists are playing. You should read it, but that’s ultimately up to you.
You try to say I’m seeing marxists under every pillow, you should at least look under the pillows for yourself. I’m not crying wolf here; this isn’t “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. There *IS* smoke here, and there *IS* fire here.
It also highlights how all these seemingly isolated topics are intricately and intimately connected.
Bingo. I like that reasoning.
In fact, when the government bought GM, they should have had them broken up into several companies. Of course that wasn’t going to happen.
No, unions are pro “net neutrality” and any other directed economy measures. Unions love government control. You are mixed up here. Unions, Democrats, net-neutrality (control of free speech under a tricky name a la ‘pro-choice” for pro baby killing all go together in one happy commie basket.
The government does in some ways have a win win situation here. The post above yours highlights what we’ve seen over the last two years, yet it can safely be said(given all the details in the news piece) that this is a “oh but that’s different” moment.
There are plenty of small mobile carriers at the moment, so I’m going to side against those who are clearly mouthpieces for big government.
If the big government people think the merger shouldn’t happen, then it probably should.
Let’s just make sure that if a failure is imminent, that they fail. Only the people - you and I - can prevent ‘too big to fail’ and we do that by being informed.
Some of them may be. But it’s not a lock.
This article bothers me, because it tries to have it both ways. The union controls the politicians, yet the company controls the union. Anyways, I’m sure you could google and find more unions which are standing in the way of net neutrality implementation.
Here you go, horse’s mouth:
——————The principles CWA proposes to protect an open Internet represent a middle ground in the net neutrality debate. They carefully balance the goals of protecting an open Internet with the critical goal of investment to upgrade our broadband networks and create jobs.—————
This is classic progressive-speak. This is exactly what Motley was getting at.
If the current net neutrality threatens jobs and investment, then there’s no need of a middle ground that protects/balances investments and jobs.
Everything else in the article is largely irrelevant progressive speak. They know it will cost them jobs due to lack of investment.
Yes, like the blood sweat and tears coming pumping through the mega corporation that comes directly from consumer’s wallets. Less competition means higher prices, and less innovation.
But hey, lets just pretend that Big Government is the only bad guy, and mega corporations have our best interests at heart. Whatever it takes to get you to sleep at night.
I’m against this merger. I’m with T-Mobile now, and their customer service is tops. The minute they are taken over by AT&T, it’s back to the MISERABLE, CRAPPY service offered by those jamokes. I’m leaving as soon as the merger is complete.
I’m a semi-retired member of the media, with 20-plus years as a weekly newspaper reporter.
My college classes in journalism included a mandatory ethics class, and it was the sort of hardball journalistic ethics that you and I would understand. Truth, fairness, objectivity — all ferociously defended.
But those days are gone. Long gone.
Today’s media has no fairness, winks at the truth and detests objectivity. (In my prime, more than once I wrote stories that treated both sides fairly, even when I firmly believed that one side deserved to be shot.) Today’s major media, not to be confused with those real reporters who are still working the beats, God bless ‘em, is nothing but an abomination.
It grieves me to ask this ... but how do we crush and destroy the major media? We would suffer a lot waiting for their parent companies to finally die, but then we risk Big Gummint coming through with some God-awful “First Amendment Grants” or somesuch to keep them alive. (Big Gummint loves Big Media, you see.)
I cannot espouse violence, but short of that what measures have we got to bring the Dinosaur Media Deathwatch to a close?
Frankly, from an ignorant point of view - popular impressions alone - I’d prefer to see a Sprint-T Mobile merger than an AT&T-T Mobile merger - all the technical issues aside. My ignorant impression is that we might then have three actual worthy competitors, instead of two. I could be wrong.
The last thing we need are big government measures.
We live in a market economy, we can do this ourselves.
Educate those around you, and work with your local tea parties and 912 groups. The media is already starving for customers, because most of us are wising up. Make people wise up faster.
Calling the media liberal won’t get you far amongst non political people. Instead, show them things that clearly affect them, their pocket books, their families, etc, that their local newspaper isn’t interested in telling them.
Videos will probably get you the furthest(they are for me) so that makes the blaze and breitbart’s websites among the best.
Something like these speak for themselves:
Don’t tell people that the revolutionaries are coming for their kids, instead ask them why this isn’t a story in the newspaper, and note how when the primary people speak in the video, the people around them are supportive. So these aren’t isolated lone wolf types.