Comments to FCC Needed

[maxx]

from the color of change.org

AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile — and it could have huge, negative consequences, especially for Black Americans.
The deal is likely to destroy jobs1, raise the price of cellular service2, and threaten net neutrality for wireless high-speed Internet.3 Net neutrality is the principle that prevents large corporations from marginalizing voices they disagree with or that get in the way of their profits. It's critical for groups like ColorOfChange that challenge the political and corporate status quo. Protecting net neutrality for wireless broadband is increasingly important as more and more people use their phones to access the Internet, especially African Americans.4
Monday is the deadline for public comment with the FCC, and several prominent civil rights groups — many of whom have deep relationships with AT&T — have lined up in support of the merger, promoting misleading arguments, whether conscious of the fact or not.5
It’s why your voice is critical. The FCC needs to hear from Black folks and our allies of every race who understand the problems with this deal. Please join us in calling on the FCC to block AT&T's merger with T-Mobile:
http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/att

Getting rid of the competition
AT&T has said that "The wireless marketplace will become more competitive" because of this merger — but that's the exact opposite of what’s likely to happen. If AT&T merges with T-Mobile, it will mean even less competition in an industry that is already dominated by just four big companies.6 AT&T and T-Mobile are the second and fourth largest wireless companies. If they merge, it will mean that the two largest remaining companies — AT&T and Verizon — will control nearly 80% of the wireless market.7
The reduced competition is likely to have serious consequences:

• Higher prices for everyone. T-Mobile is currently one of the most affordable options for wireless service, and AT&T is significantly more expensive. This merger would eliminate one of the most affordable cellular providers. But prices wouldn't just go up for T-Mobile customers.8 Because T-Mobile would no longer be competing with AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, there would be less pressure on the remaining companies to keep their prices down.9
• Worse service, less innovation. With less competition [[and less of a need to attract and retain customers) cellular providers will have less incentive to invest in improving their services and developing new technologies. On top of that, AT&T has a bad track record when it comes to good service — they were rated the worst wireless carrier by Consumer Reports last year.10
• A grave threat to net neutrality. Net neutrality has guided the Internet's operation since it began. It guarantees that information you put online is treated the same as anyone else's information in terms of its basic ability to travel across the Internet. It's the reason the Internet is so diverse — and so powerful. .. Net neutrality is what’s allowed groups like ColorOfChange to speak freely, without corporate gatekeepers or censors — unlike what we see with radio and TV. If AT&T and T-Mobile are allowed to merge, net neutrality will be at even greater risk — two companies that are hostile to net neutrality [[AT&T and Verizon) will dominate wireless Internet access. They'll have no serious competitors, and no effective government regulation to hold them accountable.

False and deceptive arguments
The main argument put forth by civil rights organizations supporting the merger has been that it would help close the digital divide by allowing AT&T to speed up its deployment of high-speed wireless Internet service. We completely agree with the need to increase the availability of broadband, but allowing AT&T to take over T-Mobile won’t help — in fact, it’s likely to hurt it.
Let's take a look at two of the core claims made by AT&T and the civil rights organizations supporting this merger:
Claim: The merger is needed to help expand affordable high-speed mobile Internet access. AT&T says that it doesn’t currently have a big enough slice of the airwaves [[known as “spectrum”) that can be used to broadcast wireless signals, and that by acquiring T-Mobile and its spectrum AT&T will be able to more quickly deploy its next-generation broadband wireless network.
The reality: AT&T does not need to merge with T-Mobile to provide faster Internet access and the merger will likely increase the cost of wireless service. The truth is that AT&T already has lots of spectrum that it’s not using and does not need to merge with T-Mobile to roll out faster mobile Internet access. AT&T hasn’t invested enough in making better use of the spectrum it has;11 instead it has focused on acquiring other wireless companies. And with less competition, AT&T — and all other wireless Internet providers — will likely decrease their investment in their networks, if history is any indicator. AT&T itself has said that this merger will allow it to avoid investing in its networks...

Claim: The merger will be good for workers, especially African Americans and Latinos. They point to the fact that AT&T has a good record of diversity in hiring and contracting, and the fact that AT&T is unionized, while T-Mobile has been anti-union.
The Reality: These issues have nothing to do with the merits of the merger. It's true that AT&T has a good diversity record. It's also true that AT&T's workforce is unionized, while T-Mobile has been harshly anti-union. And AT&T should be applauded for their commitment to diversity in hiring. But AT&T’s record doesn't mean that this merger will be good for consumers, our communities, or even workers — the most likely impact on workers is that thousands will be laid off. AT&T claims the merger will create jobs. But mergers almost always lead to layoffs, as the merging companies seek to eliminate redundant jobs — and there's no reason to expect this merger will be any different.
Civil rights groups backing AT&T
In order to shift focus away from the facts regarding the serious impact of the deal on marginalized communities, AT&T is trying to show the FCC that civil rights groups support the merger. They are running a campaign to get non-profit organizations, especially groups that represent people of color, to support the deal...


How we can make a difference
The FCC has to decide whether to approve this merger, and it's taking public comments until June 20th. We can't let those with financial ties to AT&T be the only voices heard. If enough of us speak out now, we can make it clear that these groups and individuals don't speak for us, while letting the FCC know that Black Americans and our allies are against this merger.
Please join us in calling on the FCC to deny the AT&T/T-Mobile merger:

[maxx]

more:

Black civil rights groups like NAACP, National Action Network, and the National Urban League; Latino groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens [[LULAC) and the Hispanic Federation; and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation [[GLAAD) have all come out in support of the deal.13,14,15

Many of these groups have very close, long-standing relationships with AT&T, and have received significant financial support from the company.16,17 But it's not clear where this might be a factor and where it's not. We talked with Ben Jealous, the CEO of the NAACP, who explained that the organization receives equal support from organizations that are opposed to the merger, and that under his watch they have run campaigns targeting organizations that have given them money. He also explained that their primary motivation for supporting AT&T in the merger is about diversity in hiring and jobs. AT&T has gotten high marks on the NAACP's diversity scorecard, while T-Mobile has refused to participate. The NAACP also sees the potential for a significant increase in union jobs resulting from the merger — another reason for its support. At the same time, Hilary Shelton, the NAACP's head of policy, has argued [[and been cited publicly as arguing) that the deal will help close the digital divide and expand access. Jealous said that the statements issued thus far are preliminary, and that the broadband impact issue is one they would want to look at more closely. However, the only comments on record are those from Shelton and significant damage has already been done.

We weren't able to talk with other groups, so it's harder to understand their perspectives or motivations with precision — whether it's a function of long-standing relationships, a lack of understanding of the core issues, finances, or something else. But the evidence of coordination is clear. The groups that support the merger use strikingly similar arguments to support their decision — and sometimes have used identical language. In letters to the FCC by the National Action Network and National Urban League, several sentences and an entire paragraph are exactly the same.18,19

[Richard]

I must be missing something as I was not aware that T-Mobile was a "Black" thing.

I started cellular service in 1992 with Bellsouth [[owned by ATT) three years later I switched to Cingular wireless also owned by ATT now am just ATT after they dropped the brand names under the umbrella.

I have had problems with costumer service but nothing that was never resolved and others that were resolved that by rights they had no legal reason to resolve.

In 2004 when the hurricanes came through Orlando Fla my ATT service was the only one that worked so people could contact their relatives across the country to let them know they were okay.I had over $7000 in minute overages when ATT found out through a local news broadcast they cleared the overages.

Same situation after Katrina in Mississippi and Louisiana.

There will always be a market for low budget cellular service and there will always be someone there to fill it ,there is a free 200 minute a month service,Metro PCS in the south is a huge low cost service that rivals T-Mobile by far and as anybody can buy large chunks of air time wholesale and provide service at a reduced cost so if there is a need and money can be made on it somebody will be there.

Technology is expensive and only the large companies that have a base can absorb the costs even that trickles down Metro PCS offers everything the big guys offer for a flat rate of $40 per month.

There is a new type of high power wireless being implemented across the country that will double currant speeds and capacity and even reach distant rural locations that in its self will open up the door for more competition.

Even with deposits when starting service .

T-mobile $500 IF you do not have good credit.
Sprint $500 but it is owned by Verizon anyways .
Verizon $500 IF you do not have good credit.

But it is like everything else you use what you can afford and there are lots out there that talk on their cell phone while taxpayers cover their living expenses.

A cell phone is not a right it is a service provided ,we have a right to use it or not
just like anything else.

[Meddle]

I must be missing something as I was not aware that T-Mobile was a "Black" thing.

It isn't, and I pretty much stopped reading the above when it started going there.

Also, T-Mobile isn't exactly a low price option. They have a lot of catches and zingers and not a great coverage area.

Regarding storm outages, when we had a major ice storm that brought down nearly all power and communications, AT&T was one of the first cell carriers to go down and one of the last to come back up. Apparently they never saw the need for back-up generators at their cell towers sites.

I'm opposed to nearly all big mergers these days as they are clearly anti-competitive, but I won't make them about politics or race when they aren't.