NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] AT&T, T-Mobile, and "Leave It to Beaver"
AT&T, T-Mobile, and "Leave It to Beaver"
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000893.html
Between 1957 and 1963 on U.S. television, the iconically
family-friendly comedy series "Leave It to Beaver" was
immensely popular.
Arguably the most fascinating character on the show was a duplicitous
jerk named Eddie Haskell, wonderfully portrayed by actor Ken Osmond.
I found myself thinking about good ol' Eddie today as I perused the
various articles explaining how AT&T is pulling out all the stops --
likely to include new offers of resources divestitures and even
perhaps dropping some T-Mobile subscribers, in a continuing hell-bent
effort to assimilate all too willing T-Mobile, in the face of
Department of Justice actions to try (at least ostensibly) block the
merger itself ( http://j.mp/piiVrT [Reuters] ).
AT&T doesn't like to lose. It has recreated much of the power of the
old Bell System in recent years, reforming since its 1984 breakup
despite endless promises and guarantees that nothing of that kind
could possibly occur.
And AT&T doesn't just lie and mislead -- the historical record of
their unfulfilled promises to regulators, communities, and legislators
is clear enough on those points -- but it crucially knows when to back
off a bit as well, smiling as if their new concessions were actually
their plan all along.
Eddie Haskell knew that game well. He cared only about himself. To
your face he'd smile and be the epitome of politeness. When your back
was turned he'd hypocritically plot and badmouth you with equal
aplomb. And in case he got caught, he always had a protective hand
ready to play ( http://j.mp/otXOsW [YouTube] ).
So now the talk is that Eddie -- I mean AT&T -- is ready to promise
lower prices for a while, and perhaps even show some T-Mobile
subscribers the door to slightly reduce the massive market power the
merger would bring -- the technical term for the latter is "shedding"
by the way. (Question: Is subscriber shedding more like shooing away
flies? Or is it like picking off fleas and drowning them in alcohol?)
Either way, a probable dilemma is that many (perhaps most) T-Mobile
customers aren't the company's subscribers because the prices are
lower, but because they simply don't want any part of AT&T wireless
services. As I've noted in past postings, I've twice before had my
own cell service sucked back to AT&T from other companies as a result
of previous mergers. It's like the film "Groundhog Day," only
without Bill Murray or snow.
There's much pondering about what would happen to T-Mobile if the
merger ultimately falls through ( http://j.mp/rk7MfP [New York Times] ).
But you probably wouldn't have wanted your daughter to marry Eddie
Haskell.
And if you're a T-Mobile subscriber, being forced into bed with AT&T
would be much more akin to a nightmare than a situation comedy.
Even without Eddie.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com