Corporations don't die...
 

The age of the universe is 13.75 billion years

In the beginning, the corporation was created, filled a need of the people,
made a profit, distributed dividends to it's stockholders,
and the Board of Directors saw that it was good.

Something has since changed.
Here is a $39 BILLION merger that's in the works:

Wall Street Journal
Nov 25, 2011

UPDATE: AT&T Disputes FCC's Authority To Deny Merger Withdrawal
ATT covers the entire US
Deutsche Telekom AG covers Europe
.

AT&T has a history of cells that are lower technology. That dropped calls due to too few cells. In Manhattan, AT&T kept selling mobile phones even though it knew its network on that island was insufficient.

AT&T wanted that $39billion purchase to increase their services. That's what AT&T said. An internal memo was leaked. Service could be increased for significantly less money by simply upgrading existing cells and installing more. An AT&T merger was not to increase service. It was to eliminate competition.

And still our extremists say government regulation is evil. In some industries, that regulation is essential. Especially when the company is so mafioso corrupt as to think the purpose of a company is profits. As is taught in business schools.

In some states, AT&T still has first generation cells. And fewer third generation. Cost controls as is taught in and routinely advocated by business school graduates. Other companies are earning profits instead by providing better service. AT&T chooses to solve their long term profit problems by using money games - as advocated by Wall Street.

From Marketwatch dated 25 Nov 2011:

AT&T may well be whatever people think it is, I don't know.
But my issue here is really something completely different...

By what service or product is this $39 BILLION merger benefiting the AT&T customers ?
My answer is none.
The merger was concocted to give AT&T a larger influence over the industry, "added spectrum"

If AT&T does attempt to sell off a significant part of it's holdings, who will it sell to ?
The only buyers being talked about are "investment" firms that
foresee $ is to be made from transactions activity. These firms
openly admit they have "no expertise" in the operations of this industry.

IMO, AT&T represents many corporations today that no longer earn $
from services or products, but instead seek profits only in mergers and acquisitions.

Think about it...
A $4 BILLION fee for "failing to merge".
A $4 BILLION fee for leaving the situation as just as it is now ????

I doubt the upper echelons of AT&T are even remotely concerned with service to customers.
.

Other cell phone companies needed no additional spectrum. To support more phones, one simply breaks a cell into smaller cells. Doubles, Triples, or quadruples the number of phones supported in that cell. Other simple techniques include directional antennas. Each antenna serving a different slice of the cell.

AT&T's own memo says why they want to spend $39 billion for Cingular to eliminate competition. To provide same service while giving the customer even less alternative choices. It is exactly what a business school graduate would do and exactly what product oriented management would never do.

It is also what the George Jr administration did to the internet. To eliminate all but two big providers in every region. As a result, internet service in America quickly fell from the world's top ten. George Jr's administration also was concerned for profits - enriching their campaign donors. Not about free markets and better customer service. AT&T is simply doing what Michael Powel, et al were doing to maximize profits; stifle innovation; the product (and consumer) be damned.

They only say they need more spectrum because so many cannot see through that myth. Similar myths also proved that steel and memory chip industries needed to be protected from unfair competition, that Kodak needed protection from unfair film competition, that American automakers needed protection from superior designed overseas cars, and that drug prices must be maintained 40% higher to protect big Pharma. In each case, that company or industry was operating to the detriment of America. Was only concerned about the profits and management bonuses. Even blamed the workers. And therefore continued making obsolete products or buggy whips.

AT&T will spend massive sums to protect their profit margins from companies that bother to innovate. Its another classic example of management that cost controls rather than advance mankind.

WHERE'S THE INNOVATION?

This is major. From the Washington Post of 2 Dec 2011:

WHERE'S THE INNOVATION?

[Karl] Jah, as I explained in Das Kapital, zer means of produktion are concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, until they are in a form where they can be seized by the proletariat. [Marx]

I wonder if that will actually happen. :corn:

/hijack

Verizon FIOS is much better than the cable internet I've experienced. Faster, more reliable, same price.

/hijack off

NY Times
MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED
December 19, 2011

AT&T Ends $39 Billion Bid for T-Mobile
Oh sure, it was Obama's fault AT&T entered into an agreement to pay out $4 billion - if
the merger fell through. Now, guess who is really going to pay...

I don't get big business. :(

So, like, if I want to buy say...a moped. And I talk to the guy who is selling the moped. I get pressure from my family that I shouldn't get a moped because I would smash my head off. So instead, I don't buy the moped and I give the moped guy 50 bucks.

Why?

Well, because you sat there and asked the guy questions about mopeds for hours and hours, and asked him to print up and give you detailed moped schematics, and even called him at home in the middle of the night after you had a big fight with your mom about whether or not a helmet would protect you from head-smashing incidents, and asked him to get out of bed and send you all the pertinent crash-related statistics on helmet safety right away.

In short, you wasted a lot of his time, so you owe him a little something for that.

So? He's the seller. He could have told me to fuck off. He doesn't have to sell to me.

Just as I don't have to buy from him. Fuck his "time."

Yeah, sales is part luck of the draw and part art. I did commission sales for a while, and often people would come in and just waste my time. This was really annoying when a for reals customer came in and some other sales associate got to sell him the gazillion inch TV with all the accessories, because I was stuck with some lookie-loo. Its just life - win some, lose some. Sears certainly didn't care about the value of my time. If I wasn't making enough on commission, I was paid minimum wage and that amount was subtracted from my commission sales. In effect, I was paying Sears to be out on their sales floor.

Its a dog eat dog world fer sure.

I like that: lookie-loo. :)

I tried sales for about a minute. I SUCK at it.

And I do get the concept of the big business saying "thanks for not doing business with us" but it is indeed a large part of Ze Problem!

I sometimes felt like I was dangerously good at it when I was selling bikes. You create a little narrative for the customer that makes them feel whatever it is they need to feel. It felt sorta creepy, but I never charged a non-buyer, [Carl]so I've got that going for me.[/Spackler]

AT&T did not "have" to pay T-Mobile. T-Mobile may not have agreed to negotiate without that stipulation. AT&T should have put in a rider that stated that they would not have to pay if the gov prevented the transaction, or some such.

What BS. Coporations justify their profit margins on the grounds that they are taking risk. Well boo hoo, this was a risk, it went bad, deal with it. Not every deal goes through.

More leaks about what AT&T was doing. AT&T was delaying equipment deliveries from suppliers (ie Juniper Networks). Telling their suppliers this was due to not purchasing T-mobile. Leaks even say why AT&T was doing that. So that equipment providers would lobby their politicians permit the T-mobile buy-out.

What risk? Risk means doing something that would result in better products and services. AT&T, instead, was trying to buy politicians and reap profits at the expense of consumers. That sounds more like bribery and fraud.

So AT&T is listed in Consumer Reports as the worst in customer service. Of course. AT&T (like GM or Eastman Kodak) only want profits; not earn those profits doing better service and products. AT&T did what is taught in business schools. Including spending money only to eliminate free market competition and manipulate government regulators. When management comes from business schools, then outperforming the competition with better products is too hard.

So that they wouldn't buy duplicate equipment seems far more likely.

Amen, brutha!

I have absolutely no business sense, not even any sense about my own personal business called My Life. But I know there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

As a side note, wtf is going on with gas prices? There have been numerous occasions recently where I've seen gas going for 3 "OH" something, then a couple hours later it's at 3 THIRTY something. It's been rapid cycling, and it makes NO freaking sense. What, some CEO needed an eighth house real quick-like? Mayhaps for a holiday party? It's sick sick sick, and we have to sit here and be grateful and hop right on it if gas dares to 'dip' to 3 "OH" something.

One more for the corporations - brought to you by your US Supreme Court
... Corporations can now own your rivers and do with them as they please.

PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING

Reuters
Feb 22, 2012

US top court rules for PPL on Montana riverbeds
I guess the Indians never conducted trade on the rivers before Montana became a state.
Oh wait, those were Indians... Nevermind