But I'm glad this deal is off. We don't need MORE consolidation of the market.
Umm. If T-Mobile simply goes under we'll have the same problem. And it's hard to see how T-Mobile can remain competitive.
After a bit of Googling over the issue of how "ridiculous levels of regulation" and "red tape" are obstructing needed AT&T tower expansion - all I can find is that local communities, where the towers are physically placed, insist on public feedback and local government approval - which indeed can take significant time to work through.
Yes and if you have that significant process then you end up with the incentives that produce the current situation.
I guess if corporations could build what they want where they want without having to consider what local communities want they (the corporations) would be much happier.
That's not the issue. The problem is that for basically any construction you have the years of effort to go through. That's fine if the communities want that. But then they have to live with the results which is bad coverage in most major metro areas and this sort of amalgamation.
It's not at all clear to me why it has to take years to build a simple tower on top of a sky scraper in order to allow local communities control. Why don't the local communities just make a standard criteria for building towers that takes a few months at most.
How would you feel if every time you wanted to paint your house you had to spend all that time on paperwork and then open it up to the community such that it took years to paint your house? (There are actually property associations where that is the case)
Once again the issue isn't if people want that. That's fine if they do. But they have to realize that situations like we have are what results.
How about asking why there are only four major carriers and why the smaller ones never get big?
Everyone's griping about AT&T (which I do as well) but no one wants to focus on what the real problem is. AT&T's problems are due to not being able to get enough bandwidth and towers to support their customers. People gripe about this even with the other carriers. (Honestly in my area AT&T is much better than Verizon). Simultaneously most people want not just local coverage but national coverage.
So what's the problem?
Hey, how about the problem is the difficulty in putting up towers! You think AT&T wouldn't have tons more towers up if they could? Do you really think their first choice is to have to buy a competitor just to get the damn space to have towers?
And why can't they put up towers? Have any of you seen how difficult it is in places like New York, San Francisco, or other major metro areas to put up towers? If you manage to get permission to even be able to do it (and good luck getting that) the process takes years.
So we have the requirement demanded by consumers to (1) be national (2) have tons of coverage and bandwidth (3) support the latest technologies and (4) be unable to create the infrastructure to do this. Yet no one wants to look at why this is a problem. HEY! It's all the damn local regulations keeping carriers from being able to go national and become real competitors to AT&T and from AT&T, T-Mobile and others to put in the infrastructure to supply the services customers are demanding.
It's just like alternative energy. Everyone wants to move away from oil but no one wants the wind and solar plants near them and doesn't want to expedite the power lines necessary to carry the power from remote areas. People just engage in far too much magical thinking.
Let's see. Everyone yells at AT&T because they can't provide the coverage and bandwidth iPhone users need. AT&T tries to install more towers but ridiculous levels of regulation and red tape either limit their ability or make it take such a long time it's the same thing. AT&T sees a competitor with towers who is losing money and wants to sell. AT&T buys said competitor as the only way to provide the support customers demand.
Customers immediately become furious with AT&T rather than the ridiculous government regulations keeping AT&T from providing desired services and demand (wait for it) more government regulation to ensure we all have crappy coverage within the United States.
People then step in and blame all the problems not on too much regulation but on deregulation. (And yes, I agree it's not just an issue of deregulation or regulation but smart regulation - however let's be honest. How often do politicians pass laws with smart regulations?)
"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_