Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Several Democratic senators urge FCC and DoJ to reject T-Mobile-Sprint merger

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,725
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shilohcane View Post
    How can John Legere make any stronger commitment than last week when he told the congress people in the meeting that he would put the price freeze for for three years into writing that would be a legal condition of a merger proposal?
    Because the "promise" he made was weasel worded in such a way that if T-Mobile introduces a new plan that is "better", they can move people to that plan. There is no promise that the "better" plan will not be higher priced.

    This is really all moot because three years is just the blink of an eye.
    Donald Newcomb

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,341
    Device(s)
    S9
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Because the "promise" he made was weasel worded in such a way that if T-Mobile introduces a new plan that is "better", they can move people to that plan. There is no promise that the "better" plan will not be higher priced.

    This is really all moot because three years is just the blink of an eye.
    Did you watch the last meeting with John Legere and Congress? Legere said he would put it into legal wording that the prices would not be raised a person's current service plan for three years as a legal condition for the merger. Now if " T-Mobile introduces a new plan that is "better", they can move people to that plan. There is no promise that the "better" plan will not be higher priced""


    HOW IS THAT A BAD THING since the person has to agree to change their plan? Clearly forcing someone to switch plans would be illegal under that meger commitment to not raise customers prices for three years...

    Really what do you want it to be against the law for T-Mobile to make a better plan that is cheaper with more data to be illegal for three years?

    I had a T-Mobile "Simple Choice" plan with 2 GB a month that cost me about $58 a month with taxes. Last year I switched to T-Mobiles 55 plan and got unlimited everything plus Pandora that cost me only $50 a month? Really do you want that to be illegal for people to switch plans?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,093
    Carrier(s)
    Metro / T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm registered as a nonpartisan leaning toward progressive. The real problem in Washington is the extremists on both sides. And there's lots of them. An example; my entire life I've been hearing about the need for "campaign finance reform". Through two terms of Reagan (Republican) two terms of Clinton (Democrat) two terms of Bush (Republican) and two terms of Obama (Democrat) campaign finance laws have NEVER been worse. The Democrats AND Republicans did NOTHING because they are the beneficiaries of such bad laws. Basically, it takes millions of dollars to get into office. Our politicians are basically purchased. It's called corporate fascism. It's not just campaign finance laws, extremist politicians on both sides push agendas that serve the select few and not the American people.

    I don't like Trump. I don't like divisive, narcissistic mindsets. I have never voted Republican. But, I think his harsh dealings (from a position of strength) with China are VERY necessary. I think he did the right thing by ending the Trans Pacific Trade agreement. Although I think he's got a big mouth and he's not the brightest bulb, it takes a bit of hard a** to deal with some leaders around the world. While I think he helps to create a lot of his own bad press (with his big mouth and bad ideas), I think the corporate media finds him to be an easy money making target. They love to tear people down. Although, since Nixon it seems that every president constantly gets made fun of and dragged through the mud. Not sure why that is? If the president fails.... we all fail.

    Anyway, the extremist Democrats who are trying to stop this merger are fools. The merger will end up creating MORE competition in the long run and help to reshape the face of wireless (and cable) across America.

    The Democrats against this merger are very short sighted. I wonder who they're doing favors for.

    Sent from my Z982 using HoFo mobile app

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cellphone-guy View Post
    ...The Democrats against this merger are very short sighted. I wonder who they're doing favors for.
    Democrats have historically been tools of labor unions. Nothing different here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    Democrats have historically been tools of labor unions. Nothing different here.
    Most labor unions force workers to pay a big chunk of their wages to Democratic party campaigns, so it is a cycle of corruption. The gradual but strong shift in which unions have mainly become campaign fundraising organs that rely on bullying and theft has been the main factor driving unions being so unpopular.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,372
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm an unregistered, but lean more toward Conservative (FYI, I don't support a 'party', but support more conservative style of business).
    That being said, I've typically found that most large companies/unions 'assist' in creating policy/laws that typically benefit themselves, and attempt to destroy competition - from both sides of the political aisle. I've liked T-Mobile because it wasn't the big monstrocity that AT&T/Verizon is (buy up big media companies and force bundle, and tied with big anti-competitive unions as well).
    When I see who is urging against T-Mobile/Sprint, I'm not surprised... Corey Booker (I am Sparticus)/Elizabeth Fauxcahauntas Warren/Socialist Bernie Sanders and I am privileged Kirsten Gillibrand. Basically these are the same sorts of people that didn't want Amazon in NYC.
    My question for these senators, would be: What would be gained if Sprint died off in a firesale ? Basically many would still lose their jobs, a carrier would still be lost, and T-Mobile would have to go again to fight for spectrum that the bigger 2 have.
    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,372
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Most labor unions force workers to pay a big chunk of their wages to Democratic party campaigns, so it is a cycle of corruption. The gradual but strong shift in which unions have mainly become campaign fundraising organs that rely on bullying and theft has been the main factor driving unions being so unpopular.
    Its worse with Public Sector unions.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,313
    Feedback Score
    0
    Until congress, Reagan, & bk laws neutered the unions. Until that unions were the only way for workers to get a fair shake. Even including union dues, corruption etc. it was the best deal for the workers. In towns with industries with strong unions the working class got a fair shake everywhere.

    But I just lived it. So what do I know.
    If my actions include deeds of philanthropy in charity and acts of loving kindness I am living in my Faith.

    Red Pocket (AT&T) $192yr UTnT 5GB exp 08.08.19
    Red Pocket (AT&T) $184.50yr UTnT 1GB exp 02.19.20
    T-Mo Gold Rewards $10yr exp 01.16.20
    Tello x2 (Sprint) $5 1-use/3mo no exp by 10.05.19

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zapjb View Post
    Until congress, Reagan, & bk laws neutered the unions. Until that unions were the only way for workers to get a fair shake. Even including union dues, corruption etc. it was the best deal for the workers. In towns with industries with strong unions the working class got a fair shake everywhere.

    But I just lived it. So what do I know.
    What you claim didn't happen. The balance has been tipped away from unions and toward workers: there certainly was no "Fair shake" back when closed shop (forced membership) was the rule in the majority of states. It was the "Best deal" only for the minority of workers who agreed with the union: the rest were screwed over and robbed. In towns with strong unions the working class got pulverized: workers suffering (making less money than otherwise) with union bosses garnishing thousands of dollars from their wages : a lot of it funneled to universally anti-worker political efforts: Flint, Michigan is a prime example of this. In Flint, the unions fought hard and long to force GM to fire workers and flee Michigan, and since Michigan was a "closed shop" state, the union won. It's best to leave the power to the workers, not the union bosses.

    I work in a proud union-free factory, surrounded by the husks of empty factories that the union bosses forced to close or move. The last thing the unions want is for workers to work a fair sustainable wage. If you are good at your job, you don't need a union anyway.

    As for Reagan, he didn't "neuter unions". With voluntary membership, unions have exactly as much power as workers want them to have.

    I lived it. I live it, but unlike you, I put the interests and choices of workers first and foremost.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cellphone-guy View Post
    ....campaign finance laws have NEVER been worseHoFo mobile app
    Actually, since Citizens United, campaign finance laws are a lot better. Before this decision, it was criminal in a lot of cases to criticize those in power. The specific Citizens United case in fact involved a few Americans were made into criminals merely for making a movie critical of a politician. Now people can speak out this way without fear of going to prison. That's GOOD! No campaign finance law should ever rip the heart out of the First Amendment.

    The opposite of "never been worse" true: the ability of anyone to speak out is not some purely imaginary "corporate fascism".The strength of the First Amendment is in opposite proportion to fascism.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,313
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    What you claim didn't happen. The balance has been tipped away from unions and toward workers: there certainly was no "Fair shake" back when closed shop (forced membership) was the rule in the majority of states. It was the "Best deal" only for the minority of workers who agreed with the union: the rest were screwed over and robbed. In towns with strong unions the working class got pulverized: workers suffering (making less money than otherwise) with union bosses garnishing thousands of dollars from their wages : a lot of it funneled to universally anti-worker political efforts: Flint, Michigan is a prime example of this. In Flint, the unions fought hard and long to force GM to fire workers and flee Michigan, and since Michigan was a "closed shop" state, the union won. It's best to leave the power to the workers, not the union bosses.

    I work in a proud union-free factory, surrounded by the husks of empty factories that the union bosses forced to close or move. The last thing the unions want is for workers to work a fair sustainable wage. If you are good at your job, you don't need a union anyway.

    As for Reagan, he didn't "neuter unions". With voluntary membership, unions have exactly as much power as workers want them to have.

    I lived it. I live it, but unlike you, I put the interests and choices of workers first and foremost.
    Before the unions there was no living wage. That's ground level. Not the tower of management.

    Here dispute this. I know you will. Back in the 50's, 60's & early 70's it was virtually unheard of for CEO's & upper management to make more 20x what the average workers made. Now they make what 10,000x what the average worker makes.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,725
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zapjb View Post
    ..... In towns with industries with strong unions the working class got a fair shake everywhere.....
    Until there was a business downturn, then those were the first plants to get shuttered. I recall the UAW demanding an end to mandatory overtime during one strike. A few years later they'd have been happy to get part-time work.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellphone-guy View Post
    ..... I think his harsh dealings (from a position of strength) with China are VERY necessary. .....
    One thing that I seldom see mentioned is the unfair advantage China gets by environmental cheating. For instance, recent research has shown that China is producing and releasing carbon tetrachloride, which is banned globally by the Montreal Protocol, due to its extreme effect on the ozone layer. What good does it do to enter into global environmental agreements when the world's largest producer feels under no obligation to abide by their agreements?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,313
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
    Until there was a business downturn, then those were the first plants to get shuttered. I recall the UAW demanding an end to mandatory overtime during one strike. A few years later they'd have been happy to get part-time work....
    Fundamental differences that's ok this the USA & as of now we're still allowed to disagree.

    I see the lack of equity & upper mobility of the middle & lower classes coming from the top down. Whereas some see it as coming from the bottom up.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zapjb View Post
    Before the unions there was no living wage. That's ground level. Not the tower of management.

    Here dispute this. I know you will. Back in the 50's, 60's & early 70's it was virtually unheard of for CEO's & upper management to make more 20x what the average workers made. Now they make what 10,000x what the average worker makes.
    The whole "living wage" thing is a nebulous concept: the fact is, except for some unusual circumstances, just about any wage can be a living wage depending on one's lifestyle choices. Besides, unions don't have much to do with it and they never have. Americans lived on their wages before unions. And when unions came around, Americans who weren't involved with unions also lived on their wages.

    The thing that you mention about CEOs and upper management is also entirely irrelevant. Typically, you can take all the money given to a CEO at distribute it to the line workers, and the line workers end up getting a very small amount of money more. Besides, some jobs are worth more than others. Greed and jealousy are destructive: if you want a higher wage actually earn it. No business large or small has buckets of magic money to hand out as an unearned gift. If a line worker is doing work that's only worth $15 an hour and you artificially try and force the wage to $60 an hour, that won't last long and pretty soon all the jobs will vanish.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,313
    Feedback Score
    0
    People of "morals" who have wealth have more than they need. I know nebulous. Those that are devout should not excuse themselves from immorality towards the disadvantaged.

    Which they do, by not being a Good Samaritan everyday.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-28-2018, 07:16 PM
  2. Replies: 112
    Last Post: 02-17-2009, 05:24 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 01:47 AM
  4. Anyone came from the Wing and moved to the T-Mobile 8320?
    By terryjohnson16 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 07:26 PM
  5. Use PC speakers and mic to speak on mobile
    By madhav.madbox in forum Sony Ericsson FAQ
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2006, 12:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks