Justice Dept. Files Antitrust Complaint Against AT&T and T-Mobile Merger 301
Hitting the front page for the first time, AngryDeuce writes with a piece of exciting news hot off the news wire. From the article: "The Justice Department is blocking AT&T's $39 billion deal to buy T-Mobile USA, saying the acquisition of the No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T would reduce competition and raise prices. The deal has faced tough opposition from consumer groups and No. 3 carrier Sprint since it was announced in March."
The DOJ has released a full statement on their decision to file the antitrust suit, and AT&T has drafted a response. So much for AT&T's paltry promise of bringing 5000 unskilled call center jobs back to the U.S. if the merger were approved. Competition may yet live!
+ 5000 jobs, - many more. (Score:5, Insightful)
My money is on a good deal more than 5000.
Re:+ 5000 jobs, - many more. (Score:5, Funny)
Throttling bandwidth, stripping out cost savings opportunities from service plans, locking down phones... that's a lot of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:+ 5000 jobs, - many more. (Score:4)
I think those jobs would most likely be offshored despite what tfa says. I ha
ve yet to speak to anyone in a call center who's primary language is English.
Re:+ 5000 jobs, - many more. (Score:4, Informative)
I am sitting a floor above ~400 call center agents, this is in the USA. 100% of them use English as their primary language. 10% of them also speak another language.
Re: (Score:2)
Whose call center? Certainly not any that I've contacted in the last 5 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of pure curiosity... how did you post that? I find it odd that whatever you used placed a line break in the middle of the word "have". I've seen length limited posts before and always wondered why, but this one strikes me as extra odd.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it's because the ' key is next to the key, and he didn't use the mandatory preview.
Re: (Score:3)
Then, all of the sudden, a few months ago, every time I called a T-mobile call center, I talked to someone who I could barely understand and that couldn't think past the script in front of them. I wonder what happened to T-mobile a
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I call t-mobile customer service, I get English speakers. I just called them yesterday.
Also a bit of a different point, but many people in India are in fact 'native' English speakers, as English is one of the official languages in India. Half my family is from there, and they all speak English as a first language (among a few others). You probably mean people without a funny accent.
Re:+ 5000 jobs, - many more. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
AT&T's Response (Score:2)
"We are surprised and disappointed by today's action, particularly since we have met repeatedly with the Department of Justice and there was no indication from the DOJ that this action was being contemplated. We plan to ask for an expedited hearing so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed. The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive affects and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court. We remain confident that this merger is in the best interest of consumers and our country, and the facts will prevail in court."
FWIW, I think the Justice Department did right today. As a T-Mobile customer, I am very happy. Here's hoping that the justice department succeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: AT&T apparently did spend enough on bribes erm lobbying to swade the Justice Department.
How can anyone think that higher prices and less competition is in the best interest of consumers and the country. Oh yea I forgot this is AT&T they live in their own little dillusional world.
Re:AT&T's Response (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the problems right there. There's no teeth in the promises that corporations make. At a minimum they should be broken up if they fail to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
No teeth indeed. Didn't we give them Large Numbers of dollars over a decade ago to build out network infrastructure? Has that materialized?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you brought it up, no, it hasn't. They pocketed that money so their quarterly reports would look better.
Re: (Score:3)
More like they think they are above the law, and to a large degree, they are correct. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'm quite happy that the Department of Justice has fallen on the side of reason (for once). As a T-Mobile customer who moved to T-Mobile to avoid AT&T, I'm hopeful that this merger will fall apart, giving T-Mobile a bit of cash (meh) and some more spectrum (yay!).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AT&T's Response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AT&T's Response (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, doublespeak is billed on your peak minutes (twice on weekends) and also counts against your data usage (because your voice is data.)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably they are used to Bush-era zombies who would drool, gurgle, and then stamp OK on whatever was put in front of their sow faces. The idea that the meeting actually was used to get information before making a decision is probably not what AT&T are used to.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is that you act like the bureaucrats change with the administration. The zombies, depending on their age, have probably been there since Clinton, if not even earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T will be forced into some concessions which will ultimately get watered down to the point of being worthless. We saw what happened in the Microsoft antitrust trial and how that came out. I expect more of the same. AT&T will get their way one way or another. The thing is, the DOJ couldn't just let it go on without being "fought" since the deadly document leaked out to the public's view. So someone now has to step in, put on a show and dance the concessions dance to make it look like the publ
Re: (Score:3)
The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive affects and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court.
I have their evidence. Prior to the announcement of the merger, T-mobile offered a number of no contract plans that were slightly cheaper than 2-year contractual obligation plans, thus allowing the customer more freedom to pick a carrier that suited their needs based on changing lifestyles and habits over a two year period. After the proposed merger was announced, all of the no-contract plans were eliminated, and I have three recorded conversations with T-mobile customer service representatives explicitly
Re: (Score:2)
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense? (Score:3)
I thought I would never live to see the day that a governmental department would block yet alone sue to block the merger of two mega corps.
Re:Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense? (Score:5, Funny)
Holy shit. There IS a ${deity}, after all.
(looks out the window)... wow, it's snowing outside (in South Florida), too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is hardly unprecedented.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I predict that if the DoJ does ultimately give the OK that Sprint will file its own antitrust suit against AT&T to block the merger. Ultimately, they'd almost certainly win, the only conclusion one can make is that there would be reduced competition. Whether prices and service suffers as a result would largely be rendered moot by the decrease from 4 to 3 and possibly 2 when Sprint can no longer compete with both AT&T and Verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
business as usual (Score:2)
other cell carriers have a lot more to do with it than common sense in the government. I fear this "outbreak" you speak of is at best, overly exaggerated.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone forgot to make the proper campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hallelujah (Score:5, Insightful)
If I wanted AT&T as my service provider I would have subscribed to their service.
If you have to buy customers perhaps it's time to change ones business strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about denying spectrum. You may not be aware that Sprint was set to buy T-Mobile for $10B less than AT&T. How could T-Mobile be worth more to AT&T unless they intended to engage in anticompetitive behavior?
The cynic in me says that this is merely posturing on the part of the present administration and that they have no intention of actually preventing the merger.
Re: (Score:3)
The spectrum is worth more to AT&T because they have customers to fill it. There are markets where service is spotty and they can't add new customers because they don't have the bandwidth. I'm thinking specifically NYC, but there are others.
Re:Hallelujah (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as simple as just adding a few new towers. They'd have to re-layout the entire network. That would be many billions more than purchasing T-Mobile. Of course you can overcome spectrum problems with more towers - that's the point of a cell network, after all. But putting up a cell is very, very expensive, especially in a place like NYC. You can't just move them around at a whim.
Re: (Score:3)
You may not be aware that Sprint was set to buy T-Mobile for $10B less than AT&T. How could T-Mobile be worth more to AT&T unless they intended to engage in anticompetitive behavior?
Maybe AT&T thought that Sprint was getting T-Mobile at a bargain? Not saying that's the case, but the fact that AT&T was willing to pay more than Sprint to acquire T-Mobile doesn't really imply anything by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I ended up with AT&T following AT&T's purchase of Cingular. The service went down the crapper pretty much over night. Service still hasn't recovered to what it was when Cingular was providing the service.
This is a bit like the 3 or so acquisitions of my parents' cable account before they ditched cable for DirecTV, each cable provider was worse than the previous one and the cost sky rocketed even as there was no meaningful improvement in the selection of programming provided.
Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Their own internal documents show AT&T does not need T-Mobile to expand service, and that AT&T intends to raise prices. This is a deal that should not happen. At last the DOJ does something right on the merger front.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but everyone knows this deal will lower prices! AT&T themselves have made economic models that say so! After all the "merger will lessen strains on the company’s wireless network, lower costs and increase quality, AT&T said in the filing." So obviously prices will be lower.
For AT&T.
More Jobs, Better Prices (Score:2)
Sure they could afford to bring back a paltry 5000 jobs.
They would be eliminating one of their main competitors, laying off way more than 5000 (more skilled!) workers, and opening the way to raising their prices by grabbing a customer base with even less choice and jacking up their rates.
Nice to see government doing what its supposed to do for a change.
Re:More Jobs, Better Prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
With stadiums it's generally an honest, if incorrect belief, whereas in this case, I'm pretty sure they know that it's not going to happen. They're not going to need as many employees to do the work and consequently I can't imagine how this wouldn't result in massive layoffs. Beyond that, I have a really hard time believing that they'll keep prices lower when Verizon and Sprint need to merge to remain competitive.
And let's be honest, AT&T service sucks, and it has sucked for a number of years, and quite
From the TFA (Score:2)
A failure of the deal puts T-Mobile in a difficult position. It's struggling to compete with the larger carriers, and owner Deutsche Telekom AG has said it's not willing to invest more in the venture.
However, AT&T has promised T-Mobile $3 billion in cash if the deal doesn't go through, plus spectrum rights and agreements that could be worth billions more.
Huh? If the deal DOESN'T go through, AT&T is giving T-Mobile money and spectrum?
I don't get it.
Re:From the TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense. Think about all the business that T-Mobile lost while this thing was pending. People did not renew, some people did not switch to T-Mobile due to the uncertainty, etc. If it DOESN'T go through, T-Mobile needs to be compensated for that loss.
Re:From the TFA (Score:5, Informative)
It makes sense. Think about all the business that T-Mobile lost while this thing was pending. People did not renew, some people did not switch to T-Mobile due to the uncertainty, etc. If it DOESN'T go through, T-Mobile needs to be compensated for that loss.
Copying a post of mine from earlier, yes, T-Mobile actually will be compensated quite well for this.
If this deal is blocked, it would not be bad news for T-Mobile as some here have claimed. According to Bloomberg, [bloomberg.com]
"Should regulators reject the deal, which would create the biggest U.S. wireless carrier, AT&T would have to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash. It would also provide T-Mobile USA with wireless spectrum in some regions and reduced charges for calls into AT&T’s network, for a total package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom said this month."
So T-Mobile would get $3 billion in cash, more spectrum, and reduced fees for calls going through AT&T's network. This would seem to be good news for T-Mobile, as all of these things would make them more competitive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Standard practice in M&A. The acquiring company must always put something on the table if the deal doesn't go through due to the restrictions placed on the company to be acquired by the SEC and the agreement the two companies enter into. Google has put similar stuff on the table for Motorola if their deal doesn't go through.
Re: (Score:2)
A failure of the deal puts T-Mobile in a difficult position. It's struggling to compete with the larger carriers, and owner Deutsche Telekom AG has said it's not willing to invest more in the venture.
However, AT&T has promised T-Mobile $3 billion in cash if the deal doesn't go through, plus spectrum rights and agreements that could be worth billions more.
Huh? If the deal DOESN'T go through, AT&T is giving T-Mobile money and spectrum?
I don't get it.
Usually its in exchange for immediately ceasing to market directly or indirectly against them, giving them all the details of their internal organization, design, plans, supplier contact information, and procedures.
If these agreements were not standard, then legal corporate espionage would kinda exist sorta... MS could "plan" to buy Apple, examine every tiny little detail of Apple, and when the govt laughs at the idea, they laugh back because they got $Billions worth of information. As they do exist, its k
I for one - (Score:2)
Do not welcome our AT&T overlord masters.
I like T-Mobile!
I had AT&T and paid dearly to escape their evil clutches. I did not want to go back. Yeah for the DOJ! I hope they win.
First yay! (Score:2)
Yay!
Now lets hope they don't negotiate a deal (or worse yet, that the Department of Justice doesn't flat out lose the case).
The Feds got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Every once in a while, the Feds get it right. From the article,
"Moreover, the department said that AT&T could obtain substantially the same network enhancements that it claims will come from the transaction if it simply invested in its own network without eliminating a close competitor."
We have been saying this here forever. AT&T et al need to invest in their own infrastructure. It is about time that the Federal government is on board with that.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but in this case the feds are just saying that the numbers don't add up, not that AT&T has to invest in their own infrastructure. They could perfectly legally choose to let their infrastructure continue to suck if they want. But the DOJ is pointing out that AT&T's official reasons for buying T-Mobile can't be right, because if you add the numbers, it'd cost them less to build out the infrastructure that they claim they're buying. Therefore part of the value of the deal must be from the way it
Re: (Score:3)
That is a good point. The way this process works is that AT&T lays out their justification and the DoJ either accepts or rejects it. In this case the DoJ has rejected it. Now AT&T has the opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with some other lies.
As a T-Mobile customer (Score:4)
As a T-Mobile customer since 1999 (when they were Voice Stream) I couldn't be happier. I want no part of AT&T.
No optimistic. (Score:2)
I am pleasantly surprised to hear this news.
I can't help but wonder what lead to this; if this was a matter of AT&T not making contributions to the right politicians, not being as connected as a company like GE, or not being in an industry like finance or healthcare. I'd say Bank of America gets away with far worse and not only are they not investigated but they're rewarded with bailouts. Of course, this all could be for show and the merger will end up going through anyway.
I think it reflects a sad stat
Re: (Score:2)
You're operating under the assumption that the government cannot possibly, every, under any circumstance whatsoever perform the slightest task. Ever. We've been well conditioned either by media sensationalism or by partisan pundits to just accept that this is the case. Whatever shreds of appearance of competence are left after those two are done are usually destroyed by the instances where the government actually does fuck things up, rather than just does something that pisses off the (left / right / center
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that BofA has not been investigated for anything? A simple Google search on "bank of america investigation" would reveal they are getting royally hammered. In fact they are getting investigated for attempted to hinder some of the investigations they are under.
I mean it's one thing to bring a political bias to a conversation; we all do that to some extent. But to make wild-ass factually incorrect statements that could be fact-checked with a simple Google search really exposes some
Good job! Next thing ... (Score:2)
AT&T showed their hand too early (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but will T-Mobile survive? (Score:2)
The first article says that AT&T will give T-Mobile $3 billion if the deal does not go through, but that is not the case. AT&T will give Deutsche Telekom $3 billion if the deal does not go through. There is no reason to suppose that Deutsche Telekom wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Deutsche Telekom didn't want to put more money into T-Mobile because they're investing it all in their LTE buildout in Europe. T-Mobile is in bad shape because they need to build a 4g network to keep up with every one else, but they didn't buy any spectrum to do it. Whether the $3b goes to T-Mobile or not, DT has no reason to keep the spectrum. So T-Mobile will get the spectrum they need for a 4g network, they just need cash to build it.
DT could look at it in a number of ways;
they find another buyer for
Jobs are not the point (Score:2)
This might make me stick with T-Mobile (Score:3)
I'm a current T-Mobile customer with 2 cell phones on a single plan (one for me and one for my wife). After years of horrible customer service experiences, sub-par network service and, of course, after being psychologically sick of giving a company money that was involved with wholesale illegal wiretapping [eff.org], we canceled our 2 cell phones, DSL service, and home landline (all AT&T).
We went to T-Mobile because they were one of the only other companies left. They were "new" to us, a fresh company with young motivated employees that actually sounded genuinely glad to help you. We were so happy with them.
When we heard about the pending merger with AT&T, we immediately started looking around. We haven't switched yet, but as soon as the merger was complete we would have broken our contract (we were pretty sure there would be something we could say about not paying an early cancellation fee since a merger wasn't in our contract). Over the past few months, we noticed little things start happening with our account (which may or may not be related to the merger, yet we never experienced it before the word was out). Extra bill charges, randomly having our account turn on Internet access on my wife's cell phone without us asking for it (and them charging us $30/month for it), and even when we called them, the vibrance in their voices were completely gone. I might be sounding wishy-washy about the customer service enthusiasm, but seriously. It was a DRAMATIC change. It already seemed like the call centers were moved to AT&T.
I really hope this thing is blocked. I want to stick with T-Mobile. I want to give my money to a company that isn't involved with an enormous constitutional rights violation. I want to be able to choose. I don't want another Ma Bell.
Re:Yet more Slashdot hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all slashdotters believe the same thing. For instance I think libertarians are either woefully naive, liars, or morons. I applaud the government taking action to ensure the cellular service market does not become a duopoly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never made such a claim. Again you act as though as all slashdot posts come from one person.
The government is not coming for me, as far as I can tell, and if it did I would defend myself in court. Government is needed and all functional societies have one.
Re:Sprint and T-Mo should merge (Score:5, Informative)
The HTC Evo 4G and Evo 3D are both great phones (3D gimmicking asside). Just because they aren't iPhones, doesn't mean they aren't good. And yes Sprint has poor coverage in a few areas, but they have amazing coverage in others. Not to mention you can't beat the price. I left AT&T and my iPhone after AT&T decided they could alter the way they applied my corporate discount in the middle of my contract. Even after paying an early termination fee, I was saving $30 a month with Sprint in just a few months.
Oh yeah and I have a hell of a lot fewer dropped calls with Sprint, too.And no more "The network is busy" when trying to make a phone call.
Re: (Score:2)
The tradeoff? Urban coverage for rural coverage. With Verizon, I had great data coverage in
Re: (Score:3)
I'm actually sort of expecting a Sprint and T-Mobile combination. I've been happy with Sprint via Virgin Mobile but would prefer them to move to GSM and amp up their offerings, coverage, and user base.
I was grudgingly considering a move to AT&T for an iPhone, primarily because my wife uses them so I could get the family rate. But with the recent iPhone Sprint rumors I've decided to wait; I expect that with Sprint I can pay just a little more for the same service and not have to give any money to warra
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint and T-Mobile? They don't even use the same technologies! That makes about as much sense as an AMD / ATi merger! Oh, wait...
On the bright side, at least the new Intel server motherboards stopped coming with those horribly crappy on-board ATi ES1000 video chips, replaced with some Matrox 200 descendant that's refreshingly less crappy. On the bright side for the telecom industry... hmm, I don't see any bright side for any of the telecom mergers.
Re: (Score:2)
Although Sprint bought Nextel and they use(d) different technologies. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel [wikipedia.org]
I think it would be great if Sprint bought T-Mobil (though I don't think they have the cash to do so), then they'd have access GSM as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint customer service pissed me off, but the coverage around here is easily the best in my experience. I rarely if ever had a dropped call and I was getting bars where none of the other folks were getting bars. Considering I'm living in Seattle and there are portions of the city without any coverage from AT&T at all, I think it bodes poorly if the DoJ ultimately backs off.
Re: (Score:2)
I was with Virgin Mobile for five years, but initiated the process to port my number to Google yesterday due to my office now providing me with an iPhone. Wife is going to drop her Verizon dumbphone Real Soon Now in favor of a VM plan and Android phone.
If VM could step it up on the phone side of things (and this hot Motorola they offer now is moving in the right direction) I'd be hard-pressed to recommend any other service. $35/month for 300m and "unlimited" data/texting? Hells to the yes.
Re:Sprint and T-Mo should merge (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure Nextel was iDEN, not GSM.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As an Android user from just about the start I can hardly complain about T-Mo phone selection.
Their coverage is clearly lesser than their peers, but I rarely run into a dead zone - mainly in the mountains/etc. Just about anywhere I go I not only have coverage, but 4G coverage and I reliably get multi-Mbps transfer rates.
I really don't need to see any improvements with T-Mo. I really was hoping the merger would fall through because T-Mo has a history of supporting Nexus phones and the non-Nexus phones tend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not GSM but UMTS/HSPA/HSUPA/HSPDA and other new modulations. UMTS was a few years ago and the modulations have changed and service is a lot better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
AT&T Wireless had a TDMA and GSM network before Cingular. AT&T went from AMPS to TDMA to GSM. You might be thinking of US Cellular and Cricket when customer regions were swapped due to divestments. I was there.
The ideal outcome is that Sprint dumps it's CDMA network post-haste and adopts the GSM-LTE standards. Reason? iPhone. T-Mobile gets the iPhone next. The entire reason Sprint is in such a hurting position right now is because they have no plan, and are seeking dead-end solutions like Clea
Re: (Score:3)
Sprint's getting an iPhone anyway in September.
Re:Sprint and T-Mo should merge (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing Sprint could possibly bring to the table in a merger with T-Mobile if they didn't completely botch it is (theoretical) compatibility with international UMTS frequencies.
International UMTS uses 1900MHz for uplink, and 2100MHz for downlink (give or take a few MHz)
T-Mobile bought 1700 & 2100Mhz licenses during the AWS auction. They have very little 1900MHz spectrum, and it's all used by GSM voice and 2/2.5G data.
With a little creativity, Sprint could start repurposing 1900MHz spectrum currently used for EVDO to UMTS uplinks, and start shipping phones like the ones used in Canada that use CDMA for voice, but UMTS for 3G data. There wouldn't be any compatibility problem with pre-existing T-Mobile UMTS phones, because AFAIK, every UMTS phone ever sold by T-Mobile can do 1900/2100 UMTS in addition to 1700/2100 UMTS. There might be some temporary bandwidth crunches for EVDO, but if they got their act together quickly and shifted all new Android phones to 1900/2100 UMTS (falling back to 1900MHz EVDO only where 1900/2100 UMTS didn't exist), and simultaneously improved their 4G network options, the problem would largely solve itself within a year or two as heavy data users dumped their old phones and bought new ones within a year or two anyway.
The problem is, Sprint completely fucked up the merger with Nextel, which kind of casts doubt on their ability to merge a 1900MHz CDMA2000 network with a 1900MHz legacy GSM network, a 1700/2100MHz UMTS network, and a 2.6GHz WiMax (soon to be LTE) network. If they could manage to avoid completely screwing up T-Mobile's existing network in the process, it would put SprinT-mobile in a unique position among American carriers -- they'd be the one carrier capable of providing UMTS on international frequencies within the United States. For that reason, I'd prefer they both remain separate. But if anyone has to merge, Sprint and T-Mobile would probably be the least of all evils. Especially if Google ended up buying both of them to keep Sprint from physically screwing up T-mobile's network along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VZW and AT&T are trying to dump their unlimited customers to sprint. if sprint does end up taking a lot of them on we will have to see how long they can take unlimited data.
Re: (Score:2)
T-mobile has everything hardware wise but the iPhone plus t
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mo has a good phone selection this year and Sprint is getting better as well but Apple killed them with the iphone
Agreed. I like my Android, but I have one in part because I'm a Linux user: I don't have a Mac or Windows PC at home to run iTunes (just managing an iPod is labor enough). We're all/mostly geeks here, but among the unwashed masses, the iPhone dominates. So long as a carrier can't offer an iPhone, that carrier is doomed to a distant 3rd place behind AT&T and Verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly things have changed since then, primarily with local cable companies now offering voice communication as well. That said, I wish more DOJ employees would realize that duopolies and triopolies are barely better than monopolies when it comes to consumer choice.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as their checks clear.
Re: (Score:3)
I've already seen rants about the "free market" on other sites.
Here is something that people need to know: Adam Smith 1) didn't figure huge corporations into his thinking because he thought they could never be a force in the marketplace and 2) didn't believe that monopolies were a good thing so would probably not be hostile to breaking them up for the good of the market.
People that spout about the free market solving ALL problems are believers in faith-based economics...