Mergers do not Equal Monopolies in Telecom World

BY RICHARD E. WAGNER

Two major telecom mergers are now under way. SBC is seeking to acquire AT&T, while Verizon is seeking to acquire MCI.

These proposed mergers have provoked a good deal of opposition, on the ground that they would restore regional versions of the nationwide monopoly AT&T possessed prior to its being broken up in 1984.

SBC and Verizon each hold more than 80 percent of the wire-based connections in their regions. Facing a regional monopoly is no different from facing a nationwide monopoly. In both cases, if you want to place a call using a conventional land-line telephone, you have no choice but to use the monopolists' wire.

Should we therefore oppose these mergers? No. Even if SBC and Verizon were to hold 100 percent of the wire-based connections in their regions after the mergers (which they wouldn't), they would hold nothing resembling the old AT&T monopoly. Sweeping changes in the telecom marketplace in the past 20 years make such a monopoly impossible these days.

Prior to AT&T's breakup in 1984, if you wanted to speak with someone without having to visit her, you could do so only over wire owned by AT&T. That was a pretty strong monopoly position for a company to hold, but it's no longer the case.

Various forms of wireless service have emerged to compete with land-line service. The number of wireless connections now exceeds the number of wire-based connections in the United States. The majority of long-distance calls travel through air and not over wire. A full one-third of local calls now travel over air as well.

The emergence of cable television is another technological development that is changing the telecom marketplace. Thanks to billions of dollars of private investment, cable wire is nearly as prevalent as phone wire. Where cable began simply by offering better TV reception, it now offers Internet access and a growing range of other video and data services.

Cable companies generally outperformed phone companies in offering high-speed Internet access. More recently, cable TV companies have been offering phone service through the new VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) technology.

So cable companies are becoming phone companies, thanks to the advance of technology. At the same time, phone companies have found ways to offer television programming over telephone lines. This summer, for instance, Verizon has received permission to offer television service in Herndon, Va.

The standard distinctions among phone, cable and computer companies are crumbling away. Sprint, a traditional phone company; Motorola, a traditional TV company, and Intel, a traditional computer company, are engaged in a cooperative endeavor to pursue wireless technologies and services. To which industry does this new hybrid belong?

The static notion of competition would have us think SBC and Verizon are competing only against the likes of Qwest, Sprint and Level 3, all traditional phone companies. While they are clearly doing this, they also are competing against the likes of Comcast, Time Warner, Intel and Microsoft.

Technology is revolutionizing the telecom landscape, and all kinds of companies are competing to offer services that customers value. Mergers allow companies to respond quickly to these rapidly changing commercial opportunities created by new technologies.

In the preface to his epochal "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936, British economist John Maynard Keynes lamented the difficulty of "escaping from habitual modes of thought and expression." This difficulty is exhibited in spades when people refer to telecom mergers as diminishing competition.

To the contrary, these mergers are signs of vigorous competition. Competition is fundamentally about seizing future commercial opportunities. Much of the regulation advocated and passed in the name of encouraging or protecting competition protects competitors instead. Little surprise, then, that most of the complaints against the telecom mergers have been filed by competitors to SBC and Verizon. They realize the market would become more competitive, not less, as a result of these mergers.

To claim these mergers would promote monopoly is a claim that could be made only by someone who has been sleepwalking through the past 20 years. They need to wake up and see how the telecom landscape has changed.

Richard E. Wagner is a professor of economics at George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.

Copyright 2005 Asbury Park Press. This column represents his opinion only and not that of TELECOM Digest.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at

formatting link
. Hundreds of new articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, Asbury Park Press.

For more information go to:

formatting link

Reply to
Richard E. Wagner
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.