Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff |
Comment Account Questions:
| posts about #lcdpricefixing more → |
AT&T Sues the Pants Off of Price-Fixing LCD Manufacturers |
Hitachi Pleads Guilty to Fixing Prices on LCD Panels |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Gizmodo 
10/21/09
My read of the situation is this: AT&T is struggling with insufficient network resources and insufficient monetization of their existing network. All of the telcos would probably love to do away with the new FCC stand on net neutrality. However, only AT&T seems to be acting as if it is in a life-or-death situation because of net neutrality.
If AT&T's competitors feel that they will have more than sufficient network resources and a competitive enough pricing structure to be compliant with the new definition of net neutrality being imposed on them, and they feel that AT&T lacks those resources, they will go ahead and offer unlimited voice and data plans and contractless plans, support Skype and other 3rd party VOIP and messaging systems, etc. In other words, if they think they can get ahead of what people want to do on their network and still make a profit, Verizon and T-Mobile can let the new FCC regulations strangle those cellular providers that can't maintain that level of network usage. And it sure looks like that's what Verizon and T-Mobile are doing.
E.g., taking the projected pricing according to leaked details of T-Mobile's Project Dark: would you rather have an iPhone 3G on AT&T, or a smartphone based on any other platform than the iPhone, more or unlimited minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited data for the SAME PRICE, plus network speeds that are supposed to be OVER TWICE AS FAST as AT&T's projected (not current) network speeds?
In short, AT&T needs cash to compete. It needs a kickback from Barnes & Noble for providing the ability to download miniscule amounts of data to Nooks. It needs its employees to do everything they can to try to stop the FCC. It needs a cash settlement from the LCD industry, which has already been investigated for and found guilty of price fixing in the past.
Muahahaha.
10/21/09
"Insufficient monetization of their existing network?" WTF does that mean? The implication of your statement is that they aren't making the money off the network that they could? Only that doesn't seem consistent with your philosophy. Perhaps you should start working with smaller words and smaller concepts and build up to bigger things. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
Here's some reading for you on the general picture:
[www.mobilitysite.com]
[apple.slashdot.org]
[news.cnet.com]
[www.engadget.com]
[tech.slashdot.org]
[arstechnica.com]
I would say that AT&T signed on for the iPhone 3G thinking it had some idea about how many people might buy it, and how much data they would be using. Whatever those numbers were, AT&T was wrong on both counts. Do you think they planned to not make a profit until month 17 of a 24 month contract for an iPhone 3G? "Not making a profit" means "losing money," by the way. AT&T is basically complaining that they hadn't anticipated an average use of 400MB per month per iPhone. They signed on millions of customers for the iPhone 3G; and they play catch up on subsidies and operational costs on each and every two-year contract for 70% of the duration. I call that "insufficient monetization of their network." What do you call it?
10/22/09
First, it is premised on AT&T taking a bunch of steps to increase near term revenues. Only none of the things you cited have any prospect of creating near term revenue. The nook isn't going to generate dick, and probably has the same cycle in terms of payback as the iPhone. The LCD suit will be litigated forever. They will lucky to see any money for several years.
Second, "monetizing assets" means taking assets--things you have--and finding ways to generate money off them for minimal investment. Whatever you are talking about, whatever the hell it is, it isn't "monetizing an asset." You seem to be implying that they need to invest in their network--well they have. To the tune of $38B in the past two years. And will be spending another $18B this year. That isn't monetizing an asset, that is building new infrastructure. Completely different calculus. Monetizing asset = taking paid for asset and realizing revenue. Investment means making capital expenditures and calculating a return.
Third, do I think they planned not to make a profit on the iPhone until well into the contract? Yes, dumbass. It is just another way of saying that the return on their investment took time. The fact that they are making a profit--even after month 17--means they invested money in the iPhone and then got more money back. The fact that their investment had not had a return yet in month 16 doesn't mean they "lost money." Just means it hadn't turned a profit yet--they only "lost money" if the contract ended in mo. 16, and, as we know, its a two year contract. The iPhone carries one of the largest subsidies ever paid by a carrier. You really think, that after paying a $400 subsidy on day 1, it is reasonable to expect them to turn a profit the first month?
Like I said, learn what the words mean. They it becomes easier to put them into coherent order to form logical arguments. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
10/21/09
And they're strangely comfortable with it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
"I don't see why not!" #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
Seems like the world falls into a couple different categories. Serious SMSers, who pay almost nothing per SMS. NonSMSers, like me, who pay nothing because we don't use it. OK, I'll admit that there may be people stuck in the twilight... But, we're really talking about less than $5/mo here. Guess I just have a hard time getting worked up over it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
I still fail to understand SMS anyway. My wife SMSs me. It is no more or less difficult, I would think, to write a bloody email. Only you get more characters. And a better guarantee of delivery. And other features. And, virtually every phone is data enabled, or at least email enabled. So someone educate me, why do people give a flying toss about SMS? #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
It's like the difference between "suspecting" that your co-worker has "forgotten how to make coffee" and "seeing" him "piss in the pot."
And whether they would have passed the savings on is kind of irrelevant, right? If someone embezzled, say, $50K from AT&T, should they get away with it just because it doesn't impact the consumer? #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
But I'll try, and I will manage to write way too much even though I'm not sure how to respond, which is impressive(!):
a) This is not "price gouging" in the way that you are using it. It is "price fixing." While John does use the word "gouging" he means it to say "unfair price" not "doubling the price to screw people in an emergency."
b) If you are arguing that we shouldn't care about "price fixing" so long as the market pays that price, fine. You are welcome to write your congressperson and let them know. But that is not the law. And it isn't about "a price that is too high." It is about supposed competitors in a market collaborating on a price so that there is no competition. The result is an unfairly inflated price. The crime is the fixing.
c) If you want to know why these things are a problem and why your "market is willing to pay the price" argument is not sound, listen to the This American Life podcast I mentioned. But let me give you a real world flip-side version to show you why your solution makes no sense. Wal-Mart (which, due to its size, operates - legally - as a near monopoly in some markets) approaches small company and says "we would like to stock your product." Small company says "holy crap! Awesome! We will have to expand by 500% to fill the orders, but of course!" Two years later, Wal-Mart says "We've decided we are only going to pay you 80% of what we agreed upon for the last contract." Small supplier can now either (a) go along with Wal-Mart's new price or (b) "stop and negotiate a new price" and in the meantime they lose 80% of their sales and sit on stalled factories and stuffed warehouses while costs accumulate with no incoming revenue.
This is the same thing. AT&T (a) can't go elsewhere, because there is price fixing! and (b) can't simply stop a huge line of their business and say "Okay, we will just sit here and make no revenue on this while I sue you in court."
d) How do you have any idea whether or not AT&T was or was not cooperating with the criminal investigation all along? They may well have instigated it. Procedurally, this is how it works (for a number of cost, proof, court efficiency, and evidentiary reasons) - criminal trial goes first, civil trials follow. It, almost certainly, has nothing to do with AT&T not realizing there was a problem and then taking advantage of the situation. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
10/21/09
When is there going to be a lawsuit in this country wherein one party sues the pants off of another party and that party actually ends up pants-less? I have been waiting for this my whole life, and yet every time someone goes to sue the pants off someone else, they always, ALWAYS wuss out and accept millions of dollars instead.
I will not be satisfied until I see all of the executives of a major international corporation sans pants! #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09