T-Mobile said Tuesday it will acquire U.S. Cellular in a deal worth $4.4 billion. It plans to use the wireless company to improve coverage in rural areas.
In 2, there’s generally no difference whether they go under or not. If they had anything valuable when they went under, it’s absorbed by a competitor. Machines, labor, etc.
The challenge is the startup costs and retaining skilled help. The only folks with the resources to cover these costs do so with the expectation of selling the company for more money, a long term investment for the investor. Gathering these resources without the expectation of selling or being the one buying others is probably untried and hugely difficult.
And the market shrinks again… soon we’ll be back where we started, with one telecom company.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: the endgame of a capitalist system are monopolies or cartels.
Usually it takes the following steps:
Bunch of little start-up - everyone wants a piece of the pie
Some start-ups can’t hack it and either go under or are absorbed by other start-ups
Surviving start-ups grow to mid-size of major sized ventures depending on how many competitors or competitor market shares they absorbed
Repeat step 2 with remainder of companies until a few are left
Presto changeo you got yourself a cartel or monopoly. Consumer power is nil.
Example sectors to look at for this: food production industry, mining, computing/silicon Valley
Silicon Valley. Silicone Valley would be something… different. You might find that in Nevada someplace, around Las Vegas.
While I am roasting you in this meme, you legit had a good catch. Thanks for that. Autocorrect, I guess.
I’m just pointing out Cunningham’s law lol. Never fails
eli5:
Multiplayer Katamari Damacy. Last one standing wins.
100% true. Capitalist firms will always be motivated to get the most people possible, to pay as much as possible, for as little as possible.
checks
https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-wireless-carriers-in-the-us-by-subscriptions/
U.S. Cellular is tiny, and of the Big Three, T-Mobile is the smallest. AT&T is about the size of T-Mobile and Verizon combined.
My third point covers this
if att is so big why do they seem to suck so much?
Because they can?
I wonder if there’s an inverse relationship between an institution’s size versus its competency.
Removed by mod
In 2, there’s generally no difference whether they go under or not. If they had anything valuable when they went under, it’s absorbed by a competitor. Machines, labor, etc.
Removed by mod
The challenge is the startup costs and retaining skilled help. The only folks with the resources to cover these costs do so with the expectation of selling the company for more money, a long term investment for the investor. Gathering these resources without the expectation of selling or being the one buying others is probably untried and hugely difficult.