¶ … Oligopoly and a Monopoly: Viewed in Light of the AT& T. And SBC Prospective Merger
Since the Gilded age of the robber barons ended with the enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, corporate monopolies have had a bad name in American commerce. However, a monopoly is not synonymous with the abuse of consumer welfare. A monopoly is simply is the exclusive control by one group, often a company, of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service, although it arises frequently from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals, in the words of Milton Friedman. ("Monopoly," Answers.com, 2005) Sometimes, monopolies are conferred, often in the case of limited natural resources such as oil, or in industries with difficulty physical or economic barriers to enter the market. This was previously true of the telephone communications industry. The monopolistic right to dominate the industry was granted by the government, giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party. (Robinson, 1969)
In contrast to the singular dominance of monopolies, oligopolies are industries controlled by a few companies or entities. Oligopolies often are allowed, tacitly or officially, in industries with high entry barriers, and are also often subject to strict government control. The concentration of supply in a few producers is not uncommon in the United States. For instance, several large companies have dominated the automobile and steel industries for decades. (Dewey, 1990)
Even in the name of protecting consumer welfare, many governments have created public-service monopolies by laws excluding competition from an industry. What resulted in the United States were generally publicly regulated private monopolies, such as some power, cable television, and local telephone companies. Such enterprises usually existed in areas of natural monopolies where the conditions of the market make unified control necessary or desirable to the public interest.
Since the 1960s, however, the U.S. Justice Dept. has occasionally...
And leading provider of business networks and services until on January 1, 1984, it was relieved of its operating telephone companies by Federal court order. (Freyer, 1992)
Part II
Recently, according to the AT& T. Company's press site, "in connection with the proposed transaction, SBC Communications Inc." ("filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. AT& T. maintains that the $16 billion transaction will create a company with robust, high-quality network assets, "both in the United States and around the globe, and complementary expertise and capabilities. It will have the resources and skill sets to innovate and more quickly deliver to customers the next generation of advanced, integrated IP-based wire line and wireless communications services." (AT& T, 2005)
According to SBC, the merger has "a great deal of momentum" and "post-merger, the companies will use their complementary strengths to deliver advanced communications services to residential, small and medium business, and to enterprise customers on a national and global scale." The purpose of the merger from the consumer's point-of-view is to combine AT& T's national and global IP-based networks and expertise with SBC's strong local exchange, broadband and wireless assets, creating a company of the future. It is thus not a monopoly, as the effort of the AT& T. And SBC merger is to bring AT& T. into the evolving telecommunication future of wireless technology, while harnessing the current strengths new company known as SBC to AT& T's previous and existing strengths as a company in its global outreach.
From an investor point-of-view, it is claimed that "significant synergies expected to make transaction cash flow positive in 2007 and generate earnings per share growth in 2008 (SBC, 2005) In other words, the initial merger will have company costs, but hopefully…
