| don't worry, be happy just a slight bump in the road - mimimal conditions will be applied and the deal will be approved. And I suspect even what conditions are imposed will probably expire after a year or two.
Ma Bell, here we come (again)! |
|
| said by nasadude:just a slight bump in the road - mimimal conditions will be applied and the deal will be approved. And I suspect even what conditions are imposed will probably expire after a year or two. Ma Bell, here we come (again)! The 2 Dems on the committee don't want any merger conditions. They don't want the merger approved at all. So negotiations over merger conditions are nothing but a delaying tactic by them. Martin, I'm sure, knows this. Hence, McDowell will get clearance from the FCC's General Counsel very shortly and will vote to approve the merger. And I don't think it will be long in coming.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| quote:
The 2 Dems on the committee don't want any merger conditions. They don't want the merger approved at all.
That's completely inaccurate. |
|
| said by Karl Bode: quote:
The 2 Dems on the committee don't want any merger conditions. They don't want the merger approved at all.
That's completely inaccurate. Why do you say that? Because they said so? And FCC commissioners wouldn't lie, right?
You say the FCC is all about politics all the time. Why wouldn't the Dems on the committee have an agenda to delay the vote long enough to kill the merger thru Congressional action if the election goes their way Nov 7?
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Because Copps and Adelstein are only moderately gutsy enough to try and block the merger entirely. The reason they're likely deadlocked is that the two are demanding real conditions such as naked DSL, not the pseudo-conditions pushed forth by AT&T's lawyers.
There's no evidence any of them wish to block the merger outright, unless you'd like to show us some. The Democrats on the FCC don't have the kind of progressive pro-consumer spine needed for such a move. They too are beholden to Las Vegas trips and other financial perks. |
|
1 edit | said by Karl Bode:Because Copps and Adelstein are only moderately gutsy enough to try and block the merger entirely. The reason they're likely deadlocked is that the two are demanding real conditions such as naked DSL, not the pseudo-conditions pushed forth by AT&T's lawyers. There's no evidence any of them wish to block the merger outright, unless you'd like to show us some. The Democrats on the FCC don't have the kind of progressive pro-consumer spine needed for such a move. They too are beholden to Las Vegas trips and other financial perks. Well, we will find out soon enough. If the Dems on the committee are as you say, they will do a deal relatively soon and the merger will go thru with some limited conditions AT&T doesn't like.
But if they are truly just using delaying tactics, and Martin knows or suspects that is the case, then he will get McDowell's recusal reversed and the vote will come very quickly. »msnbc.msn.com/id/15545092/
Federal ethics regulations permit the FCC's general counsel to clear McDowell to vote as long as the "interest of the government in the employee's participation" outweighs any concerns about the how the vote may affect the agency's integrity.
The rules also say that once cleared by the general counsel, an employee "may not thereafter disqualify himself from participation." However, nothing would prevent him from abstaining.
Blair Levin, who was chief of staff for former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and is now a telecommunications industry analyst for Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., predicted McDowell will be called on to vote if the stalemate continues.
"At some point in time — and I think that time is quickly approaching — the general counsel is entitled to declare a deadlock," he said.
Levin predicted that McDowell, despite the difficult position he is in, would not abstain. --
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | quote:
Well, we will find out soon enough. If the Dems on the committee are as you say, they will do a deal relatively soon and the merger will go thru with some limited conditions AT&T doesn't like.
That's not necessarily true, either.
With the potential to at least take the house in the upcoming elections they may just be sowing their oats and acting cocky, dragging out the process. Or they may really be concerned about a particularly sticky condition Martin and his AT&T friends don't like, and the delay is due to legitimate ongoing negotiation.
Either way, McDowell could be brought in to break the deadlock, but even then he's shown he's not in 100% lockstep with Martin coming from CLEC lobbying land.
It's going to be approved; no doubt. But I don't think the issue here is that the Democrats want to block the merger outright. That's a position nobody in telco cash-soaked DC would have the cojones to take. |
|
| reply to nasadude
I have no evidence that any merger condition has ever been actively monitored by the FCC. Given complete lack of enforcement, I do not know why some companies like AOL adhere to conditions while others like Verizon and SBC (AT&T) get away with ignoring them. |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: It's going to be approved; no doubt. But I don't think the issue here is that the Democrats want to block the merger outright. That's a position nobody in telco cash-soaked DC would have the cojones to take. And why would they? No one has yet shown evidence that this merger is really anti-competitive. All their competitors are doing is asking for random handouts.
You mentioned naked DSL above. How does imposing naked-DSL in ANY way make this deal somehow more competitive within the telco industry? How would net-neutrality? All of these are simply bribes being demanded by consumer groups and telco competitors to stop whining for a minute so this deal can go through.
The FCCs role is not to hand out random sugar cookies to anyone who complains about a merger. It's to work out legitimate concerns about true anti-trust activities, of which there are few to none in this case. Leave it to the "progressives" to work for government handouts, though...
Adam |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
And why would they? No one has yet shown evidence that this merger is really anti-competitive.
There isn't enough evidence in the world to satisfy individuals who vehemently believe corporations should not be impeded in their quest for profit by the rule of law amd consumer advocacy. No evidence on Earth will convince them that any consumer complaint is ever valid.
If you're actually interested in data suggesting the negative impact for consumers of such a merger, there is plenty of it available in the commentary to the FCC.
»gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···18537214
Obviously there's plenty supporting your view as well from economists who believe deregulation is the wisest path.
quote:
You mentioned naked DSL above. How does imposing naked-DSL in ANY way make this deal somehow more competitive within the telco industry? How would net-neutrality? All of these are simply bribes being demanded by consumer groups and telco competitors to stop whining for a minute so this deal can go through.
Naked DSL was simply an example of a potential condition they could be arguing over. I do not proclaim to be suggesting it is a functional solution for any anti-competitive ramifications of the merger.
Equally, I do not believe net-neutrality should be a condition as the people deciding these issues have yet to understand what it is, much less how to regulate it. |
|
|
|
jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI | reply to Karl Bode
"The reason they're likely deadlocked is that the two are demanding real conditions such as naked DSL, not the pseudo-conditions pushed forth by AT&T's lawyers."
The condition that they are desperate to stay away from is "wireless bandwidth, use it or lose it". |
|
AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: No evidence on Earth will convince them that any consumer complaint is ever valid. I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the first people to cry foul (including me) when BellSouth and others kept charging the "regulatory recovery fee" after it was repealed were proponents of deregulation and less big-gov intervention. And it worked - all of those companies (AFAIK) backed off in a hurry.
Naked DSL was simply an example of a potential condition they could be arguing over. I do not proclaim to be suggesting it is a functional solution for any anti-competitive ramifications of the merger.
Equally, I do not believe net-neutrality should be a condition as the people deciding these issues have yet to understand what it is, much less how to regulate it.
I agree on both counts, but I think many people disagreeing with the merger are just grasping at straws to either improve their own bottom line or simply to make themselves publicly known as anti-consolidation.
I wonder what opponents of this merger think they're going to achieve if, per chance, the merger was denied or AT&T decided there were too many restrictions to make it viable. Would the competitive landscape suddenly be up to their standards? Would two separate telcos with less resources be able to compete with the big national cable companies who already have an infrastructure advantage?
I understand people's concerns about consolidation. I really do! I'm a consumer, too. But the reality is that the competition in broadband is NOT intra-telco industry. It's INTER-industry - telcos versus cable companies. In my view giving the telcos the resources to compete against the cable companies is the best way to foster further competition in the long run. Handicapping telcos and preventing them from really bulking up for the fight is really shooting true competition in the foot.
Adam
Edit: Mixed up "Intra" and "Inter."  |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the first people to cry foul (including me) when BellSouth and others kept charging the "regulatory recovery fee" after it was repealed were proponents of deregulation and less big-gov intervention. And it worked - all of those companies (AFAIK) backed off in a hurry.
That was such an egregious example of skulduggery, people couldn't really help but take an opposing position. Including the companies themselves, ultimately. Obviously for more complicated situations like the impact this merger will have, you're going to have more muddy levels of debate. Personally I don't believe the merger will result in the end of the world, but I do reserve worry that rabid ideological deregulation and endless consolidation does little more than fatten investor wallets while leaving terminated employees and other minutae in its wake. quote:
In my view giving the telcos the resources to compete against the cable companies is the best way to foster further competition in the long run.
Fortunately for you, you'll get to see if this is the case. |
|
AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | said by Karl Bode: Personally I don't believe the merger will result in the end of the world, but I do reserve worry that rabid ideological deregulation and endless consolidation does little more than fatten investor wallets while leaving terminated employees and other minutae in its wake. I believe there's a place for a certain amount of regulation, and we have a large amount now. What about the other side of the coin: gridlock, lack of flexibility and insane overhead costs brought about by rabid ideological REGULATION? Those burdens aren't exactly a recipe for agile companies able to quickly serve their customers' needs.
As for the oft-used "what about the layoff employees" argument, it's a non-starter here. AT&T is estimating 10,000 layoffs out of 350,000 total people in the company over -two years-. That's absolutley nothing. That's vastly less than those who lost their jobs in the dot-com bust. And remember what happened the last time BellSouth offered their employees a buyout. Those who wanted it were offered 7% of their salary for each year of employment with the company up to a max of 150%. Mid-level people (NOT executives) were walking away with $100,000+ in cash. That's not to mention the continued benefits and offer to pay for a year of continuing education. People I know from BellSouth were almost literally begging to be chosen. Not exactly like getting a pink-slip in the mail. Anything AT&T would do will be similar.
Fortunately for you, you'll get to see if this is the case. Not just fortunately for me. I think it'll be fortunately for all of us. The alternative, I believe, is the cable companies dominating. And even the telco-haters can't be happy with that idea.
Adam
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
As for the oft-used "what about the layoff employees" argument, it's a non-starter here. AT&T is estimating 10,000 layoffs out of 350,000 total people in the company over -two years-.
That's a pretty big deal to the estimated 10,000 employees. Here's to hoping your optimistic severance scenario is accurate. quote:
The alternative, I believe, is the cable companies dominating.
Putting DSL on equal footing with cable as an "information service" is part of a different discussion. I had no problem with that classification.
I do remain skeptical about, as I said, this quest for total deregulation (cable or telco) as it is currently presented: some gift from the gods that results in full deployment, low prices, and laughing children playfully dancing in sunbeams.
As-so-far as I've ever been able to see, deregulation as it exists in the minds of Libertarians and Conservatives is nothing more than a push to maximize revenue and weaken the law, dressed up as a panacea. |
|
AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | said by Karl Bode:I do remain skeptical about, as I said, this quest for total deregulation (cable or telco) as it is currently presented: some gift from the gods that results in full deployment, low prices, and laughing children playfully dancing in sunbeams. Maybe, but I could say the exact same thing about "total regulation."
Adam
PS. My God. Were we just able to have an intelligent debate on this site without people jumping in to scream, curse and accuse people of being shills or commies? Miracles never cease! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Maybe, but I could say the exact same thing about "total regulation."
I don't know anybody who advocates for total regulation. Nor do I know any person or organization intentionally pushing for bloated, dysfunctional regulation that cripples industry. Not to say that isn't the residual effect of some idiot legislators, but it is not an actual position.
I could however rattle off about fifty well funded telecom think tanks who do in fact push for an extreme position where Uncle Sam has absolute no regulatory authority over industry. That really is their goal, it is not hyperbole.
I would have fewer issues about this if this goal was presented honestly (we want maximum profits, and a weak Uncle Sam), but it's frequently sold under the guise of consumer advocacy, and that will venomously annoy me until the day I'm buried. |
|
| reply to nasadude
Here is a fun condition: Make BST or SBC sell their stake in Cingular to a 3rd party (Verizon Wireless). 
Boy, Lord Whitacre and Darth Ackerman would be P-O on that condition. |
|
