| Not up to McDowell; the General Counsel is the key "The best informed D.C. folks believe the fix is in, and McDowell will suddenly discover that his conflict of interest has suddenly disappeared so he can pass the deal - Ethics be dashed," he writes. It isn't McDowell's call whether he votes or not, so the ethics be damned charge is meaningless. It is up to the General Counsel, pressured by Martin of course, that will force McDowell to vote.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | Whether or not it is ethincs on McDowell or Martin, it is still an ethics issue in my opinion.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
|
|
 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | said by ropeguru:Whether or not it is ethincs on McDowell or Martin, it is still an ethics issue in my opinion. Guess I'm missing something. What exactly IS the ethics issue? 
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. |
|
ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | said by qdemn7:said by ropeguru:Whether or not it is ethincs on McDowell or Martin, it is still an ethics issue in my opinion. Guess I'm missing something. What exactly IS the ethics issue? The fact that McDowell used to be on the telecom payroll and his opinion and vote would be biased towards approving for finanacial gain.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
2 edits | said by ropeguru:said by qdemn7:said by ropeguru:Whether or not it is ethincs on McDowell or Martin, it is still an ethics issue in my opinion. Guess I'm missing something. What exactly IS the ethics issue? The fact that McDowell used to be on the telecom payroll and his opinion and vote would be biased towards approving for finanacial gain. Actually, it is just the opposite. He represented a CLEC association before the FCC and argued for conditions to a merger. And that is why he excused himself from the AT&T/BS merger case. That would seem to indicate he would be against an AT&T merger without conditions.
»www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/te···712.html
McDowell has been acting as if recused from FCC deliberations on the largest telecommunications transaction in U.S. history -- on the grounds that he previously was an attorney and lobbyist for CompTel, an industry association representing Bell company competitors. --
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
| Re: Not up to McDowell; the General Counsel is the key
I don't follow - what is General Counsel?
Also, when they are saying the fix is in, what are they referring to? This article is a little vague....
There's no way Whitacre is going to let this merger fall through in my opinion. He's personally spent the last 11 years undoing the telecom Act of 96 piece by piece and now are we to believe he's willing to walk away when there's only 3 companies left? I'm glad (and suprised) the democrats have opposed this merger. When the merger is complete (and whitacre will make sure that it gets done) the loser is going to be the consumer.  |
|
1 edit | said by T1 Rocky:Re: Not up to McDowell; the General Counsel is the key
I don't follow - what is General Counsel?
Also, when they are saying the fix is in, what are they referring to? This article is a little vague....
The General Counsel(head lawyer) for the FCC can rule that in the best interests of the public that McDowell must vote on the merger to break the deadlock, even though McDowell excused himself from the case claiming conflict of interest.
By "the fix is in", they mean that McDowell(a Republican) would most likely vote with the other 2 Republicans and approve the merger with only minor conditions being required. Saying "the fix is in" just means that those opposed to the merger wouldn't be happy if the merger is approved. But, of course, there is no way of knowing for sure how McDowell will vote. He may vote with the Dems and only approve the merger with many conditions being required.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 AlpinePremium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Actually, it is just the opposite. He represented a CLEC association before the FCC and argued for conditions to a merger. And that is why he excused himself from the AT&T/BS merger case. That would seem to indicate he would be against an AT&T merger without conditions.
Exactly. The anti-telco zealots, including DSLPrime, seem conveniently to forget the fact that he used to be a lobbyist FOR THE COMPETITION. Doesn't exactly scream that "the fix is in" (at least for AT&T) does it?
But hey, what would the zealots whine about if they paid attention to those pesky 'fact' things, right?
Adam |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Thanks for the clarification. Man this is a mess. |
|
| reply to T1 Rocky
said by T1 Rocky:There's no way Whitacre is going to let this merger fall through in my opinion. He's personally spent the last 11 years undoing the telecom Act of 96 piece by piece and now are we to believe he's willing to walk away when there's only 3 companies left? What has he been doing that undoes the Telecom Act of 1996?
When the merger is complete (and whitacre will make sure that it gets done) the loser is going to be the consumer. |
|
