 
SQiRL
Premium
join:2004-04-21
Wylie, TX
edit:
December 6th, @09:06AM
| Is there any real suprise? Was there a provision though to allow him to vote on it even though he opted out originally?
If that process is within the guidelines of the FCC, is there anything stopping them from doing it?
If thats the case, then Kevin Martin appears to just want this overwith and doesnt really care who he pisses off in the process.
But the question remains... is he being a puppet or is he actually just wanting to get this out of his office.
Admittedly, i havent totally read the articles yet. just reacting to the dslr post.
--
Eventus stultorum magister
Ad Nocendum Potentes Sumus | |
|  | 
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL | Re: Is there any real suprise? Democrats are annoyed by anyone Republican by default. There is no "fix" in their system. Psychiatrists found that most don't respond to shock either. It usually just gives them another thing to gripe about. | |
| | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: Is there any real suprise? said by kyramilan  :Democrats are annoyed by anyone Republican by default. There is no "fix" in their system. Psychiatrists found that most don't respond to shock either. It usually just gives them another thing to gripe about.
Oh lookee! A Rush Oxycontinfilter quote! How clever! How original! How utterly non-germane to the discussion at hand!
Can we assume that if this merger goes through and your service costs go up, that you won't be here complaining? That somehow, you get enjoyment from paying more and more and more for your services and utilities?
Do you like lost luggage as well?
Kyra, someone has to look out for us one-fodder-units. That's what this process is doing, quite appropriately. Do a little research, on the web, about all the things that Big Telecom promised, back when the industry was in front of congress, testifying for deregulation. Find out how much they have delivered of what they promised. You might have your eyes opened.
The common welfare of the citizenry is served best when big business has its feet held to the fire. It keeps them walking the straight and narrow, and lord knows, that is something desperately needed. | |
| | | | 
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Previous Precedent exists Read an article on Forbes this morning talking about how this has happened before.
...Martin has now asked the commission's general counsel to allow a fifth commissioner, Republican Roger McDowell, to get involved in the case. (An FCC spokesman says there's no word on when a ruling is coming on McDowell, but many expect it to come this week.)
Martin had recused himself because, ironically, he lobbied against the merger before joining the FCC. There's a precedent here: In 2000, the FCC general counsel allowed then-chairman William Kennard to break a 2-2 stalemate on political editorial rules even though he previously represented one of the parties involved.
If McDowell is brought into the decision, Martin would have the leverage to forge a bipartisan compromise, and Democrats would have to scale back their demands on network neutrality, Stifel Nicolaus analyst Blair Levin predicts... »www.forbes.com/2006/12/05/beltwa···fcc.html
Isn't it the job of the chairman to push the other members of the chair to a solution on all things before them?
--
d00mz | |
| | carpdiem
join:2001-02-11
Cedarburg, WI
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Previous Precedent exists I agree, and if there is a "conflict of interest" I would think it would be against the merger. McDowell lobbied against AT&T in the past. For those that don't believe most people in politics are puppets; if McDowell does vote for the merger (which either way I think he should) it means that it is for the benefit of competition and there is no conflict of interest because of McDowell's past. | |
| | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Previous Precedent exists ASSuming he did pro-CLEC work before, and that is the basis for him abstaining from voting (which is what we've been told); in my opinion not voting and ensuring the deadlock seems to further his anti-ILEC, pro-CLEC position.
--
d00mz | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by Corona :ASSuming he did pro-CLEC work before, and that is the basis for him abstaining from voting (which is what we've been told); in my opinion not voting and ensuring the deadlock seems to further his anti-ILEC, pro-CLEC position. he was a lobbyist for the CLECs before joining the FCC.
I would like to know what Martin knows that makes him so hot to get McDowell unrecused. Given McDowell's previous position, I would think he would vote against the merger, making it 3-2 AGAINST the merger.
Does Martin know McDowell will vote to approve the merger?
Or does Martin not give a crap which way the vote goes but just wants to get the merger decision over? | |
| | | | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by nasadude :...Does Martin know McDowell will vote to approve the merger? Or does Martin not give a crap which way the vote goes but just wants to get the merger decision over? Good question. I believe he thinks it will go along party lines, like the tie does right now, however, as chairman, he should also want it resolved one way or another.
--
d00mz | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
edit:
December 6th, @10:31AM
| said by Corona :ASSuming he did pro-CLEC work before, and that is the basis for him abstaining from voting (which is what we've been told); in my opinion not voting and ensuring the deadlock seems to further his anti-ILEC, pro-CLEC position. Can't win for losing. If he did not recluse himself, then the side that lost would probably scream bloody murder that he was a paid stooge. And now we have people crying that he did it to screw things up.
And the Democrats apparently have already set the precedent for what Martin is trying to do back in 2000 with William Kennard (also a former lobbyist with a potential interest in a case at that time). But then given the political polarization that is seen here, that does not matter, that was before the current regime.
(edit: Grammar)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by RayW :And the Democrats apparently have already set the precedent for what Martin is trying to do back in 2000 with William Kennard (also a former lobbyist with a potential interest in a case at that time). But then given the political polarization that is seen here, that does not matter, that was before the current regime. Well, you see, it didn't matter because Kennard was a DEMOCRAT. McDowell is a REPUBLICAN, and we all know that ethical rules (like not having sex with your subordinates) should apply only to REPUBLICANS, not to DEMOCRATS.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | 
Vig
Thread-safe since 1997
Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| People keep citing that he's actually pro- this, anti- that, but the bottom line is there's a set of ethical standards in place for a reason. Whether that actually makes him more or less likely to side one way or another isn't the point. The ethics guidelines are there to prevent a conflict of interest (or really the appearance of a conflict of interest) and should be followed as a matter of course consistently by everyone in order to be meaningful.
--
Visit the land of the never-setting sun | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by carpdiem :...if McDowell does vote for the merger (which either way I think he should) it means that it is for the benefit of competition and there is no conflict of interest because of McDowell's past. You must not be very informed about this merger. If this merger is approved customers and business will see higher bills and probably poorer service. Many areas will no longer have meaningful competition and the U.S. telecom landscape will be that much closer to the days of the Ma Bell monopoly. | |
| | | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by nasadude :You must not be very informed about this merger. If this merger is approved customers and business will see higher bills and probably poorer service. Many areas will no longer have meaningful competition and the U.S. telecom landscape will be that much closer to the days of the Ma Bell monopoly. They will? Can I borrow your crystal ball, there's some money I'd like to spend on some stocks.
These two companies do not compete with each other today - exactly HOW does this eliminate choice for any of their customers??
--
d00mz | |
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by Corona :... These two companies do not compete with each other today - exactly HOW does this eliminate choice for any of their customers?? And if the merger goes thru, there is 100% chance there will never be competition between the two.
There is already ample evidence from the previous merger that prices have risen as a result of that merger. Analysis showing the current merger is uncompetitive was done by a third party (the clec group opposing the merger); the Justice Dept either never did this analysis or is ignoring the results.
What do you think? Has the Verizon/MCI merger resulted in better or more service and lower prices? How about the SBC/ATT merger? Is that working out for consumers? How can it be good for anybody (except the monopolists) when competition decreases? | |
| | | | | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by nasadude :said by Corona :... These two companies do not compete with each other today - exactly HOW does this eliminate choice for any of their customers?? And if the merger goes thru, there is 100% chance there will never be competition between the two. There is 100% chance that the two ILECs will not compete in each other's regional space anyway.
--
d00mz | |
| | | | | | | carpdiem
join:2001-02-11
Cedarburg, WI
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Previous Precedent exists The two companies only compete on the wireless side in Cingular, which by the way they both own 60/40. From a landline and DSL perspective they don't compete and I agree completely with Corona, they aren't going to compete in each others territory. Today there may be a small amount of true competition with the long distance side of the business but that's a dead animal already (why SBC bought AT&T). The field has TOTALLY changed from ma bell times. Even though AT&T is still around the name doesn't make it the same Ma Bell in the least; new Technologies, still have Verizon and Qwest even though Qwest isn't the same as it once was and isn't a likely takeover target it's not the reformation of the OLD Ma Bell. In addition to phone competition from cable providers and other VoIP services, (Vonage,SKYPE), there still are CLECs. Although there are these smaller players the main competition is between the cable companies (partnering with wireless companies like Sprint) and the Telcos to bundle services. And here I thought I wasn't very educated on the merger...silly me. | |
| | | | | | | 
authagent
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Fenton, MO | That is not true at all. There is ILEC competition right now in commercial. | |
| | | faberoptic
join:2001-05-13
San Antonio, TX
| This is the first I've read about the conflict of interest being employment with a firm that lobbied AGAINST the CLEC. I'm also not an expert on the subject, but if this 'Comptel' has indeed opposed such a merger, why are the dems so mad? Or, why didn't he just vote in the first place?
I agree, AT&T is not making any strides of good faith towards appeasing the decision makers, and this shouldn't be the way to finalize a vote, yay or nay. But if McDowell excused himself already, then isn't it still his decision to vote or not? I'll be a retarded optimist and assume that his involvement will lead to at least a few responsible restrictions. (Seriously, with the spectrum, use it or lose it)
The question is, will McDowell's past efforts (nay), or current partisanship (yay), influence his vote?
Somebody be a dear and look into the funding for this Comptel. If we find some links between them and Reason, I will crap a brick. Shenanigans. | |
| | | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: Previous Precedent exists Who said his employment prior to being on the FCC was Anti CLEC?
--
d00mz | |
| | | | | faberoptic
join:2001-05-13
San Antonio, TX
edit:
December 6th, @10:59AM
| Re: Previous Precedent exists Edit:
I stand humbled, I meant ILEC (as in AT&T), my apologies. 'Round here, as you know, I think of them as being 'competitive' with Time Warner. Those TV ads are getting worse than the Bonilla-Rodriguez runoff ones. =) | |
| | | | | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Previous Precedent exists said by faberoptic :Edit:Those TV ads are getting worse than the Bonilla-Rodriguez runoff ones. =) LOL - can't wait for THAT campaign to be over with as well. My mail will drop by half!
--
d00mz | |
| | | | johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL | Comptel is a clec industry organization, whose positions on issues would generally be opposite those that Reason would take.
He recused himself to avoid the appearance of bias AGAINST AT&T/BellSouth, not in their favor. | |
| | Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| The case you are referring to was after a federal court ruled that Kennard should vote after a 2 year impasse. The current impasse is only 2 months old and they seem to be making progress in the negotiations according to the article I read last night. »www.usatoday.com/money/industrie···th_x.htm
quote:
Gene Kimmelman, public policy director of Consumers' Union, which opposes the deal, calls the move "the most unusual thing I've ever seen in my entire career."
Kimmelman says he was helping to negotiate an agreement among AT&T and the two Democrats and Martin when the chairman pulled the plug.
"We thought we were making progress," Kimmelman says. "It's just bizarre."
In moving to unrecuse McDowell, Martin, who declined to comment, cited legal precedent in a case involving the National Association of Broadcasters. But that request to break the FCC stalemate came from the U.S. Court of Appeals after a two-year impasse...
By the time Martin pulled the plug on talks last week, Kimmelman says AT&T was offering a number of sweeteners, including an offer to sell "naked" DSL — meaning stand-alone DSL with no strings attached or purchase of other services required — for $24.95 a month. That's almost half the $45 price for stand-alone DSL currently.
| |
| 
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ | Michael Copps is the only one looking out for the Consumer. The rest are bought and paid-for Beotches | |
| | Ga Dawg
join:2003-09-11
Marietta, GA | Re: Michael Copps Michael Copps is doing more to stifle free speech than any other person in this country. | |
| | | | |
|
|
Democrats Annoyed at FCC's Martin
Martin Is Just Another Telco Shill