Net Profits: The devilish details of AT&T's merger deal, the FCC, and net neutrality

[Ripley]

The devilish details of AT&T's merger deal, the FCC, and net neutrality
—By Suzanne Lindgren, Utne.com
December 14, 2006 Issue

The issue of network neutrality, or protecting the web from an all-roads-lead-to-McDonalds.com landscape, often seems overwhelming and difficult to pin down. But the idea of keeping all websites equally accessible is preserved -- or degraded -- in seemingly routine government dealings. In just such a case, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is fielding a recent proposal to merge AT&T and BellSouth. The deal would create the largest telecom company in the world and, because of a lack of permanent regulations, would likely pave the way to dismantling net neutrality, reports John Nichols in his Nation blog, the Online Beat.

The FCC is supposed to be what Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey (D) calls an "independent, impartial regulatory agency," writes Nichols. But with the vote on the AT&T-BellSouth merger split 2 to 2, and the tiebreaking commissioner Robert McDowell having recused himself because of a conflict of interest, FCC chair (and former telecom lobbyist) Kevin Martin hatched a suspect plan to break the tie -- and ensure the merger's approval. Martin asked the FCC general counsel to allow McDowell to "unrecuse" himself, betting that McDowell (another Republican with roots in the telecommunications industry) would vote to approve the merger. Martin's request was granted, reports Ron Orol for The Deal, though McDowell did not say whether he would accept it and actually vote. (McDowell's conflict of interest dates back to when he argued against the merger, not for the principles of net neutrality, but on behalf of competing telecom companies' interests.)

More:

http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_279/news/12362-1.html

Another glaring example of Corporate Cronies running this malfunctioning MBA-style government (into the ground and over the citizens).

[FormerDittoHead]

1. From what I gathered, the merger is just to reduce competition...

From listening to the business report on NPR months ago, the point of the merger was that telcos "over invested" into infrastructure, and now (because of competition), aren't making a profit.

The unsaid truth is that the purpose of the merger is only to reduce the choices that consumers make, and freeing the companies from having to do so much of that nasty old competition thing.

uhh, I'm in business. I've invested in my business. Where's the government guaranteeing MY profits???

[The2ndWheel]

3. That's the purpose of every merger

[denverbill]

2. It just boggles my mind. We broke up AT&T only 20 years ago or so.

What the fuck was the point of breaking up AT&T if all the baby-bells are just allowed to join right back together again? We need another Teddy Roosevelt to bust up these damn trusts.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Wouldn't they just repeat the process again?

Then we'll need another Teddy, and another, and another, and another. Power centralizes and consilidates. That's all it does. I'm not saying don't do it, just be ready to do it over, and over, and over, and over, and over.........

[SharonAnn]

5. Aaah, but now the companies aren't regulated much. So merging makes

sense and will make them lots of $$$ because they don't have to meet all those onerous "regulations".

They can be a monopoly with total power. Doesn't that sound wonderful?