AT&T Offering Merger Concessions

TheFarmerInTheDell writes that AT&T is offering concessions to make their merger with SBC happen as fast as possible. From the article: "AT&T filed a letter of commitment with the [Federal Communications Commission] Thursday night that adds a number of new conditions to the deal, including a promise to observe 'network neutrality' principles, an offer of affordable stand-alone digital subscriber line service and divestment of some wireless spectrum."

Comments

Don't forget the fine print.

[DraconPern]

affordable stand-alone digital subscriber line service * pricing only valid for the first three month of contract.

Welcome Back Ma Bell

[allscan]

Wow, and to think the Antitrust suit from the 70's against AT&T was supposed to break up the monopoly. Now they are coming back strong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_break_up_of_AT%26 T.

Re:Welcome Back Ma Bell

[silentounce]

Maybe that industry "wants" to be a monopoly. You can't turn a pig into a chicken by gluing feathers on him, eventually they'll fall off. By the way, antitrust laws are not intended to break up monopolies. They are there to deter and punish only certain anti-competitive actions. The laws were put into place for mostly political reasons. Many economists are against them.
 
Monopolies or oligopolies aren't all bad in some industries, sometimes they are the most efficient market structure. I'm not saying that the telecom industry is one of these, but there is a reason that after several breakups that they just coming back together. The same thing has happened in the airline industry. Any industry that demands a very large infrastructure will always lean toward a non-competetive market structure because the "cost to play" is so high.

Re:Welcome Back Ma Bell

[arclyte]

I call bullshit on this one.

It's not the "industry" that wants a monopoly, it's the management of this industry. Industry itself has no self-organized will to monopolize. Monopolies are inherently anti-competetive. The reason Ma Bell was broken up in the first place was to protect consumers. It is inherently in the best interest of these companies to raise the "cost to play" once they've formed a monopoly in order to keep small players out and thus kill off competition. Once you're the only provider, you can afford to pay whatever outrageous fees are needed because consumers have no choice but to pay you for service. Look what happened when the government recently removed the Universal Service Fund fee and the big telcos moved to fill that gap to help pay off their taxes. And they're still getting away with "tax recovery" fees, passing on their social responsibility to their customers in order to bolster their bottom line. Can I get a raise of hands here on how many people find today's cable or telco companies (land-line or cell) doing all they can to respond to market pressure and consumer demand instead of just filling their own pockets?

But hey, if you want to go back to renting phones, be my guest...

Re:Welcome Back Ma Bell

[Bryansix]

Right. And this is why the people (Read: Government) should own the lines themselves and only allow telecoms to run services on them. If you think that is a bad idea then you have to go the regulation route and basically force the telecoms to get their grubby hands off the lines they "Own" (Read: The taxpayers paid for most of those lines) and to let any service provider into any region. This way while one player in the market may own the infrastructure, it is not of benefit to them because they are forced to offer that infrastructure at cost to the competition. Will the Telecoms have a fit at hearing these plans? Yes. But seriously who cares. This is for the good of the country and once again it was the people of this country who subsidized most of those lines in the first place. We should get to use them how we like.

Re:Welcome Back Ma Bell

[pauljlucas]

Are you suggesting that we are still using Ma Bell-era switches? Because I doubt that.

There are lots of 1A-ESS and 5ESS switches still in operation. Lots. Additionally, AT&T continued to manufacturer switches for many years after the break-up and sold them to the baby bells. I know. I worked for AT&T at the time.

That ain't no concession

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

including a promise to observe 'network neutrality' principles,

That's not a concession - that's an attempt to head off binding legislation with a 'promise' that is easily broken once the merger is past the point of no return. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Re:That ain't no concession

[mgbastard]

FTA:

A greater commitment to network neutrality, or nondiscrimination involving Internet traffic. AT&T said it would "maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service" for two years.

Two years? Hah. That's so paltry, we should all feel insulted. They probably wouldn't even be able to effect the major technology change on their network to disrupt neutrality for that long anyway. Might as well promise according to plan. That promise should be perpetual and binding.

All of their promises, excepting the 2.5ghz auction are without substance, and that is suspect. They had already announced repatriating those jobs. Naked DSL for a whopping 30 months. Whew whee! So they'll get more people accusomted to broadband phone and tv services, and then take away the network neutral, unbundled option, forcing them on to their bundle after 30 months. At least we know their marketing strategy! I don't really understand why they are willing to cede the 2.5ghz... best guess is they intend to acquire that 'unrelated' entity after they build out sites on that 2.5ghz wimax. That goodwill asset booked on mystery carrier X will underwrite a lot of financing of cell sites!

Slimeball business monopolists. (eat me)

Re:merger.

[homey of my owney]

We're all taking part in this merger. In the short time since divestiture, the Bells, MCI, Sprint and the like, have gone from an incredibly profitable business model, to one far less stable. The irony of divestiture is that local phone service still has almost no competition, but the threat to the Bells comes from new communications that were not very formidable back then. Cable, which now shares the 'mother' moniker in most places in the US, stands to be affected most by a strong Bell presence. Hopefully, the competition will bring the benefits divestiture was supposed to deliver.

Which is it?

[PingSpike]

...including a promise to observe 'network neutrality' principles...
But I thought network neutrality was bad for consumers last time we asked the telcos?

Re:Which is it?

[MECC]

It is. It'll make you sterile, cause your hair to fall out, your car to quite working, give you AIDS, your pants will hike up to your shins, your socks won't match, you'll get bad breath, and your watch will quit. I know this because I saw it on TV.

Most of these 'concessions' sunset after 40 months

[ShieldWolf]

Observing network neutrality for 3 1/4 years is not a concession it's just an inconvenience, after the time is up they can start building the internet toll road they have been dreaming of for years.

Politicians always agree to these dumb time limits without thinking long term. The internet will be around for a hell of a lot longer than 40 months and they should understand that - the telcos sure as hell do.