The Price of Paper or Plastic
Investing in plastics was logical a half a century ago. Nowadays, while profitable, petroleum products cause a multitude of problems.
[A]n estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.Although the sheer textile seems more sanitary it may be less so. Early on, the use of synthetic fibers was considered the saving grace. Entrepreneurs and environmentalists thought man-made wares would eliminate the deforesting of the planet. However, this petroleum product has proven itself to be anything but a solution to ecological hazards. Actually, plastics have added to our waste and wasteful ways.
What we use to dispose of our garbage creates more trash. Essentially, items are no longer reusable. We have become a throwaway society. For the sake of convenience and an ill-perceived idea of cleanliness, we are destroying our natural resources and dirtying the planet.
Thankfully, late in March 2007, the city of San Francisco decided to do something about this situation. They said "No" to plastic, or at least the bags.
The city's Board of Supervisors approved groundbreaking legislation Tuesday to outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets in about six months and large chain pharmacies in about a year.Perhaps, they will. After all, San Francisco is following the lead of foreign cities. Internationally, there is a movement to ban or discourage the use of plastic bags. The environmental effects are of great concern in countries from Ireland to Australia. Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland three years ago, the United Kingdom also discussed taking action years ago. On March 2, 2007, the British nation finally took action. However, details are still pending. Also belatedly, but bravely, the avant gardé city by the Bay approved a ban weeks ago.The ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, is the first such law in any city in the United States and has been drawing global scrutiny this week.
"I am astounded and surprised by the worldwide attention," Mirkarimi said. "Hopefully, other cities and other states will follow suit."
Under the legislation, which passed 10-1 in the first of two votes, large markets and pharmacies will have the option of using compostable bags made of cornstarch or bags made of recyclable paper. San Francisco will join a number of countries, such as Ireland, that already have outlawed plastic bags or have levied a tax on them. Final passage of the legislation is expected at the board's next scheduled meeting, and the mayor is expected to sign it.Still, all is not well. As is typical, retailers remind those that care about the environment, there will be a price to pay.
The grocers association has warned that the new law will lead to higher prices for San Francisco shoppers.Compostable carriers may be costly; however, I believe these parcels are invaluable. We have been paying for convenience and low cost containers with our lives for years. Although the compostable sack may be expensive initially, production and use of these is worth the investment. It is essential that we endow in the future. The waste that we create daily now does not serve us for more than a moment."We're disappointed that the Board of Supervisors is going down this path," said Kristin Power, the association's vice president for government relations. "It will frustrate recycling efforts and will increase both consumer and retailer costs. There's also a real concern about the availability and quality of compostable bags."
Power said most of the group's members operating in San Francisco are likely to switch to paper bags "simply because of the affordability and availability issues."
The ubiquitous plastic shopping bag, so handy for everything from toting groceries to disposing of doggie doo, may be a victim of its own success. Although plastic bags didn't come into widespread use until the early 1980s, environmental groups estimate that 500 billion to 1 trillion of the bags are now used worldwide every year.Yet, businesses think that is fine. In 2004, the Earth Resource Foundation proposed a twenty-five [25] cent tax be charged on plastic bags used in the state of California. In 2003, the California Legislative Branch scrapped a three [3] cent levy on plastic shopping satchels and cups. Retailers and plastic manufacturers worked in opposition to the measure. Money talks, as do industrialists. It is easier and cheaper to commit to the status quo than it is to change. Minor adjustments might be made. Place the onus on the people. Persuade the public to be more involved; that may work.Critics of the bags say they use up natural resources, consume energy to manufacture, create litter, choke marine life, and add to landfill waste.
"Every time we use a new plastic bag they go and get more petroleum from the Middle East and bring it over in tankers," said Stephanie Barger, executive director of Earth Resource Foundation in Costa Mesa, Calif. "We are extracting and destroying the Earth to use a plastic bag for 10 minutes."
The plastics industry took a "proactive stance" by working with retailers to encourage greater recycling, rather than "putting on taxes to address the problem," said Donna Dempsey, executive director of the Film and Bag Federation, a trade association for the plastic bag industry.Imposing tariffs would take its toll on the industry. State imposed duties have decreased the use of plastic parcels in other countries. The American Bag alliance knows sales will slip. For them, a compulsory tax would be disastrous. Particularly when we consider that consumers in other nations where the tariff was obligatory, have not complained.
The tax proposals are loosely modeled on Ireland's "PlasTax," a levy of about 20 cents that retail customers have had to pay for each plastic bag since March 2002. The use of plastic bags in Ireland dropped more than 90 percent following imposition of the tax, and the government has raised millions of dollars for recycling programs.While the reduction of bags is great and it is vital that we begin where we can, there are other considerations.Similar legislation was introduced in Scotland last month and is being discussed for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Consumers seem agreeable to giving up the bags, said Claire Wilton, senior waste campaigner at Greenpeace-UK.
"There certainly hasn't been an angry uprising of shoppers (in Ireland) saying we want our bags for free," Wilton said. "I think a lot of people recognize they are wasteful. That's why they try to save them to use again, although they often forget to bring them with them when they shop."
In Australia, about 90 percent of retailers have signed up with the government's voluntary program to reduce plastic bag use. A law that went into effect last year [2003] in Taiwan requires restaurants, supermarkets and convenience stores to charge customers for plastic bags and utensils. It has resulted in a 69 percent drop in use of plastic products, according to news reports.
One of the key concerns is litter. In China, plastic bags blowing around the streets are called "white pollution." In South Africa, the bags are so prominent in the countryside that they have won the derisive title of "national flower." The plastics industry says the solution to bag litter is to change people, not the product.Granted, mankind is responsible. S/he is liable for more than the little bags that fill our land, the air, or the sea. Currently, it is impossible to escape the impact of plastic on American life. Decades ago, glass bottles were replaced with plastic. Cardboard storage boxes, were thought buggy and dirty; plastic was a clean alternative. Clay pots, once used to propagate plants, are porous, and better for a thirsty, thriving, growing seedling; however, currently these are less popular. As Mister McGuire might say, "Plastics.""Every piece of litter has a human face behind it. If they are a harm to the environment in terms of visual blight, then people need to stop littering," said Rob Krebs, a spokesman for the American Plastics Council.
Furniture is plastic. Picture frames, eyeglasses, and "silverware," are all made of plastic. Even our clothing is polyester; in other words, plastic. The solid metal car bumper years ago could withstand impact. It protected the people inside the vehicle. Today, if an automobile moving three-miles an hour was to crash into another object, the impending accident could cause thousands of dollars of damage. Why might this be? Plastic.
A child's swing, once wooden and wonderful is now plastic. I am familiar with this childhood toy for I love to move backward and forward while seated in the sky. In decades past, I may experience an occasional splinter. In recent years, with thanks to the prevalence of petroleum products, the motion is uncomfortable. My skin is pinched; it sticks to the surface "fabric." Sweat forms; ultimately the moisture becomes an irritant, just as the oft-heard phrase, "Plastic, or paper" might be to some.
If I were to choose, "compostable" would be my preference. I trust the cost of production will decrease as the use of biodegradable bags increases. The more manufacturers invest in machinery to make this product, the better the price. Overtime, I believe we can eliminate the use of plastic bags.
Nevertheless, I still ponder the problem. As I sit at my computer, type on a plastic keyboard, use an artificial "mouse," and watch a screen encased in a fake frame, I trust that the banning of bags will only begin to address an ever-increasing environmental issue.
A Sack Full of Fuel . . .
Plastic bags by the numbers
180 million
Roughly, the number of plastic shopping bags distributed in San Francisco each year.2 to 3 cents
Amount each bag costs markets, compared with anywhere from 5 to 10 cents for a biodegradable bag.
This figure will change as we alter our focus.4 trillion to 5 trillion
Number of nondegradable plastic bags used worldwide annually.430,000 gallons
Amount of oil needed to produce 100 million nondegradable plastic bags.Source: S.F. Department of the Environment; Worldwatch Institute
Bags of Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 11, 2007 at 11:30 AM in Business, Cleanliness. Godliness., Consumers Rights, Consumption and Conservation, Corporate Profits, Economics, Environment, Ethics and Profits, Facts or Fictions, Humans, Self-Destructive, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Oil, Price of Petroleum, Standards in Society | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gardasil; Truth and Consequences. Merck Stops Lobby
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please view this Gardasil Commercial. Contemplate the truer concerns.
On February 3, 2007, I expressed my distress in an exposé titled, Texas Mandates STD Vaccination for Elementary Age Schoolgirls. In my writing I discussed the executive order imposed by Texas Governor Rick Perry. This Christian conservative concluded young schoolgirls, ages eleven and twelve, must be inoculated against cervical cancer. A series, of three shots, each costing $120 would be required. The consumer would be forced to pay for this state-imposed immunization. Actually, the child would not, or could not possibly purchase such services. Parents would bear the financial burden. The young girls might carry another costly load. Drugs have side effects. The more effective Pap Smears do not. Nonetheless, profits are on the line. I know, you thought saving lives was the greater concern.
Granted, mothers, fathers, or guardians could opt out of the program, if they think to do so. However, there is a stigma associated with nonconformity. A parent may be labeled negligent or a religious zealot. Few will think a concerned custodian is doing what is right, moral, or ethical if they are not protecting their young daughters from cervical cancer.
When I first learned of this story there were many questions, numerous concerns, and too few answers. I speculated. I investigated. I determined Governor Perry had close ties with the Pharmaceutical distributor. I postulated. This plan is profitable; it is not necessarily prudent.
Nevertheless, state officials in some twenty other regions are considering similar measures. In my own home state of Florida Gardasil injections may soon be mandatory. The drug company, Merck has been lobbying lawmakers nationwide.
Weeks ago, hardly any one was assessing the facts. Although readers at BeThink.org were. I received many brilliant, insightful, and informed comments. I cannot thank stickdog and maggiemahar enough. Your wisdom and knowledge may have provoked a change in Merck policy. Perchance, your sharings stimulated those on the right, left, and in the middle. It seems more people are mindful. Individuals and groups are asking, 'What are we doing to our children in the name of science and safety?'
Today, there is more news on this topic. I will contrast this recent bulletin with the research stickdog and maggiemahar presented. I think you might find each assessment interesting. In fact, a review of all of these together might be truly enlightening. Much of what is not said in the official statement is stated in reader remarks. Please peruse each of these accounts and decide for yourself. Is Gardasil the optimal solution for a prevalent problem? Is cervical cancer a common occurrence. Might Pap smears be a more effective, preventative treatment? Will Merck terminate their lobbying, or only alter their operation.
Merck ending lobbying for mandatory Gardasil vaccineThe number of deaths seems compelling. However, when we assess the data, we must consider the word "worldwide." Too often when given a statistic we ignore the variance in situations. Health care standards in a third world country do not compare with those in the Western world. Numbers may skew an evaluation. Health care services provided for the poor, even within our own country are a source of concern. Perhaps we would be better served if we looked at all the facts and circumstances.
Science News
February 21, 2007NEW YORK (Reuters) - Drugmaker Merck & Co. said on Tuesday it would stop lobbying state legislatures to make it mandatory for schoolgirls to be inoculated with its new cervical cancer vaccine.
The company said it made the decision after re-evaluating its lobbying program, which has generated fierce debate with some religious organizations saying it could encourage promiscuity and parents groups questioning the need for such a widespread vaccination program.
Merck's Gardasil is the first and only vaccine against cervical cancer. Approved in 2006 for females aged 9 to 26, it works against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases.
Earlier this month, Texas became the first U.S. state to require that all 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated against HPV. Republican Gov. Rick Perry said parents could opt out of mandatory vaccinations for their children if they objected for reasons including religious beliefs.
About 20 U.S. states had been considering mandating the vaccine, many for girls before they entered the sixth grade.
The vaccine, given in a series of three injections at a price of $360, has been endorsed by medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.
In December, Merck said it was looking into providing Gardasil at much lower prices in developing countries and to make it available within months.
Richard Haupt, executive director of medical affairs for vaccines at Merck, said the media publicity had become a "potential distraction" that was interfering with the company's objective of promoting widespread use of the product.
"We've reevaluated our position, but certainly plan to continue education efforts in different venues, such as with legislators, health departments and coalition groups in various states," Haupt said.
The company reaffirmed it continues to expect combined revenue this year of $2.8 billion to $3.2 billion from its array of vaccines, including ones to prevent shingles and infections with rotavirus.
GlaxoSmithKline Plc is expected to file in April for U.S. regulatory approval for its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix.
Cervical cancer kills some 300,000 women worldwide each year.
After reading the news report and Merck's contention we might reason that religion and the fear of promiscuity were influential in drug company's decision. However, I suspect there is a more persuasive argument. The facts presented in this statement are fascinating and perhaps profound. Nevertheless, they differ from the evaluation stickdog offers. Please read this text. I hope you will find it meaningful.
Stickdog studied the original research on Gardasil and found the conclusions questionable.
The Facts About GARDASILStickdog submits more for your consideration.1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated (and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.
2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women, exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any kind.
3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining. Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of all female cancer cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after the cancer has existed for many years.
4) Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo") and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.
5) Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported minor health complications near the injection site or near the time of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given a real placebo reported far fewer complications - as in less than half. Furthermore, most if not all longer-term complications were written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all subjects.
6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM - MUCH LESS DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5 vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions" (dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.
7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most, the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely unknown for anyone. All but the shortest-term effects are completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for girls are also dubious.
8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of $360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the next decade.
These are simply the facts of the situation as presented by Merck and the FDA.Sources --
Merck and the FDA:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hpvmer060806LB.htmNY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7DF163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B63Alum Injections Cause Neural Death in Mice:
http://www.straight.com/article/vaccines-show-sinister-side
http://journals.humanapress.com/index.php?option=com_opbookdetails&task=articledetails&category=humanajournals&article_code=NMM:9:1:83
More On GARDASILAuthor Maggie Mahar contributes her thoughts to the discussion.
There are two sides to every discussion, of course. This vaccine does appear to confer some benefits. If I were a sexually active woman who disliked condoms and liked to have multiple sex partners who had not yet been exposed to any of the four strains of HPV that this vaccine protects against, I just might sign myself up.But that's not the same thing as making this vaccine MANDATORY for a preteen population it was not rigorously tested on a scant 8 months after its initial rush job FDA approval.
Aside from all the known risks of all vaccines, the unknown risks of this three shot regimen for preteens along with their other vaccine load, and the unknown long-term risks of this vaccine for all populations, we have to look at cost vs. benefit.
7861 of the placebo subjects contracted 83 cases of HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias during the testing period compared to 4 cases among the 7858 subjects who were given GARDASIL. That's after counting out every subject with any prior exposure to these strains. This includes 42 of the less serious HPV 6-, 11- related low-grade dysplasias.
Merck has published no data for how many non-HPV 6-, 11-, 16-, 18-related dysplasias were contracted by these subjects over these periods, but some practitioners have commented that they expect the vaccine to protect against 40%-50% of all dysplasias.
In terms of every possible kind of dysplasia for which this vaccine confers protection, Merck's own clinical evidence suggests that this vaccine saved about 10 patients out of each 1000 injected from the painful process of having these dysplasias treated (over the entire course of follow ups which ranged from 18 months to 4 years). Note that the populations for these studies were not preteens but women at the height of their sexual activity. Further note that since the vaccine uses virus-like particles (a new vaccine technology) and is only about five years in testing now, there is no guarantee that it has any long term efficacy.
Of course, the pre-teen population is so less sexually active (and when active, so much less likely to be active with a previously contaminated partner) that I think it would be conservative to estimate that preteens are 5 times less likely to contract HPV dysplasias than the 16 to 26 year olds who were tested by Merck. So instead of saving 10 women per 1000 from painful treatments for HPV dysplasias, this vaccine would save perhaps 2 girls per 1000 from these procedures among the much younger population that Merck and Merck's politicians are targeting for mandatory vaccination.
Do we really want to pursue a public policy that costs $360,000 to vaccinate every 1000 girls while exposing each and every one of these thousand girls to the known adverse short term and largely unknown long terms side effects of three injections of a new vaccine just to save two of the more sexually active of these kids from having to have their dysplasias treated conventionally?
What kind of a risk and cost vs. benefit trade off is that?
Note that nowhere are we discussing actual incidences of cervical cancer because there is no clinical evidence whatsoever that GARDASIL reduces cervical cancer rates, and even if we place our hope in the fact that it might, cervical cancer is simply not a meaningful health risk for any girl in the target vaccination population who is getting an annual pap smear.
While it is a widely accepted medical theory that HPV "causes" cervical cancer, it's not close to being a fact. Although the vast majority do, many cases of cervical cancer don't show any association with HPV. It's a very good guess that certain strains of HPV are necessary co-factors for certain highly prevalent types of cervical cancer to emerge. The two really bad strains protected for in GARDASIL go hand in hand with 70% of CURRENT cervical cancer cases. My point is that there are 36 nasty strains of HPV screened for currently, and the human body is an ecology. We have no idea how protection against the two strains of HPV that are CURRENTLY most prevalently associated with cervical cancer (typically decades after initial exposure) will affect overall cervical cancer rates far in the future.
What we instead DO know is that current practices of annual pap smears and screening for ALL bad strains of HPV continue to reduce rates of cervical cancer among the US population annually. If all US women received a pap smear every year and were then promptly treated for any abnormal growths encountered, both the cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates would plummet even further to the point where HPV-associated cervical cancer would kill no more than a handful of US women a year. Yes, that is a guess as well, but it's a far better guess than assuming that conferring protection against four of the myriad of current and future strains of harmful HPV will somehow do the trick.
Certainly GARDASIL's benefit data against the four strains of HPV it targets are compelling. HOWEVER, the benefit data against ALL forms of HPV are not published by Merck and estimated by OP-GYNs to be a mixed bag. The benefit data against cervical cancer itself are nonexistent. The long term risk data for any population are nonexistent. There are almost no risk data at all for pre-teens. The fact that the "placebo control" was a shot of alum that was recently shown to cause neural death in mice is particularly problematic in terms of interpreting the small amount of risk data that were gathered.
Studies of the long-term benefits of a new drug or vaccine take a long time. It would take several decades to prove conclusively that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer deaths. So why the rush to make these three injections COMPULSORY for preteens?
Perhaps this would be excusable if GARDASIL conferred protection against HPV generally, but it does not. We have absolutely no way of even guessing how conferring protection against four strains of HPV will affect cervical cancer rates decades down the line. If you do, please quantify the expected benefits in terms of the expected reduction of cervical cancer contraction and mortality rates for the population of US women who get annual pap smears. The only thing you can say about these numbers are that they are unknown and tiny.
I am not trying to stop anyone from signing up themselves or their kids for this. If you want to pay $360 to make your little girl one of Merck's test subjects, please do. As I said, the vaccine shows promise. It may be a life saver for a small segment of the population (especially those too poor or uninformed to get annual pap smears), and it offers protection against most genital warts and a good percentage of HPV dysplasias.
The procedures to remove these warts and dysplasias are very painful, so these benefits are compelling. However, the risk and cost vs. benefit profile of this vaccine is not such that it is good public policy to mandate it -- especially not for a pre-teen population on which it has never been sufficiently tested -- even with an "opt out" clause. If Merck wants to make sure that women and parents who want it and can't afford it can get it, they should offer it to low income individuals and families on a sliding scale rather than lobbying state and federal governments to pony up the billions.
Gardasil--Merck vaccineYou dear reader, may have thoughts to share? Has your personal experience helped you to understand the dynamics of this campaign. If so, in what ways? Please share your stories. Merck will spin their tale. I think it might be wise we articulate our anecdotes. Let us teach the children and their parents to protect themselves from profiteers, pronouncements, and promiscuity.
The fact that Merck's vaccine protects against only 70 percent of the viruses that cause cervical cancer is key.Pap smears, by contrast, can detect nearly 100% of cervical cancers. This is why Merck itself acknowledges that girls who receive the vaccine still need to have regular Pap smears.
But given all of the hype about Gardasil there is a real danger that girls who receive the vaccine will think that they are now "safe" and don't need Pap smears. Last weekend NBC news interviewed a young girl in Texas who expressed relief that she had been vaccinated: "Now this is one cancer I don't have to worry about fighting." No one corrected her.
Merck has been pushing Gardasil and pushing hard--enlisting of help of organizations like Planned Parenthood (which receives large contributions from Merck) because the company desperately needs a new blockbuster drug. After being forced to withdraw Vioxx from the market Merck is financially strapped. See the Wall Street Journal's stories about the vaccine--the Journal makes it clear that this is a business story.
If Merck were primarily concerned with saving lives, it would make this vaccine available--at an affordable price--in the emerging world, where Pap smears are not readily available. Instead, it is charging $360, making Gardasil the most expensive vaccine ever manufactured.
Posted by: Maggie Mahar | Feb 10, 2007 10:46:29 AM
Refer to Resources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 21, 2007 at 06:45 PM in Consumers Rights, Corporate Profits, Education or Economics, Facts or Fictions, Health Care, Medicine Kills , Pharmaceutical Corporations , Pharmaceuticals | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ma Bell; She's Back. Net Neutrality in Jeopardy ©
In March 2006, American Telephone and Telegraph offered to buy BellSouth for $67 billion. At the time, there was much concern. Should the two tie the knot, it would appear to reverse a decision made twenty-two years earlier, the breakup of the Ma Bell monopoly.
However, in this era of Bush Cheney corporate favors, conglomerate are considered wise and wonderful.
The new AT&T will be the local phone company in a 22-state territory, and will be a behemoth in wireless, long-haul voice and Internet traffic, and phone directories.The merged companies will use the name AT&T; it is familiar and a friendly reminder of the past for many Baby Boomers. The moniker is expected to increase market share and oh, what a share of the market this "new" firm will have. Certainly, the association with Ma Bell will not be merely a memory.All those services will operate under the AT&T brand, which SBC took over with its acquisition of AT&T Corp. in November. The company hopes to save billions in advertising costs simply by consolidating AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular marketing under one brand.
Oh, I am among those with fond memories; however, what I loved about Ma Bell will not return. I recall indestructible telephones. When I think of the old Ma Bell, recollections of equipment that does not fail comes to mind. In the 1970s, my family went house hunting. In one glorious, home we discovered a telephone cubbyhole built into the stairwell wall. Within the hole was a study black rotary telephone, circa 1930. It still worked. For me, that was among the deciding factors. I wanted to live in that dwelling and chatter away on that phone.
I also embrace the days when the telephone company was efficient. Repairmen and wiremen came to the home if there were problems with the equipment or the line. The only need for repairs that I recall was weather related. Ma did not insist on an additional charge for house calls. All was included in a nominal bill.
Operators, oh, I loved the operators. I still do on the rare occasions I speak with one. Not only am I too frugal to call for assistance, if or when I do, I am reminded a human voice is only available during very limited hours . I crave that former human connection.
As a child, when I was learning to speak, my Mom would call the ever-running weather recording and I would chat with the mechanical woman. To assist me in acquiring manners, my parents would have me make information calls. Do you remember when telephoning information was not a toll call and you could chat with a delightful human being? Those were the days. Though the monopoly Ma Bell is returning, none of these lovely features will be forthcoming!
If there is any similarity between the past and the present it is that, this business will be bulging; it will be all-powerful, formidable, so much so it may be out of control. The current Federal Communications Commission was barely able to manage it in these recent negotiations.
The newer AT&T will be much like its mother
With roots stretching to 1885, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company was split by the government in 1984 into eight regional Bell companies and a long-distance and equipment company that retained the AT&T name.Although there was some concern and two Democratic Commissioners opposed the amalgamation, ultimately a compromise was reached.The Telecommunications Act of 1996 partly deregulated the industry, enabling a rapid re-consolidation.
Southwestern Bell, later SBC, proved to be the most aggressive of the Baby Bells. Under Chief Executive Ed Whitacre Jr., it quickly snapped up its siblings Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, in addition to Southern New England Telecommunications.
There was even talk in 1997 of SBC buying AT&T, but that idea was shot down by the Federal Communications Commission as soon as it was mentioned in the media.
AT&T was at the time flailing somewhat for direction. In its main business, long distance, it was facing nascent competition from the Baby Bells, which were allowed entry into that domain by the Telecommunications Act — as long as they opened their local business to competition.
But it was much harder for AT&T to break into the local business than it was for the Baby Bells to sign customers up for long-distance. To get its own lines to homes, AT&T began buying up cable systems, but the massive debt it took later forced it to sell them off at a loss.
Since SBC was already too large to pass antitrust muster as a buyer of AT&T under the regulatory principles of the time, it fell to BellSouth to come to rescue the old head of the family. The companies were in advanced merger talks in 2001, but media leaks apparently gave BellSouth cold feet, and the deal was called off.
With progressively looser regulation, more options opened up for the Bells, and last year, SBC finally did acquire AT&T.
On Thursday, December 28, 2006, details were released and the Federal Communications Commission approved the buyout.
Among the conditions offered by AT&T is a promise to observe ''network neutrality'' principles, an offer of $19.95 per month stand-alone digital subscriber line service and a vow to divest some wireless spectrum.Perhaps, I am less so. There are aspects of the compromise that I favor, somewhat. If I had a choice, greater provisions would have to be met before the buyout was approved. However, the Justice Department and the FCC never asked me what I thought.The FCC's approval was the last major regulatory hurdle for the proposed deal, which is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.
AT&T offered the concessions after a little more than a week of marathon negotiations with lawyers who work for the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.
Adelstein said Friday he was pleased with the agreement.
''We got substantial concessions that are going to mitigate a lot of the harms that would otherwise have resulted from this merger,'' he said.
The reaction from Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, however, was decidedly negative. The chairman found some conditions to be ''unnecessary'' and said that some ''impose burdens that have nothing to do with the transaction, are discriminatory, and run contrary to commission policy and precedent.''
Copps was cautiously optimistic, saying that the approval was ''not a triumph for huge corporate mergers but a modest victory for American consumers.'' He added that he was not entirely satisfied with the compromise but believed it is ''a genuine step forward'' in several areas.
The Justice Department approved the merger on Oct. 11, but it attached no conditions, a move that prompted outrage among many Democrats.I am thankful for extended restraints. I am grateful for the two Democrats at the door. I think they did a fine job considering. Nevertheless, there is still much to fear. Among the items most worrisome, is the temporary status of net neutrality! Please allow me to define net neutrality for those unfamiliar with the concept.In an effort to gain the support of Copps and Adelstein, AT&T submitted a set of concessions on Oct. 13, but they were rejected.
In AT&T's letter committing to the new conditions, the company's senior vice president in charge of regulatory affairs, Robert W. Quinn Jr., noted that the new concessions were ''significantly more extensive than those submitted on Oct. 13.''
The new offer extends the lifespan of many conditions from 30 months under the old deal to 42 months or longer in some cases.
Among the promises made by the company:
--An offer of stand-alone, DSL Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month for 30 months. The ''naked DSL (digital subscriber line)'' offer would allow those who live in AT&T and BellSouth's service areas to sign up for fast Internet access without being required to buy a package of other services.--To cap rates for ''special access'' customers, usually competitors and large businesses that pay to connect directly to a regional phone company's central office via a dedicated fiber optic line, for 48 months.
--To divest all of the 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.
--To ''repatriate'' 3,000 jobs that were outsourced by BellSouth outside the U.S. by Dec. 31, 2008, with at least 200 of those jobs to be located in New Orleans.
Network neutrality is a principle analogous to the Bill of Rights. If the Internet is open, as it currently is, we are all, equally free to speak. Our access is not based on income, status, or the company we keep. If the Internet remains neutral, it favors no one, while favoring everyone. A neutral net is an unbiased avenue for information. A impartial Internet does not provide privileges for businesses or governments, while restricting rights for the average Jane or John. We, the people on the worldwide web are all created equal in a neutral cyberspace community. "Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."
Scary; given the opportunity companies and, or Congress can take away our rights to communicate, to access information; they can decrease the speed at which we travel and restrict the hours. Currently, the people govern the Internet; many want this to change.
AT&T had clearly drawn a line in the sand on the issue, and was not prepared to offer any promises that would not affect the telecommunications industry as a whole.Two short years; how quickly these will pass. In some respects, the security of the services has already been compromised.The company's position has been receiving generally positive reaction from proponents of the concept, but some skepticism from others, who are concerned with the wording of AT&T's commitment.
AT&T says it will ''maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service'' for two years and that it would not sell services to Internet content providers that ''privileges, degrades or prioritizes'' traffic over its wireline broadband service.
But it [AT&T]makes an exception to the company's Internet Protocol television service.Martin is unconvinced the network neutrality provisions are necessary.
''The conditions regarding net neutrality have very little to do with t