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.So much could be better. Imagine a world where large corporations do not gobble smaller businesses up. Ponder a planet where we work together, where the Internet was a tool to connect us in cyberspace, and not a mechanism to bleed us dry. Ma Bell, please have mercy. This "new deal" will bring in $117 billion annually. Is that not enough to satisfy your insatiable appetite?Martin is unconvinced the network neutrality provisions are necessary.
''The conditions regarding net neutrality have very little to do with the merger at hand and very well may cause greater problems than the speculative problems they seek to address,'' he wrote. ''These conditions are simply not warranted by current market conditions and may deter facilities investment.''
Meanwhile, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated his displeasure in a statement that said the process followed by the FCC may be '''suitable for committee review.''
Earl Comstock, president and CEO of Comptel, a group that represents competitors of AT&T, said he would have preferred to see more conditions from AT&T, and questioned why the compromise came so quickly.
''Compared to where it was in the fall, there was definite progress,'' he said of the deal. ''But given the negotiating position (of the Democrats) it could be better.''
Please sign Net Neutrality petition. . .
The Bell is Tolling . . .
Recent Comments