It's Time to Break Up AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and the Rest of the Telecoms

from AlterNet:




At the dawn of the 20th century, the oil pipes defined America. As the 21st century emerges, the information pipes define America and the world.

A century ago, a courageous muckraker, Ida Tarbell, wrote a series of articles that lead to the breakup of Standard Oil, which had become a trust controlling the energy and associated industries to fix prices, restrict competition and harm the nation.

Today, the "communications trust" -- AT&T, Verizon and the major cable companies of Comcast and Time Warner -- controls the two wires and the wireless networks that link the nation's homes, businesses, schools and other institutions. The communications trust has failed America. A few examples illustrate this failure:

..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news/150752/it%27s_time_to_break_up_at%26t%2C%C2%A0verizon%2C_comcast%2C_time_warner_and_the_rest_of_the_telecoms/

The telecomms treat their customers terribly. They know we don't have much choice.

I heard recently that only three of the baby Bells have not yet been repurchased by AT&T.

Go figure.

They ought to be government run not-for-profit utilities. Splitting them up in hopes of creating "competition" does not work, never has worked.

for a long time. I don't have AT&T mobile service, but their calls get dropped all the time. Crappy service for higher prices... don't you just love capitalism? :sarcasm:

I *HAVE* AT&T service and I'd say their call drop rate
is about par for the mobile phone course.

Tesha

just a reminder att is a union shop and pays livable wages. one of a very few. just an fyi. not that many will care b/c once in a while a cell phone call is dropped. btw cell phones have an enormous profit margin and tiny overhead costs, iow you're being ripped off with a cell phone and THAT is what cell people should be angry about. dump the cell! (before it gives you cancer)

pricing or acquisition. Wal-Mart is an example of the former and the telecoms of the latter. The solution is to enforce the anti-trust laws and break 'em up.

I might be a bit niave here (and I DO trust that some will set me right on this post haste...) But can't the Attorney Generals of the different states do something about this to block it?

What about putting Anti-Trust prosecutors at the helm? I know I am preaching to the choir here in saying that this is headed in a very bad direction! Doing away with the current level all of us enjoy with Net Neutrality is at risk - and boy oh boy - if that goes through it will just be REALLY bad news!

OK - I need to vent! Anyone else remember a brief time - what was in the late 80's or so (maybe) when folks had these HUGE satelite dishes in their yards and it was great because you had access to all KINDS of information for free or nominal amount? Whatever happened to that?

Also, I thought it rather odd and amazing that so much attention was given to the big "Digital Conversion" a few years ago. Remember that one? How just 'all of a sudden' every channel it seems had these crawlers on the bottom of the TV screen 'alerting us' to the "big day" of conversion to supposingly "free up" bandwidth? I remember thinking - geesh - isn't it amazing how when a message wants to get across to the American People like this conversion...no prob in the massive effort - much like April 15th!

I'm frustrated as to these lack of options...so I ask: ARE there any other options????????

It's almost like an addiction to me (in a way) How much we have come to rely on these telecommunications services....in the sense that it is hard to live without (unless you want to just bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on.)

OK. Vent over.

Here's on I just found from the Kansas City Star 4-25-2011:

Sprint lobbying might not block AT&T-T-Mobile merger, but could set better terms
Sprint Nextel Corp. is taking the battle against AT&T Inc.’s proposed merger with T-Mobile USA to Washington. It’s signing up lobbyists to man its barricades and standing in alliance with consumer groups.

Why fight so hard when conventional wisdom sees regulators ultimately giving the deal an OK? Perhaps to sway the terms of whatever fusion that regulators might approve.

“What they’re doing is way more about concessions than about any real hope of stopping the deal,” said Timm Bechter, a telecommunications analyst at Waddell & Reed.

He falls in with other analysts who think the Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department will eventually give AT&T the nod to swallow T-Mobile.

Overland Park-based Sprint, led by full-throated complaints from CEO Dan Hesse, argues that combining the second-largest and fourth-largest cellphone companies in the country would be bad for consumers. A spokesman said Sprint’s lobbying charge is not about negotiating the conditions of the merger. Rather, the company contends that the government shouldn’t approve the deal.

Hesse and others insist a larger AT&T and Verizon would control up to 80 percent of the wireless market. That makes the shaky position of Sprint, the Kansas City area’s largest private employer, even wobblier. Hesse, now in step with some consumer groups, said it could destroy competition that leads to improved service and lower prices.

But in public statements and papers filed with the FCC last week, AT&T parroted many of the goals that the Obama administration has voiced for the wireless industry.

The carrier said combining wireless spectrums with T-Mobile would improve data-heavy service in congested urban areas — places such as New York and San Francisco where its networks have left smartphone users complaining about spotty connections. AT&T also argues that the merger would speed the deployment of wireless broadband service, an oft-repeated objective of the FCC under President Barack Obama.

Bechter and others say those arguments are likely to prevail, especially when teamed with AT&T’s political muscle. But merger approval would probably come with concessions aimed at preventing a monopoly. AT&T and T-Mobile will almost certainly have to agree to divestiture — auctioning off subscribers and wireless spectrum to other carriers.

Sprint and industry leader Verizon figure most prominently among those to bid for the assets — at prices AT&T will be forced to accept.

So the ramped-up lobbying charge would serve Sprint in two ways even it fails to stop the merger.

First, lobbyists could push regulators to demand a larger sell-off.

Second, it could give Sprint insight about, and perhaps influence over, what clusters of subscribers and spectrum land on the auction block.

Sprint isn’t new to the lobbying game. Last year it spent $2.5 million lobbying the federal government. In the first three months of this year, federal records show, it laid out almost $1.5 million spread across a handful of lobbying firms.

Since that most recent filing, Sprint has dropped one lobbying firm and added three others: Thorsen French Advocacy, Franklin Square Group and The Fritts Group.

“This is really not a regulatory fight or debate between AT&T and Sprint. This is a fight between AT&T and everybody else,” said John Taylor, a Sprint spokesman in Washington. “But Sprint is going to be participating in that debate.”

The Thorsen firm includes lawyers with experience working for high-ranking Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Franklin Square boasts lobbyists who had influential staff roles in the Clinton administration. The Fritts Group includes former executives of both AT&T and Sprint.

“If everyone thinks (the merger) is going forward, the lobbying is going to be about the terms, the provisions. … What are the guts of the deal going to look like?” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics and a critic of the pay-to-play lobbying culture in Washington. “You’re looking for people with both the partisan connections and who know the specialty.”

AT&T spent more than $15 million on federal lobbying last year and nearly $8.4 million in the first quarter of 2011, although the company’s interests roam wider than Sprint’s narrower focus on the wireless industry.

What’s more, seven members of Congress own more than $100,000 in AT&T stock. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, owns more than $1.2 million. No one in Congress owns more than $65,000 of Sprint stock.

Among those standing on Sprint’s side in opposing the merger is Free Press, a self-styled public interest lobbying group. It sees Sprint as outgunned in the fight, especially because Verizon has remained neutral.

“The size of their (Sprint’s) megaphone will be so small in comparison to AT&T,” said Derek Turner, the research director at Free Press. “As time goes on, the talk will switch to the size of divestiture. There may be some room to move things there.”

The FCC will lead the regulatory examination. But it will also work with Justice Department lawyers, who focus on whether such mergers violate antitrust laws. Critics, Sprint’s Hesse chief among them, warn of the creation of a duopoly where the biggest carriers would lose motivation to shore up their networks.

Regulators at the FCC deal with the more nebulous issue of whether the merger would serve the public interest. That allows it to look at issues ranging from pricing to the likelihood the change would spur innovation to whether more rural areas would get cell signals.

It could mimic the deal approved in January that mated Comcast and NBC Universal. The FCC forced the merged company to offer much of its content for distribution on the channels of competitors.

Like the negotiations over that merger, the AT&T/T-Mobile proposal is expected to take more than a year to finalize. It’s almost certain to come under scrutiny in the Republican-controlled House, where many lawmakers think regulators go too far in setting conditions for such deals. Two House committees are planning hearings on FCC reform, discussions that could look at the conditions of the AT&T merger.

Will pouring millions into lobbying help Sprint?

“Nothing in politics is certain,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “On the other hand, it’s fairly well documented that lobbyists who have revolving-door connections or are backed by campaign dollars have more power.”

And the millions spent on lobbyists seem small in the context of a merger that might threaten Sprint’s survival or the billions of dollars in business that could spring from a government-ordered sell-off of assets.

“Millions of dollars is still real money,” said Bechter, the industry analyst. “But it’s relative.”

To reach Scott Canon, call 816-234-4754 or send email to scanon@kcstar.com.

Source: http://sprintconnection.kansascity.com/?q=node/1771

..and another relevent article (in part):...mentioning the Attorney General:

(Reuters) - AT&T Inc's (T.N) $39 billion bid to buy Deutsche Telekom AG's (DTEGn.DE) T-Mobile USA came under scrutiny from New York's attorney general, who said he was looking into whether it was anti-competitive.

Citing a potential "near duopoly" as a result of the proposed deal, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he wanted to ensure the acquisition did not reduce access to low-cost cell phone options.

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the merger raised concerns, and he was checking with other states on the best approach for a review.

The deal announced last week would concentrate 80 percent of the U.S. wireless contract customers in two companies, AT&T/T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless, a venture of Verizon Communications (VZ.N) and Vodafone Group Plc (VOD.L).

"Cell phones are no longer a luxury for a few among us, but a basic necessity," Schneiderman said in a statement. "The last thing New Yorkers need during these difficult economic times is to see cell phone prices rise."

He said he would "closely scrutinize" AT&T's argument about the benefits of the purchase and weigh that against anti-competitive risks.

Rest here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-att-newyork-probe-idUSTRE72S4WB20110329

In closing - anyone familiar with this organization?:

http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/21/the-very-definition-of-antitrust-att-and-t-mobile-deal-is-a-consumer-disaster/

...that it would end up costing consumers money and time. In 1974, our household paid less than $10 per month for a telephone line with 2 extensions (3 phones altogether.) We paid nothing for the equipment, and if anything went wrong with the equipment, we paid nothing to have it repaired or replaced. Long distance was expensive, by the standards of the time, but local service areas were much larger than they are now, so local service rates covered more territory.

The alternative (to the antitrust suit that forced the breakup) that many people were pushing was a more stratified and regulated fee structure that would have preserved cheap local access for everyone, and initiated higher flat rates for levels of service based on other usage, plus surcharges. It would, however, have required AT&T to give majority control of its shares to a consortium of Federal, State, and local governments, to circumvent the antitrust laws that had already been invoked.

After the breakup we went from an annual household communications cost of paying one bill per month for a total of about $160 a year (including the flat monthly local charge plus long-distance usage, all provided by one service carrier,) to paying THREE bills per month for a total of more than twice that. Three, you say? Why yes: We had to pay one bill to U.S. West (as it was known then) for our local monthly line charge PLUS a level of service between local and long distance, that represented service to what had formerly been part of our local service area. I can't remember what it was called, but it was essentially "middle distance" service, and billed on our monthly statement just as the old long-distance charges had been. Plus a bill from our long-distance carrier, AT&T. Plus a credit-card bill to pay off the costs of our new telephones, since we now had to pay for them rather than being supplied with them by the phone company. To both of the phone bills, were added layer upon layer of surcharges and local taxes.

Communications is too important to be allowing corporate greedheads to profiteer off it. And the previous experience with AT&T reveals the harsh reality that no matter how carefully we try to make them play fair, they're still gonna use any such attempts on our part to screw us even worse.

pessimistically,
Bright

Surely there MUST BE....soemwhere...somehow....a modern-day Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak sitting in a garage somewhere today - figuring out a better way??????