Successful Blog

Free FCC Ringtones: When Is a Monopoly Not a Monopoly?

by

I’ve Got a Question

Isn’t a generally accepted principle here in the US that monopolies are pretty much bad things?

I mean it’s something that most folks here seem to agree on regardless of their political persuasion. Those who shade toward the conservative side see competition as beneficial for the economy. And folks with a more liberal outlook generally see behemoth corporations as undesirable.

One Way to CC It logo

And didn’t the US government spend something like 8 years in court to break up the monopoly that AT&T had over out nation’s communication system?

I’m sure they spent a ton of our tax dollars on that.

They Say That Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

Where I lived we weren’t too affected one way or the other by the break up. We happened to live in a very rural part of Upstate New York and our family somewhat affectionately called our local phone company, Taconic Telephone, Rinky-dink Tel. [Read more…]

Net Neutrality 01-30-07

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Is Net Neutrality A Myth? [via Light Within]

The advocates of net neutrality have, at first blush, one overwhelming argument in their favor. The Internet was designed to be a dumb network, with all the brains and innovation residing at the ends of the system. As such, all bits of data traveling over the Internet would be treated equally. This “end-to-end” design principle is the essence of network neutrality and, the proponents of mandated net neutrality argue, must be maintained to secure the Internet as we know it.

This essential characteristic, it is argued, precludes the owners of the Internet’s “pipes” from engineering any intelligence into the network’s architecture–and thus any differential pricing–since all the intelligence must reside at the edges. Proponents of mandated net neutrality managed to force the adoption of some net neutrality provisions into the recent merger agreement between AT&T (nyse: T – news – people ) and Bell South.

But in ” The Myth of Network Neutrality and What We Should Do About It,” Robert Hahn and Robert Litan of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies argue that, contrary to the claims of regulated neutrality proponents, “all bits of information are not treated equally from an economic standpoint.” They argue that “the Internet is not end-to-end now and was never designed to be strictly neutral.”

How can this be? The engineering architects of the Internet drafted the technical rules in informal papers called Requests for Comment. The early drafters of the Net’s architecture, according to Hahn and Litan, “recognized the need to offer priority to some packets over others.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 01-02-07

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

AT&T Concession Thoroughly Debunks Key Anti-Net Neutrality Myth [via Anything They Say]

NEWS RELEASE

AT&T’s agreement to Net Neutrality as a condition of their merger with Bell South was a huge victory for Internet freedom. It also debunks a top myth told to the public by Internet freedom opponents like AT&T: that Net Neutrality can’t be defined. It can be – AT&T just did it.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Read on to see how AT&T found a way to do it when it served their financial interests.

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-29-2006 — AT&T Gives Way On Net Neutrality

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

AT&T compromise may get merger approved

WASHINGTON — AT&T Inc. has offered a new set of concessions that are expected to satisfy the two Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission and lead to approval of the company’s $85 billion buyout of BellSouth Corp. Approval by the full commission could happen as soon as Friday.

AT&T filed a letter of commitment with the agency 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 a promise to give up some wireless spectrum.

Final approval still requires a vote of the commissioners, which can happen at any time via computer. The proposed deal is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.

[ . . . ]

Among the promises made by the company:

_An offer of stand-alone, high-speed Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month. 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.

_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.”

_To freeze 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 “assign and/or transfer to an unaffiliated third party” all of its 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.

Ben Scott, legislative director for Free Press, a reform group that has fought the merger, said the network neutrality provision was a “big step forward for the supporters of an open Internet.”

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 12-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Open Letter on AT&T Merger to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin

To: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
CC: WSJ Editorial Page
Date: 12/20/06
Re: AT&T Merger with Bell South, Net Neutrality or Why There Is Still No Phone Competition in Long Valley, NJ

Mr Martin,

I know it must be tough for you these days as the last check into this bad for consumer deal between the new, new, we swear we won’t do no evil AT&T and Bell South. Especially now that Robert McDowell decided to abstain from voting on the merger which results in a 2-2 tie between Republicans and Democrats at the FCC. Wow to think how billions hang in the balance between 4 people. That’s quite a challenge, so let me, as a 10 year veteran of the old and better AT&T give you some advice. Sure this is free, but if you study the downfall of AT&T you will realize that the current uncompetitive environment is much of a result of bad management by C. (how) Michael (bought Excite@Home and TCI high and sold them very low) Armstrong and lies and underdeliveries by the Baby Bells of the promised made in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I submit to you my recent experience with home service in beautiful Long Valley, NJ which is a mere 30 minutes via a country road to the old AT&T HQ and now the current Verizon HQ in Basking Ridge NJ.
[ . . . ]

Yes, I do believe in our economy, free markets, and that if all things being equal, competition will give consumers more choices and better prices. However, it doesn’t work when you allow each Baby Bell to have a virtual monopoly in their territory, resulting in no alternatives for consumers. Use your own experience and see if you can switch services. Competition doesn’t exist and this merger shouldn’t be allowed to go through without significant concessions.

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE