Article by and for AT&T?

"The report raises questions as to whether its authors were predisposed," Cicconi said. "The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece and not a considered analysis."

Maybe the deal just stunk on ice, brah.

Alphax: Article by and for AT&T?

Sure as hell read like it.

Elandriel: Oh yeah, well the federal government will break them up if they get too big and buy too many congressmen!!

Right??

...right??

Guys?

Why do you hate capitalism?

crab66: Alphax: Article by and for AT&T?

Sure as hell read like it.

That's just what the Fed wants you to think! More liberal propaganda by the Soros-Lizardjew alliance!

If an impoverished flyover state plays it right, AT&T will move its HQ there, lock stock and barrel, in exchange for the winning vote on a law to force the FCC to say yes. Right St. Louis? Right San Antonio?

_{Move should be to a city not named after a saint.}

you dont mess with the freak'n fccc



/griffin

I am amazed at how whiny AT&T's response has been.
They tried to fark everyone over, then they tried to game the system like they've been doing in various incarnations for many, many decades.

An agency called them on it and now they're biatching like a child caught stealing a cookie from the jar.

why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

theinsultabot9000: you dont mess with the freak'n fccc



/griffin


its so powerful it grew another C!

jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

well, every company uses public resources to conduct their business, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't. so they're all responsible for the serving the public interest. so they're all technically regulated by the us government, and to make sure they're serving the public interest properly (if that's our true goal), then they should really just be taken over by the government.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

Because the US is anti-monopoly. The more corporations merge, especially corporations that use public resources, the less market competition there is. Plus, because these are communications companies, you can end up with someone not only having a monopoly on a service, but on mass market free expression.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

well, every company uses public resources to conduct their business, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't. so they're all responsible for the serving the public interest. so they're all technically regulated by the us government, and to make sure they're serving the public interest properly (if that's our true goal), then they should really just be taken over by the government.

I'm talking about beaming information through the airwaves. The electro-magnetic spectrum is considered a public good, owned by the people and administered by the government for the people's benefit. What the hell are you talking about?

Mercutio74: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

Because the US is anti-monopoly. The more corporations merge, especially corporations that use public resources, the less market competition there is. Plus, because these are communications companies, you can end up with someone not only having a monopoly on a service, but on mass market free expression.

Can't a competitor (I don't know, VERIZON!?!?!) offer a counterweight to that monopoly, though?

Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

well, every company uses public resources to conduct their business, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't. so they're all responsible for the serving the public interest. so they're all technically regulated by the us government, and to make sure they're serving the public interest properly (if that's our true goal), then they should really just be taken over by the government.

I'm talking about beaming information through the airwaves. The electro-magnetic spectrum is considered a public good, owned by the people and administered by the government for the people's benefit. What the hell are you talking about?

You know, apparently even I don't know the answer to that. I'm going to go make some breakfast.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

well, every company uses public resources to conduct their business, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't. so they're all responsible for the serving the public interest. so they're all technically regulated by the us government, and to make sure they're serving the public interest properly (if that's our true goal), then they should really just be taken over by the government.

the one they use, and are 100% dependent on as a business model in order to function, is given to them almost for free (relative to the size of the industry revenue)--- even though it is a very limited resource by definition.

jackthezomber: Can't a competitor (I don't know, VERIZON!?!?!) offer a counterweight to that monopoly, though?

Potentially, all things being equal. But what if you just allow companies to merge willy-nilly until there's two left and only THEN you do something about it? What if the two remaining companies are one of the verge of bankruptcy and one that's flush with cash and looking to expand? Look at all the governmental shiat Microsoft went through when they were really the only option for a commercial mass market operating system. Imagine how much worse it would be if they didn't go through that governmental shiat.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

What?

well, every company uses public resources to conduct their business, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't. so they're all responsible for the serving the public interest. so they're all technically regulated by the us government, and to make sure they're serving the public interest properly (if that's our true goal), then they should really just be taken over by the government.

Not every company uses public resources, but the ones that do are subject to regulation. The idea of a "public resource" can be a lot broader than you think.

AT&T is subject to regulation because they use two public resources: the radio-frequency spectrum and utilities lines.

Firstly, in America we consider the wireless radio-frequency spectrum to be a shared public resource. AT&T sells wireless phones so their usage of this spectrum is regulated. ANY company that makes ANY wireless device for profit must comply with federal regulators of that spectrum, the FCC.

Second, AT&T also has a large amount of infrastructure for telecommunications. There's only a limited amount of space available for this infrastructure to exist in cities and towns, so we also consider this privately-held infrastructure to be a public resource and additionally subject to regulation. For example, electric, gas, and sewer companies are regulated because the infrastructure requirement makes them a de-facto monopoly wherever they operate.

The government doesn't need to socialize companies in order for them to serve the public good, we just need good regulators and legislators who are willing to stand up for the public interest. In the past AT&T has made promises to secure permission for mergers but then never followed through. They need to make good on the infrastructure and services they already promised us before we let them have more of a stake in the public interest.

jackthezomber: Mercutio74: jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

Because the US is anti-monopoly. The more corporations merge, especially corporations that use public resources, the less market competition there is. Plus, because these are communications companies, you can end up with someone not only having a monopoly on a service, but on mass market free expression.

Can't a competitor (I don't know, VERIZON!?!?!) offer a counterweight to that monopoly, though?

Running a cell-phone service or traditional land-line service both require a LOT of infrastructure, and in some places it might be impossible to install new infrastructure to allow competition in the market.

In such an environment the current utilities owners have a monopoly, because they control access to the infrastructure needed to provide the service. In a true free market they can deny competitors access to that resource or they can charge exorbitant fees. Even if it's not impossible to build new infrastructure, it's terribly inefficient to have multiple sets of infrastructure in a single area.

There are a lot of parts of the US that fit these criteria- either there's no infrastructure available to add a competitor, or an area might be so unprofitable that there might be only one company willing to serve that area. The result is that competition is suppressed and prices are artificially high.

In a free and democratic society we consider freedom of speech (or more generally freedom to give and receive information, such as the internet) to be a fundamental component of our society. It's not healthy or fair to America for a company to be allowed to provide such a fundamental service only where it's profitable and ignore the areas it's not.

We won't have a truly free, open market until all of the telecommunications companies merge into just 2 giant conglomerates that control 100% of the market. Capitalism isn't about presenting equal opportunities to all comers, it's about stacking the deck so that the best (ie, biggest) companies succeed without having to worry about bothersome competition from smaller, inefficient companies. I don't understand why Fark hates free market capitalism!

tomcatadam: I am amazed at how whiny AT&T's response has been.
They tried to fark everyone over, then they tried to game the system like they've been doing in various incarnations for many, many decades.

An agency called them on it and now they're biatching like a child caught stealing a cookie from the jar.

I don't know if you have ever worked for ATT, I have had the displeasure of doing so, but they all act like that. From the top down. I have been in many corporations in my day but nothing compares to the ATT experience. It is truly run by a bunch of morons the like I have never seen before in any corporation. Even now I indirectly work along with ATT on certain projects and getting someone over there who can execute their job is few and far between.

jackthezomber: Wellon Dowd: jackthezomber: why is it AT&T's responsibility to serve the public interest?

Because they are being allowed to use a public resource to conduct their business.

By that definition, though, every corporation is responsible for serving the public interest. They should need government clearance to do anything at all. I don't get it.

Exactly - they should.