and so it begins: dems take first swipes at business

seems like this had begun tuesday.

 

what is there to debate about?

are monopolies good?

 

It is about time somebody knocked the multi-national corporations down a notch or two. Once they get through with the telecomm industry, it is on to oil companies, insurance companies, pharmacutecial companies and then major league baseball.

 

yes...

 

Yes, keeping markets competitive in an area as ripe for exploitation as telecom = swipes at business.....if you're stupid.

Basso do you know a goddamned thing about the SBC-AT&T merger, FTC merger guidlines, HSR guidelines, the telecom act of 1996, or anything remotely related to it? Just asking.

 

in what world are monopolies good?

I thought competition was good? Monopolies are illeagle.

 

Man, the whining has started already.

Didn't AT&T break up once before?

AT&T/BellSouth merger with no conditions?

No thanks. And I do want the Dems to take a look at anything having to do with telecommunications and the administration's illegal surveillance of Americans.

By the way, get used to this basso... the Dems will deal with every one of those companies, especially Big Pharma, who listened to Delay and only gave money to Repubs the last 12 years... not in a way that will damage the economy (heck, it might even help if we had cheaper drugs and other reforms), but in ways that will make the corporate boards cringe.

 

First ATT/BellSouth

Next Halliburton and KBR

 

is this a newsboard? what's next? pelosi went to the restroom?

 

KBR has been owned by Halliburton for sometime now.

 

The world at the time of the original breakup of AT&T was much different than the world is today. An AT&T/Bell South merger would not recreate that monopoly.

 

The telecoms have stifled the internet and a monopoly would do so even more. 5 years ago, they prevented cheap broadband from reaching customers. They're also responsible for killing local free wifi initiatives. Now, they're forcing lower speeds (compared to other countries) at broadband rates.

Preventing the merger will play a big influence on the net neutrality debate. W/o a giant 100 lb gorilla championing for toll fees on the internet, it'll be more difficult to carry their point across in congress.

 

Maybe... or maybe that's only true for parts of the country.

Well, that settles it... obviously you're right.

 

If 'telecoms' are the problem then the merger between Bell South and AT&T is irrelevant, since all 'telecoms' would hold the same position against the internet.

 

You're right. As a general matter, I don't think anybody in America appreciates or fully understands (even the people at the DOJ, the FTC or the FCC) the vexing number of economic issues and problems that arise in the telecom sector as the industry and markets and laws and technology evolves; suffice to say it is extremely complicated and has proven difficult to predict even for the brightest economists.

So anyway, my objection to the original post, to simply paint one side of the issue blue and the other red and characterize one as a "swipe at business" in order to score Heckuva Job Brownie points, is an oversimplification, to put it mildly.

 

Yes I know. My brother works for them.

 

Not sure why it would be. There are a multitude of competitors now where there weren't then. The right to use the infrastructure is definitive now where it wasn't then. The technology now almost makes the idea of that kind of monopoly replicating impossible - between alternate carriers, cell phones, VOIP etc there is no chance to monopolize the market.

Fair enough.

 

I don't have a choice over who I pay my phone bill to, so pardon me for being sceptical. You might be right about infrastructure usage. Are there loopholes in the system where a company could make everyone else uncompetitive by charging outragous usage fees? I don't know. I do hope there is merrit behind the delay and it's not partisan garbage already.