Did The Telcos Break The Law In Getting Merger Approvals?
from the dishonest-telcos?--nah,-couldn't-be... dept
In case you didn't already have enough information on how the telcos have lied and cheated their way to power, taking public funds and assets, and breaking the promises made to get that loot, here's another one for you. Larry Lessig points out that Gary Reback (the famed lawyer who spent a good part of the 1990s trying to get Microsoft taken down for antitrust violations) is focusing on a new case: showing how the telcos and the government broke the law in approving some of the recent big telco mergers (the same mergers that helped those telcos get rid of competition, now allowing them to do things like get rid of network neutrality). In this case, the claim is that the mergers were approved while the Senate held back the Justice Department appointee charged with enforcing antitrust law (over concerns that he might actually, well, enforce antitrust laws). Once the deals were approved, the Senate dropped their hold on the appointee. Following this, the Justice Department is accused of ignoring parts of antitrust law (the Tunney Act) that forbid backroom dealings between corporations and governments on antitrust matters, and approving the mergers before a judge could do a review to make sure the Tunney Act wasn't violated. Again, it's a bit early to know whether or not this case is going to get anywhere, but Reback is someone who doesn't tend to give up easily (even if his detour into the startup world didn't turn out to be hugely successful) -- and the telcos certainly have a history of this type of questionable behavior in making backroom deals with government officials (many of which they never live up to their side on). If, as we've been saying, the real problem is the lack of competition in the telco space, finding out that some of that lack of competition came about potentially through illegal means, raises an awful lot of questions.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shocking
Speaking of competition, I would love to see a law that you cannot purchace a computer with an OS pre-installed. If people had to pay the full price, not a hidden, backroom deal price, for thier OS, then Linux would be truly allowed to compete in the marketplace. MS would have to get better, and cheaper, and both worlds would benifit, mine and those useing MS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shocking indeed
meaning that car makers can't force you to buy their accessories for example...
Yet for computers, most of the population, the judiciary system and the politicians are illiterate in that regard, so while we saw a lawsuit billed and µ$ lost the case (special version of Xp and upcoming vista without IE or anything i think)
Still most of the time people think Windows is "better", hell you have to go specific shops to find a Mac, and a linux is available only if you your computer is not premade (mobile is out then)
so in short, if no one care about competition then no >.>
hope that was clear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it is, most of the people that buy PCs will be buying them to run Microsoft applications because that's what they know. The basic install for Windows probablly would get a lot cheaper though. As it is, I think the main reason it's so expensive is to encourage consumers to just stop using the current PC they have and buy a new one from the manufacturers.
Vicious cycle.
(And Linux still has a long way to go on UX, but Ubuntu is making a lot of good moves).
And if anyone bought a Mac, they'd probablly still be buying OSX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course what this has to do with the alleged/inferred malfeasence of telcos I'm not sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about choice...
Rubbish. Anything that attempts to tie goods and services together is, by nature, anticompetitive. Think car dealerships and servicing. Razors and blades. Printers and (patented!) cartridges. Do you want to be locked in to one supplier? Of course not.
> Absolutely nothing stops Linux from bundling their OS with a desktop and pointing out the price difference for the exact same hardware.
Try is and see how long you remain on Microsoft's list of suppliers. If they can't stop you, they'll drop you like a hot brick. What "choices" will your customers have then? Linux or buy Windows at full retail price, but no cut-price bundled Windows.
> This illustrates that most people have no idea how a free market economy is supposed to work.
Neither, apparently, do you.
> Of course what this has to do with the alleged/inferred malfeasence of telcos I'm not sure...
Then let me explain.
Like most companies, Microsoft loves vendor lock-in, hates consumer choice and avoids competition wherever possible. The problem is in a legal system allows them to get away with it. Ditto for the telcos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about choice...
Now maybe that would be good for people looking to save money on an OS. But that's not what your arguement was about. It was about how unfairly Linux has been treated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good ide, but...
Actually, unbundling might actually be a good idea in that the retail price of both hardware and software might go down... but the total price would go up. Currently the big-box-boyz are paying about $30 (guess) per OEM XP installation, and neither they nor Microsoft would want to upset that little applecart... and most users would balk at the idea of instlling their own OS.
But that's not what your argu[e]ment was about. It was about how unfairly Linux has been treated.
Was it? Where did I say that? Did I even mention Linux? Last time I looked, I was talking about forced-bundling of products and services being anticompetitive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I even mention Linux?
I must be going mad. I'm talking to myself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why part deux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why part deux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precision
they didn't wait for computer to come around to make that law, i know french politicians are dumb, stupid and all (well ... politician).
If you think about it, it's only natural.
Customer also have rights you know?
And by forcing you to rebuy a licence fee for a system you already own you repay for the same product :/
And on a mac, if people upgrade the computer but want to keep the old OS, they can get a refund...
try this with Windows >.>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
precision
they didn't wait for computer to come around to make that law, i know french politicians are dumb, stupid and all (well ... politician).
If you think about it, it's only natural.
Customer also have rights you know?
And by forcing you to rebuy a licence fee for a system you already own you repay for the same product :/
And on a mac, if people upgrade the computer but want to keep the old OS, they can get a refund...
try this with Windows >.>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T is the devil
AT&T has done many things to hurt their customers. . let me give you one example. i hope all of you know what the work "Slam" means. if you don't "Slaming" is the proccess in which a company takes over your service without your permission. and yes it is Illegal. AT&T is the worst company in the world to slam you. they are so bad. that they have there own "Slamming hotline" if you don't belive me. go to atts website and click on contact us. then type in the first few of your phone number. and it will give you all the contact numbers. just scroll down, and you'll see the 'slamming hotline'
no tell me, if a company has something like that, then they know there doing something illegal. and there not getting hit by the government... then how many other things are they willing to try just to steal your money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T is the devil
Before cingular, it was at&t. Pay your bill online, you'l still see verbage on the web page about AT&T customers.
My personal oppinion, If at&t was left alone years ago. We would never have seen a degrading of service.
My oppinion of your post.
hmmm
I know where you can buy some wine and cheese real cheap.
Dan Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T is the devil
Before cingular, it was at&t. Pay your bill online, you'l still see verbage on the web page about AT&T customers.
My personal oppinion, If at&t was left alone years ago. We would never have seen a degrading of service.
My oppinion of your post.
hmmm
I know where you can buy some wine and cheese real cheap.
Dan Miller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AT&T is the devil
ummm....no. Sorry, AT&T Was never Cingular. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless Which was spun off from AT&T years before due to poor perfomance. They were just allowed to keep the AT&T Name for while. Howver if the AT&T/SBC merger does go through, then AT&T will own a buttload of Cinguiar shares, so Cingulkar will probably be called AT&T Wireless again. (in fact I think I read about that on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phone Company Mergers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phone Company Mergers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy Consmerashy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is why people have to be forced at gunpoint to bundle goods and services or buy all the components for a complete system from a single supplier. Your "reasoning" is so idiotic it's comical. When the bundling is forced, and the customer realizes no value from the add-on it's gouging, but that's not what's being discussed is it? You can buy another car, build a PC from components, use a straight razor. Beyond that, tieing goods and services togather is a classic way to add value and seperate your product from your competitior's.
Try is and see how long you remain on Microsoft's list of suppliers. If they can't stop you, they'll drop you like a hot brick. What "choices" will your customers have then? Linux or buy Windows at full retail price, but no cut-price bundled Windows.
The free market has consequences. If you piss off a major supplier then they have the right to not sell to you. But unless MS started subsidizing PCs when I wasn't looking whether or not the OS is purchased with the PC doesn't effect the cost of hardware. And if there was enough demand for Linux a retailer could easily justify annoying MS by being able to sell a PC with a higher hardware markup (after all the OS is free) to make up the lost profit. Why don't they? Because other than geeks, nobody wants a system where most of the limited PC knowledge they have goes down the drain, doesn't work with the apps the buy at Walmart, and is primarily supported by the aforementioned geeks.
And MS can only jack their prices up to what people are willing to pay for the compatibility and conveniance. At a certain point, the cost is so high that it's equal to or greater than the cost of switching to Linux, at which point it's neutral or advantageous to switch.
Neither, apparently, do you.
Ah, the "no, you are" school of Internet discussion. The Wiz, reppin middle school 4 life!
Like most companies, Microsoft loves vendor lock-in, hates consumer choice and avoids competition wherever possible. The problem is in a legal system allows them to get away with it. Ditto for the telcos.Again, I missed the part where Microsoft came to my house and forced me to remove Linux and BeOS from my computers at gunpoint. I was out the day that the tanks rolled into the village and confiscated all teh Macs. I missed when the hooded MS cadre burned a flaming Windows logo into Autodesk's lawn and told them not to make a Linux version "...if they knew what was good 'fer em". I missed the feeble sheriff/attorney general getting shot down in the street when he said something bad about Bill Gates. I was however there when MS was cranking out crappy, buggy OS's that ran on cheap, open architecture PCs rather than elegant but expensive Macs. I was there when OS2 was allowed to wither on the vine, and no vendor with a toehold in the corporate desktop space unerstood that doing one thing well was great, but the future was a comprehensive desktop.
The telco's have a natural and state sanctioned monopoly dependent of their ownership of the PSTN. MS has no such monopoly, nor state sanction thereof. Alternatives are readily, and indeed freely, available. Their power to coerce is limited to the financial pressure that they can apply to middle men, and the market saturation that they've achieved. The situations aren't even slightly analogous. 0 for 4 there Professor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Junyo gets it right.
Stop the chatter of the vs. game and lets talk about the telcos. I for one would welcome the deregulation not believing that it would equal anything like what Califonia went thru as this affects the whole contry and not one very bad off financial state situation.
Deregulation of the phone systems would be great except remember that if I layed all those wires in your nieghborhood I still own them so there will be a fee. This is what stops the competition. So what we going to do about that purchase state by state all the wires layed everywhere then allow any telco to buy/rent time or useage on any wire?
The telcos are making deals with politicians and the politicians are holding back the "cop" who would ensure our interests is of more WOW to me (please re-read this article) I feel like I would have my farm paid off (Uncle Jesse) but Boss Hog just locked up the check delivery guy comming to save my farm at midnight before I loose it.
We need to be up in arms more about what politicians do then MS and Linux and Mac (who now runs Windows XP) so we can ensure that deals dont prevent competition or that they at least arent illeagal.
Stop the computer debate and start one on this topic that addresses these real issues.
2cents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, everyone... go back to sleep
If you actually want to communicate with people, try addressing their argument instead of calling them names ("children") and using an utterly meaningless label ("liberal") to make your supposed point for you.
If you had a point you would have used something called "logical argument" to make it. But you don't, so you didn't.
The free market works great, when there's competition. When there is no competition, it falls on its keister. Can anyone think of an example of the deregulation of a market that had an insufficient number of competitors in it prior to deregulation?? How about the energy market in California in 2001. Anyone remember that? If you don't have enough competitors, there is no incentive to compete, and so the potential competitors just watch the rolling blackouts and keep raising their rates. Many people don't realize that this was the reason behind the crash and burn of energy market deregulation in that state.
So, unless you're willing to argue that there is significant competition in the telecoms industry in the US, then you have to admit the deregulating this industry at this time, would be a huge mistake. Maybe after more suppliers are in the game. But until then DEREGULATION = RECIPE FOR DISASTER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Christ sake - discuss the relevant topic people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Light the fire
Big Telco gets away with it because people are not as outraged as they should be, have their blinders on, or are easily distracted. Forget about the OS-PC bundling. Forget about the California rolling blackouts (you can thank Enron for that, btw), and forget about slamming.
Our telecommunications industry is a disaster, and until Mom and Pop Q. Public realize they are being directly impacted, then the greedy corporations and crooked politicans will get away with it. The vast majority of the public doesn't realize what they're being robbed of because they have no frame of reference. Nevermind that the rest of the world is far outpacing us in broadband deployment (in coverage density, bandwidth, and price), Mom and Pop Q. Public are happy to pay $40/mo for 3Mbps because they were paying nearly that for 56k dial-up just a few years ago. You can't miss what you don't know you should have.
Ignorance is bliss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me see, my choices in my affluent neighborhood in Sacramento, CA (and I'm 3.9 driving miles from the main CO downtown; less than a quarter mile from my EO) are slow, expensive, monopoly DSL and slow, expensive, monopoly Cable. That's it. My mom in San Ramon, CA? She gets a choice of slow, expensive, monopoly Cable and nothing. She can't even get DSL, and she is a mile or two from that huge AT&T/SBC/PacBell/Borg campus regional headquarters. This is a choice?
"...its a lot easier wiring Hong Kong and other countries like that vs. America because of distance..."
Don't even get me started citing the numerous facts on how America is desperately behind in broadband. And I'm not referncing only mega-dense urban areas either, but if I were, how many people do you know in New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco that get 20, 50, even 100Mbps at their urban dwelling? Of those, how many get that for $40/mo...$30?...even $20?
"...there still isn't widespread need for 100 mpbs downstream."
Hahaha. Good one! Imagine your car was only able to go 3MPH for as long as you can remember. Suddenly, you're able to go 15MPH. You're thrilled. But then, would you go 60MPH if they let you? Would you drive farther? And over any distance, wouldn't you be more efficient?
Saying they don't need (or wouldn't make use of) it because they don't have it is no argument at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Tesco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCKFACE YO USHUT UP BITCH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nacchio
CEO's like him got off light.
He's still having all his legal bills sent
to Quest.
When will this vermin get squashed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]