Judge Explores Why Telco Mergers Were Allowed
from the asking-some-questions dept
A few weeks ago we noted that famous anti-trust lawyer Gary Reback was pushing the courts to look into whether or not the big telcos broke the law in getting their various mergers approved. It appears those efforts have paid off. Federal District Judge Emmet Sullivan has now asked the Department of Justice for more info, noting that to his untrained eyes, the mergers definitely seem harmful to competition and the market -- so he'd like some more info on why they were approved. This could certainly get interesting pretty quickly. While it seems unlikely that he'd be able to turn back the clock and break up the mergers, it could lead to additional restrictions on the companies. Unfortunately, that might be the worst of both worlds, with the companies merged, but with the government (or the courts) trying to come up with the best way to create competition.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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anonymous insight
...completely underwhelming.
Thank you for contributing such an insightful and on-topic comment to this article.
Oh, wait, you were just being a mindless ass complaining and trying to shove you opinion of what content this site should host on others. Well, thanks for that... I think...
Tell you what, really... If you dont like the articles being posted, stop wasting your time, and don't read it. Your post about the other articles not proving useful to you is every bit as useless as this post I am writing right now.
So stop, or I will tell you to stop a second time. Its better for both of us if you just stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisan News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Stop Reading it then
This is not CNN Bro!
May Tech Dirt Never change!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Stop Reading it then
I will know pretty quickly if I disagree with the opinion, but Im happy to have it since it's pretty well thought out.
Sure, articles sometimes sound repetitive, but thats because the news is repetitive. The way things are today is not that great, we need thoughts on how to change them, and the more people trying to think of reasonable ways to do so the better.
People who disagree are part of the news piece here, because there arent so many comments that theyre unreadable, and some of them are very insightful and give differing perspectives than the article editorial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge and jury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a sec...
As the company gets larger, I find it harder to get through to tech support (when and if I need it), and it takes them forever to get out to my house for repairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a sec...
Then it was SBC/Ameritech DSL, and nothing much changed except tech support went from "pretty good" to "bad".
Then is was SBC DSL (although my e-mail was still @ameritech).
Then AT&T merged/bought SBC.
Now I have a cable modem and Vonage. I really don't see the problem. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a sec...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a sec...
Whoops, they forgot to buy the name. AT&T planned to sell their business, then relaunch on leased lines as AT&T Wireless.
Bell South didn't have the cash, so SBC bought them in no small part to protect their investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a sec...
Both companies listed >$1B annual savings over having to enforce the divestiture requirements. Most expensive? Double staffing in legacy AT&T buildings which moved into regional bell ownership.
IMHO, the AT&T brand is a liability, not an advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a sec...
The laws of this land are suppose to protect the minority from the majority, the rich, and the powerful. If our rights are treated as such as, "just a piece of paper", then the laws are not being upheld to their fullest extent.
Just remember that the rich and powerful don't have to play by the same rules as the "little guy". If if were you or me that distributed something like Sony's rootkit for Windows, we'd already been fined or in prison. OH! But Sony didn't even get a slap on the wrist. Isn't that a bitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a sec...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the wiretapping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can they afford it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]