by saying there is nothing to worry about because there are 4,000 other internet access providers, the analysts betray their abysmal ignorance!!!
I have a very unpleasant feeling that Sidgemore would like to be king of the internet. And that he likely doesn't know the internet well enough to realize that it rejects would be kings.
If I were an ISP, I'd pay plenty of attention to David Holubs post of relevant people at DoJ to who to express your concerns.
I know better but... Thanks Gordon I'm sure your intent is honorable but let me be more explicit lest you repackage mine. The DOJ will be interested in anti-competitive behavior either existing or potential. I was being a bit obtuse when I said 'opinion on the subject'. So, by way of a topical example, one might point out that the MAEs are 'unique interconnection facilities' and that by not adequately maintaining/upgrading either their own connectivity at them or maintenance of the MAEs for the use of others World Comm. is acting in a manner that limits the development of it competitors by forcing the use of private interconnection or the purchase of transit. This is a situation directly analogous to the control and manipulation of costs and flows in railway switching yards during an earlier "industrial" revolution. The behavior of the owners and operators of these yards were an integral part of the reasoning behind the creation of Anti-Trust Law in the first place. Another example is the non-disclosure and unfair application of criteria for establishing or maintaining peering between networks. Certainly, there are other examples, the bottom line is you may rest assured that the DOJ doesn't understand the fundamentals in this business and they need to be educated. Thats what lobbyist do and since there is little or no organized representation of ISPs as an industry it is important that as individuals we make an effort to provide these folks with the clues that they desperately need to do their jobs. The chances that the DOJ stops this deal are nill, but the opportunity to show them what to look out for from the combined entity in the future is large. As another Gordon (Gordon Gecko) pointed out, 'greed is good'. Thus, for the share holders of MCI they have the right and the privilege to collect the highest price for their shares. However as unrealized as it may seem Anti-Trust Law exists to check the unbridled excesses of the marketplace if and only if those that are effected assert their rights under these laws. keep in mind that MFS, World Comm., MCI etc... have spent and continue to spend millions on lobbyists/lawyers at the State and Federal levels. They have argued for years that that telecommunications markets need to be deregulated/allow for competition because 'the public is better served by a competitive marketplace'. Yet if you ask their legal counsel, 'the Internet is not telecommunications, its an enhanced service'. Why? Because they don't want the same standards that they have lobbied for as Carriers to apply to the Internet business while they consolidate their holdings. That is why I feel it is so important to educate these regulatory folks, because even at a very minimum it illuminates the hypocrisy within these very circles. --david