better pay attention to holubs listing of folk at D o J
herewith a few sentences from an AP story: Regulators are likely to examine the deal to see if such dominance would squeeze out rivals and drive up prices. But several analysts said they expect the deal to clear that hurdle, because there are roughly 4,000 other Internet access providers. ``They'll be a formidable competitor with a tremendous amount of market clout,'' said Rebecca Wetzel, a consultant with TeleChoice Inc., based in Verona, N.J. ``But there are plenty of other choices out there.'' ---------------- 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. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com New Special Report: Internet Governance at the Crossroads ($175) http://cookreport.com/inetgov.shtml ************************************************************************
On Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 10:05:33AM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
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 you are so confident that the Internet regects would-be kings, when why are you so concerned about the WorldCom/MCI merger? Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Erols Internet, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
At 10:20 AM 11/11/97 -0500, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
If you are so confident that the Internet regects would-be kings, when why are you so concerned about the WorldCom/MCI merger?
If I'm not mistaken, that Dave Clark quote is more geared towards the IETF, not Internet business. - paul
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
One thing to keep in mind is that many folks would argue that anti-trust criteria are highly dependent on the implications to the consumer, not to the distributor. So, with the current M$ hocus pocus, the issue is not that the distributors had to purchase 95 but rather that it caused direct consumer implications- system costs were higher (they paid for windows 95), consumer choices may have been unnaturally limited, and one could potentially argue that Netscape browser costs are higher (because the distribution channels have been "difficult"). And we also need to remember that even the browser (word processor mrkt) there aren't (weren't) nearly 8000 (or whatever the new guesses are) competitors and the DOJ has been hard pressed to do much about it. Not to say that anti-trust issues don't apply here... but given the precedence the writing may be on the wall. The issue about regulation is not only an issue for the big folks, I suspect the little folks would have some trouble with it as well... Ho hum. On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, David Holub wrote:
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
participants (5)
-
Alec H. Peterson -
David Holub -
Erik M. Bataller -
Gordon Cook -
Paul Ferguson