That may be, but they are right. Do you think anyone will benefit from Verizon+MCI? After this merger, the incumbent ILEC in a huge market area will also own the only real CAP (remember Brooks and MFS?). Isn't it bizarre that it is possible that a regulated LEC will also own an unregulated CAP, which currently competes (vigorously, I might add) with the LEC? Do you think anyone will benefit from ATT+SBC? Both mergers stink to high heaven. And we can probably rest assured that the FCC does not have the consumers' best interest in mind. On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

...

One might wonder if Qwest is a little upset about being rebuffed by MCI in its efforts to merge the two companies.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/11426726.htm

Smells like sour grapes to me....

jms

-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net

But don't you think its a little bizaire how they know talk about this big and scarry monopoly after loosing bid for MCI themselve? Or do you really think we'd have been any better of if it was Qwest (another ILEC BTW) that bought MCI instead?

The underlying question is: Who cares. As this point, consider them an ally. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Justin M. Streiner wrote:

If Qwest would have won the bid, then it would be up to Verizon to cry foul - and rest assured they would. Funny how that works :-)

We may yet see that happening as it appears the bidding war is far from over - latest news article on this issue (also reporting on Qwest being upset over SBC+ATT deal) says that Qwest increased its bid and now MCI says Qwest bid is superior...: http://news.com.com/Qwest+to+turn+up+heat+on+SBC-AT38T+merger+fight/2100-103... Oh and BTW, you wanna know who likes this kind of a deal? Well - apparently its the Union!: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=72768 And you know what their reason is? It seems they care a lot about national security, in fact here is how they see it: "The merger makes certain that national security will be safeguarded, by ensuring that AT&T, on which the government heavily depends for national security and other needs, will be a strong American company,"

...

Both mergers stink to high heaven. And we can probably rest assured that the FCC does not have the consumers' best interest in mind.

They haven't for quite a long time.

Wanna know how and why that happened? Let me explain to you on related example. Lets take "Inter-American Telecommunication Commission" which up until now was made up of people who were interested in best technology and how it can best meet consumer demands and interests. But not any more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html "The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign." Apparently politics is in and consumer interests are out, especially for current administration who knows how to separate those who gave them money from those who did not (in fact this administration's actions will easily dispel any myths that if Europe is full of corruption and its full of liberals, then its the liberal politicians who are most easily corrupted). So aint it great when your vote counts like that? Well, it might even have been better if it counted as much as the $$$ given to the right politicians.... So now guess, who has money to give to the right place, big company like SBC who's contribution you can easily see and remember or number of individuals with diverse reasons and backgrounds. And then of course we have FCC appointed by politicians, but tasked with having to decide in best interests of those individuals, or is it? And coming to parallel topic of discussions, we now have calls (by guess who...) for having IP registrations (and ICANN in general) be taken over by ITU, so that process can be controlled and administered by government. So apparently current system where ip registrations and policies are controlled primarily by the consumers of those resources through the non-profit organizations is not quite what the governments of the world like - no, its large monopoly telcos that they prefer! -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net