Andy Sherman <andys@ulysses.att.com> (06/13/91)
In article <telecom11.442.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, I wrote: > In article <telecom11.438.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Charlie Mingo writes: >> It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell >> divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not >> competitors. > Interesting mythology. Where did you find it? I've seen no evidence > that government intentions regards antitrust law in general or in US > vs AT&T in particular have anything whatsoever to do with consumers. > The Sherman antitrust act was enacted to prevent anticompetitive > behavior by large monopolies for the express purpose of keeping > smaller less efficient competitors from being driven out of business. *** FLAME ON ***** SELF-IMMOLATION IN PROGRESS ***** I was totally out of line. My knowledge of anti-trust law is based on 15-20 year old memories and his is based on more recent reading. While I still disagree with some of his conclusions, I apologize for being snotty without cause. Below is the reply I sent to Charlie after receiving his reply. To: Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org Subject: Re: Hollings Bill and Pac*Bell (REPOST) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Jun 91 01:51:11 -0700. <9106100151.1.15147@cup.portal.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 08:20:16 EDT Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell (LONG) To: Uucp From: Charlie Mingo Of: 109/421.4218 Date: 6/10/91 4:22:32 AM ------------------------------------------- To: uunet!ulysses.att.com!andys [This is a rather long posting, but you raised a great number of points. I regret I lacked the time to cover everything in depth, but I trust you will point out anything I might have skipped over.] Actually, you did a *marvelous* job, and I mean that with no irony. I will concede that your knowledge of anti-trust history exceeds mine. Since it has been some 15-20 years since I read that stuff (except for some history of the MFJ), I must accuse *myself* of fuzzy thinking. I still stand behind my contention that at least part of the intent of modern antitrust law is to preserve fairness in the marketplace, but like I said it's been some time, so I don't remember the sources. The only issue I think you addressed badly was the fairness of cross-subsidies between regulated and unregulated business. Of course, one of the things I feel strongly is that since *my* company has been forced to undergo tortuous reorganizations (remember Computer Inquiry II, which the FCC put into effect 1 year before divestiture?) that other companies ought to play by the same rules. Actually, I don't want to have argued myself into the corner of saying that customers should have less features, but they should pay a fair price for them. A fair price is not one which is subsidized by the ratepayers of local phone service. That is the point of my saying Pac*Bel's voice mail business should pay its phone business the going rate for network services such as free forwarding and stutter dial tone -- so that voice mail users pay the freight rather than captive rate payers. On to the Hollings bill ... this also raises some of the concerns in the manufacturing community about the Hollings bill. If the RBOCs make switches, they can mandate that their regulated monopolies buy them *AT ANY PRICE*. Not only does this freeze out other competitors, it can artificially raise the rates paid by local ratepayers, since the deal of the monopoly is based on some kind of ROI. Higher capital expenditures = more money from the N% ROI. (That was the nature of the NYNEX scam). There is also a matter of equity. Captive markets for switching equipment was certainly a major issue in US vs AT&T. I think that the Justice Department is currently attempting to legislate itself a new deal that gives AT&T less in exchange for divestiture than was originally negotiated. This is a good faith way to settle a lawsuit? This is fair treatment? I'd agree that telecommunications policy needs to be made by more than just one judge, but it can still be done without breaking past deals. Thanks for your reply. I apologize for accusing you of fuzzy thinking while engaging in it myself. If Pat posts my original response, I will flame myself. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Andy's original article had gone out just minutes earlier when I received his note asking me to cancel it. So I agreed to publish this 'self-flame' on his behalf. PAT]