Comments on: AT&T Knows When to Fold ‘em http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:47:41 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: HumbleOpinion http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80405 HumbleOpinion Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:25:51 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80405 <p>"Though big telcos can probably always count on the Bush administration to veto any laws they find unacceptable, "</p> <p>As far as I remember, President Bush has only vetoed one bill in his two terms in office. It is probably the lowest veto rate of any president, and not something the telcos would count on. AT&T is going to have win this fight the old-fashioned way, fake concessions and pay-offs.</p> “Though big telcos can probably always count on the Bush administration to veto any laws they find unacceptable, “

As far as I remember, President Bush has only vetoed one bill in his two terms in office. It is probably the lowest veto rate of any president, and not something the telcos would count on. AT&T is going to have win this fight the old-fashioned way, fake concessions and pay-offs.

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80403 Jesse Kopelman Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:09:16 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80403 <p>I love how most of the concessions are merely restatements of earlier promises and regulatory commitment. It's like they are saying, "sure we were lying all the other times when we agreed to this stuff, but this time we really mean it!"</p> <p>I think the only substance here is that they have agreed to sell their 2.6 GHz spectrum. Since the likely buyer is someone who already has similar spectrum (Clearwire), I'm not sure how this does anything to help consumers. At least it will make things neater when Sprint buys Clearwire in 2 or 3 years.</p> I love how most of the concessions are merely restatements of earlier promises and regulatory commitment. It’s like they are saying, “sure we were lying all the other times when we agreed to this stuff, but this time we really mean it!”

I think the only substance here is that they have agreed to sell their 2.6 GHz spectrum. Since the likely buyer is someone who already has similar spectrum (Clearwire), I’m not sure how this does anything to help consumers. At least it will make things neater when Sprint buys Clearwire in 2 or 3 years.

]]> By: Dave Burstein http://gigaom.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80401 Dave Burstein Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:53:07 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/att-knows-when-to-fold-em/#comment-80401 <p>Paul, Om</p> <p>It's really much worse than it looks when you get into the details. AT&T basically gave away nothing. Here's how I'm writing it, (draft)</p> <p>“I call them the black ninjas. They work by night and are very, very good.” FCC Chairman Bill Kennard explaining telco lobbyists</p> <p>“Jim Cicconi and Bob Quinn are the best lobbyists in Washington,” President of SBC Bill Daley lamented after they beat him a while back. They now work for AT&T, and have proven their brilliance by convincing most of D.C. they accepted network Neutrality to get the BellSouth merger approved, while burying on page 10 a sentence that made their concession almost meaningless. Their proposal came out Thursday night and I’ve worked all night. Apologies to non-U.S. readers for putting this first, but AP reports they plan to sneak it through Friday before the holiday. </p> <p>AT&T offer on Net Neutrality sounds good, and might be a model to countries like Japan that are considering Net Neutrality rules. AT&T agreed “not to provide … any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.” </p> <p>A seemingly innocuous later sentence effectively makes that almost meaningless. “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” AT&T has always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them over the “IPTV” part of their network, with Alcatel routers and Microsoft software designed for QOS. They don’t even have the equipment for that kind of QOS on what they call “wireline broadband Internet access service.” The lawyers fighting this in D.C. won’t even discover they’ve been bamboozled until afterwards if the commission goes ahead and rushes this through. The entire set of “concessions” remains so insignificant that Merrill Lynch’s “immaterial” judgment still holds.</p> <p>The other stuff in the 20 pages adds surprisingly little substance. For example, the 85% DSL promise happens to be the level BellSouth has already reached. Most of the special access rates they agreed to freeze are ones AT&T CEO, Rick Lindner, told Wall Street “have been declining as a result of competition.”</p> <p>Incredibly effective persuasion, which at least in early drafts even bamboozled public interest advocates and Commission Democrats. With luck, they’ll analyze the final filing, released late Thursday, before making up their mind. It would be scandalous if an $85B merger goes through on terms revealed only 12 hours before. </p> Paul, Om

It’s really much worse than it looks when you get into the details. AT&T basically gave away nothing. Here’s how I’m writing it, (draft)

“I call them the black ninjas. They work by night and are very, very good.” FCC Chairman Bill Kennard explaining telco lobbyists

“Jim Cicconi and Bob Quinn are the best lobbyists in Washington,” President of SBC Bill Daley lamented after they beat him a while back. They now work for AT&T, and have proven their brilliance by convincing most of D.C. they accepted network Neutrality to get the BellSouth merger approved, while burying on page 10 a sentence that made their concession almost meaningless. Their proposal came out Thursday night and I’ve worked all night. Apologies to non-U.S. readers for putting this first, but AP reports they plan to sneak it through Friday before the holiday.

AT&T offer on Net Neutrality sounds good, and might be a model to countries like Japan that are considering Net Neutrality rules. AT&T agreed “not to provide … any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.”

A seemingly innocuous later sentence effectively makes that almost meaningless. “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth’s Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” AT&T has always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them over the “IPTV” part of their network, with Alcatel routers and Microsoft software designed for QOS. They don’t even have the equipment for that kind of QOS on what they call “wireline broadband Internet access service.” The lawyers fighting this in D.C. won’t even discover they’ve been bamboozled until afterwards if the commission goes ahead and rushes this through. The entire set of “concessions” remains so insignificant that Merrill Lynch’s “immaterial” judgment still holds.

The other stuff in the 20 pages adds surprisingly little substance. For example, the 85% DSL promise happens to be the level BellSouth has already reached. Most of the special access rates they agreed to freeze are ones AT&T CEO, Rick Lindner, told Wall Street “have been declining as a result of competition.”

Incredibly effective persuasion, which at least in early drafts even bamboozled public interest advocates and Commission Democrats. With luck, they’ll analyze the final filing, released late Thursday, before making up their mind. It would be scandalous if an $85B merger goes through on terms revealed only 12 hours before.

]]>