Login:
Password:

FCC Approves AT&T / BellSouth Merger

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

December 29, 2006, 5:31 PM

After AT&T's offer late yesterday of expanded concessions, including some that would guarantee neutrality in its network and routing pricing arrangements, the US Federal Communications Commission voted to approve the merger of AT&T Inc. and BellSouth, the former Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) that was spun off from AT&T Corp. in 1984.

As a result of this merger - which was announced in March of this year - none of the RBOC entities formed after the original AT&T Corp. breakup remain in their post-breakup form. The names Pacific Telesis, US West, Southwestern Bell, Ameritech, NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, and soon BellSouth will be relegated to history.

FCC commissioners were apparently impressed enough by AT&T's promise this morning that the merged entity would provide broadband Internet service to 100% of the current BellSouth service region during 2007, including a promise within twelve months of the merger's close (which could be next spring) to provide ADSL service at up to 768 Kbps (though many might not consider that "broadband") as a stand-alone, non-bundled offering to the BellSouth region for $19.95 per month. No word on whether such prices will be extended to the former Ameritech, SBC, or PacTel service areas.

Another effect of the merger is that Cingular Wireless will now be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a single company, now that its two joint founders will be one.

Despite earlier skepticism from two FCC commissioners over possible anti-competitive effects from the merger, it appears the notion that "one less competitor means more room for everyone else" ruled the day. With regard to competition for retail enterprise customers, the FCC stated this afternoon, "The Commission found that competition for medium and large enterprise customers should remain strong after the merger because medium and large enterprise customers are sophisticated, high-volume purchasers of communications services and because there will remain a significant number of carriers competing in the market."

But in an argument that may still raise some eyebrows...then lower them, then raise them again, the FCC statement actually said the merger won't have a negative impact on the voice communications market, because neither merger partner is a major player in the global voice telecom market anyway - only within their relegated region, which just happens to be most of the US.

"The Commission found that neither BellSouth nor AT&T is a significant presence or potential participant in this market outside of their respective regions," reads this afternoon's FCC statement. "Consequently, the Commission found that neither party was exerting significant competitive pressure on the other in their respective in-region territories."

Late yesterday, a letter from AT&T senior vice president Robert W. Quinn, Jr., made public by the FCC this morning, indicated the merger partners are clearly making these concessions begrudgingly, along with other concessions and promises made last October.

At that time, Quinn wrote, "we emphasized our belief that these commitments were wholly unnecessary in light of the demonstrated substantial public interest benefits of the merger and the lack of any cognizable harm to competition. We noted that this belief was shared by the Dept. of Justice, nineteen states, and three foreign countries, all of which subjected the merger to exacting scrutiny and found no anticompetitive effects."

Whether Quinn's claim of exacting scrutiny on the part of the Justice Dept. is correct may be the subject of scrutiny in its own right after the holidays, when the matter is likely to come up before a post-Democratic-upheaval reoriented Congress. There, lawmakers are considering whether the DOJ bypassed new rules mandating judicial review of its concerns about the merger, by simply having no concerns about it whatsoever.

As promised, FCC commissioner Robert McDowell abstained from today's vote, citing possible conflict of interest. However, his office issued a statement immediately thereafter: "I am delighted that my colleagues and the merging companies were able to come to terms so quickly after last week's announcement," McDowell wrote. "The shareholders, employees and customers of the new combined company all stand to benefit from the Commission's thoughtful and prompt action. Congratulations to all."

Add a Comment (21 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By PostDeals

posted Jan 3, 2007 - 11:21 PM

Well if you fill enough people's pockets you can make anything happen.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Jan 3, 2007 - 8:53 AM

So, in a few more years, another administration will decide to split them up again. Almost cyclical. Totally stupid. It wastes so much money and time, and quite often: jobs. There should be a moratorium on such acts to prevent them from being reversed in less than x years.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

edited Jan 2, 2007 - 10:16 PM

So why did they break up the Baby Bell's if they were going to be big and monopolized anyway?

Oh lets not forget 10,000 jobs will be lost due to this.

WHAT IS THE FCC DOING?

Corruption at the highest levels isn't this country great.

Score: 0

By tscar12

edited Jan 4, 2007 - 3:01 PM

Interesting. we went from breaking up AT&T to now putting it back together. Just shows there are more ignorant people than in Texas though it is close.

Score: 0

By yizuman

posted Jan 2, 2007 - 12:05 PM

Wonderful, less competition and less choices.

Isn't monopoly wonderful?

/saracasm off

Score: 0

By intrigue42

edited Jan 1, 2007 - 12:30 PM

Everything SBC and ATT does turns to junk. Never any technical support. Just lots of excuses and whining. Do NOT allow this. Bellsouth gives great service and support.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jan 1, 2007 - 10:46 AM

I don't understand why the company was broken up in the 80s if 20 or so years later it's all allowed to come back into one bigger, enormously powerful company anyway. All the smaller parts became more powerful in themselves, and now that've all been brought back into the fold. Or, am I missing something?

Score: 0

By kvan

posted Dec 31, 2006 - 5:28 PM

Bell Atlantic Part 2

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 31, 2006 - 1:00 AM

Maybe this is a good thing.Bellsouth service around here is crap at best. Then again maybe it'll be the same crappy service under a different name.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Dec 30, 2006 - 9:10 PM

Gee thats great. What next AT&T buys verizon? Actually quest will be the next one going to be bought. I mean, in less then just a couple of years we went from Verizon, MCI, AT&T, SBC, Bellsouth etc. To Verizon and AT&T? with SBC buying out AT&T and Bellsouth and verizon buying out MCI what the heck?

Even though the phone lines are owned by a company its not like you can say he you other company i want phone service from you or internet from you. I mean you didn't exactly have choice anyway what are you going to do move? the only other option is to get a mobile phone and internet or go with cable.

Will someone please explain the point of a break up if 30 years later they can all join back up together, piece by piece? What were they thinking. Less competition = less innovation, higher prices and no one to make them look bad.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted Jan 2, 2007 - 10:12 PM

I must hand it to Qwest, they have been doing a great job. I will DEFINITELY throw my business to them if they offered it in SouthEast. They were the only company that declined to disclose personal information to the Fed's as well.

I HATE VERIZON never will use them.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Dec 30, 2006 - 2:04 AM

I have no interest in ranting here, but I must admit a bit of confusion.
Let's see, just ~4 years ago Kroger was prevented in acquiring a struggling Winn-Dixie as it was claimed that this would harm the competitive marketplace. Subsequently Winn-Dixie filed for bankrutcy and disappeared - which I guess in some genius' eye increased competitiion in the marketplace.

Now as the baby Bells consolidate and reduce competition further in a market where consolidation has resulted in MUCH LESS competition and choice, no problem is seen - despite DSL prices remaining absurdly high except for 'intro' marketing ploys. Thus we are well on our way to restoring a virtual oligarchy in the telecommunications marketplace - as the various providers do not provide much, if any overlap, and thus choice in the marketplace.

And to mention Southwestern Bell, who by virtue of their purchase of the AT&T customer list has rebranded itself as AT&T You know, the same AT&T that was once the most recognized corporate trademark which in less than 15 years self destructed and effectively went out of business! And as the negatives attached to SWB were so large (rather ironic how the larger firnm takes on the name of the smaller failed component!) - and now we are supposed to applaud the continued consolidation which will provide better more competitive service how?

I HAVE SWB/AT&T, and quite frankly their customer service is anything but excellent! But what choice do I have? To go with VOIP, I still have to purchase their POTS line and DSL. Their statements are still the most intentionally convoluted mess I have ever experienced in any market, and if I am silly enough to try Cingular again, I would still have to go outside and sit in my vehicle allowing it to act as a sympathetic antenna in order to achieve sufficient signal strength to make a call! And forget using it inside the house! And yes, I live in the DFW Metroplex in what is considered a nice neighborhood.

I only wish that having a cable, phone and wireless bill - still confusing as hell - in the same envelope offered some perceived advantage! Do you get a bundled discount - well, no! But, boy, we are supposed to cheer because it all comes in the same envelope! Whoopee!

So much for encouraging real competition where companies can compete with services in the same marketplace - as opposed to having the various carriers carve up the landscape and only talk a 'good' game - as they fear actual overbuilds and competing services as the fight against net neutrality in an attempt to further disadvantage competing services...

I am very disappointed in the government in this one. I am against unnecessary burdensome regulation. But I am also for encouraging real competition. And the government has failed miserably in this regard. ...Just another area where the Republicans have failed to live up to the concept of increased competition, less competition, all the while providing lip service over "less government" while the Democrats have simply followed the same old tired line that has led to more government growth by whining that the republicans have not spent enough in any area of concern!

We need folks in Washington who will actually walk the talk of less government interference more market competition via vigorous anti-trust enforcement rather than simply facilitating greater monopolistic controls in the marketplace - as while it is a laudable goal, the marketplace is NOT a free market as of yet. And the social engineering rightwing liberals calling themselves Republicans wonder why they have lost the support of more socially libertarian small government fiscal conservatives...

Unfortunately the answer seems to be gridlock, with a Congreess controlled by one party and the Presidency controlled by the other - as it requires a 2/3 majority to pass anything - thus minimizing the potential for either party to get their own self-serving interesting passed into law. As less government seems to be, if not a better government, at least a less dangerous government.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 30, 2006 - 5:32 PM

Winn-Dixie isn't gone, there are still a lot of stores in operation (though the one near me is closed sadly). As of this November they are no longer under chapter 11 and they are working on getting the company back on it's feet.

I hope they succeed but with Satan-Mart, er, Wal-Mart opening "Super Centers" all over the place I'm not sure how well they'll do. Same goes for Kroger. Perhaps merging may have saved them but who knows. Nice how Wal-Mart first killed off most or all of the department stores (Hecks, Hills, TG&Y, Maloney's, Murphey's Mart, etc) and now they are going after the grocery stores.

Anyway I agree that merger may have been a good thing. This AT&T thing however, I see nothing good for the consumers coming from this.

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Dec 30, 2006 - 7:38 AM

Regulating these services is not the problem. It is the deceptive practices of the companies and the crooked lawyers and members of Congress that hide profit making clauses in those regulations that are the problem. Lawyers and members of Congress are undoubtably two of the most corrupt professions in the world. We have recently seen what happens when the office of President and Congress both ruled by the same party. The rich get richer the poor get poorer and the middle class is all but eliminated. The stock market is soaring. Unfortunately almost all that profit goes to the wealthy, whom can afford to buy stocks. The trickle-down effect is a joke. The wealthy get 80% and the remainder is split amongst expenses and the rest of the workforce. This makes the gap even wider. We need to outlaw lobbyists, reduce the number of lawyers, and have mandatory stiff penalties for members of Congess (and the President) caught breaking the laws. Doctors fees are now regulated by laws. We need to do the same with lawyers fees. They are so corrupt because of the potential for enormous profit. They can make millions on a single case. When is the last time you heard of a doctor making millions from saving a patients life? It does not happen. The insurance companies and the administrators make obscene profits as do those overseeing most large businesses. "We the People" has been replaced by "We the Greedy".

Score: 0

By JoshvanHulst

posted Dec 29, 2006 - 8:45 PM

I work for AT&T in there sales division here in Dallas, Texas at the Northpark mall. As a customer and employee I am very excited over this merger! I think it's going to be great for customer and better features for company as a brand of communication, entertainment, and services.

AT&T has some great products coming later next year, in retrospect to broadband services delievered to the house (AT&T's U-verse using fiber optics to the house to deliever television, phone, and internet services [formally known to some has Project Pronto/Lightspeed] ) as well as Cingular's brand into the 3G market. It's all going to be rebranded into the at&t name.

- Josh van Hulst

Score: 0

By Slimberg

posted Jan 2, 2007 - 2:07 PM

Hey Josh... You work at Northpark? So did I... i was there from Nov 05 - Apr 06

I was one of the guys that opened the store. We set it up... small world.

Does Aspen still manage the store? (I was with Mosaic)

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Jan 1, 2007 - 11:19 AM

Whenever there is a M&A, there will be massive layoff, I hope you are not on the list.

Score: 0

By Pdj79

edited Dec 31, 2006 - 9:51 AM

Um, U-Verse just became available in my area and I checked into it. Its not "fiber to the house" as you've suggested. They may eventually offer this as an option, but its fiber to the node and traditional analog from the node to the house. All you really get is television...the broadband is a choice of their Express, Elite, or Pro DSL offerings at 1mb, 3mb, and 6mb, respectively...definately not a competitor to Verizon's fiber offering.

And the pricing is just as ridiculous as I expected. For the full package, you get up to 3 television receivers (only 1 can be a DVR, but I found out that each box is a DVR, just the remaining boxes have the harddrive disconnected...crack it open, plug in the ribbon cable and power connector, reboot, and you're all set), all the channels including premium channels like HBO, and At&T Yahoo High Speed Internet Pro (3mb/1mb) for the "low low price" of $119/month. If you want HD, at an additional $10. Now, couple this with the fact that basic phone service is NOT included in the U-Verse package, and your bill is essentially going to be around $170, going off the fact that I cancelled my AT&T basic phone service when it ballooned to $50. This is hardly a deal when my local cable company offers a full cable package with the same premium channels for $100, our internet is 10mb/1mb for $30 more, and I use Vonage at $24.

Now, there is talk that they will roll their AT&T CallVantage program into the U-Verse umbrella, but you would think that since its a phone-based service that they would have included at the very least basic phone service, but no, according to their own customer service reps, phone service is a separate entity that is supported by a different call-center, billing system, and data center than the U-Verse system. This is AT&T dropping the ball in the name of reduced costs over what Verizon is offering. The internet speed needs to be double for me to even think about biting.

Score: 0

By pickchevy

posted Dec 31, 2006 - 7:46 AM

Hey, thanks. A little candy always makes me forget that competition is a good thing.

Choice bad, rich people good, poor people evil. Where do I give up my soul?

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Dec 30, 2006 - 2:16 AM

Does this mean I'll get another phone upgrade at the new activation pricing in the middle of my two year contract like I did after the AT&T Wireless/Cingular merger?

Score: 0

By PostDeals

edited Jan 3, 2007 - 11:22 PM

Keep dreaming, also they said that:

Another effect of the merger is that Cingular Wireless will now be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a single company, now that its two joint founders will be one.

my response: SO WHAT?

Score: 0