Save Access

from: Lasar's Letter

Media reformers, telcom workers union put positive spin on AT&T/BellSouth deal

by Matthew Lasar Dec 30 2006

Advocates of media democracy generally don't like mergers, but in the case of the Federal Communications Commission's approval of AT&T/BellSouth, they're willing to look on the bright side.

"All things considered, it would have been better that AT&T were not allowed to acquire BellSouth," the Media Access Project said in a press release following yesterday's unanimous decision. "However, given the Justice Department’s outrageous failure to stop this deal, it would have been impossible for the FCC to stop the merger on its own. Commissioners [Michael] Copps and [Jonathan] Adelstein clearly got the best possible deal, making a bad merger less bad."

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu went even further, calling AT&T's agreement to abide by net neutrality rules "a milestone in the history of the Internet."

"What is clear is that this agreement marks a critical moment in the recent history of Network Neutrality and big step forward for its supporters," Wu said in a statement distributed by Freepress, a media reform group.

Once Republican FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell recused himself on the merger question on December 18th, AT&T found itself faced with a Democrat vs. Republican 2/2 split over the deal. Ten days later the telecom giant offered the agency—specifically FCC Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, a wide range of concessions in return for permission to acquire BellSouth.

These included promises to abide by FCC net neutrality principles for 2-1/2 years, the repatriation of 3,000 jobs outsourced overseas, a promise to offer broadband Internet access at over 200 kbps to all residents living in AT&T/BellSouth territories, and a commitment to offer smaller telecommunications providers access to the new company's networks at fair rates.

Net neutrality advocates clearly see the agreement as a step forward.

"AT&T, under this agreement, may speed all the Internet video traffic on its network (to compete, for example, with cable)," Wu argues. "But it cannot pick and choose whose video traffic to speed up. In short, AT&T must treat like traffic alike—that is the essence of the agreement."

Wu doesn't seem discouraged by the fact that AT&T has committed to net neutrality for a limited period. "One possibility is that AT&T will, in time, find the rule to its liking," he says, but concedes that the future is unclear.

The Communications Workers of America, which represents thousands of AT&T and BellSouth employees, mostly praised the deal, particularly its Internet rollout commitments.

"Of course we remain concerned about the net effect on jobs within the region for frontline employees and the services we provide," CWA Vice President Larry Savant said. "We are pleased to see AT&T commitment to bringing thousands of support jobs back to the United States."

Some groups that publicly opposed the AT&T/BellSouth merger have yet to put public statements about the deal on their Web sites.

Following McDowell's recusal, Earl Comstock, CEO of Comptel, the smaller telco trade group for which McDowell worked, issued comments suggesting that he saw a resolution coming soon.

"It is time to make a decision on this transaction," Comstock said on December 18th. "Whether it is approved or is denied is now largely a function of AT&T's willingness to address the legitimate public interest concerns raised by the largest telecom merger in history. We should know soon whether AT&T is serious about this merger or not."