Name Calling in the Martin-Tate Statement on the AT&T-BellSouth Merger

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rob Frieden <rmf5 () psu edu>
Date: January 4, 2007 1:11:40 PM EST
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Name Calling in the Martin-Tate Statement on the AT&T- 
BellSouth Merger

Hello All:

        Once upon a time the Commissioners that served at the  
Federal Communications Commission assessed issues based on the public  
interest, not a political litmus test.  They did not write concurring  
statement in the form of a Wall Street Journal editorial either.  Now  
we have a Chairman and Commissioner quite willing to use the  
political party registration of a fellow Commissioner as grounds for  
derision.
Based on a Westlaw search I could come up with no other instance  
where the official statement of a Chairman or Commissioner preceded  
the name of a fellow Commissioner with his or her party affiliation.   
So Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate have made history of a sort  
when they went out of their way, in a statement on the AT&T-BellSouth  
merger, to express displeasure at their “Democratic” colleagues as  
though their party affiliation was grounds enough to disagree:

         Importantly, however, while the Democrat Commissioners may  
have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future  
Commission action. Specifically, a minority of Commissioners cannot  
alter   Commission precedent or bind future Commission decisions,  
policies, actions, or rules. . . . [T]he Democrat Commissioners want  
to price regulate not only AT&T but also Verizon and Qwest.

        Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the Martin- 
Tate statement, I resent the blatant partisanship and lack of  
civility.  I have seen the FCC sink into a morass of pseudo science,  
fuzzy math, creative interpretation of economic principles and legal  
concepts, selective interpretation of the facts, innovative  
collection of statistics and flawed thinking to justify an  
preordained outcome.  I do not see much public interest decision  
making whatsoever.

        Surely we should we parse through  the AT&T commitment  
letter that now appears not to guarantee follow through and one that  
may not have net neutrality commitment applicable to AT&T’s next  
generation Internet technologies and facilities.  But we also should  
reflect on the tone of the Martin-Tate statement, perhaps the product  
of legal assistants the majority of whom won their partisan stripes  
on Capitol Hill.

         Regards,

        Rob Frieden
Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications
Penn State University
102 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA  16802
office: (814) 863-7996; fax (814) 863-8161
Web page:        http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/
Faculty profile: http://www.psu.edu/dept/comm/faculty/frieden.html
SSRN Papers Site: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm? 
per_id=102928

-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at:  
Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1788750&user_secret=f2ab41d2
Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=1788750-f2ab41d2-5z3w5liw
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com