The FCC-ATT (OMG!) Thing Revisted...

with featured guest, my blog-buddy Jerry!

In responding to Jerry’s comment on my post for October 11th entitled 'Praise the Lord...' I realized that I was discussing and/or describing things I intended to write about whenever I got around to it.

Then I realized I had just gotten around to it. And the response was coming out so *brilliantly* I decided to move it from the comments section, that people don’t often read anyways, to the blog itself… that people don’t often read anyways.
Buthatsnothepoint!

I have some qualms about doing this but I figured that if he didn’t mind posting the original comment, it shouldn’t be a problem. Besides, I thought it would be a nice surprise for him.
So, Jerry; Surprise!!!

And now, my little ‘comment-versation’ with Jerry.

J: Hi Annette

A: Hi Jerry

J: Back up on your horse again?

A: Yeeeeee HAA! And tall in the saddle too! At least until I get ‘bucked off’ anyways.

J: Sounds like you've managed to push some of those doldrums away and become vocal again, glad to see it!!!

A: You may be the only one on the planet who is… but I can change that!

J: While I agree that putting AT&T back together, even a little bit at a time, is wrong, I think your post could use some more detail and meat on the subject, such as where did you find this, what prompted you to take action on this particular matter, and when is this merger taking place? Are there any other reasons why it might be?

A: I originally saw this article in my main, local area newspaper (that happens to be owned by Gannett Company) and in USA Today (that happens to be owned by Gannett Company) and on Democracy Now!.org (see under News Links at right). But as Gannett doesn’t own Democracy Now! does it still count? (I shouldn’t say anything. Rupert Murdoch could be listening)

Finally I went to DOJ site itself, specifically the Antitrust Division, and read over the report as much as I could stand it.

You may be right about supplying more information about these issues but I see this blog as a forum for me to vent, spew and minimally inform. I don’t usually think about getting too detailed about anything other than my own thoughts. That sounds a tad egomaniacal but hey, it’s just me here with barely a command of the English language, never mind public information or policy.

Now, if I was the President of the United States or something like that I could see where that would be a bit of a problem.

But even then, with all the politicians and media swarming all over the place looking to make names for themselves I can’t believe anyone would ever let me get away with anything that could be misinformati… uh; hmm.
Never mind.

Anyways, I’m sure there’ll be a lot of song and dance by those with a (in-)vested interest that’ll go on about why it’s such a good idea. I decided to just focus on sharing my tiny spark of dissent.

Especially since most people are too busy and/or tired with living to give much of a damn about things like this. Just so it ‘works’, right? I mean it’s not like their rights were being blatantly compromised, their essential liberties being run over like really slow worms in the rain or as if the Constitution was being revoked in some way, right? In those cases I’m sure the US people would rise up to defend themselves on issues like that… uh… hmmm.

Ianievent, as I tend to get ignored even when I’m being silent I’m on a perpetual self-journey to accept being heard without being listened to. Which is very difficult when one is always right, you know! Very spiritually challenging. Hell at this point, for all I know, I could be a shorthair’s breadth away from becoming a bodhisattva.

Whoa, could you imagine? If I had a godhead going for me, who could be against me? I’d really kick butt then! And I could finally take my rightful place as Benevolent Overlord!
(Note to self: thinkdivinethoughtsthinkdivinethoughtsthinkdivinethoughts)

J: Is Bell South swamped in under the federal directive (a directive brought forth by the break up of AT&T) wherein they are directed to provide service to other "phone" companies at a cost less than their own operating costs? I have a friend who works for o the local branch (QWEST communications) of AT&T when they broke off, who knows firsthand that the company loses a ton of money providing service to the smaller companies, as directed by the feds, at a cost cheaper than they themselves can run the systems they have in place, which do not include the original costs of providing the initial network and hardwiring, nor the maintenance costs associated with maintaining these hard networks, hence they lose tons of money helping their own competitors provide the same service they do, for less than they can charge themselves. So, how is it that was overlooked in protecting that original AT&T's investment?

A: If I remember correctly one of the reasons behind the Ma Bell bust up was something like eminent domain. Wouldn’t THAT be nice for a change???

But besides that, I believe it was also reasoned that the Bell System had recouped not only its initial investments but at least a good portion of its upgrade and maintenance since then as well; and that it’s primary costs at that point was mainly from doing business. I also believe it was deemed logistically prohibitive for the new Baby Bells to build brand new communications systems since what used to be like a private driveway was now a major roadway.

However, I do believe that you raise a lot of important points that I just don’t have time or energy to research, especially since that’s not how the landlords get their rent or the government their taxes from me.

Yet I hope that it was thoroughly researched, pinpointed, scrutinized, reported, debated and addressed by the folks who are HIRED, as in SUPPOSED TO because they GET PAID TO do so. If there was a lack of that kind of focus regarding such things, that could be a clue as to how big biz (think Bechtel, Enron, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton, the US government, etc…) can get away with the crap it does.

What gets me is how those companies always go on about 'losing' money.
Maybe it sunk into a slush fund somewhere, or its footsteps are so ‘soft’ no one knows where it ran off to? It really bothers me that profits being chewed up by overhead seldom gets addressed when it comes to medium to small businesses. The little guys are constantly being compromised by a variety of factors that are non-issues for the mega corps. They then become more and more vulnerable for big biz to feed upon. And then when you tell the mega corps there's no more dessert, the SOBs get pissy!

In the real world predators actually have to work for their meals. They also provide a valuable service in winnowing out the weaker members of groups of both prey and predator. When they do feed they don’t stuff themselves needlessly because the ensuing bloat would make them weak. For lions and tigers and bears, etc, greed is a periodic indulgence, not a lifestyle choice.

I strongly suspect that there is way more honour among thieves, hookers, drunks and free-lance assassins then there is among the pillars of our theo-socio-political superpower structures. The latter group, TSPSPS for short… kind of, is much more dangerous because it has the acceptance and overall obeisance of the general population. The world in general, even!

I see all this in terms of a pyramid. The bottom bricks spread out wide in 4 directions and keep up the weight of the *entire* upper structure. That function continues on each level upward as the higher levels - especially the top – provide a progressively better view of the big picture. Yet there is also progressively less weight to hold up. And while the upper levels have a better view, they themselves are that much less visible from the lower ones.

Some would argue that the top is what keeps the pyramid ‘in line’. Probably. Certainly during construction having an apex to aim for keeps thing ordered and cohesive.

But after the pyramid is built everything rests on the mid to lowest levels. The integrity of the whole structure is now dependant on them. If the top were suddenly gone, it would leave the structure vulnerable to progressive decay. But if the foundation or the middle of the pyramid were somehow compromised the vulnerability is much more immediate and any resultant damage could be that much more difficult, maybe even impossible, to reverse.

That’s how I see it with society at large whether in a commercial, political or social sense.

J: Anyway, glad to see you get your dander up about something, keep plugging away, I’ll keep reading,

Jerry

A: Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, helping to enrich my own.
Hey! Wait a minute! You’re not hoping for change from my two cents, are you?

Annette