6 ms·
"For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise questio
by jhancock 17y ago
"For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise questions about the fairness and integrity of the auction process itself."
I would love to see an analysis of who AT&T paid to ensure its purchase of wireless spectrum did not have a neutrality requirement. Its not a fair auction if you pay off politicians and ensure you have insiders on the FCC to get what you want.
I posted this the link the other day. Its about the FCC being bought by AOL/TimeWarner. Would like to see similar stories on AT&T.
http://books.google.com/books?id=GOvTxS-txFMC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=Colin+Powell+AOL+Time+Warner+stock&source=bl&ots=AZyC70Rkhv&sig=jgea3aBUCkxIA51N8_F5eim-abo&hl=en&ei=Adm3SpXUBuGPtgfprsDGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Colin%20Powell%20AOL%20Time%20Warner%20stock&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=GOvTxS-txFMC&pg=PA214&#...
- tc 17y agoThey surely did influence the process. But it is also true that any rational business would have bid less for spectrum with a neutrality or open access mandate. I don't have much sympathy for AT&T on this one, though, since they've been trying to do the same thing to their competitors by pushing wired net neutrality. Any new regulation upsets the calculations and forecasts that businesses made to justify the risk of expending capital.