DOCSLIB.ORG

New Networks Institute

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Networks Institute New Networks Institute BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of: Application of AT&T, Inc. ) (“AT&T” or the “Company”) ) and DIRECTV for ) MB Docket No. 14-90 Consent to Assign Licenses or ) Transfer Control of Licensees, ) To: The Secretary: NEW NETWORKS INSTITUTE & TELETRUTH PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER AT&T COMMITTED PERJURY IN ITS REPRESENTATIONS TO THE FCC REGARDING ITS DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND AND REQUEST TO DELAY ACTION ON THE AT&T-DIRECTV MERGER PENDING INVESTIGATION Compare these three AT&T statements about broadband coverage in the company’s 22 state territory: AT&T-BellSouth Merger 2007 Commitment1 “By December 31, 2007, AT&T/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the AT&T/BellSouth in-region territory. 1 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-189A1.pdf At Appendix F, page 147. 1 New Networks Institute 2 AT&T’s VIP Announcement, October, 2012 “In the 25 percent of AT&T's wireline customer locations where it's currently not economically feasible to build a competitive IP wireline network, the company said it will utilize its expanding 4G LTE wireless network -- as it becomes available…” DirecTV:3 AT&T does not provide high speed service to 15 million locations, 2015 “AT&T intends to expand its plans to build and enhance high-speed broadband service to 15 million customer locations, mostly in rural areas where AT&T does not provide high-speed broadband service today.” MAP of AT&T, Verizon & CenturyLink4 Summary This is an open and shut case. AT&T, Inc. and its affiliates, including the former BellSouth, have been engaged in a pattern of deception and violated Section 1.17 of the Communications Act of 1934: “(1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading; and “(2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not misleading.” The AT&T-BellSouth merger required the newly combined companies to have completed deployment to 100% of their territories in 22 states with broadband capability of at least 200 Kbps in one direction by December 31st, 2007. Albeit slow, in 2007, this speed was the 2 http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=23506&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=35661 3 https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4259/~/directv-and-at%26t-merger-faq 4 http://newnetworks.com/map-bell-companies/ 2 New Networks Institute FCC’s standard definition of High-speed Internet. In February 2008, AT&T filed with the FCC, signing a document (under penalty of perjury) that it had fulfilled this obligation and all other obligations that were part of the merger agreement.5 And yet, compare this AT&T-BellSouth merger commitment with AT&T’s own statements in 2012-2015, including the previous quotes that are related to the “IP Transition” and IP Transition trial tests currently underway, as well as statements made over the course of the last decade or this year by DirecTV as part of the proposed Merger, and we find that AT&T could not have had 100% coverage in 2007. As of 2014, AT&T and DirecTV specifically claim that at least 25% of the AT&T’s 22 state territories did not have broadband available or in another statement that 15 million mostly rural areas do not have broadband. AT&T-BellSouth Merger Commitment “Merger Commitments For the avoidance of doubt, unless otherwise expressly stated to the contrary, all conditions and commitments proposed in this letter are enforceable by the FCC and would apply in the AT&T/BellSouth in- region territory, as defined herein, for a period of forty-two months from the Merger Closing Date and would automatically sunset thereafter. “Promoting Accessibility of Broadband Service 1. By December 31, 2007, AT&T/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access service (i.e., Internet access service at speeds in excess of 200 kbps in at least one direction) to 100 percent of the residential living units in the AT&T/BellSouth in-region territory. To 5 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6519839782 7 2 As used herein, the "AT&T/BellSouth in-region territory" means the areas in which an AT&T or BellSouth operating company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i). "AT&T in-region territory" means the area in which an AT&T operating company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i), and "BellSouth in-region territory" means the area in which a BellSouth operating company is the incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 251(h)(1)(A) and (B)(i). 3 New Networks Institute meet this commitment, AT&T/BellSouth will offer broadband Internet access services to at least 85 percent of such living units using wireline technologies (the "Wireline Buildout Area"). AT&T/BellSouth will make available broadband Internet access service to the remaining living units using alternative technologies and operating arrangements, including but not limited to satellite and Wi-Max fixed wireless technologies. AT&T/BellSouth further commits that at least 30 percent of the incremental deployment after the Merger Closing Date necessary to achieve the Wireline Buildout Area commitment will be to rural areas or low income living units.”7 As we will show, this commitment was all make believe and AT&T’s own statements will prove this point. And it gets worse. There has been a continuous stream of misrepresentations by AT&T (and its previous incarnations of SBC, BellSouth, et al) over the last two decades, some of which was used to create major public policy changes to the detriment of America’s communications customers. For example, in 2002, SBC (now-AT&T) and BellSouth told the FCC that if the agency blocked competitors from using the networks (via something called “unbundling”) they would deploy fiber-to-the-home and fiber-to-the-curb (fiber optic wires within 500 feet of the location) with speeds of 100 Mbps, starting in 2004. In fact, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell quoted these ‘commitments’ in his statements as one of the primary reasons to close the networks. Yet, they were all vaporware. Instead, AT&T pulled a bait-and-switch and rolled out U-Verse over the existing, legacy, utility, copper wires, and still confuses most people by claiming that this service is ‘fiber-based’, even though the actual fiber networks can be ½ mile from the home; over 2,500 feet away from the location. This petition presents substantial evidence that AT&T failed to comply with its 2007 merger obligation to deploy broadband throughout its territories, and further that it made 4 New Networks Institute material misrepresentations to the Commission that it had complied. AT&T has made subsequent statements to the Commission, including in this proceeding, that are inconsistent with the merger obligation that it says it met. Under these circumstances, immediate investigation is warranted, as well as a delay in any action in this proceeding pending completion of the investigation. ========================================== PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION New Networks Institute (NNI) and Teletruth file this Petition for Investigation against AT&T, Inc, and all of the other AT&T affiliate companies. This Petition is brought in the AT&T-DirecTV merger proceeding, MB Docket No. 14-90, as AT&T made willful and repeated material misrepresentations to the Commission over the last eight years that the company had fulfilled its obligations to have 100% of their 22 state territory with broadband, capable of 200 Kbps in one direction. The same misrepresentation is also true in every FCC proceeding that included any AT&T submissions pertaining to fiber optic or copper infrastructure or services utilizing those facilities, as well as all of the IP transition proceedings. This petition is filed pursuant to Section 1.1 of the Commission’s rules8. 8 §1.1 Proceedings before the Commission. The Commission may on its own motion or petition of any interested party hold such proceedings as it may deem necessary from time to time in connection with the investigation of any matter which it has power to investigate under the law, or for the purpose of obtaining information necessary or helpful in the determination of its policies, the carrying out of its duties or the formulation or amendment of its rules and regulations. For such purposes it may subpoena witnesses and require the production of evidence. Procedures to be followed by the Commission shall, unless specifically prescribed in this part, be such as in the opinion of the Commission will best serve the purposes of such proceedings.(Sec. 403, 48 Stat. 1094; 47 U.S.C. 403). 5 New Networks Institute This is Misrepresentation on a Massive Level, Not Some Trivial Point. AT&T has deceived the FCC, the courts and the public over and over, and it is time for the FCC not only to acknowledge this fact but also to start investigations into the failure of AT&T to disclose critical, material facts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Settlement Terms, As Approved by Venus’S Counsel and Class Counsel, Subject to Approval by The
    Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page1 of 29 1 LEXINGTON LAW GROUP Mark N. Todzo, State Bar No. 168389 2 Abigail Blodgett, State Bar No. 278813 503 Divisadero Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 4 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 HALUNEN LAW Melissa W. Wolchansky (pro hac vice pending) 7 Charles D. Moore (pro hac vice pending) 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 1650 8 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 9 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 [email protected] 10 [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 REBEKAH BAHARESTAN and JENA Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MCINTYRE, on behalf of themselves and all 17 others similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 18 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 19 v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 20 Date: November 3, 2015 VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., dba EARTH Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 FRIENDLY PRODUCTS, INC., Location: Courtroom E Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:15-cv-03578-EDL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case3:15-cv-03578-EDL Document15 Filed09/29/15 Page2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Page 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ....................................................................................... vi 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1 4 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2 6 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4Th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark
    Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle Landmark Nomination BOLA Architecture + Planning Seattle December 21, 2015 Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Landmark Nomination 1529 4th Avenue W, Seattle December 21, 2015 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 Background Research Seattle’s Landmark Designation Process Preservation Incentives Design Reviews of Proposed Changes to a Landmark 2. Property Data 4 3. Historic Context Statement 5 Historic Overview of Queen Anne Hill The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company in Seattle The Building’s Construction History The Original Designers The Role of Women as Switchboard Operators 4. Architectural Description 12 Neighborhood Context The Site The Structure and Exterior Facades Interior Layout and Features Changes to the Original Building 5. Bibliography and Resources 18 6. Photographs and Images 23 Figure Index Images Select Drawings Cover: Views looking southwest at the building: Museum of Communications, 1923; King County Tax Assessor’s Property Record Card, 1936; Contemporary, BOLA, July 2015. BOLA Architecture + Planning 159 Western Avenue West, Suite 486 Seattle, Washington 98119 206.447.4749 Name (common, present, or historic): The Pacific Telegraph and Telephone Garfield Exchange / Seattle Public Library Queen Anne Warehouse Year built: 1921-1922, 1929 (remodeled in 1950 and 1961); 1977 (Renovation) Street and number: 1529 4th Avenue West, Seattle WA 98119 Assessor's file no.: 423290-3170
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Bell Telephone Company Dba AT&T California, AT&T Wholesale
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGREEMENT SUMMARY STD 215 (Rev. 04/2017) AGREEMENT NUMBER AMENDMENT NUMBER [7] CHECK HERE IF ADDITIONAL PAGES ARE ATTACHED 4145-6 1. CONTRACTOR’S NAME 2. FEDERAL I.D. NUMBER Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California, AT&T Wholesale, AT&T DataComm 94-0745535 3. AGENCY TRANSMITTING AGREEMENT 4. DIVISION, BUREAU , OR OTHER UNIT 5. AGENCY BILLING CODE California Governor's Office of Emergency Services 9-1-1 Emergency Communications 009198 6a. CONTRACT ANALYST NAME 6b. EMAIL 6c. PHONE NUMBER Phuong Vu [email protected] (916) 845-8190 7. HAS YOUR AGENCY CONTRACTED FOR THESE SERVICES BEFORE? [7] No Q Yes (If Yes, enter prior Contractor Name and Agreement Number) PRIOR CONTRACTOR NAME PRIOR AGREEMENT NUMBER 8. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Agreement establishes fixed costs for 9-1-1 Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) systems and services. 9. AGREEMENT OUTLINE (Include reason for Agreement: Identify specific problem, administrative requirement, program need or other circumstances making the Agreement necessary; include special or unusual terms and conditions.) Pacific Bell Telephone Company will provide Cal OES with call handli ry for the California Public Safety Awareness Points (PSAPs) to answer 9-1-1 calls. The agr ofequipment relating to 9-1-1 systems and services. 10. PAYMENT TERMS (More than one may apply) | | Monthly Flat Rate | | Quarterly | j One-Time Payment FI Progress Payment [71 Itemized Invoice Withhold % | | Advanced Payment Not To Exceed T ] Reimbursement / Revenue $ or % | | Other (Explain) 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Telesis Understands the Anxiety Over Job Retention and Growth That Can Arise When Two Major Businesses Merge. This Merger Is a Job-Growth Agreement
    JOBS IN CALIFORNIA Pacific Telesis understands the anxiety over job retention and growth that can arise when two major businesses merge. This merger is a job-growth agreement. To show confidence and good faith, Pacific Telesis agrees to the following: • The headquarters for Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell will remain in California and Nevada, respectively. In addition, a new company headquarters will be established in California that will provide integrated administrative and support services for the combined companies. Three subsidiary headquarters will also be established in California. These subsidiaries are long distance services, international operations and Internet. • The merged companies commit to expanding employment by at least one thousand jobs in Califomia over what would otherwise have been the case under previous plans if this merger had not occurred. The merged companies will report their progress to the CPUC within two years. CONSTRUCTION Nothing in this Commitment shall be interpreted to require Pacific Bell or Pacific Telesis to give any preference or advantage based on race, creed, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or any other basis in connection with employment, contracting Of other activities in violation of any federal, state or local law. Nothing herein shall be construed to establish or require quotas or timetables in connection with any • undertakings by Pacific Bell or Pacific Telesis to maintain a diverse workforce, contract with minority vendors, or provide services to underserved communities. -. 8 PARTNERSHiP COMMITMENT This Commitment is a ten-year partnership and commitment to the underserved communities of California. In furtherance of this par:tnership, Pacific Bell is undertaking an obligation to the Community Technology Fund that may extend over a decade or more as well as a seven-year commitment to the Universal Service Task Force.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Starkey
    Michael Starkey President Founding Partner QSI Consulting, Inc. 243 Dardenne Farms Drive Cottleville, MO 63304 (636) 272-4127 voice (636) 448-4135 mobile (866) 389-9817 facsimile [email protected] Biography Mr. Starkey currently serves as the President and Founding Partner of QSI Consulting, Inc. QSI is a consulting firm concentrating primarily on regulated markets including the telecommunications industry. QSI assists its clients in the areas of regulatory policy, business strategy, financial and econometric analysis and inter-carrier issues involving rates and charges assessed by incumbent carriers. Prior to founding QSI Mr. Starkey served as the Senior Vice President of Telecommunications Services at Competitive Strategies Group, Ltd. in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Starkey’s consulting career began in 1996 shortly before the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, Mr. Starkey has advised some of the world’s largest companies (e.g., AT&T, MCI, Time Warner, Covad Communications, Comcast, Siemens Corporation, etc.) on a broad spectrum of issues including the most effective manner by which to interconnect competing networks. Mr. Starkey’s experience spans the landscape of competitive telephony including interconnection agreement negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and strategies aimed at maximizing new technology. Mr. Starkey’s experience is often called upon as an expert witness. Mr. Starkey has since 1991 provided testimony in greater than 150 proceedings before approximately 40 state commissions, the FCC
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T U-Verse® TV
    AT&T U-verse ® TV Legal Guide West Please retain for your records Customer Service Standards Terms of Service Privacy Policy U-verse® TV Standard Rates Municipal Contact List Get answers 24/7 att.com/support or talk live 800.288.2020 AT&T U-verse ® TV Legal Guide Table of Contents West Customer Service Standards..................................................................................................3 AT&T U-verse® TV General Terms of Service.........................................................5 Privacy Policy .......................................................................................................................................16 U-verse TV Standard Rates...................................................................................................26 Municipal Contact List................................................................................................................30 U-verse ® TV Customer Service Standards October 2019 We’ve established general U-verse TV customer service standards designed to exceed your expectations. Here are some of the general customer service standards we intend to meet. • We can help you with your questions. Contact us online at att.com/support or call us at 800.288.2020. For technical support or to report a problem, call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. • For ordering, billing, and other inquiries, call us Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Pacific Time and Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time. Aer hours, an automated response system will answer your call . Important customer service standards: AT&T employees and representatives will carry identification. U-verse TV employees and representatives carry an ID card showing their name and photo. Appointment hours for installations and service calls with respect for your time The appointment window for installations, service calls, and other installation activities will be, at most, a 4-hour time block during normal business hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Shuren-FDA-Conflict of Interest-Handout 3-Pg-2
    Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD Director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health Clear Conflict of Interest Conflict of Interest: Jeffrey Shuren's wife Allison Shuren is a Partner with the Law Firm Arnold & Porter: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/s/shuren-allison-w This is important because a former FCC Chairman Paul A. Porter cofounded Arnold & Porter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_%26_Porter According to their website, Arnold & Porter has represented AT&T & all its predecessor companies in mergers totaling more than 200 billion dollars. https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/telecommunications-internet-and-media/transactionsmergers--acquisitionsbankruptcy November 23, 2017 in an antitrust case against AT&T-Time Warner Merger a judge was suspected to be switched out with another judge because his wife worked for Arnold & Porter, which would have represented a conflict of interest for the case. Similarly having Director Shuren’s wife working for Arnold & Porter making statements defending the business of AT&T should be regarded as a conflict of interest. https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/us-meet-the-judge-in-antitrust-case-against-att-time-warner/ Here are some of Arnold & Porter's activities for AT&T and predecessor companies since 1996. Arnold & Porter have secured more than $200 billion in mergers for AT&T and this is only from what is reported in these articles (from their website). https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/services/capabilities/practices/telecommunications-internet-and-media/transactionsmergers--acquisitionsbankruptcy SBC Communications (1996 – 1997) Our attorneys represented SBC in its acquisition of Pacific Telesis Group (the Regional Bell Operating Company serving California and Nevada).
    [Show full text]
  • CPUC Data Request FCC Form 477
    FIGURE G1: LIST OF CARRIERS SAMPLED VIA CPUC DATA REQUEST CPUC Data Request FCC Form 477 ILECs Included ILECs Included Citizens Telecommunications Company of Citizens Telecommunications Company California, Inc. of California Pacific Bell Pacific Bell Roseville Telephone Company Roseville Telephone Company Verizon California, Inc.(formerly GTE Verizon California, Inc.(formerly GTE California) California) Evans Telephone Company Kerman Telephone Co. Pinnacles Telephone Company Sierra Telephone Company Volcano Telephone Company CLECs/ IXCs Included CLECs Included AT&T Communications of California, Inc. AT&T Corp. Cox California Telecom, LLC Cox Communications Pac-West Telecommunications, Inc. ---------- Sprint Communications Company, L.P. Sprint Corporation Worldcom, Inc. MCI WorldCom, Inc./ WorldCom Inc. Adelphia Communications Corporation Advanced TelCom, Inc. Allegiance Telecom of California, Inc. AOL Time Warner/ Time Warner Cable/ Time Warner Communications Broadwing Communications Inc. Charter Communications Comcast Corporation/ Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. Focal Communications Corporation of California GST Telecom, Inc. ICG Telecom Group, Inc. Intermedia Communications Inc. Mediacom California LLC MediaOne Group, Inc. MGC Communications/ Mpower Communications Nextlink California, Inc./ XO California, Inc. Pacific Bell Company/ Pacific Bell Services [CLEC] RCN Telecom Services of CA, Inc. Seren Innovations Siskiyou Cablevision, Inc. Teligent Services, Inc. Qwest Interprise America, Inc. U.S. Telepacific Corp dba Telepacific Communications
    [Show full text]
  • Digest: Mccarther V. Pacific Telesis Group
    Do Not Delete 2/22/2011 11:41 AM Digest: McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group Rebecca J. Kipper Opinion by Moreno, J., with George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Corrigan, JJ., and O’Rourke, J.1 Issue Are sick leave policies that provide for an uncapped number of compensated days off governed by Labor Code section 233? Facts Kimberly McCarther and Juan Huerta each took absences from work to care for sick family members.2 Although McCarther and Huerta did not work for the same employer,3 as members of the Communications Workers of America labor union, they were subject to the same sickness absence policy under section 5.01F of the union’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA).4 Under this policy, employees are paid for any day in which they are absent from work due to their own illness or injury for up to five consecutive days in any seven-day long period.5 There is no limit on the number of days that an employee may be absent from work,6 but there is an attendance management policy in the CBA which sets forth a progressive scheme of discipline, up to termination, for excessive absences.7 Although absences for a personal illness or injury are compensated under section 5.01F, they still constitute an absence which is subject to discipline under the attendance management policy.8 In addition to paid sick leave, the CBA provides for six paid personal days which are not considered absences for the purposes of the attendance 1 Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Telephone and Telegraph Company Divestiture: Background, Provisions, and Restructuring
    Report No. 84-58 E I -. <I?....*- ".YII. -n, -- THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY DIVESTITURE: BACKGROUND, PROVISIONS, AND RESTRUCTURING b Y Angele A. Gilroy Specialist in Industrial Organization Economics Division COLLECTION WKI HEKN !CNTUCKY LIBRARY April 11, 1984 11 i :::A L.'~~-l.ii.e makes jucn research available. without parti- ::;I.. in lr:m\ !orrns inc!uding studies. reports. cornpila- ;,)I!., I!:<?\[>. :md l:a~kqroi~ndhrietings. Cpon request. CRS .. ., :i ~ !>!r::z:rrir.e.;in ann1~-zingle+slative proposals and -tl:..b. :!nd in s>w;sinq the possible effects of these proposals . < :!I irie.The Ser~ice'ssenior specialists and ii,:c( r :iil.,;ii ?is are also at-aiiable for personal consultations ;xi-ir :.t>.;!?ecri\-elieid.; t~f'expertise. ABSTRACT On January 1, 1984, The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) di- vested itself of a major portion of its organizational structure and functions. Under the post-divestiture environment the once fully-integrated Bell System is now reorganized into the "new" AT&T and seven Ladependent regional 5olding ?om- panies -- American Information Technologies Corp., 3ell Atlantic Corp., 3ell- South Corp., NYNEX Corp., Pacific Telesis Group., Southwestern Bell Corp., and U.S. West, Inc. The following analysis provides an overview of the pre- and post-divestiture organizational structure and details the evolution of the anti- trust action which resulted in this divestiture. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 1 . BELL SYSTEM CORPORATE REORGANIZATION .............................. 3 A . Predivestiture Bell System Corporate Structure ................ 3 B . Divested Operating Company Structure .......................... 5 C . Post-Divestiture AThT Organizational Structure ................ 7 11.
    [Show full text]
  • DOES BELL COMPANY ENTRY INTO LONG-DISTANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT CONSUMERS? Jerry A
    DOES BELL COMPANY ENTRY INTO LONG-DISTANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT CONSUMERS? Jerry A. Hausman* Gregory K. Leonard** J. Gregory Sidak*** I. INTRODUCTION As part of the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) that implemented the divestiture of the Bell operating companies (BOCs) from AT&T on January 1, 1984,1 the BOCs were forbidden to carry telephone calls from one local access and transport area (LATA) to another.2 Roughly speaking, an interLATA call is a “long” long-distance call, and an intra- LATA call is “short” long-distance call, which is also sometimes called a local toll call. A BOC may supply intraLATA service, as may an interex- change carrier (IXC), such as AT&T, MCI WorldCom, or Sprint. Although the Telecommunications Act of 19963 superseded the MFJ, it nonetheless retained the BOCs’ interLATA prohibition while establish- ing, in Section 271,4 a process—involving each state public utilities com- mission, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the * MacDonald Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ** Senior Vice President, Lexecon Inc. *** F.K. Weyerhauser Fellow in Law and Economics Emeritus, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. The authors have consulted to the Bell operating companies over the course of many years. The views expressed are solely the authors’ own. The authors thank Amy Sheridan and Jessica Hennessey for excellent research assistance. 1 Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ), reprinted in United States v. AT&T Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 226–34 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). For an overview of the divestiture and its aftermath, see Jerry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Tariff F.C.C
    SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 73 14th Revised Title Page 1 Cancels 13th Revised Title Page 1 ACCESS SERVICE Regulations, Rates and Charges applying to the provision of Access Services within a Local Access and Transport Area (LATA) or equivalent Market Area and for the provision of InterLATA services, in accordance with Section 271(b)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for connection to interstate communications facilities for customers within the operating territory of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in the State(s) of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas as provided herein. Company Code Southwestern Bell Telephone Company 9533 Arkansas 5211 Kansas 5214 Missouri 5213 Oklahoma 5215 Texas 5216 All material contained herein is moved from Tariff F.C.C. No. 68. The original effective date for the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 68 is May 24, 1984 and, for Section 7, April 1, 1985. Access Services are provided by means of wire, fiber optics, radio or any other suitable technology or a combination thereof. Not all services described in this tariff are available from every wire center. The services available from each specific wire center are listed in the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Tariff F.C.C. No. 4. Issuing Officer: Kristen Shore (T) Executive Director - Regulatory (T) (D) (D) (This page filed under Transmittal No. 3424 ) Issued: March 30, 2016 Effective: April 14, 2016 675 W. Peachtree St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30308 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY TARIFF F.C.C.
    [Show full text]