o~ /1 b6cKer"F'lE COpy ORIGINAL ¥ ; ..... Sandralyn Bailey , ?

From: [email protected] on behalf of [email protected] i?' Sent: f{icla~, Se~\embe{ Q~ ,2QQ6 ~ ~ '.36 A.M i;:< To: KJMWEB . Subject: at&t1bellsouth merger concerns

Dear Chairman:

Less than 25 years after the settlement of the landmark antitrust case against the "old" AT&T was finally realized, the "new" AT&T is proposing a merger that will create a cormnunications giant just as powerful and even more influential than the "old" AT&T. Surely, the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913 still applies, as it should have been inherited by the "new" AT&T upon SBC's purchase of the "old" AT&T. This agreement between the government and AT&T allows them to purchase lines from other companies, provided that they sell-off an equal number. Prevent regional monopolies, it does not; but it prevents the company from getting too big. In fact, this agreement should have been applied to each and every divested Regional Bell company as AT&T was a majority owner in each; which would have prevented the mergers among the RBOCTs and the birth of these new mega companies.

SBC shouldn't have been permitted to buy Ameritch or PacBell. They shouldn't have been allowed to buy what was left of the "old" AT&T; nor should have been permitted to purchase MCI or GTE. These companies are getting TOO BIG and far too powerful.

Allowing the biggest communications company (the "new" AT&T) and the biggest wireless company (Cingular, which AT&T owns a majority of already, and BellSouth the remainder) to all be one-in-the-same is VERY BAD for consumers.

Should you allow AT&T to purchase BellSouth, you must deny them the one thing that is treasured most in the deal: a wholly owned Cingular. They must be required to divest that property off before the merger (and not sell to another top 5 wireless company) and be prohibited from re-entering the wireless communications business for a generation. They should also be required to sell off an equal number of lines (equal to those gained from the purchase of BellSouth) from elsewhere in their territory.

In addition, we feel that no further mergers between communications or cable companies with combined gross annual revenues in excess of 100 million dollars be approved without true Network Neutrality on the internet (reference www.savetheinternet.com and www.itsournet.org for additional information) in place and protected by federal law.

It is past time for the FCC to take a stand against mega mergers. There are no instances in the last generation where a merger between large communications companies has been good for consumers ... NONE.

Regards, The Staff of Black River PC, LLC

._------

20 _i1(., --1lf DOCI(~~ COpy ORIGINAL Sandralyn Bailey ;."-. From: Robert Dolan [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 24,20063:15 PM To: KJMWEB Subject: Comments to the Chairman

Robert Dolan ([email protected]) writes:

Dear Chairman Martin:

I am concerned that AT&T which merged with SBC/ (a very large RBOe) is now merging with Bell South. How can the FCC stop a merger between Sprint and Mer (although in retrospect I was happy about this) allow a merger between these two extremely large companies?

Server protocol: HTTP/l.l Remote host: 144.226.173.69 Remote IP address: 144.226.173.69

'"_>1 /l ------.!.tL....------

11 Sandralyn Bailey '"&i'!,~",""',"l",l..~,---- ...., ", From: Keith Lawson West [k_west@bellsouth,net) Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11 :30 AM

To: KJMWEB ,) Subject: Comments to the Chairman

-' .,. Keith Lawson West (k_west@bellsouth,net) writes:

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the proposed merger between Bellsouth and AT&T. The FCC should not let this merger take place and if it does then there needs be huge restrictions. At&T is trying to monopolize the industry again and FCC as it appears is going to let it happen.

Server protocol: HTTP/l.l Remote host: 139.76.128.71 Remote IP address: 139.76.128.71

10 SandraIY;.;n.;;B;,;a;;;,i1;.;;e~y ....,__",'!e.;"_-...._-'ilo"J _ .i( -. ~' From: Allen M Branch [alle021@yahoo,com] Sent: Saturda'i, Selltember 23, 2006 ~ 2:47 PM To: KJMWEB Subject: Comments to the Chairman

Allen M Branch ([email protected]) writes:

What the H are you saying to approve the bond between AT&T and the Bell south Compo Dont you rember-Why the break up in the first place you think that it looks good for you a chairman to be stearing the board with out listing to more user 1 no one will like the plains meaning as all ways make up cost, loose workers there jobs, AND cost us all more in local and long dist. calls ALL of us rethink your vote as you might be voted out as well sat e mailing

Server protocol: HTTP/1,1 Remote host: 24,99.221.189 Remote IP address: 24.99,221,189

-'-_._------_._~--

14 Sandralyn Bailey from: Ralph BarKley Uayareo9@pacbe\\.ne\) Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:29 AM To: KJMWEB Subject: Comments to the Chairman

Ralph Barkley ([email protected]) writes:

Do you really know what these mergers are doing to the economy? Do you know how many large city middle income americans are loosing there jobs to rural lower income americans just by this company closing offices in California, Nevada and Texas and opening offices with lower pay for same job. Where do savings go? Into Ed Whitacre's DEEP POCKETS. This is very wrong. How can anyone justify bonuses of 21,000,000 year after year. Where would you spend it? Cause those out of work employees can tell you where they would spend it. To Live.

Server protocol: HTTP/1.1 Remote host: 68.127.235.80 Remote IP address: 68.127.235.80

0f ,~-:;'d 0 Lbt ABeD£: ------

15 ." '. Sandralyn Bailey s'", From: Tom Collinge [email protected]\ Sent: Friday, September 22,20064:4'0 PM To: KJMWEB Subject: At&t - Bell South Merger

I am writing this memo to all five FCC board members concerning the AT&T I Bell South purposed merger. As a consumer, I believe that we need more competition in the market for telephone service, not less. I am a firm believer that the consumer wins when there is more competition. It drives innovation, the cost of the product drops. Just look at what happen with the price of telephone service dropped with the breakup of AT&T in the first place.

This being said, I do have to give state that I have done business with AT&T, and they have left a bad taste in my mouth on several occasions. When I first got out of the Navy and was setting up my long distance phone company, I went with AT&T I told someone how much I was paying, and they told me that I need to switch companies. I did this and a representative from AT&T called me asking why did I switch? I told them that I found a better deal. After the person said that they could match the deal that I was now getting, I asked the question if this was a new plan? The response that I received was no, and because I did asked for "any plan" when I signed up for phone service, it was defaulted to the most expensive plan that AT&T had. I told them that it was too late for them if this was their policy. When AT&T was in the cable TV business, I complained so much and so often, I would say that they ended up giving me close to six months of free cable TV. You can check with the City of Jacksonville Florida on the number of complaints that they received for AT&T. I moved to Columbus Ohio to go to school at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, and AT&T has the local phone service here. AT&T connected up my phone service more than a week before the date I told them that I needed it; and they still wanted me to pay for this extra time.

Therefore, when you give the weight of this letter that is needed, you could say that this is a letter from a disgruntled consumer that would like a chunk taken out of AT&T for their poor service that I received. I will not argue this fact at aiL

I do want to say thanks for allowing consumers to contact you.

Tom Collinge (614) 238-0859

rJo. C< Li3t ABeD!:: ------._-----_.-

16 O~-1Y

Sandralyn Bailey ,;,,{:'!""'r!'o""';;;."'"'!'"' _ ...... } ;~ '\c- "" From: Chris \c\\ris@l\o'Neril'\gdesigl'\.com\ Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:40 AM To: KJMWEB Subject: Comments to the Chairman c

Chris ([email protected]) writes:

Hey Kevin,

Thank you for being totally self-centered and only concerned with money rather than providing a service to the people of this country, It so sad to see how you just roll over like a lame dog and let ATT & Bellsouth merge.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely, Chris Brainard Server protocol: HTTP/l.1 Remote host: 75.28.41.130 Remote IP address: 75.28.41.130

r,!;::,_ nf ,'TU"d...... , UstAECDE '------0 ------

7 Sandralyn Bailey from: Shannon Williams \[email protected]\ Ot1'" Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 20066:21 PM " " To: KJMWEB Subject: Comments to the Chairman

Shannon Williams ([email protected]) writes:

To the honorable Chairman Martin: As a former employee of the former SBC (AT&T), I am concerned and interested in the possible merger of AT&T and BellSouth. As it seems now, Ma Bell is on it's way to being reborn and I would like to know how you feel about this? If this were to happen, will there be regulations on how much the large company will be able to charge it's growing customers? Right now Cingular Wireless is a joint effort, AT&T holds 60% and BellSouth holds 40%. Will there be new laws that regulate prices? I am currently a consumer with Cingular Wireless and I am concerned that the prices that I pay will rise if/when this merger may happen.

I'm not a disgruntled former employee even though I was laid off, I am a concerned consumer that wants true answers!

I held my position in the Federal Regulatory side at AT&T for 5 years until the merger and the layoff. I learned a lot about the workings of a large Telecom company and the FCC and I am now pursuing my JD.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

SM Williams

Server protocol: HTTP!1.1 Remote host: 69.160.88.247 Remote IP address: 69.160.88.247

19 Sandralyn Bailey I:; DCt ~'.';.,,> From: Wayne Tang [[email protected]] e""''::'''!j , ,J Sent: Wednesday, September 27,200611:36 AM ", ' '"~. To: KJMWEB; Michael Copps; Jonathan Adelstein; dtaylorlateweb; Rol:iert MCOgwell ':2; Subject: Say NO to Bellsouth - AT&T Merger " ,.

Dear Commissioners,

I have been following the Telco mergers along with your ruling for their restrictions. I have also been following my telephone bill increase with lower quality of server. Allowing the merger of Bellsouth with AT&T is a mistake. This further reduces competition and consumer choice. Example: I was with AT&T wireless - 2 phone, 1000min/mo -$89 w/taxes now I am with Cingular 2 phone, 500min -110 w/taxes. I don't call any more than I used to and I get less text messages than I used to. Also I am a VOIP customer and while I would like to get DSL -I cannot. AT&T does not have service in my area. And even if I could, I could not get any of the advertised specials because I do not have phone service. Cable companies only discount the bundle service by $5/mo where AT&T "naked" DSL is $49/mo vs. $14/mo. This is predatory pricing to save their cash cow.

Don't get me started on Network Neutrality -I work for a small Application Service Provider and I fear that AT&T will start to charge is extra to get our packets to our customers. Most headlines highlight the GoogleNahoo/Microsoft argument. But there are tons of smaller ASPs that will be harmed if network providers are allowed to prioritize packets.

I think you have all lost touch with reality and only pander to large corporations. I hope you can take the time to read this email and get in touch with your fellow man. Government for the people, by the people.

Wayne Tang Senior D8A SCI Solutions Phone: 408.378,0262 x229 Fax: 408.378.0347 [email protected] www.scisolutions.com

DISCLAIMER:

The information transmitted is the property ofsaand is intended only for the person or entity to which itis addressed and may contain privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mailmay notrepresent those ofthe company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination and other use ot; or taking ofany action in reliance upon, this information bypersons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Ifyou received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer.

6 E) 0/1 ~ Sandralyn Bailey .;,F"""'i...:t"i'::,,.?loi._---- From: Co!"/ I-Iamma tco!,,/hamma@gmai\.com\ Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:48 PM To: Robert McDowell Subject: BeliSouth I AIT Merger

Commissioner McDowell,

I am writing to you about the Bellsouth I AT&T Merger, I am against this merger for several reasons.

First, I believe that we are re-creating a huge telecom corporation, cutting off the opportunities for competition for smaller companies, I live in a SBC region that also has some local Internet Service providers, Due to the nature of the SBC conglomerate and the huge resources at their disposal, they have started a pricing war with smalilSPs that has lasted several years. Most local ISPs were forced to go out of business, because they cannot compete with SBC DSL below-cost pricing. If and when SBC decides to start limiting bandwidth to certain sites, the community will be unable to switch to a different internet provider because there are no alternatives!

Second, I feel strongly that telecom mergers have not resulted in better service at a lower cost. Based on my personal experience with SBC and Cingular Wireless, I must insist that the quality of the customer service they provide has declined sharply since the days of Wireless.

Let these companies compete instead of merge, The merger is a win-win situation for the shareholders and board members of both companies, but a painful process and poor end result for consumers and employees.

Sincerely, Cory Hamma 4001 Vistosa St. Davis, CA 95618 (530) 574-8188

5 Sandralyn Bailey

From: gormangv [[email protected]] DOCKET FILE COpy OI1lGIN:'I.L Sent: Wednesday, September 27,20066:34 PM To: KJMWEB Cc: Michael Copps; Jonathan Adelstein; dlaylortaleweb; Robert McDowell Subject: AIT & Bellsouth merger

September 27, 2006

Chairman Kevin J. Martin Federal Communications Commission

re: ATT & Bellsouth merger

Sir:

When are these mergers going to stop?

I AM AGAINST THIS MERGER!

Also, I feel that the chairman position is so powerful, it should be an elected position.

PLEASE, NO ATT & BELLSOUTH MERGER.

With thanks,

A very, very concerned taxpayer.

Gertrude A. Gorman 4300 Fox Trace Boynton Beach, FL 33436

------

4 Sandralyn ~~i1ey --_"'-"t~-'------~lmET""fiU: COP i OF.1611·!"ft: From: Dr. Steven Rosen [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11 :21 PM To: KJMWEB SUbiect: Comments to tne Cnaitman

Dr. Steven Rosen ([email protected]) writes: C.: Dear Mr. Martin, ;,'lic, " -. e <.J<.._ c', 'l~~j;:~->:"'()fJ I would like to object to the pending purchase of BellsQuth by ATT. ATT?is a semi­ criminal organization that touts "customer care" in its billing statements yet is in reality a customer nightmare.

This "company" has systematically overcharged my toll free account to the tune of at least $317,000 over during the perios 12/2004 through 7/2006.

They accuse me of not monitoring my bills and claim that because they were paid, that means I acknowledge their legality. In fact, I have no signed agreement with this criminal organization and never have.

When contacting this "company" to discuss billing, they routinely record customer conversations. When I notified them that I was taping a conversation, they abruptly cut off the talking claiming they cannot be taped. They had no comment when I stated that they were taping the call. I have the tape to document their refusal to allow lI equal taping".

During an early call in May, 2006 after the Florida Public Service Commission forced them to talk to me, I was promised that the mere phone request was all that was required to reduce my per minute rate from what I was being charged, $1.03/minute for incoming toll­ free to their advertised non-contract 6.9 cents/minute. Not only did the rate NOT go down, it went up in July. This company is arrogant and bullying and could care less about their customers.

For a while they refused to transfer my toll free numbers to my new carrier, Global Crossing. At one point, they intentionally cut off my outgoing long distance service which was quickly restored by rerouting the calls through Bellsouth to my new carrier.

It took SEVEN attempts before ATT finally released my main toll free nUmber, and I am assuming it was an oversight by someone in the switching department.

ATT and Bellsouth were split up in the early 80's for just such problems ...monopolistic power. Now, the circle has corne around and once again, you are apparently ready to acquiece to their request to recover what they had lost, namely absolute control of the telecommunications industry.

I am ready to delivery all my detailed documentation about this matter to you. I have retained a lawyer with telecom experience that ATT must have missed in their aggressive efforts to tie up experienced lawyers with conflicts of interest making it difficult to find representation against this monster.

PLEASE, PLEASE do not allow this merger or the "public be damned" attitude will be even worse.

FYI, when this all started I was refused a corporate telephone number for ATT by their first line of defense, their "customer care (ugh) people". I was told I had to write to their home office and wait for a reply, yeah right. I was given an address.

I recorded the phone numbers that appeared on my caller ID when ATT was forced to call me by the Florida Public Service Commission. I now have names, phone numbers and dates of who told me what.

I'm currently waiting for ATT to try collecting the $82, 0PJ~ 6P(~~"J,M&~\1I oweO-0r the period 5/2006 through 7/2006. U::;t /~E';;Df: 12 I expect to litiate this to the end and will not give in to their arrogance. I hope media gets wind ~ it and embarasses these criminals so the public can see what kind of company they really are.

Again, do not approve this merger.

thanks for your attention, Dr. Steven Rosen Pres. Tend Skin International Cell: 9(954) 309-4845 Toll free: 800-940-8423 Server protocol: HTTP/I.I Remote host: 65.15.45.114 Remote IP address: 65.15.45.114

13 Sandral'yn Bailey

From: Bruening, Daniel J. [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 26,200611:03 AM To: KJWlWEB Subject: ATT and Bell South Merger

imageOOl.gif (209 B)

Mr. Martin,

It seems that the days of competition in the telephone industry is gone. By coming out in favor of the merger of ATT and Bell South you are basically condemning the small independent LEC who is still functioning under a UNEP agreement to annihilation. As these companies become more powerful and there self assuredness grows they are making it increasingly difficult for a non-cable LEC to compete. Our costs under the wholesale agreements that we are being force fed by ATT have increased dramatically since last January when the FCC in their infinite wisdom decided that the UNEP world should be turned upside down.

I have no qualms with paying for what we use, but when you the company you are dealing with and who has provided you service for over 10 years offers you a take it or leave it contract that basically does not allow you to compete with their own pricing, well it spells the doom to competition. You may feel that the cable companies offer enough competition to the big two now - ATT and Verizon, but it is the small LEC who has for years prOVided the competition to the RBOCs and who has persisted through sweat equity to now only see all of this hard work being destroyed because we can't compete.

To make An even bigger only reinforces their feeling of invincibility and quicken the demise of any competition they may have.

Daniel Bruening VP - Billing Trinsic Communications, Inc 601 South Harbour Island Blvd Suite 220 Tampa, Florida 33602 813-233-4986 - Office ---- 813-233-4745 - Fax

B • 813-3~1)-5346 - Cell

9