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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rob Frieden <[email protected]>
Date: January 4, 2007 1:11:40 PM EST
To: [email protected]
Cc: David Farber <[email protected]>
Subject: Name Calling in the Martin-Tate Statement on the AT&T-=20
BellSouth Merger

Hello All:

         Once upon a time the Commissioners that served at the=20=20
Federal Communications Commission assessed issues based on the public=20=20
interest, not a political litmus test.  They did not write concurring=20=20
statement in the form of a Wall Street Journal editorial either.  Now=20=20
we have a Chairman and Commissioner quite willing to use the=20=20
political party registration of a fellow Commissioner as grounds for=20=20
derision.
Based on a Westlaw search I could come up with no other instance=20=20
where the official statement of a Chairman or Commissioner preceded=20=20
the name of a fellow Commissioner with his or her party affiliation.=20=20=
=20
So Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate have made history of a sort=20=20
when they went out of their way, in a statement on the AT&T-BellSouth=20=20
merger, to express displeasure at their =93Democratic=94 colleagues as=20=
=20
though their party affiliation was grounds enough to disagree:

          Importantly, however, while the Democrat Commissioners may=20=20
have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future=20=20
Commission action. Specifically, a minority of Commissioners cannot=20=20
alter   Commission precedent or bind future Commission decisions,=20=20
policies, actions, or rules. . . . [T]he Democrat Commissioners want=20=20
to price regulate not only AT&T but also Verizon and Qwest.

         Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the Martin-=20
Tate statement, I resent the blatant partisanship and lack of=20=20
civility.  I have seen the FCC sink into a morass of pseudo science,=20=20
fuzzy math, creative interpretation of economic principles and legal=20=20
concepts, selective interpretation of the facts, innovative=20=20
collection of statistics and flawed thinking to justify an=20=20
preordained outcome.  I do not see much public interest decision=20=20
making whatsoever.

         Surely we should we parse through  the AT&T commitment=20=20
letter that now appears not to guarantee follow through and one that=20=20
may not have net neutrality commitment applicable to AT&T=92s next=20=20
generation Internet technologies and facilities.  But we also should=20=20
reflect on the tone of the Martin-Tate statement, perhaps the product=20=20
of legal assistants the majority of whom won their partisan stripes=20=20
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?=20
per_id=3D102928

-------------------------------------------