November 1st, 2005

Top consumer groups criticized the Federal Communications Commission for not attaching sufficient safeguards to today's approval of the Verizon Communications-MCI and the SBC Communications-AT&T mergers.

"Given the failure of the Department of Justice to impose any meaningful conditions on the SBC-AT&T and Verizon-MCI mergers last week, and the desire of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to impose no conditions whatsoever, Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have been forced to carry a heavy burden to protect consumers and preserve the openness of the Internet," said Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America.

"Chairman Martin's failure to agree to meaningful protections against pricing abuse means competitors can be squeezed out of the market and consumers face price increases," Cooper added.

"The short-term enforcement of network neutrality, and the absence of similar enforcement mechanisms for other telephone and cable companies, means that Internet service providers and applications developers can be undermined by anticompetitive practices of network owners.

These conditions are not nearly enough. Even if the commission were to follow-up vigorously-which is unlikely given the chairman's opposition to even these minimal conditions-Congress will have to step in to restore an open communications network that supports competition, promotes innovation and protects consumers."

Consumers Union echoed Cooper's comments. SBC is majority owner of Cingular Wireless L.L.C., the No. 1 wireless carrier in the United States, while Verizon is parent company of the second-largest cellular operator, Verizon Wireless.

The FCC said the mergers-given the blessing of the Justice Department late last week-will benefit the public.

Martin was unapologetic about his position on the mergers.

"Let me say that I do not believe that all of the conditions imposed today are necessary. I believe that the affected markets would remain vibrantly competitive absent these conditions," he said.

"Nevertheless, the parties involved have chosen to make these commitments now in order to obtain the certainty of immediate commission approval for their mergers.

I understand their desire to move forward, and agree that the public interest will be well served by providing certainty sooner rather than later."

Source: RCR News