Re: "Essential Facility"

[rd@cottonwood.com (Rick Dahlgren)]

Therein may be the logic behind the ease with which AT&T may have
contemplated a rumored coupling with Microsoft to de-fuse the Comcast
counter bid.....

It is easy to agree in principle to something you know you won't be allowed
to do if you think it will get you where you want to go.

This one should be fun to watch.

....and what about the US West tax free spin off of Communications and
Media Group?....isn't there a re-capture clock...and who is going to pay??

Rick Dahlgren
Cottonwood Communications
rd@cottonwood.com

>You may be looking at this "essential facility" concept incorrectly. 
>You do not have an essential facility solution/problem without first
>having a monopoly.
>
>I can think of no reason why our telephone system, our cable television
>system and our internet should be run by a monopoly or anything that
>even looks like it.  And, I certainly can think of no reason why my
>cable provided should decide that I must buy a copy of Windows CE and
>use all Microsoft audio and video technology.
>
>The solution here is to preclude monopolists (AT&T and Microsoft) from
>forming even larger monopolies.
>
>The FTC and the DOJ best not fall asleep here.
>
>We need open and active competition not more monopoly power forcing the
>hand of consumers.
>
>The whole idea of the "essential facility" concept is to allow the
>monopoly to continue.  I can think of no reason for that at all. 
>Microsoft Word does not need to be written by the same company that
>writes the OS.  And any audio or video player technology clearly does
>not need to be written by the OS company.
>
>As a consumer, I am getting real tired of being forced to buy one
>product because I choose another.  The technology does not require it. 
>Only monopolists do.
>
>As a software developer I insist upon an equal and fair opportunity to
>develop and market an operating system or an application without being
>precluded from either market by a monopolist who is too weak kneed to
>compete fairly.
>
>If you read that testimony from Microsoft you hear Microsoft employees
>refusing to compete fairly because they only know now to play monopoly. 
>This needs to be changed.  I only hope the judicial system is up to the
>challange.
>
>
>Rick Dahlgren wrote:
>> 
>> Robert Reese's offering might have some weight.  CNET is reporting that
>> AT&T is working to forge a relationship with Microsoft that would provide
>> Microsoft the market for the operating system to be used in set-top
>> terminals deployed by AT&T in its broadband markets (now including Media
>> One).
>> 
>> The article is at:
>> 
>> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36119,00.html?st.ne.fd.tohhed.ni
>> 
>> At that point, the OS would definitely be "essential facility" along with
>> any special tools employed in the development of content or transactions to
>> be provided through those boxes.
>> 
>> Rick Dahlgren
>> Cottonwood Communications
>> rd@cottonwood.com
>
>-- 
>Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
>lmettler@LAMLaw.com
>http://www.lamlaw.com/ (web site reviews Microsoft antitrust transcripts
>daily)