Thanks!

In a striking victory for Internet freedom advocates, AT&T officials agreed on Thursday night to adhere to strict Network Neutrality conditions if allowed to complete their $85 billion merger with BellSouth which was approved on Friday.

Neutralized for now: AT&T Chief Ed Whitacre

The phone company filed a “letter of commitment” with the Federal Communications Commission in which it promises to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months. Now it’s left to Congress to follow the FCC’s lead and make Net Neutrality permanent under the law.

According to AT&T’s letter, the merged company:

“… commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth’s agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth’s wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.”

AT&T’s concession followed more than a week of often pointed negotiations with the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. This was compounded by tens of thousands of letters from SavetheInternet.com and Free Press activists who demanded that the FCC allow no merger without Net Neutrality.

Approval of the merger by the full commission came late Friday.

AT&T’s agreement puts to rest their own executives’ argument that Net Neutrality doesn’t really exist. (Watch AT&T chief Ed Whitacre in action) The phone giant just committed to observing Net Neutrality and defined it in the text of its letter.

It also puts to rest the bogus argument that Net Neutrality will cripple the largest phone companies’ plans to build out broadband services. AT&T agreed to this condition — and also to offer cheaper broadband services – and yet they continue to expand their networks and offer services to the tune of $24.5 billion in gross profits in 2006.

AT&T’s agreement to these merger terms reduces to industry spin their argument that Net Neutrality and profit are mutually exclusive.

Now It’s Up To Congress

Now that the FCC and AT&T have agreed that Net Neutrality is right for the future of the Internet, it’s time for Congress to forge legislation that instills this guiding principle into law.

As Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott recently said, “We are no longer having a debate about whether Net Neutrality should be the law of the land; we are having a debate about how and when.”

With the help of FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps — who held out for Net Neutrality against intense pressure from Chairman Kevin Martin and AT&T lobbyists — we have won more than a temporary condition on a mega-merger. They have set the bar for the future of the Internet, and paved our path to success on Capitol Hill.

“Making Net Neutrality a condition of the largest merger in telecommunications history sets an important precedent,” Scott said on Thursday. “It’s now up to the new Congress to craft a forward-looking broadband policy that will bring the benefits of the Internet to all Americans. For free speech, democratic participation and economic innovation to thrive online, Net Neutrality must be the law.”

By Ben Scott, Free Press Policy Director

In the wake of the AT&T-BellSouth merger, much of the discussion in the Internet community has focused on trying to poke holes and find weaknesses in the Net Neutrality condition that AT&T was forced to accept. This line-by-line critique has attained such a volume in certain circles that you might think it was the most significant element in this story.

It is not. Not by several country miles. It is true that what we have won here is a compromise. But the positives outweigh the negatives by such a wide margin that it is unbelievable to me that we have spent so much time niggling and so little time celebrating.

It was never possible to win a perfect Net Neutrality victory at FCC through a merger condition. We cannot hold this merger condition achieved under a Martin Commission to the standard we would demand if we were legislating with a public-interest friendly majority at the FCC and in Congress.

I don’t mean to say that we should banish dissent and refuse to discuss shortcomings and possible loopholes — or that giving so much power to AT&T is desirable. I just hope we can all keep in mind that these conversations are occurring in the wake of a very sizeable political win.

The bottom line is whether this merger condition advances our cause in the marketplace and in Congress. In the market, this condition will have the effect of disciplining bad behavior — certainly for AT&T, and likely for the industry as a whole. In Congress, the center of power where this issue will ultimately be decided, the debate will now shift from whether we should have Net Neutrality to how and when we should have it.

What specifically does this condition give us in the context of a Congressional debate? A hellavu lot.

It destroys the phone companies’ two most popular arguments against us from 2006. They can no longer argue that Net Neutrality cannot be defined. They can no longer argue that Net Neutrality, infrastructure build-out, low-cost broadband and a profitable company are mutually exclusive.

That alone would be a monster win for our side.

Beyond that, this agreement will help educate Members of Congress about what Net Neutrality is all about and why it matters.

Further, the Bells no longer look quite so invincible on the matter.

Finally, this is a big victory for the millions of people who have followed and fought this debate to hang their hats on. It builds momentum, confidence, and above all, hope.

Here’s hoping 2007 will be the year of the Internet of, by, and for the people.

Guest post from Harold Feld
Originally posted at www.wetmachine.com

Unsurprisingly, in an area as complex as this, opinion has split on what the merger conditions mean. Some, like Tim Karr and Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu, and Matt Stoller hail the conditions as an important victory. Others, such as Cardozo Law Professor and ICANN Director Susan Crawford, Jeff Pulver, and Dave Burstein think AT&T has cleverly played us for dupes by giving us conditions with loopholes that render the conditions meaningless. While others, like Dave Isenberg, strike a middle ground. Others, pointing out that the conditions only last two years,

What do I think? As I observed in July, when we got got some conditions out of the Adelphia transaction, evaluating wether you won or not in opposing a merger is a tricky business. But I reject the idea we got taken for a ride. To the contrary, anybody who thought this merger was going to provide the answer to the net neutrality issue, or eliminate the need for national legislation, does ot understand what was going on or what we were trying to accomplish.

And no, this doesn’t make a bad merger good. I certainly would have preferred seeing the FCC reject the merger. But given broad hints from Dingell that he never wanted the Ds to go that far, and given the fact that McDowell could have decided to come off the bench in June if the merger was still pending (since the Ds could not get a majority to vote to refer the matter to an Admin Law Judge), I don’t think a rejection was realistic to expect.

More detailed analysis below.

If this were the Superbowl, we have just improbably ground out another touchdown in a nasty, brutal running game. All hail to CU, CFA, Free
Press and others (including, if I may, my employer Media Access Project) that carried the ball on this, especially when we were at fourth an five when it looked like Martin could bring McDowell off the bench. And it is an amazing comeback from the first half of the year, when we got our butts kicked in the House Telecom Subcommittee vote.

But the game is far from over, and no one who seriously plays in this arena thinks that we have somehow solved the problem. Nor do we have any illusions that this even solves the problem for AT&T. We know AT&T will bust its lawyerly brain to find and exploit loopholes. Given AT&T’s network, the boundary between tradition video services (which the Ds agreed to preserve via the IPTV exception, because they want to preserve the more positive aspects of cable law — such as program access and franchise requirements (if the recent FCC action on franchsing gets reversed by the courts or Congress)), and broadband services is very tricky indeed. AT&T has already tried to play the “dual purpose technology” card, claiming to be an “information service” and therefore exempt from franchising while seeking the benefits of being a cable video service when it suits them. And, as others point out, the merger conditions only last two years

But we have gained three very significant things:

1) A clear definition of network neutrality that covers the transport chain from the backbone to the final residential end user.
Forgive language that would get me an FCC fine, but that’s fucking huge. A number of us have been very worried about the vertical integration of
backbone and residential delivery, and having a definition that covers this issue, one that could be ported into federal legislation, is
enormous.

2) Network neutrality will apply to WiMax point to point. This breaks the wireless barrier. We have established that ANY non-mobile platform,
regardless of medium of transmission, can be and should be subject to network neutrality. Again, that’s fucking huge.

3) We just took the biggest, baddest player on the block, the most defiant anti-NN company, and made them cry uncle in public. As Matt Stoller explains, we have made Ed Whitacre and his chorus of industry shills eat their words that we can’t define net neutrality or come up with a way to “regulate” the network that doesn’t create impossibly large costs of service or prevent companies from making money. AT&T can hardly turn around an yelp about how accepting net neutrality makes it impossible to do profitable build outs when they just agreed to both net neutrality and universal deployment of broadband. When the telcos and cable cos try to trot out their tired arguments in the next Congress, they will have to explain why the great spokeman for that argument, good old Ed “no using my pipes for free” Whitacre, has shown by his actions that net neutrality and unviersal affordable bradband can happily coexist.

Those are pretty good political points to open the dance in 2007.

Would I have traded those points for three votes to reject the merger? Hell no. But there weren’t three votes to reject the merger. And, as I pointed out at the time, while McDowell’s brilliant speech gave the Ds leverage, it also put pressure on them to resolve the merger quickly.

Which brings me to a personal point. People here gave up their holiday and sweated blood over this accomplishing major advances for the movement and pulled off a big victory. It doesn’t solve every problem, but it provides huge momentum going in to 2007.

So comments that we got “duped” or “sold out” or didn’t accomplish squat irritiate me somewhat. The people who broke their backs moving this are under no delusions about how much remains to be done. To return to my football analogy: would it really encourage a team that has just ground out a first down from fourth and ten to get boos from the crowd because they haven’t won the game yet? While reasonable minds can differ on whether to put this ultimately in the win column, the lose column, or the draw column, I hope folks will give those who fought hard for what we got a due measure of respect and some indulgence of their celebrating the positives we did achieve.

So yes, we need to study the possible flaws in this definition of network neutrality. We need to come storming out of the gate the first week of ‘07 to make sure every Senator and Representative knows this deal is not enough and we will not rest until real network neutrality protections become permanent law. And we need to redoubl our efforts in state legislatures, where the telcos hope to advance their franchise “reform” agenda.

But can we do it in a way that doesn’t piss all over our accomplishments? Especially when, frankly, I think we have good cause to celebrate how ‘06 came out.

Stay tuned . . .

Guest post from Columbia Law Professor, Tim Wu
Originally posted at www.timwu.org

The proposed AT&T merger agreement has attracted some criticism, most prominently from David Burstein and Susan Crawford (check out also the commentary from David Isenberg and Jeff Pulver.) They believe, in short, that the exceptions in the agreement make it not worth the candle.

I respectfully disagree with Susan and Dave and want to explain why. While I don’t think the agreement is perfect, I don’t think it is flawed in the ways they believe. Let’s consider each in turn.

Susan argues that leaving “Wireline broadband Internet access service” undefined is dangerous; that AT&T will simply prioritize something different — what it it calls the “AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled,” which runs over fibre. As she writes:

AT&T is effectively saying, “We’ll keep existing ‘broadband’ access neutral. But when it comes to our new super-duper ‘AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled,’ well, that’s not up for negotiation. We need to make money there. ‘Enabled’ and ‘broadband’ are not the same thing.

Most importantly, prioritizing fiber-based broadband internet access would in fact violate the terms of the agreement. It is true that “wireline broadband internet access” service is undefined. Perhaps in an ideal version of the agreement, it would have been defined as follows: “any service that gives access to content or applications that rely on the internet addresses issued by the IANA” or something of the sort.
However, the term is the next best thing: a term with a specific, defined meaning in telecommunications regulation. It is a history that suggests that it means any internet broadband service carried over a copper wire, fiber, or anything else is covered by the agreement. Here is exactly how the FCC has defined the term (on page 8 of the 2005 Wireline classification decision):

Wireline broadband Internet access service, for purposes of this proceeding, is a service that uses existing or future wireline facilities of the telephone network to provide subscribers with Internet access capabilities.[footnote]

The footnote says:

We stress that our actions in this Order are limited to wireline broadband Internet access service and its underlying broadband transmission component, whether that component is provided over all copper loops, hybrid copper-fiber loops, a fiber-to-the-curb or fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) network, or any other type of wireline facilities, and whether that component is provided using circuit-switched, packet based, or any other technology.

This suggests that getting that defined term in the agreement is not a concession, but perhaps even a coup. The network neutrality rule shall apply to all existing and future wireless facilities.

* * *

David Burstein is concerned about the exemption for IPTV in the agreement, and his concerns are related somewhat to Susan’s concerns. He argues that AT&T will use the IPTV exemption in the Merger Agreement to create an internet “fast lane,” and thereby sidestep the network neutrality rule. David writes:

AT&T has always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them over the “IPTV” part of their network, with Alcatel routers and Microsoft software designed for QOS.

Here is the response. AT&T, as many know, in implementing plans to become a cable television provider. Building a cable television network is an exercise in discrimination; you cannot become, say, channel 60, without getting permission. It is a fundamentally different kind of network than the internet. In practice their networks do not rely on the public internet or its IP addresses — it is a private facility, like a cable network.

The IPTV exemption is intended to allow AT&T to pursue its cable television plans; and necessarily, that will mean AT&T choosing channels (Bravo, Comedy Central, etc.), and not choosing others. So yes, to this extent, the agreement allows AT&T to engage in a form of discrimination.

But as soon as AT&T attempts to justify doing anything other than television using the IPTV exemption, it will begin to violate the agreement. The IPTV exemption, in full, reads as follows:

This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth’s Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service. These exclusions shall not result in the privileging, degradation, or prioritization of packets transmitted or received by AT&T/BellSouth’s non-enterprise customers’ wireline broadband Internet access service from the network side of the customer premise equipment up to and including the Internet Exchange Point closest to the customer’s premise, as defined above.

As you can see, the exemption is itself limited. Here again the definintion of
“wireline broadband Internet access service” is important. The language above suggests that the IPTV exemption cannot be used in any way that constitutes offering a discriminatory broadband internet service.

In effect, the structure of the IPTV exemption draws a line, reflecting existing reality, between the open networks of the world (the internet) and the closed, highly discriminatory networks (cable). You can offer one, or both, but the discrimination isn’t allowed to bleed away from one and into the other. Here’s the essence: so long as customers demand internet service, access to the IP address defined internet, it will be neutral under this agreement.

Finally, it is arguably good for everyone that the Bells want to offer TV service. Cable could use the competition.

Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu has written a throrough analysis of AT&T’s Net Neutrality concession. The deal, struck as a condition of the $85 billion merger between AT&T and BellSouth, may be remembered as “an important moment in Internet history,” Wu writes.

Read Professor Wu’s Analysis of the merger

Public interest advocates negotiated the agreement with a purpose: to prevent the Internet from moving from being “lively” and “decentralized” toward “much more centralized control.”

Wu writes: “At a level of theory, the language in the agreement is premised on a belief in the merits of a neutral network, and in particular its cultural, political, and economic benefits. The preservation of an open communications network as a catalyst for these sectors, without unfairly restricting AT&T’s business, appears to be the motivating force.”

Read Professor Wu’s full analysis.

SavetheInternet.com’s “standout” grassroots coalition just won top honors as the “Internet Hero of 2006.”

“A grass roots organization put together by the media-reform advocates at FreePress.net, The SaveTheInternet.com coalition took on the most powerful players around (Congress and the telecommunications industry) to drum up support for Net Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment,” WebProNews’ Jason Lee Miller wrote in his year-end summary of winners and losers on the Web.

“Because of Free Press, SaveTheInternet.com, and MoveOn.org, an obscure, difficult to grasp concept won the support of 1.3 million petitioners, who made 50,000 phone calls to Congress, and spread the word to hundreds of thousands of others,” he added. “What’s happened in the last year has been nothing short of amazing, and those heroics should be recognized.”

Americans dodged a bullet when telephone and cable industry’s legislative juggernaut stalled in the 109th Congress. But AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will be back with their lobbyists, lawyers and phony grassroots groups in 2007. Thanks to all of you, we now have a better chance and larger voice to tell Congress to advance our interests, instead of merely following industry dictates.

How do you take an issue that can seem geeky, remote, and impossible to explain and translate it into a compelling story that gets the attention it deserves?

That was the challenge we faced in directing the latest SavetheInternet.com video, Independence Day — which premiered today on YouTube and SavetheInternet.com.

Click Here To Watch The Video On Dec. 19, it was YouTube’s “Top Rated”

But from the moment we first doodled this flying saucer image onto a napkin, we thought we might be onto something.

More than just a visual gimmick, the UFO frame fits the battle for Net Neutrality surprisingly well.

First, because the phone and cable companies really are aliens to our democracy. They’re the ones who want to overrun our Congress to change the way the Internet works — replacing the “level playing field” we know today with their “gatekeeper” system.

And secondly because their phony “Astroturf” groups have been disguising themselves as Internet-friendly activists (”Invasion of the Body Snatchers”-style) that are actually paid front groups. Hands off the Internet may look and talk like us – but watch for the telltale green pods hidden in their back yards…

And lastly, the whole “Mars Attacks” theme helps to communicate something fundamental: that there’s a battle going on for the future of the Internet, and that citizens need to inform themselves and take action.

The classic UFO films — including 1996’s “Independence Day” — often involve pitting good, old-fashioned American values against otherworldly invaders: standing up for the American way of life and justice for the little guy. We wanted to invoke similar feelings in telling the SavetheInternet.com Coalition’s story, and show how Net Neutrality is as American as Elvis.

The outstanding music of The Roots and REM (both active supporters of our campaign) help bring our rebellion to life. A host of other Net heroes — including Congressman Ed Markey, Amanda Congdon, Tron Guy, Moby and Ask-a-Ninja — are featured throughout.

When the members of our New Congress show up for work on January 4, our goal is to FLOOD their answering machines and in-boxes with pro-Net Neutrality messages. So if you like the video, please help us by doing three things:

• Sign the Net Neutrality Petition.
• Call your members of Congress.
• Forward the video to friends.

By acting now, we can keep the Internet – and America — free from gatekeeper control in 2007.

–Matt Thompson, Director, “Save The Internet.com: Independence Day”

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Robert McDowell took the high road today refusing to participate in the agency’s vote on the proposed AT&T-BellSouth merger.

McDowell’s decision strikes a positive note for Net Neutrality.

Without McDowell, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin can no longer ram through approval of the $82 billion deal without first negotiating conditions with Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

Copps and Adelstein have sought to bar AT&T from offering discriminatory treatment to Web sites and online services that pay the phone giant’s extra tolls for high speed access — a move that would undermine the Internet’s historic openness to new ideas and innovation.

Martin had put McDowell under intense pressure to rubber-stamp the AT&T deal without these consumer protections.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board on Tuesday trumpeted McDowell’s refusal to vote and chastised Martin, writing that “the merger should not be approved unless there is a guarantee that AT&T will offer a level playing field to websites and online services, at least until their customers have more choices for high-speed Internet connections.”

Chairman Martin has proved time and time again that he’s all about serving special interests in the phone and cable lobby and not those of the average American consumer.

His maneuvering on behalf of political and business cronies has already prompted call for the chairman’s resignation. New leaders of the incoming Congress have also warned Martin to avoid “compromising ethical standards” in the AT&T decision.

Public accountability on the AT&T merger may be Martin’s one chance to save himself — and those of is who are subject to his decisions.

It seems AT&T and Martin are slowly learning – along with certain members of Congress — that you can’t simply do the bidding of AT&T without suffering a public backlash. It’s now Martin’s turn to take the high road and set the stage for a net neutral, consumer-friendly resolution of this merger.

You can help persuade the FCC chairman by joining the more than 20,000 people who have signed this letter to “urge your members of Congress to step in, stop Martin’s ethical lapse and save Internet freedom.”

The gavel has fallen on the 109th Congress marking the demise of entrenched corporate efforts to legislate away our Internet freedoms — and a stunning victory for real people who want to retain control of the Internet.

The fate of Net Neutrality has now been passed to what appears to be a more Web-friendly Congress.

Our Coalition pledges to work with new Members to craft policies that ensure all Americans can access the Internet and enjoy the unlimited choices it has to offer.

The end of this Congress — and death of Sen. Ted Stevens’ bad bill — gives us the chance to have a long overdue public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. This will not only include ensuring Net Neutrality, but making the Internet faster, more affordable and accessible.

‘Huge Victory for Real People’

As the 109th comes to a close, Coalition members today praised our efforts in 2006 and discussed ways we can work towards a better Internet:

“This is a huge victory for real people and a clear signal to the next Congress that standing up for big bold ideas is a winning political proposition,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

Companies like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast spent more than $150 million to push Congress to gut Net Neutrality. But in the end, they couldn’t overcome widespread public opposition.

“The people’s attention to the issue of Net Neutrality is more powerful than any legislation — and this year proves that,” said Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia University Law School and author of Who Controls the Internet.

‘It’s About Fairness’

Network Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception, ensuring that the service providers who control the “pipes” don’t interfere with content based on its ownership or source. “Net neutrality is just about fairness and a level playing field,” said Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist. “It’s that simple.”

“Industry will be back with their money and phony grassroots groups,” said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union. “But next time around, with a public now well-informed of what’s at stake, we hope Congress will take up broadband policy that advances consumer — not just industry — needs.”

The more than 850 groups in the SavetheInternet.com Coalition also include the National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, Educause, Gun Owners of America, Future of Music Coalition, Parents Television Council, the ACLU, and every major consumer group in the country. These are supported by a community of more than a million small businesspeople, bloggers, MySpacers, YouTubers, activists and citizens who signed petitions, called Congress and pounded on their senators’ doors.

“As an activist and new media advocate, I am encouraged by our prospects in Congress for protecting the egalitarian spirit of the Internet and all people’s unfettered access to it,” said Christopher Rabb, founder of Afro-Netizen. “This fight has even greater impact on underserved communities, particularly among African-Americans, who rarely own or control the content we consume in mainstream media.”

‘The Fight for Net Neutrality Has Only Begun’

While the defeat of HR 5252 is a major step forward, the future of the Internet remains in jeopardy until Congress passes meaningful, enforceable protections for Net Neutrality. Such legislation will be a top priority for members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition when the legislators return in January.

“Despite a Congress deeply in the pocket of telecom lobbyists, the public banded together to stop attacks on our free and open Internet,” declared Michael Kieschnick, president of the Working Assets. “In 2007, we will continue the fight to preserve this precious public good by making Network Neutrality the law of the land.”

“The potent combination of grassroots support and the facts stopped a bad bill,” said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. “But the fight for Net Neutrality has only begun.”

Incoming congressional leaders are taking a dim view of efforts by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to push through a series of Internet and media rulings before the Democratic Congress gains oversight of his agency.

FCC Chairman Martin (right) in bed with corporate lobbyists Blow the Whistle on Martin

This week the he’s scrambling to approve the merger of AT&T and BellSouth without protecting consumers or preserving Net Neutrality. To accomplish this he’s turning screws on one commissioner, Robert McDowell, pressuring him to violate professional ethics, “un-recuse” himself and rubber stamp the $82 billion deal.

McDowell had opted out of the vote citing a conflict of interest because he used to work for one of the stakeholders in the merger debate.

But that wasn’t good enough for Chairman Martin. The former Bush-Cheney errand boy reportedly has his eyes on the North Carolina governor’s mansion and he’s yearning to deliver on promises to the telecommunications giants that he hopes will return the favor when the time is right. (In the last cycle, AT&T gave 66 percent of their political patronage to Republican candidates.)

If forced, McDowell would cast Martin’s deciding vote for the AT&T merger.

Today tens of thousands of Internet freedom activists are taking action to stop Martin’s plan. They’re signing on to a public letter to Congress, which states in part that:

“The federal government must not permit the reconstitution of Ma Bell without first protecting consumers and the public against anti-competitive activities and market failure. No public interest goals are served by handing out favors to large corporations without any safeguards to maximize public benefit.”

You can sign the letter by clicking here.

Martin’s move has drawn fire from some of the most powerful politicians in Washington. Tuesday, incoming leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committee that oversee the FCC, John Dingell (D-MI) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) both sent letters to Chairman Martin.

Dingell’s letter demanded an explanation, and stated that he wants the merger handled “without compromising the ethical standards of the independent agency or the individual Commissioners involved.” Inouye questioned Martin’s rationale for forcing the vote, and urged him to negotiate with the Democratic FCC commissioners.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) wrote the chairman: “When public servants have identified and recused themselves from legitimate conflicts of interest, they should be commended for upholding the highest standards of public integrity.”

Will Martin hear the recent public outcry against political patronage and corruption (loudly delivered via the polls on Nov. 7) and bow to new leadership in Congress?

We’ll find out later this month when the Commission is due to move on the merger. In the meantime, keep an eye on Martin as he maneuvers for special interests in a policy climate that has suddenly turned more hostile to his mix of politics and big business.