Exxon dismisses buyout bid

[Rolex]

Well, the FCC is supposed to be concerned about overall development of services to the public (who is paying their salaries).

The 1996 Telecom Act is getting ready to be rewritten. There are just a lot of cockroaches scurrying around before they have to hide in the dark if some of the proposals are written into it. Speaking of cockroaches, here is a good example:

This is bite from a Business Week interview with SBC CEO Edward Whitacre.
------------
Question: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?

Answer: "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
------------
This guy is out of control. SBC customers are the ones paying for those pipes.

You could fill a library with books about the FCC - its charter, its purpose, its function in a supposedly de-regulated industry, its 'rules' vs. 'guidlines' vs. statements of 'principle.'

For my money, the FCC should exist to promote planned, stable development and growth (using a competitive environment as the engine to stimulate expanded services and reduced user cost) because the services under its umbrella of influence are now considered to be infrastructure of the society.

Yeah, the FCC is pretty pathetic.

[Hajo]

Rolex  unfortunately you are wrong on that count.  In the 70s' you were right.  Yes....the world finally recovered from  WW2 and europes and asias manufacturing facilities were at that time state of the art.  We were still using steel making facilities that in some cases were dated to the early 1900's.  Why?  Because we were the only game in town.  We sold our steel world wide without upgrading simply because we didn't have to.  Basicaly we were the only major steel producers on the planet following WW2.  However during the mid70s' the newer and more modern Steel facilities that we funded around the world following WW2 were in full operation.  So the dated facilities we had were not cost effective at all.

During the early 80s' however new plants and facilities were being built in the US as the older and more labor intensive facilities were shut down costing many jobs....but that's progress.  Today we are up to date and very modern.  I know.......I've been in the steel business in the US for over 35 years.  In the mid 70s' for instance it took 7 employees to ready a blast Furnace for cast every 4 hours.  Now we use only 2 and cast in half an hour.  And the two employees only sample and observe the cast.  No labor needed to prep the furnace for it's next cast.  Plus we have multiple taphole furnaces that cast 24/7 instead of the 6 times a day.  Prodution has skyrocketed with the availability of new technology.  Less Labor more efficiency = the US still makes steel per ton cheaper per man hour then any other steel producing country on the planet at this time.  Plus we don't need to import Ore, Scrap or Coal we have our own.  We are blessed in that regard.  Some companies do import lesser grade ores for sintering but basically the pellets (iron ore) used in the US is from the US.  We are in some cases in partnership with ore and coal mines with our Canadian neighbors (DeFacso etc.)

However......when Chinas' Steel Facilities come on line tons of steel/ man hour will be of no consequence to them.  We invest huge sums of cash for environmental controls and monitoring in the US.  The EPA is inspecting us frequently and we have limits on what we are allowed to do with water and air.  China and many 3rd world countries will have no problems with that.  They won't have to invest money in equipment that doesn't produce a pound of Steel.  They can, and will polute at will, as many other emerging 3rd world countries will do who are entering the manufacturing arena.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by DMax
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday dismissed a bid by a little-known Chinese company called King Win Laurel Ltd. to acquire it for $450 billion in cash.


Hmmm...ya think we've sent just a little too much money to the Chi-Coms?

DmdMax

Actually I think you'll find thats a New Zealand registered company

[715]

Originally posted by Rolex
Well, the FCC is supposed to be concerned about overall development of services to the public (who is paying their salaries).

The 1996 Telecom Act is getting ready to be rewritten. There are just a lot of cockroaches scurrying around before they have to hide in the dark if some of the proposals are written into it. Speaking of cockroaches, here is a good example:

This is bite from a Business Week interview with SBC CEO Edward Whitacre.
------------
Question: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?

Answer: "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"
------------
This guy is out of control. SBC customers are the ones paying for those pipes.

I know this is a tad off topic, but I saw some discussion regarding this statement on dslreports: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/69175  (towards the bottom).  It implied the broadband carriers, like SBC, want to convert the internet to something called IMS where they inspect each packet for content and then charge, per packet, the content  providers or block or delay those packets if they don't pay.  Wouldn't that mean that AH UDP packets could be flagged as "special value service" and HTC be charged by various ISPs for delivery to its customers (above and beyond what HTC gets charged for internet connectivity by it's ISP/server owners)?  And wouldn't that mean HTC would have to pass the extra charges to its customers?  After all, AH packets are "special" in the sense that they are useless unless they are delivered with minimal latency and minimal loss (much like VoIP packets).  

I gather that in the recent merger of SBC and ATT a rider was added saying that for 2 years they can't block anyone elses legal content on their internet service, implying that beyond 2 years they can  block (or demand payment for) anything they want.

[Vulcan]

http://www.infranet.org