***** Moderator's Note *****

I need a lawyer, Or a linguist, or a shaman, or a soothsayer. I need
*somebody* that can tell me what a "Modified Final Judgement" is, and
why it's being done, and whether it should have been done, and if it
is going to make any difference to we telephone users.

I need help.

Bill Horne
Moderator

+--------------------------------------------------------------+

Defendants entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 5,
2008, pursuant to which Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon")
acquired Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). Plaintiffs United States and
the States of Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota ("plaintiff States") filed a civil antitrust
Complaint on October 30, 2008, seeking to enjoin the proposed
acquisition. As explained more fully in the Complaint, and the
concurrently filed Competitive Impact Statement, the likely effect of
this acquisition would have been to lessen competition substantially
for mobile wireless telecommunications services in 94 Cellular Market
Areas ("CMAs") in 22 states (1) where Verizon and Alltel were among
the most significant competitors, in violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. This loss of competition would have
resulted in consumers in those areas facing higher prices, lower
quality service and fewer choices of mobile wireless
telecommunications services.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-plaintiff-united-states-support-unopposed-motion-modify-final-judgmen-0

--
(Please remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)

On 6/11/2022 11:18 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I need a lawyer, Or a linguist, or a shaman, or a soothsayer. I need
> *somebody* that can tell me what a "Modified Final Judgement" is, and
> why it's being done, and whether it should have been done, and if it
> is going to make any difference to we telephone users.
>
> I need help.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> Defendants entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 5,
> 2008, pursuant to which Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon")
> acquired Alltel Corporation ("Alltel"). Plaintiffs United States and
> the States of Alabama, California, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North
> Dakota, and South Dakota ("plaintiff States") filed a civil antitrust
> Complaint on October 30, 2008, seeking to enjoin the proposed
> acquisition. As explained more fully in the Complaint, and the
> concurrently filed Competitive Impact Statement, the likely effect of
> this acquisition would have been to lessen competition substantially
> for mobile wireless telecommunications services in 94 Cellular Market
> Areas ("CMAs") in 22 states (1) where Verizon and Alltel were among
> the most significant competitors, in violation of Section 7 of the
> Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. This loss of competition would have
> resulted in consumers in those areas facing higher prices, lower
> quality service and fewer choices of mobile wireless
> telecommunications services.
>
https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/memorandum-plaintiff-united-states-support-unopposed-motion-modify-final-judgmen-0
>

The MFJ in question is dated 2011, so this is very old news. It
concerned terms of Verizon's acquisition of Alltel. The original
wireline Alltel had been spun off as Windstream, and there were markets
where Verizon and Alltel were the two main mobile competitors, so
Verizon was not allowed to acquire those Alltel markets. A new
mini-Alltel thus continued in those markets under Atlantic Telenetwork
ownership.

An MFJ, as I understand it as a non-lawyer, is when a previously settled
case is reopened in order to modify some of its conditions. A case
closes with a Final Judgement (FJ) and thus an MFJ happens when there is
reason to revisit it.

The 1984 AT&T divestiture was probably the most famous Modification of
Final Judgment, at least in telecom. It was a consent decree (both
parties agreed to it) to modify restraints put on AT&T in a 1956
settlement, the FJ that was modified, which had permitted AT&T to
continue as a monopoly but which largely limited Western Electric to
selling only within the Bell System, not in competitive markets.

---
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" ionary.com
+1 617 795 2701

***** Moderator's Note *****

Here's why I'm confused: there was an announcement, dated a few days
ago, and I don't understand /what/ was modified, or /why/.

I think I'll go get a law degree: are there correspondence courses
that will make me a lawyer?

Bill Horne
Moderator