DOJ Gives AT&T-BellSouth A Free Pass, But Competition Questions Remain
from the look-a-little-closer? dept
The Department of Justice has approved the BellSouth-AT&T merger with no conditions, surprising many observers that expected the department to raise some antitrust concerns over the combined entity's control of the consumer landline market. The decision sparked an angry response from the FCC's two Democratic commissioners, raising the possibility that the commission won't vote on the deal Thursday, as Chairman Kevin Martin had hoped. They and other critics of the deal say that the new company would control more than half of the country's landlines, be the largest broadband provider and the largest cellular operator in the country, giving it an unprecedented amount of control over the market. The control over landlines doesn't seem as particularly important as it once was, given the rise of competitors like VoIP and the replacement of fixed lines with cellular, which itself is a fairly competitive industry. The lack of meaningful competition for broadband, however, means that a combined, stronger AT&T-BellSouth will be better placed to maintain the status quo and hold down the level of competition. This is where things start getting sketchy: part of the DOJ's rationale for approving the deal is the emergence of new technologies will help maintain competition and consumer choice. The biggest of these is wireless broadband. However, when AT&T and BellSouth (through Cingular) are the top wireless provider in the nation and together will control significant amounts of wireless spectrum, particularly that which is earmarked for future wireless broadband technologies like WiMAX. So how can these new technologies emerge as viable competitors when, like the existing ones, AT&T can exert so much control over the market for them? Questions are being raised about the government's approval of previous telco mega-mergers; there are enough questions surrounding this one that it -- at the very least -- deserves thorough examination, and not to be rushed through the approval process by an FCC commissioner looking to deliver a deal before the upcoming elections.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I don't trust a monopoly to work for the consumers - they don't need to, since people have no choice but to go to them.
*TECHDIRT ADMINS READ THIS*: This article causes an exception in your RSS feed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How is letting them all pieces merge back together helping consumers?
Wait. It does not.
Nice way to get political credit (or discredit) close to an election...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big surprise
If they are in office vote them out - every time. ONCE AND DONE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost like being in a Lily Tomlin skit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost like being in a Lily Tomlin skit
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Telco Monopolies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Telco Monopolies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It only reduces competition if there was any...
I personally can't think of anywhere, although I know that doesn't mean no such place exists. If they don't compete against each other then there shouldn't be an issue with any merger surely it'll still be the same monopoly just a different name? As mentioned before here, the issue isn't should they be merging, but are you limiting choices and until there are locations where you have the choice of telco there really isn't anything anti competative about this and the mergers will go on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good site
[ link to this | view in thread ]