In Dodging FCC Review, AT&T's Time Warner Mega-Merger Just Got Much Easier Under Trump
from the merge-ALL-the-things! dept
There are about 100 AT&T lobbyists currently making the rounds in Washington, trying to convince regulators and the press that the deal will provide an incredible boon to consumers. The folks who actually try to protect consumers aren't so sure, arguing that a larger combined company could make it harder than ever for streaming competitors to license the content they need to compete with AT&T (and its own streaming service, DirecTV Now). And that's before you even get to the fact that AT&T's using usage caps to give its own services an unfair leg up in the market (aka zero rating).
But AT&T's path toward deal approval just got notably easier. While the deal will be reviewed by the DOJ, AT&T and Time Warner are configuring the deal so that it doesn't trigger any of the requirements for FCC review. As it stands, the FCC's jurisdiction would only extend to the deal with the transfer of certain spectrum licenses, or one of Time Warner's TV stations in Atlanta. But Time Warner just got done stating they'd be selling that station ahead of the merger. And new FCC boss Ajit Pai says he doesn't see the need for FCC involvement in the review process:
"Pai said that because the transaction will involve no license transfers, the merger would not come before the FCC. Last week, Time Warner said that it would sell its sole broadcast station, WPCH in Atlanta, to Meredith Broadcasting for $70 million. "That is the regulatory hook for FCC review. My understanding is that the deal won’t be presented to the commission.” Pai’s remarks came at the Mobile World Congress on Monday."
That, of course, leaves whether AT&T's latest mega-merger gets approved solely in the hands of the DOJ, with Trump as the wildcard. There's a certain segment of analysts that still thinks that Trump's disdain for Time Warner-owned CNN's news coverage could kill the deal (the President repeatedly promised to reject the deal on the campaign trail). But it's not clear these analysts quite understand the "synergies" this merger will provide AT&T (historically a pro at making bogus merger promises) and Trump (also an apparent expert at taking credit for job creation he had nothing to do with).
Trump and AT&T would be like a 70s supergroup -- with bullshitters instead of musicians. As such, I'd imagine the deal gets approved by the DOJ, but under an absolute cavalcade of public relation bloviation the likes of which we've never seen before -- all promising that the deal will create jobs, protect the nation's children, expand broadband deployment, and save the planet from potential alien invasion. AT&T, for its part, continues to promise in letters to concerned Senators (pdf) that this latest mega-merger is all "about giving consumers what they want":
"Put simply, this merger is about giving consumers what they want. Together, AT&T and Time Warner will create exciting new ways for consumers to enjoy video anytime, anywhere, and on any device, with unprecedented levels of customization and interactivity. The merger will allow us to offer customers more attractive bundles of broadband and video services, prodding cable companies and other competitors to respond by improving their own services. And the merger will further incentivize AT&T and other wireless carriers to deploy lightning-fast 5G wireless technology faster and deeper in their networks. As a result, this deal will increase competition and accelerate the innovation/investment cycle, all to the benefit of American consumers."
Doesn't that sound lovely? While reports still seem to suggest Trump personally opposes the deal, he's been appointing regulator chiefs at most key agencies that pride themselves on a "light regulatory touch," and for whom blocking such a deal would be dramatically out of character. Ultimately, it's likely that the opportunity for bogus job creation claims will be too hard for Trump to ignore, resulting in some cognitive dissonance gymnastics among those Trump supporters who actually took his campaign pledges to thwart harmful media consolidation seriously.
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
Filed Under: antitrust, doj, fcc, mergers
Companies: at&t, time warner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dodging a non-existent bullet
When you consider who's currently running the FCC, I don't actually see any real difference between having to get the FCC and DOJ to clear the deal and just having the DOJ do it.
The odds of Pai saying 'no' to anything the companies he's (theoretically) in charge of keeping in check is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from it, so the only difference really is that not having the FCC involved makes him slightly less likely to gush about how absolutely awesome such a merger would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They misspell 'we' as 'they'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
State Actors rewarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So?
So, now all restaurants are Taco Bell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
Or just targeting ATT? If so, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
1. While Microsoft does indeed enjoy a near monopoly it doesn't enjoy a full monopoly; other operating systems exist and are in use. There aren't regulations in place preventing municipalities from using OS or encouraging others to use it — or other proprietary systems. We can easily set up any OS we choose on our computers without having to get rid of Windows. Heck, you can even search for them on Bing, MS's search engine.
2. RE: Google, ditto. Other search engines exist. Heck, Yahoo is the default search engine on Firefox, my browser of choice. What monopoly? That most of us choose to use it is down to our personal choices. That's particularly true if you use Internet Explorer; Bing is their default search engine.
3. This article. Is about. AT&T. Because...
...the proposed mega-merger will create actual monopolies in those areas in which they've persuaded state governments to block competition.
Microsoft and Google have plenty of competition. That they struggle to make headway is not due to MS or Google engaging in anti-competitive practices (any more, though that used to be true for MS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
Or just targeting ATT? If so, why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
There's plenty to argue there, actually. It helps if you don't start off with a false premise.
For a start - define monopoly and define the market you're talking about. Then, consider the difference between AT&T having zero competition or only competing with Time Warner in many areas, and the level of competition that both Google and Microsoft have in the majority of their markets. Then, of course, consider the many articles on this site that are critical of both companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
Now will Techdirt answer at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
But, at least you've indicated that you have no interest in an actual discussion of facts. Poor baby, were they mean to another corporation you worship again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
If you post in a public setting, you don't get to complain about which member of the public responds. You also don't get to demand that another specific person does. Sorry if reality hurts your feelings that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red herring
Tell you what, when/if Google or Microsoft are involved in a merger with an equally large company, such that the consolidation stands to make the public worse off, then that's a point to consider. AT&T is being 'targeted' because they're one of the two companies involved in the proposed merger that's being considered now, not at some hypothetical point in the future.
On a slight tangent, I'm curious as to how you think Google has a monopoly, and on what, keeping in mind that 'having a large or even majority marketshare because you offer a popular service' isn't part of the definition of a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red herring
This comes up a lot when people want to insert false equivalence into an argument about monopoly. The major disconnect is that they can't see the difference between the type of quasi-monopoly that Google has in some markets (where, for example, they have a lot of competition in search, but people naturally go to Google even though there's nothing preventing them from using a competitor) and the type of monopoly we're referring to with regard to these ISPs (many people either have zero choice or only a couple of choices between ISPs that often collude with one another).
They usually disappear when challenged on their assertions or start whining about some sort of Google conspiracy. Amusingly enough, until recently I've most often encountered these kinds of argument in defence of Microsoft. I guess they're no longer considered the "victim" now that they've adjusted their business to include open source and inter-connectivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
Please explain what you mean? I disagree that they have a monopoly at all.
Do you just leap to defend AT&T? Or do you have a larger point? If you read Techdirt regularly you will notice that they are very critical of any company that tries to fuck over the consumer.
Is AT&T immune to criticism?
If you'd like some Google criticism I'll give you some. Personally I don't care for what Google does with our data. But they don't actively seem to be fucking over the average consumer. It doesn't cost you anything to use their services and you don't have to use them at all if you don't want to.
Are you mad that Bing isn't a verb like Google is? Is that the monopoly you're talking about?
Maybe you should do some research using a search engine like Yahoo or Ask. That will probably help you.
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will you be consistent about ALL corporations that have unfair advantage and apply it to Google, Microsoft, and ALL others?
And yet, people keep giving me cause to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time to get a job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not really sure what "cavalcade of public relation bloviation" means but I intend to add it to my daily vocabulary. It almost makes me want to see the prospect of a Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner merger to see how you'd describe it.
Ahem. Good article by the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not really sure what "cavalcade of public relation bloviation" means...
I think he means that AT&T commercial with the fireflies from several years ago.
but I intend to add it to my daily vocabulary.
It seems like it would be more insanely useful a thing than ever in the current climate. I could even go for it on a t-shirt in some form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see through the cavalcade of public relation bloviation that the consumer will ultimately get the shaft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]