The FCC Mysteriously Retreats From Sinclair Cronyism, Potentially Dooming Controversial Merger

from the about-face dept

If you've been paying attention, you've probably noticed that Sinclair Broadcast Group's $3.9 billion merger with Tribune Media has been widely derided as terrible. The company, already under routine fire for content that's more lobotomized pablum than news, hopes to seal a deal that would give it ownership of more than 230 local broadcast stations reaching more than 72% of the nation. Given Sinclair's inflammatory and facts-optional reporting, that's generally seen as a problem for a country where daily discourse is already a raging dumpster fire, and local reporters are already struggling to survive.

For much of the last year the FCC has been going to comical lengths to pave the way for Sinclair's deal. From attacking the law that prohibits any one broadcaster from dominating more than 39% of local broadcast audiences, to restoring obscure bits of discarded regulation (like the UHF discount) simply to let Sinclair bullshit its way under said limit, the FCC has been making it very clear it hoped to rubber stamp the deal. It was so clear, Ajit Pai found himself the subject of a nonpartisan corruption investigation by his own agency into whether he coordinated the effort with Sinclair.

But the obvious cronyism came to an abrupt and strange end Monday morning, when Pai announced that he suddenly developed some reservations about Sinclair's justifications for the deal, and stated he'd be launching an order that would put the merger under additional scrutiny by an administrative law judge:

You have to think the FCC investigation into Pai's behavior here played more than a small role in him suddenly and uncharacteristically caring about factual data. Pai, who has pretty obvious post-FCC political aspirations, must have seen some pretty damning evidence to engage in such a stark reversal from a full year's worth of merger cheer leading. The deal's allies at the agency had previously tried to claim that a long list of rule changes perfectly timed to aid Sinclair (one of which occurred three weeks before the deal was even announced) were all just entirely coincidental.

Sinclair had been pushing hard for the FCC to eliminate the ownership cap entirely (which the FCC isn't legally authorized to do, but showed interest in attempting anyway). But Sinclair had also been engaged in all kinds of gamesmanship to try and sneak in below the line if that gambit failed, including trying to offload some stations to subsidiaries, shell companies and partners to make it look like they were adhering to the law. Reuters obtained a leaked version of the draft order which indicates that even Pai was forced to admit that Sinclair engaged in rampant "deception" to try and railroad the deal through:

"Sinclair’s actions here potentially involve deception” in its application to acquire Tribune and in reference to the divestiture of WGN, a TV station in Chicago, according to Pai’s draft order, not yet public but seen by Reuters.

The draft order said “this question of misconduct does not bear” only on the WGN transaction but on the entire merger application."

In short, it looks like Sinclair was so immeasurably full of shit during their merger sales pitch and various law-dodging shell games that even Ajit Pai couldn't rubber stamp the proposal, which is saying something about the depths Sinclair was likely willing to sink to. It's likely we'll see more details in the wake of a court fight over the FCC's UHF discount move, and the inquiry into Pai's behavior.

Again, if you've watched Pai try and twist the fabric of reality itself to make AT&T and Comcast happy, this is a pretty shocking about face. For much of the last year it seemed clear Pai was blisteringly-eager to rubber stamp the deal with the usual 3-2 partisan agency vote. But an order shoveling merger review toward an administrative hearing is traditionally seen as a death knell for such deals, meaning Sinclair's multi-year bid to lie its way to market domination may have just hit a dead end -- courtesy of the most unlikely of sources.

Filed Under: ajit pai, cronyism, fcc, local news, media ownership, merger
Companies: sinclair

After AT&T Jacks Up Prices Post Merger, DOJ Decides To Appeal Court Loss

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed... dept

AT&T recently defeated the DOJ's challenge to their $86 billion merger with Time Warner thanks to a comically narrow reading of the markets by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon. At no point in his 172-page ruling (which approved the deal without a single condition) did Leon show the faintest understanding that AT&T intends to use vertical integration synergistically with the death of net neutrality to dominate smaller competitors. In fact, net neutrality was never even mentioned at the multi-week trial.

The trial did a wonderful job showing how modern antitrust law does a dismal job policing companies that dominate both the conduit to the home (wireless, wired connection) and the content running over it. And shortly after Leon signed off on the deal, AT&T got right work... being AT&T.

The company had made repeated promises before, during and after the trial that the merger would only result in price reductions and other wonderful things for consumers. But with the ink barely dry on the deal, AT&T quickly began raising rates on its streaming video services, eliminating promo offers providing free HBO to its wireless customers, jacking up the price of the company's unlimited data wireless plans, and imposing bogus new fees on those same subscribers. Most of these moves were expected as AT&T tries to recoup some of the monumental debt incurred by its endless quest to grow ever larger.

Initially, the DOJ stated it wouldn't appeal its court loss, even though Leon's myopic ruling opened the door to the idea. But the DOJ clearly sees something in AT&T's recent moves that gives it additional ammunition for another shot at the merger, so it's appealing the judge's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit according to a DOJ filing (pdf).

AT&T, for its part, doesn't seem particularly worried and believes the merger is a done deal:

"We think the likelihood of this thing being reversed or overturned is really remote,” Mr. Stephenson told CNBC Friday in an interview at Allen & Co.’s annual Sun Valley, Idaho, media conference. “The merger is closed. We own Time Warner."

That may or may not be true. Antitrust law has been so weakened over decades that the DOJ spent most of the first trial narrowly confined to strict corridors of economic theory as it tried to prove the obvious: AT&T's ownership of Time Warner will result in AT&T jacking up licensing costs for must-have content like CNN and HBO for its video (traditional cable and streaming) competitors. Patchy antitrust laws ill-suited for the mega-Comcast era aren't magically being fixed before the next legal battle, meaning it's pretty likely the next round won't go much better for the DOJ than the first.

That said, AT&T's price hikes do provide some additional ammunition. The DOJ might also want to actually mention net neutrality this go round. The agency likely avoided the concept the first time around because it didn't want to emphasize that while it was suing AT&T to "protect consumers" (though Trump's disdain for CNN and Rupert Murdoch's opposition to the deal for competitive reasons are just as likely motivators), another arm of the government (Ajit Pai's FCC) was busy eroding net neutrality rules making it easier than ever for AT&T to behave anti-competitively.

If you've watched AT&T do business for any more than five seconds, it's obvious the death of net neutrality is the lynch pin for AT&T's anti-competitive ambitions moving forward. While certainly a bit off the traditional antitrust track, at least mentioning that fact at some point during the trial might just be a good idea for the DOJ during the next round.

Filed Under: competition, doj, fcc, merger
Companies: at&t, time warner

Judge In AT&T Merger Ruling Had Zero Understanding Of The Markets AT&T Now Dominates

from the net-neutraliwha? dept

So, we already discussed how the Judge that let the AT&T merger proceed showed a comically narrow reading of the media and telecom markets when he approved AT&T's $86 billion Time Warner merger without a single condition. At no point in his 172-page ruling (pdf) did U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon even utter the phrase "net neutrality," showing a complete failure to understand how AT&T intends to use regulatory capture, vertical media integration (ownership of must-have content like HBO) and its stranglehold over broadband markets in synergistically anti-competitive ways.

Leon focused almost exclusively on bickering between AT&T and DOJ-hired economists over whether the merger would result in higher rates for consumers (which, if you've watched AT&T do business should be a foregone conclusion). But because U.S. antitrust law is already ill-equipped to help police these kinds of vertical integrations, DOJ economists were locked into very specific confines of economic theory, even if it should be obvious to everybody and their uncle that AT&T will use its ownership of CNN, HBO, and other media properties to jack up licensing costs for streaming competitors.

Of course higher costs for licensing (which in turn means higher costs for consumers) is just one way AT&T intends to leverage its greater scale anti-competitively. It also couldn't be more clear that with net neutrality rules out of the way, AT&T has an absolute arsenal of creatively anti-competitive tools at their disposal, whether that means hijinks at interconnection points (something else Leon likely has never heard of), to the use of usage caps to "zero rate" AT&T's own content, while still penalizing competitors like Netflix.

Amusingly, even many of the Wall Street analysts that have routinely cheered on this kind of behavior were quick to point out how Leon appears entirely oblivious to these additional layers of potential pitfalls. For example Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett, who once heralded broadband usage caps as the pinnacle of modern technological achievement, was quick to point out in a research note to clients that Leon had completely missed the forest for the trees:

"The DOJ focused entirely on the risks that would arise from joint ownership of DirecTV and Turner’s cable networks (recall that they even proposed divestiture of one or the other as a preemptive remedy)," said Moffett. "And, therefore, so did Judge [Richard] Leon. Neither ever even raised the issue of whether there might be a more material competitive harm arising from the combination of Turner programming and an ISP."

"The theoretical harm here is obvious," he says. "A wireless or wired ISP, now unfettered by net neutrality regulations, could, in theory, advantage its own content over the content of others, either by zero rating (that is, not counting owned-and-operated content against monthly data caps), by prioritizing (the old fast lanes/slow lanes chestnut), or even by adopting a regime of content exclusivity."

Many analysts believe Leon's myopic ruling set precedent that will result in the DOJ being less likely to police future, major deals in this space, whether it's T-Mobile's competition and job eroding merger with Sprint, or Comcast's latest $65 billion effort to acquire Fox. This slow but steady consolidation in both the media and telecom space will, slowly but surely, mean less overall competition in broadband, fewer diverse options in terms of local reporting, and higher rates for everybody in the chain.

ISPs (and their ocean of dollar per hollar policy folks) have been immensely successful in claiming that ISP oversight must be stripped away if ISPs are to compete on a "level playing field" with Silicon Valley in the ad and streaming wars to come. But as some were quick to note, this intentionally ignores ISPs hold a natural monopoly over the broadband last mile, making the regulatory approach to dealing with ISPs notably different than companies like Facebook (which you can, with a few minor exceptions, choose not to use):

"But neither Facebook nor Google owns the ultimate distribution layer of the consumer connection to the internet. They aren’t the world’s largest telecom company. Neither is Netflix or Amazon or any of the other companies AT&T and Time Warner are afraid of. (Yes, I know Google owns Google Fiber, but that has been more failure than success.)

Tech companies might have vertically integrated the creation and production of content with consumer-facing apps and services, but they all depend on internet connections to reach their audiences. And those connections are increasingly wireless. AT&T and Time Warner aren’t trying to catch up to Netflix by merging; they’re trying to step ahead of them in line by marrying Time Warner’s content to AT&T’s network."

Again, this idea that natural broadband monopolies require different and tougher rules because they're different is something ISPs like to play dumb about. But again, the idea that the domination of media and broadband in concert could be a real problem (especially for startups and small businesses) isn't something Leon bothers to seriously think about at any point in his 172 page ruling. Despite the fact that the obvious harm caused by letting a handful of companies dominate the pipes to the home and the content running over it is becoming painfully apparent in the Comcast era.

As companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon beef up with media acquisitions in the hopes of challenging Google and Facebook in the media space, the rules governing the potential downsides of these deals are being routinely stripped away. Whether that's the death of net neutrality (which also gutted the lion's share of FCC authority over ISPs) or the steady assault on decades-old media consolidation rules, for too many are dumbly looking the other direction as these companies try and build a decidedly dystopian broadband and media future.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consumer welfare, doj, merger, net neutrality, richard leon, zero rating
Companies: at&t

AT&T Defeats DOJ In Merger Fight, Opening The Door To Some Major Competitive Headaches

from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept

AT&T has defeated the DOJ in a court battle over whether or not the company will be allowed to acquire Time Warner for $86 billion.

In a ruling (pdf), U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon stated that the government failed to make its case that the merger would harm AT&T's competitors, most of which are now trying to keep pace in the streaming video space. Consumer advocates have routinely warned that AT&T will use its greater leverage to make must-have content (like Time Warner owned CNN or HBO) significantly more costly for companies hoping to compete with AT&T's own TV services, including its newish streaming video effort, DirecTV Now.

That a company with a thirty-year history of anti-competitive behavior will likely use this greater leverage to behave badly shouldn't have been a particularly hard case to make, suggesting that DOJ lawyers may have flubbed key components of its case. The DOJ sued to thwart the deal last November, and while the agency claimed it was to protect consumers, the incongruity with other Trump administration consumer policies (like, well, everything) have fueled speculation that Trump's disdain for Time Warner owned CNN, or his close relationship with Rupert Murdoch may have colored the DOJ's decision to sue.

It's an indisputable and massive win for AT&T, and the DOJ's first antitrust court loss since 2004. Leon didn't just kill the lawsuit, he didn't offer any conditions to mitigate potential anti-competitive problems, and largely urged the DOJ not to appeal. AT&T, as you might expect, was thrilled with the court's failure to block its latest megamerger:

"We are pleased that, after conducting a full and fair trial on the merits, the Court has categorically rejected the government’s lawsuit to block our merger with Time Warner. We thank the Court for its thorough and timely examination of the evidence, and we compliment our colleagues at the Department of Justice on their dedicated representation of the government. We look forward to closing the merger on or before June 20 so we can begin to give consumers video entertainment that is more affordable, mobile, and innovative."

Anybody that has witnessed AT&T's versions of "affordable" and "innovative" likely isn't to buy that claim. This is, after all, a company that thought it would be a good idea to charge consumers more money just to protect their own privacy. It's also the same company that has been repeatedly dinged by government for either ripping off its own customers, or turning a blind eye while all manner of others did. Not surprisingly, more consumer-oriented folks like former FCC staffer and consumer advocate Gigi Sohn had a decidedly different take on AT&T's court win:

"Big media conglomerates are the winners and consumers are the losers with Judge Leon’s decision. Merging AT&T, one of the largest cable, satellite and mobile broadband companies with Time Warner will lead to higher prices, fewer choices and perhaps more importantly, fewer voices. Coupled with the demise of the 2015 net neutrality rules yesterday, AT&T will be free to favor Time Warner content over its cable and its fixed and mobile broadband networks."

Numerous companies were waiting on the AT&T decision before pursuing their own, previously-unthinkable merger ambitions. Comcast, for example, has stated the company was holding off on making its $60 billion offer for Fox's remaining assets until it saw the outcome of the case. Sprint and T-Mobile are also considering a merger that's likely to reduce competition in wireless and kill tends of thousands of sector jobs.

It's not just the AT&T merger that's problematic. The wave of major consolidation this loss will trigger, combined with the death of net neutrality protections opens the door to an absolute ocean of bad behavior by companies that have already clearly documented they'll stop at nothing to keep real competition at bay. And while the rise of streaming competitors crafting original content may mitigate some of this, you'd have to be pretty naive to think AT&T's stranglehold over broadband and media, combined with Trump era regulatory capture ends particularly well for the consumers and small businesses caught in its wake.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consolidation, doj, merger, richard leon
Companies: at&t, time warner

T-Mobile CEO Hallucinates Competitors In Bid To Sell Competition-Killing Sprint Merger

from the learning-from-history dept

Time and time and time again, U.S. telecom companies have promised us that better customer service, lower prices, and more competition is only possible if the latest industry mega merger is approved. But time and time again those promises not only don't materialize, but the deals wind up making an already broken market worse. As a result, the telecom sector sees historically awful customer service, higher prices, and all manner of additional problems ranging from broadband coverage gaps to net neutrality and privacy violations (both symptoms of limited competition).

Everybody's favorite villain, Comcast, is a direct result of mindless M&A mania where upgrades, customer service, and genuine innovation took a repeated back seat to growth for growth's sake. So is AT&T, who we've allowed to slowly but surely re-assemble itself in the wake of Ma Bell's 1982 breakup. And despite history being very fucking clear on the negative impact of telecom consolidation, here we are again bearing witness to the same, age old idiotic "synergy" claims as T-Mobile tries to sell the press and public on its planned $26 billion acquisition of Sprint.

As we noted previously this deal simply isn't necessary. Those pushing this merger like to pretend that Sprint was on the brink of collapse and simply couldn't survive without this merger. And while Sprint does have a heavy debt load and has been arguably incompetent on the branding and PR front, the company just announced what it's calling the "best financial results in company history."

There were numerous partnership and funding options that wouldn't have involved killing one of just four major competitors, and eliminating jobs for anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 human beings. Eliminating one-fourth of the industry's major competitors simply reduces the incentive to genuinely compete on price. It's simply not debatable ( industry-funded think tanks are already busy trying to muddy the logic waters, though you'll note that even here the farmed enthusiasm is a bit more tepid than normal).

Trying to sell the deal, T-Mobile CEO John Legere spent much of this week trying to insist that reducing competitors somehow increases competition. To do so, the company tried to claim in an announcement that the public shouldn't worry, because somehow the combined Sprint T-Mobile would still have "7 to 8" big competitors to keep them in line:

"This isn’t a case of going from 4 to 3 wireless companies – there are now at least 7 or 8 big competitors in this converging market. And in 5G, we’ll go from 0 to 1. Only the New T-Mobile will have the capacity to deliver real, nationwide 5G,” added Legere. “We’re confident that, once regulators see the compelling benefits, they’ll agree this is the right move at the right time for consumers and the country."

That is, for lack of a more technical term, bullshit. Both companies are on record stating they don't need a merger to deploy 5G. And while there certainly are a number of scattered regional players and wireless MVNOs that offer tepid competition in several areas, they're far too small to apply any real downward pricing pressure on giants like AT&T, Verizon and SprinT-Mobile. AT&T and Verizon enjoy a monopoly over the business data service market that feeds tower backhaul, and AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile collectively dominate the nation's limited spectrum holdings, the spectrum auction process, and all but own many state and federal regulators and lawmakers.

And while Comcast and Charter are both considering getting into the wireless sector, those WiFi-centric efforts lean heavily on Verizon Wireless' network, and none of the companies involved in those relationships want to encourage a real price war. It's also worth remembering that Legere spent most of last year mocking those efforts as "irrelevant" and destined for failure:

"Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile is “very irrelevant, and I assume that [Charter’s soon-to-launch mobile service] will be irrelevant squared,” Legere said. “The furthest thing from my mind is any concern about the impact of cable."

Now, with a mega merger to sell, Legere is nimbly pivoting on a dime to claim these "irrelevant" competitors will somehow keep the combined T-Mobile and Sprint on its best behavior. That's not how any of this works. As sectors consolidate and competition wanes the remaining companies always do their best to avoid genuine price competition, which is why the United States (and Canada) see some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world (OECD data). That we have to keep having this conversation is puerile and insulting.

Curiously, there's some rumblings out of the DOJ that Trump antitrust officials don't see as many problems with this merger as they do AT&T's $86 billion merger with Time Warner, which they're suing to block in court (and losing, by most accounts):

DOJ officials who believe that eliminating competitors somehow creates competition should probably go back and take a closer look at the DOJ's arguments when it blocked AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile back in 2011. The central tenet of their argument was that a reduction of genuine, large competitors by a fourth would dramatically harm consumers, and that logic remains historically justified. Blocking that deal encouraged T-Mobile to compete more intensely. And while price competition in wireless still tends to be somewhat theatrical in nature, T-Mobile went on to dramatically impact the industry for the better, helping drive the elimination of things like long-term contracts and annoying early termination fees, and encouraging a return to unlimited data.

As Canadians can attest, there's simply no good reason for letting an already marginally-competitive sector consolidate any further. Combining Sprint and T-Mobile won't create a stronger, more viable competitor for AT&T and Verizon, it will create an environment where the remaining carriers have less incentive to compete on price than ever before. Despite decades of evidence on this front, when it comes to mindless M&As we seem intent on ignoring the lessons of history.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, john legere, merger, mobile
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Cable Companies Warn In Court That AT&T Time Warner Merger Will Be Absolutely Terrible For Competition And Consumers

from the Synergies,-yo dept

AT&T and the Department of Justice are ramping up their legal arguments in court as the DOJ tries to block the company's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. While some question the DOJ's real motives in the case (Trump ally Rupert Murdoch has been lobbying against the deal for competitive reasons for a year), consumer advocates agree that the deal will be horrible for consumers and competitors alike. AT&T already has a long, epic history of anti-consumer behavior, and critics charge the greater leverage will only let AT&T jack up licensing costs for competitors trying to compete with AT&T's own streaming services.

To glean support for its unpopular merger, AT&T offered a special deal to 1,000 of its competitors. According to AT&T's proposal, if competitors agreed to support the merger, the company promised send any price disputes with other cable companies to an outside arbitration process. Most competitors were pretty clearly not impressed:

"But thus far, only 2 percent of AT&T's rivals have expressed support for that plan, according to lawyers for both sides. The revelation came as AT&T and the Department of Justice faced off in court Tuesday, the second day of a trial whose consequences will reverberate across the economy. Of the 1,000 letters sent by AT&T to competing TV providers in November notifying them of the proposal, just 20 received a positive response, according to company and government lawyers."

Many of those same competitors have been called to testify against the merger on behalf of the DOJ, and their comments this week were not what you'd call positive. Dish and its subsidiary Sling TV, for example, were quick to argue that AT&T simply has no incentive to offer reasonable licensing terms to streaming competitors like Sling once the deal's done:

If the merger goes through, Time Warner’s incentives change, according to Schlichting. It could demand higher rates or onerous terms, such as requiring Sling to buy more channels, and would be less likely to compromise, he said. Either Dish’s costs would go up, or if there’s no agreement and Turner channels “go dark,” the company would lose subscribers who would likely switch to DirecTV or its DirecTV Now online service, Schlichting argued. Gaining subscribers would be more lucrative for AT&T than programming fees, he said.

“I just don’t see them having any motivation to move” to get to a deal, he said of Time Warner.

Cable competitor Cox Communications had similar words of warning, noting that AT&T's promise for outside arbitration was a "little bit of gamesmanship," and that losing access to needed content soon to be owned by AT&T could "significantly impact the viability of our business model." DOJ lawyers have warned that if the AT&T Time Warner deal is allowed to proceed, consumer bills could skyrocket to the tune of $436 million annually. Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the term net neutrality, put things rather succinctly in a New York Times piece this week:

"The (DOJ $436 estimate underestimates) the full costs of this merger to the American public. What we really have here is a brazen effort to prolong the life of a dying business model — “full-service” pay TV — by making “cord-cutting” more expensive, and thereby strangling a revolution in internet television that remains in its toddlerhood. Even worse, greenlighting the deal could set off a domino effect."

While some of these potential pitfalls can be stymied by conditions, meaningful conditions haven't been a strong suit for either party of U.S. governance. More often than not, the companies merging volunteer their own conditions routinely made up of "goals" they would have accomplished anyway. While politicians pretend to be holding these companies' feet to the fire for political brownie points, enforcement is routinely non-existent. As a result, merged companies (especially in the traditionally regulatory capture protected cable and broadband industries) still somehow fail to adhere to them.

Years go by, everybody forgets, the harms of such vertical integration are either ignored or downplayed; rinse wash and repeat. Of course given that AT&T is on the cusp of successfully killing net neutrality, the end result of this merger could prove extra problematic. AT&T has been given the green light for an ocean of "creative" anti-competitive behaviors that could make life particularly difficult for streaming competitors, whether that comes in the form of zero rating AT&T's own content (while still counting competitor's traffic against AT&T caps), or by simply prioritizing the content of AT&T or its deepest-pocketed allies.

In short, the deal is likely to jack up the costs for competitors (which get passed on to you) at the same time we remove valuable safeguards protecting the health of the internet and the ability to compete on a semi-level playing field. All so a company with a long, long history of behaving badly can have more power over multiple markets. What could possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: antitrust, cable, competition, merger, tv
Companies: at&t, cox, dish, time warner

Ex-DOJ Officials Raise Trump, AT&T Merger Interference Concerns

from the do-the-ends-justify-the-means? dept

Last fall, the Department of Justice announced it would be suing to block AT&T's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. According to the DOJ, it sued to block the lawsuit to protect consumers, arguing that the deal would likely make it harder for streaming competitors to license the content they need to compete with AT&T (especially HBO programming). Consumer advocates have long argued that AT&T (with its decade of well-documented and often comedic anti-consumer behavior in tow) would simply use its greater leverage and power to hamstring competition and jack up rates for consumers (especially with net neutrality dying).

While some have argued that the DOJ is simply following antitrust protocol, others (including AT&T lawyers) think the lawsuit is driven by other motivations.

That's not a hard case to make given the Trump administration's anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti-competition tendencies on other fronts (like net neutrality). Trump's pick to head the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, was also on record, before joining the DOJ, stating he saw no real problems with the deal. Meanwhile Trump's disdain for Time Warner-owned CNN is also well established, and reports have indicated that Trump pal Rupert Murdoch spent much of last year trying to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons (Muroch has also approached AT&T twice about buying CNN).

Adding fuel to this fire was a bipartisan group of ex-DOJ officials (from US Attorney Preet Bharara and Nixon White House counsel John Dean) that, last week, filed an amicus brief with the court urging an inquiry into whether any potential laws were broken. The brief doesn't even mention Murdoch, and instead focuses on the obvious, inherent problems in scuttling a merger just because the President doesn't like one of the media outlets involved:

"While any improper use of government authority to punish critics or reward supporters would pose a grave threat to our constitutional system, that threat is particularly acute in a situation in which the government uses or appears to use its regulatory authority to punish media entities or others who are critical of the government. Such behavior could chill criticism, endangering the kind of free and open speech and debate that our Founders adopted the First Amendment to protect precisely because it is necessary for self-government."

While that's true, Bharara's specific objections here are somewhat rich for him personally, given that during his tenure he seized domain names and refused to return them -- only giving them back once it was abudantly clear he wasn't going to win in court. Bahara's office also issued a gag order over a subpoena to Reason just because a few folks said some mean things about a Judge.

Regardless, hoping to use these concerns to defeat the DOJ lawsuit, AT&T lawyers have been busy trying to get a hold of evidence proving that the Trump administration pressured the DOJ to try and derail the lawsuit. But late last month Judge Richard J. Leon rejected AT&T's request for detailed email and phone logs between the White House and the Justice Department related to the deal, forcing AT&T to scuttle that angle of their legal defense. Needless to say, whichever way this ruling goes could have a profound impact on the media, broadband, and advertising markets for years:

"If the judge sides with AT&T and Time Warner, he would usher in the creation of a new kind of corporate behemoth — one with nationwide reach via wireless and satellite television service that would also have control over a movie studio and channels like HBO, CNN and TNT, which has valuable basketball sports rights. The company would have a leading position to negotiate licensing deals with rival telecom and media firms. It would also be in a stronger position against fast-growing streaming video services like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video."

Questions over the DOJ's actual motivation here have created an interesting conversation over whether the ends justify the means, even if the motivation is cronyism and not consumer welfare. Whether the deal should be blocked has become increasingly relevant in the wake of the Trump FCC's attack on net neutrality, a move that could open the door to all manner of "creative" efforts by a bigger, more powerful AT&T to hamstring competition in the media space, should the deal be allowed to proceed.

All told, we've ironically got the Trump DOJ breathlessly claiming it's trying to protect consumers from a bigger, badder AT&T, while the Trump FCC empowers AT&T to engage in more anti-competitive shenanigans than ever before -- with no sign that anybody in government realizing they're operating at cross purposes if "consumers" really are the driving motivator. The Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner, filed back in November, is scheduled to go to trial on March 19.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, interference, john dean, merger, preet bharara
Companies: at&t, time warner

AT&T Lawyers Investigating Whether Trump Had Undue Influence On DOJ Merger Review

from the cronyism-vs-cronyism dept

Given the Trump administration's rubber stamping of every mono/duopolist desire (killing net neutrality, broadband privacy rules, media consolidation limits), most expected the AT&T Time Warner merger to see approval without much fuss. After all, while the problems caused by vertical integration deals like Comcast NBC Universal are very real, it didn't seem likely that an administration running rough shod over consumer protections would give much of a damn. Especially given that Trump DOJ antitrust boss Makan Delrahim had already been on record stating he saw no problems whatsoever with the deal.

That's why leaked reports that the DOJ was suddenly considering blocking the deal came as such a surprise. Said reports indicated that the DOJ was considering a lawsuit to thwart the deal unless AT&T was willing to divest either CNN-owner Turner broadcasting, or DirecTV -- which AT&T acquired last year.

There are two generally-accepted theories as to what motivated the Trump administration to hamstring the deal, neither of which (unless you're immensely gullible) involve actually caring about the very real negative repercussions the deal will have on telecom/media markets and consumers. One is that the Trump administration is simply getting vindictive revenge against CNN for its critical coverage of the president, a path one Trump administration official said was definitely on the table in a July report in the New York Times:

"White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president’s animus toward CNN remains a wild card."

But there's another motivation here for the Trump administration: doing a favor for Rupert Murdoch. Reports have indicated that Murdoch has been pressuring the Trump administration to block the deal since at least January, since the combined company would pose a greater competitive threat to his News Corp. empire. Reports more recently indicate that Murdoch approached AT&T at least twice in the last six months looking to convince AT&T to sell CNN, an idea AT&T isn't interested in. In short, it's very possible that Trump may be using the DOJ to force AT&T to make a deal with Murdoch.

AT&T lawyers clearly smell something fishy here, and the company quickly indicated it will be asking a court for any and all communications between the DOJ and the Trump administration. Not too surprisingly, AT&T's inquiry will focus, in part, on the role Rupert Murdoch is playing in scuttling the deal:

"In the event of a trial over the $85.4 billion deal, AT&T intends to seek court permission for access to communications between the White House and the Justice Department about the takeover, said the people, who asked not to be named because the deliberations are private...AT&T will also try to get any evidence about whether Rupert Murdoch tried to influence the review, according to one of the people. Murdoch, a Trump confidant, controls 21st Century Fox Inc., the parent of Fox News. The president has praised Fox News’s coverage of his administration."

The entire affair is just another indication that 2017 is simply too weird for words. Blocking the deal on antitrust grounds is the right thing to do to protect streaming markets from AT&T's long, documented history of anti-competitive behavior. But is it still the right thing to do if the only real goal is to silence critical media voices while aiding a Trump ally's own business ventures? Pick your poison.

Filed Under: antitrust, doj, donald trump, makan delrahim, merger
Companies: at&t

Is Trump's AT&T Merger Roadblock A Return To Sensible Antitrust, Or Just More Cronyism?

from the raised-eyebrow dept

Given that the Trump administration has been tripping over itself to obliterate popular consumer protections (net neutrality, broadband privacy) and most media consolidation rules (largely to benefit Sinclair broadcasting), many analysts assumed that the administration would see absolutely no problem with AT&T's latest $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. After all, such vertical integration mergers -- while they can cause very serious market harms -- are often more difficult to make a case for than mergers where direct competitors are eliminated.

Supporting that position was the fact that Makan Delrahim, Trump's new antitrust boss at the DOJ, had been on record previously stating that he saw no serious problems with the deal. That's why it was a bit of a surprise last week when reports emerged that Trump's DOJ was considering a lawsuit to block the megamerger, and may not approve the deal unless AT&T either sold off DirecTV (acquired last year) or Turner Broadcasting, owner of channels like Cartoon Network, TBS, and CNN.

Given Trump's disdain for CNN's coverage of his Presidency, many began to immediately speculate that Trump was using the merger for leverage. After all, that's what one administration official told the New York Times was on the table in a story back in July:

"White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president’s animus toward CNN remains a wild card."

So the idea that Trump would use the merger as leverage to take aim at CNN was clearly something that was on the table. But when asked about the decision while on Air Force One last week, Trump insisted that the decision wasn't his, but was made by "a very respected person," presumably Delrahim:

"Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he “didn’t make that decision — it was made by a man who’s a very respected person, a very, very respected person..."I did make a comment as to what I think,” Trump also acknowledged. Previously, the president has blasted AT&T and Time Warner’s merger plans — and during the 2016 election, he threatened to block the companies from combining under his watch.

"I do feel you should have as many news outlets as you can — especially since so many are fake," Trump continued, according to a pool report. Then, he concluded: “I didn't make a statement, but I did make a statement long before. So we’ll see — that probably ends up being litigation, maybe not, we’ll see how it all plays out."

Granted, forcing AT&T to divest either DirecTV or Turner Broadcasting makes sense from a regulatory perspective. Consumer advocates worry that AT&T's greater size, leverage, and control over broadcast content (particularly HBO) will make it harder for streaming providers to license the content they need to compete. They're also worried that AT&T will leverage this advantage -- in concert with its monopoly in broadband and stranglehold over tower backhaul -- to engage in more of the anti-competitive behavior it's well known for (zero rating, etc.).

But it's hard to square this return to sensible antitrust enforcement with an administration that has been taking a mindless hatchet to media consolidation and consumer protection rules. What kind of thought process involves seeing no problem with gutting media consolidation rules (which devastates smaller news outlets and media diversity), yet suddenly having a strong disdain for the often more-murky negative impact of vertical integration? One possible explanation for the policy asymmetry may reside with Rupert Murdoch, who has apparently been trying to get AT&T to offload CNN to News Corporation for much of the year:

"Rupert Murdoch telephoned AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson twice in the last six months and talked about cable network CNN, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters on Friday. According to one of the sources, the 86-year-old executive chairman of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc offered to buy CNN in both conversations.

And again, if you head back to media reports from January, Murdoch had been pressuring the Trump administration to make life harder on AT&T Time Warner, a News Corp. competitor:

"If Fox News’ politics ultimately solidify as more pro-Trump than they were during the campaign, that might be to the benefit of Murdoch’s business interests. According to a well-placed source, Trump has asked Murdoch to submit names for FCC Chairman. Murdoch, another source said, also wants conditions put on the AT&T-Time Warner merger, and he could lobby Trump to make that happen."

Again, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that an administration that has been protecting monoplists and gutting consolidation protections is having an uncharacterstic flirtation with sensible antitrust enforcement under Delrahim. But it's also entirely possible, especially when looking at the administration's behavior in full context, that Trump's DOJ is giving AT&T a hard time simply to aid a political ally and to quash a critical media outlet.

Filed Under: antitrust, cnn, doj, donald trump, makan delrahim, merger
Companies: at&t, time warner