DOJ Antitrust Boss Delrahim Ignored Hard Data As He Rubber Stamped T-Mobile Merger

from the dysfunction-junction dept

Technically, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, is supposed to enforce antitrust law and derail harmful monopolies when they arise. But that's certainly not what's happening with the DOJ review of T-Mobile's $26 billion merger with Sprint, which antitrust experts (and even the DOJ's own economists) have repeatedly warned will indisputably reduce competition, raise rates, and result in thousands of layoffs as duplicative positions are eliminated.

As state AGs continue their lawsuit to stop the merger, details were revealed last week in court showing that Delrahim did everything in his power to help shovel the deal through the merger approval process, including providing T-Mobile tips (via both personal and business accounts) on which officials they should focus their lobbying attention on in order to get the deal across the finish line:

"As the $26 billion blockbuster merger between T-Mobile and Sprint teetered this summer, Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, labored to rescue it behind the scenes, according to text messages revealed this week in a lawsuit to block the deal.

Mr. Delrahim connected company executives with the F.C.C. and members of Congress. And he gave executives insight into the thinking of Ajit Pai, the chairman of the F.C.C. who would also have to approve the merger.

He is “open and willing” to discussions about the deal, Mr. Delrahim said in one text message in June, a month before regulators blessed the transaction."

Delrahim's job is to look at the evidence and protect markets where necessary, not help companies push deals that erode competition, harm workers, and hurt markets. Keep in mind, past deals just like this one (AT&T/T-Mobile 2011, T-Mobile/Sprint 2014) were blocked because the harm was so obvious there was simply no way to justify it. This latest merger is no different, yet government officials have stopped even pretending to care. They're intent on shoveling this turd of a deal across the finish line at all costs at the behest of T-Mobile, Sprint, and Japan's Softbank.

The FCC rubber stamped the merger before Commissioners had even seen their own staff's full economic analysis. FCC staffers privately met with T-Mobile numerous times to massage their underlying and fragile arguments. Former FCC officials (Clyburn, McDowell) have happily lobbied on T-Mobile's behalf, and T-Mobile executives ramped up patronage of Trump's DC hotels to curry favor with the administration. That's all capped off by Delrahim all but putting out runway lights for T-Mobile in a bid to shine up a deal that, again, is going to be indisputably bad for consumers and the market.

Former FCC staffers like Gigi Sohn were not what you'd call impressed:

To justify its mindless rubber stamp of the deal, the DOJ has pushed forth a shaky plan that involves giving Dish Network some spectrum (and prepaid brand Boost Mobile), then just hoping the company can build a replacement fourth wireless carrier over the next 7 years. But with T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T all heavily incentivized to make sure a strong fourth competitor never emerges, Dish having a reputation for empty promises and bluster, and regulators largely captured by industry players (who again, want less competition to boost revenues) few serious analysts actually think the plan's going to work.

This is, of course, the same DOJ that folks seriously hope will come in and "fix big tech" via an ocean of new antitrust inquiries. But it's pretty damn clear this DOJ doesn't actually give a damn about those responsibilities, and has been largely captured by the telecom industry under former Verizon lawyer Bill Barr. And while US corruption is nothing new, we seem to be entering a new era where we can't even be bothered with the faintest pretense to the contrary.

Filed Under: antitrust, assistance, competition, doj, fcc, lobbying, makan delrahim
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

Police Union Offers Citizens $500 To Get Hurt, Killed, Or Sued As Amateur Cops

from the new-level-of-audacious-stupidity dept

Police unions have never been the sharpest tool in the law enforcement PR shed. Over the years, they've claimed officers should be subjected to less scrutiny than Walmart employees, flashbang-burned toddlers are the price society pays for "safe" neighborhoods, and anything remotely suggesting greater accountability or transparency will probably result in dead cops.

Hey, I get it. Zealous advocacy and all that. Unions need to show the rank-and-file their dues are being put to use. And it's the best use possible: self-preservation and consistent maintenance of the status quo. Unions will always strongly advocate for their officers, even when advocating positions officers don't agree with. To sum up: ridiculous. And here we are with yet another ridiculous police union action.

Recently, a video went viral showing an officer begging for help from a security guard while a number of people stood around filming his losing battle with an arrestee. Maybe the problem was callous citizens and their anti-cop attitudes. Maybe the problem is the reduction of real life to social media filler. Or maybe it was just the bystander effect: the more bystanders there are, the more everyone assumes someone else will step up and help out.

The correct response from New York City's Sergeants Benevolent Association would have been nothing more than some grousing about civilians and their nipple-suckling. Instead, the SBA chose to get involved in the worst possible way.

A police union wants to turn random bystanders into vigilantes-for-hire — by offering $500 to any civilian who helps cops wrestle down suspects who are resisting arrest.

The cash proposal from the Sergeants Benevolent Association is aimed at getting those who normally would make videos of cops taking people into custody to put down their phones and actually get involved.

“When you see an officer struggling, rather than take your cellphone out, assist the officer and you’ll receive an award of $500,” SBA president Ed Mullins told The Post.

Oh my. $500 is barely going to cover an hour of bystanders' attorney's time. Good lord, what an awful idea.

If Joe Self-Deputization decides to pitch in and help a professional suspect-subduer subdue a suspect, he could get injured or killed. Who's legally responsible in this wrongful death suit? The union? The PD? The city? The suspect? The officer who needed help? Someone's going to get sued and all the union can offer is a conditional $500.

Let's up the ante: instead of the civilian being injured during the helpfulness, it's the cop. Can the cop sue the person incentivized to assist the officer by the officer's union? Does the officer sue the union for pitching such a stupid idea?

What if the amateur officer has a gun and handles it as responsibly and accurately as cops do? Now he's got a dead cop on his hands and zero chance of obtaining $500 since the suspect has probably used this unexpected opportunity to flee the scene. Is this person going to jail? A lawsuit is inevitable. No one knows who's suing who at this point, but what happens to the erstwhile officer while the litigation logistics are sorted out? Assaulting an officer charges and all the sentence enhancements that brings?

What if the suspect is killed or injured by the non-officer? Can he sue or press charges?

These are all questions no one's answering. And they need to be answered. You can't just encourage a bunch of non-professionals to pitch in with crime fighting without deciding who's indemnifying who when everything goes sideways.

The only bright spot in all of this stupidity is only bright if you're as cynical as I am. It appears one New York legislator is planning to introduce a bill that will make it much easier for those involved to sue the government post-clusterfuck.

State Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), a retired cop, will introduce a new good Samaritan law to shield civilians from liability if they help cops. The bill is still being drafted, his office said.

“The current good Samaritan law does not protect citizens who assist first responders. It is my intent to introduce legislation in the Senate that corrects this shortcoming,” Golden said.

Cool. This almost makes it official policy. This might codify the state's liability when suspects, cops, or citizens are injured and killed during assisted altercations. It shields citizens from liability, which pushes it back on the government. Officers have a variety of immunities already available to them, but this law would implicitly condone assistance efforts by citizens, making it a policy issue when lawsuits start rolling in. If an injury/death stems from a policy or law, it's much harder for government entities to dodge liability.

My guess is there will be few takers. Attempting to help a cop out with an arrest is an activity with very few positive outcomes. People jumping into these situations greatly increase their risk of being injured or killed, and they sure as hell do not possess the training needed to assess the danger before getting involved. $500 doesn't pay for much medical care, much less much lawyering.

If the police union would like more citizens to support their officers, perhaps it should spend more time considering how much its own actions and statements have harmed community relationships with law enforcement. The fact that the union feels it needs to pay citizens to help cops is an indictment of the system unions helped create -- one that has elevated officers from their position as public servants to one of warlords presiding over disputed territories.

If fewer people are interested in coming to the aid of cops, it's not because there's no financial incentive. Only an organization completely out of touch with the people its officers serve would arrive at this conclusion. And because it came to this conclusion, the union has again illustrated why it shouldn't be allowed to represent the officers it's supposed to be serving. Officers have been dumping dues into a PR disaster for years. Maybe it's time they made their money do a little talking of its own.

Filed Under: arrests, assistance, pay offs, police, police unions

Google Follows Apple In Unnecessarily Pulling App That Allowed A Little Girl To Speak

from the sad dept

We've written a few times about the unfortunate saga of 4-year-old Maya Nieder and her mother, Dana. Due to a ridiculous patent dispute, the one thing that allows Maya to speak -- an app called "Speak for Yourself" -- may get shut down. Back in June we were disappointed that, despite no request for an injunction, Apple decided to pull the app in question from its iOS store, citing the ongoing lawsuit. Maya can continue to use it for now, but it could go away and they wouldn't be able to get it back. Many people in our comments suggested that SfY should release an Android app. And they did... but a recent update from Dana notes that Google removed the app from its Play store as well, per the request of Prentke Romich Company & Semantic Compaction Systems (the patent holder and licensee suing SfY). While it's much easier to install 3rd party apps on Android devices without going through the Play Store, it's still surprising and disappointing that Google would join Apple in pulling this app before there's been any official ruling on the matter.

In the meantime, Dana also points out that PRC -- who didn't have an iOS app itself through all of this -- has finally released one in the iTunes store. Even though this seems ridiculous -- since they were able to shut down the competition and now have a clearer playing field -- Dana celebrates this entrance into the market because making more of these apps available can only help speech-challenged people speak. And, in the end, shouldn't that be the overriding concern?

She also mentions that the two sides met for court-ordered mediation, and asked the court to stay the case for 30 days to continue the process. So there's some hope for a settlement allowing the SfY app to live on. Either way, it's yet another example of companies using (often questionable) patents to cause real harm, rather than spreading innovation and helping people.

Filed Under: assistance, patents, speaking
Companies: apple, google, prentke romich company, semantic compaction systems, speak for yourself