AT&T/Time Warner seems headed for FCC review, whether AT&T likes it not

Time Warner has dozens of licenses that could trigger a public interest review.

Read the whole story

 

[Baron von Robber]

"That's 57 licenses that could trigger an FCC review."
Make it so!.............1 at a time. That should slow things down for about 100 years

 

[THavoc]

I am not too hopeful this merger will be blocked even if it goes to the FCC.

 

[Kilroy420]

THavoc[/url]":2pkpozdp]I am not too hopeful this merger will be blocked even if it goes to the FCC.

The NYT would agree. Apparently AT&T has literally an army of lobbyists already at work to ensure the merger goes through. This is should be criminal if it weren't the American way of doing politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/techn ... .html?_r=0

"AT&T is the biggest donor to federal lawmakers and their causes among cable and cellular telecommunications companies, with its employees and political action committee sending money to 374 of the House’s 435 members and 85 of the Senate’s 100 members this election cycle. That adds up to more than $11.3 million in donations since 2015, four times as much as Verizon Communications, according to a tally by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group."

 

[ktmglen]

We always called it the “super headend in the sky.” It has a better acronym than HITS.

 

[Jackattak]

Abolish the lobby.

 

[Unzip_for_Harambe]

Something tells me this review will go very smoothly and in AT&T's favor.


Top Recipients
Chamber Member Amount
President Clinton, Hillary (D) $257,809
Senate Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) $96,109
Senate Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $44,016

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprec ... cycle=2016

 

[PRMan]

Baron von Robber[/url]":3zpts3k3]"That's 57 licenses that could trigger an FCC review."
Make it so!.............1 at a time. That should slow things down for about 100 years

Same as they are slowing down Google Fiber.

 

[PRMan]

"We take a very simple approach here: we follow the law and so whatever the law requires, that's always what we'll do."

IE, we always screw our customers as much as the law allows (and until we are told otherwise).

 

[Samurai Nigel]

Unzip_for_Harambe[/url]":2o37pwzn]Something tells me this review will go very smoothly and in AT&T's favor.


Top Recipients
Chamber Member Amount
President Clinton, Hillary (D) $257,809
Senate Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) $96,109
Senate Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $44,016

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprec ... cycle=2016

Apparently Bernie costs more than 100 grand to purchase:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/bernie-s ... arner.html

 

[Toenneri]

Unzip_for_Harambe[/url]":1w093a8h]Something tells me this review will go very smoothly and in AT&T's favor.


Top Recipients
Chamber Member Amount
President Clinton, Hillary (D) $257,809
Senate Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) $96,109
Senate Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $44,016

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprec ... cycle=2016

It's easy to imagine a scenario where the government gets a few trivial concessions to play up in the press as a win for consumers while allowing the merger to go through virtually unscathed. The winds may be shifting though. A good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/busin ... t-not.html

Probably the best line in the article is: “But is antitrust law only about economics, or does enhanced political power play a role?”

 

[AnchorClanker]

Regarding lobbying:
As of January, 2013, there were 12,719 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. That makes roughly 23 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Lobbyists outnumber the employees of the Government Accountability Office by roughly 3 to 1. As of 2011, lobbying was a $3.3 billion business, that amount having doubled since 2001.

We the people don't stand a chance.

 

[paul314]

I think it would be cool if they transferred all those licenses to a separate entity. One not owned or controlled by either of the parties to the merger. That could charge the merged company whatever the traffic would bear to transfer programming. When it got good and ready to do so.

 

[theotherjim]

The FCC has recently used merger reviews to limit the harm...

A succinct statement of where we are. We can no longer hope for net benefit for the consumer, just to try to make it slightly less awful. For a while.

 

[QuantumTitan]

Can I just say, the article's picture is perfect.

 

[Fatesrider]

paul314[/url]":2ej5nt2g]I think it would be cool if they transferred all those licenses to a separate entity. One not owned or controlled by either of the parties to the merger. That could charge the merged company whatever the traffic would bear to transfer programming. When it got good and ready to do so.

No so much.

They'd simply buy them back once the merger was completed. In fact, that's more or less what I expect to see. I don't know what the law says, but I suspect that their plan is to "divest" their licenses to friendly shell companies, wait a period of time (no more than a year) after the merger is approved, then "buy" them back once the merger is done.

Transfer of those licenses is the domain of the FCC, so there'd be review of doing that kind of thing, but that doesn't mean AT&T wouldn't spend the time between divestment and repurchase laying the groundwork in Congress to grease the wheels for that to happen.

So, no, not cool at all.

 

[The God on Kobol]

In 1982 AT&T was broken up. Since then, I haven't even heard of a threat of a breakup, and have seen insane consolidation, especially with the likes of Comcast, pharmaceuticals, and commercial banking.

I can only assume the political climate of "looking out for the working man" is now totally and completely dead.

 

[Aurich]

QuantumTitan[/url]":3etab18w]Can I just say, the article's picture is perfect.

You can definitely say that.

 

[Toenneri]

The God on Kobol[/url]"yp9nz9k]In 1982 AT&T was broken up. Since then, I haven't even heard of a threat of a breakup, and have seen insane consolidation, especially with the likes of Comcast, pharmaceuticals, and commercial banking.

I can only assume the political climate of "looking out for the working man" is now totally and completely dead.

Republicans controlled the White House from 1981 through 2008 so that really isn't a surprise. This includes the 1992-2000 Bill Clinton years.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

AT&T claims that there won't be any negative consumer effects of its purchase of Time Warner because they don't compete directly against each other ...

Let's stipulate this statement is essentially both correct & truthful; not something I'm prepared to do for anything beyond the purpose of making a point.

To restate the premise: Consumers will realize no negative impacts that can be directly attributed to erosion of direct competition that exists between AT&T and Time Warner.

This well parsed statement carefully ignores literally every other aspect of this proposed merger that may prove to be a potential source of consumer-negative impact.

The statement is simply a string of words that serves to neither defend nor justify the proposed merger, yet AT&T postures its self as if it were a substantive argument.

AT&T is very good and well practiced in this technique which, as their corporate history shows, leaves open more than ample opportunity for any future predatory conduct they choose to pursue.

Should anyone choose to support the merger, (which I view as an unjustifiable and indefensible consolidation of control over a pool of significantly powerful resources), at least base such support on some legitimate rationale, and not merely some imaginary principle expressed through a series of non-substantive words strung together.


Edit: corrected context of "Time Warner Cable" (now Spectrum) to "Time Warner"

 

[Hemlocke]

Begone, foul merger! The power of Tom compels you!

 

[rusticus]

Toenneri[/url]":28u4covf]

The God on Kobol[/url]":28u4covf]In 1982 AT&T was broken up. Since then, I haven't even heard of a threat of a breakup, and have seen insane consolidation, especially with the likes of Comcast, pharmaceuticals, and commercial banking.

I can only assume the political climate of "looking out for the working man" is now totally and completely dead.

Republicans controlled the White House from 1981 through 2008 so that really isn't a surprise. This includes the 1992-2000 Bill Clinton years.

The lack of interest in anti-trust action is not partisan. The Republicans have been egregious but the Democrats were knowingly complicit.

Unfortunately, many industries are just following the lead of the political system: consolidate to the point of few viable choices, preferably two. This strips away variables and the chances of success can be more easily managed. Bookies always try to keep an even number of folks on both sides of the wager.

Neither party sees anything wrong with the behavior so they're both content to let it ride. This merger just presents an opportunity for the politicians to extort greater corporate contributions. It doesn't matter to any of them, Republican or Democrat, if it harms the work-a-day women and men of this country.

 

[truthyboy15]

HAHAHAHA I hope the FCC nails their butt to the wall.

 

[truthyboy15]

Toenneri[/url]":2r4mg880]

The God on Kobol[/url]":2r4mg880]In 1982 AT&T was broken up. Since then, I haven't even heard of a threat of a breakup, and have seen insane consolidation, especially with the likes of Comcast, pharmaceuticals, and commercial banking.

I can only assume the political climate of "looking out for the working man" is now totally and completely dead.

Republicans controlled the White House from 1981 through 2008 so that really isn't a surprise. This includes the 1992-2000 Bill Clinton years.

Um Bill Clinton wasn't a republican idiot.

 

[atmartens]

Regarding lobbying:
As of January, 2013, there were 12,719 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. That makes roughly 23 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Lobbyists outnumber the employees of the Government Accountability Office by roughly 3 to 1. As of 2011, lobbying was a $3.3 billion business, that amount having doubled since 2001.

We the people don't stand a chance.

The number of representatives in the House used to increase every so often, until this stopped in 1911. There were roughly 93 million citizens in 1911, versus 325 million today. Really, we should have 1,553 people in the house today. It would be much harder to buy them all off, and gerrymandering would be less of an issue.

 

[truthyboy15]

atmartens[/url]":1uqiqedw]

Regarding lobbying:
As of January, 2013, there were 12,719 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C. That makes roughly 23 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Lobbyists outnumber the employees of the Government Accountability Office by roughly 3 to 1. As of 2011, lobbying was a $3.3 billion business, that amount having doubled since 2001.

We the people don't stand a chance.

The number of representatives in the House used to increase every so often, until this stopped in 1911. There were roughly 93 million citizens in 1911, versus 325 million today. Really, we should have 1,553 people in the house today. It would be much harder to buy them all off, and gerrymandering would be less of an issue.

Problem is while everyone complains about politicians very few are willing to run for office. Also, where would you locate a new Congress and what about support services? Oh and where would the funding come for all of this?

 

[Trout Mask Replica]

You can rationalize the spirit of Citizens United all you want but it was clear to all but the clinically brain dead what it really meant and what would happen. Corruption of the law always existed but at least could pretend we were a real democratic republic. Now either intentionally or not (People seem to hold lawyers and judges in high esteem as learned scholars of law but I believe they are as big a bunch of idiots as everyone else), graft has been enshrined as holy writ under the absurd idea that graft is free speech.

Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

 

[atmartens]

Problem is while everyone complains about politicians very few are willing to run for office. Also, where would you locate a new Congress and what about support services? Oh and where would the funding come for all of this?

Congressional offices aren't actually in the Capitol. I'm sure with the digital age that we live in we could find a way to organize the larger body of congress when they hold sessions etc. As for funding, it would be palatable to gradually add seats rather than all at once, and I doubt it would make much of a dent compared to other expenses. After all, these were all issues that the country had to deal with 200 years ago, and they found a way.

 

[Toenneri]

truthyboy15[/url]":1buz3pa0]

Toenneri[/url]":1buz3pa0]

The God on Kobol[/url]":1buz3pa0]In 1982 AT&T was broken up. Since then, I haven't even heard of a threat of a breakup, and have seen insane consolidation, especially with the likes of Comcast, pharmaceuticals, and commercial banking.

I can only assume the political climate of "looking out for the working man" is now totally and completely dead.

Republicans controlled the White House from 1981 through 2008 so that really isn't a surprise. This includes the 1992-2000 Bill Clinton years.

Um Bill Clinton wasn't a republican idiot.

The Baby Bells were allowed to merge into even bigger regional Bells. Also, his administration deregulated financial institutions which contributed in part to the subprime mortgage lending bust during Bush's term.

Also, look up the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act and DOMA. Both signed into law by Clinton.

 

[AlexisR200X]

"An FCC review wouldn't necessarily sink AT&T's $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner. AT&T knows the process well, having used it to gain approval of last year's acquisition of DirecTV."

An FCC review should definitely sink AT&T's plans, that is if the FCC is actually doing its job properly and the ass-hats that shall not be named don't fuck it all up.

(Hint: They work on the FCC but curiously balk at the mere mention of actually regulating the corporations they have a mandate to regulate to ensure the benefit the public interest...)

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

atmartens[/url]":3hv78btj]

Problem is while everyone complains about politicians very few are willing to run for office. Also, where would you locate a new Congress and what about support services? Oh and where would the funding come for all of this?

Congressional offices aren't actually in the Capitol. I'm sure with the digital age that we live in we could find a way to organize the larger body of congress when they hold sessions etc. As for funding, it would be palatable to gradually add seats rather than all at once, and I doubt it would make much of a dent compared to other expenses. After all, these were all issues that the country had to deal with 200 years ago, and they found a way.

Nah ... the funding thing is key, so here's the only feasible plan:

1.) Begin by passing a series of the most enormous tax cuts ever proposed
2.) Sit back & watch the meteoric growth of tax revenues begin to flow in
3.) Make America (...special interest jingoism de jour...) again!

This is the juggernaut of Supply Side Economics in action. Sure, it may seem counter-intuitive but it's actually rooted in a well established business model that's proven over time to be absolutely infallible.

This model for guaranteed business success involves 2 simple steps:
1.) every sale generates a net loss ... 2.) recover losses through higher sales volume

And if the numbers don't work out to your liking, take a lesson from Speaker Paul Ryan & try to force the OMB to issue budgetary reports that have been "adjusted to reflect reality".

SOLVE All The Problems

 

[monkeyrun]

THavoc[/url]":uxi4rv2n]I am not too hopeful this merger will be blocked even if it goes to the FCC.

very likely not, since AT&T is not a content company. So it's just a vertical integration. It won't create any sort of "content monopoly".

But they would probably set some ground rules like AT&T must license content to it's competitors at a reasonable rate.

 

[Eldorito]

Samurai Niigel[/url]":1lorvdnz]

Unzip_for_Harambe[/url]":1lorvdnz]Something tells me this review will go very smoothly and in AT&T's favor.


Top Recipients
Chamber Member Amount
President Clinton, Hillary (D) $257,809
Senate Sanders, Bernie (D-VT) $96,109
Senate Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $44,016

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprec ... cycle=2016

Apparently Bernie costs more than 100 grand to purchase:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/bernie-s ... arner.html

And, not surprisingly, Trump would somehow grant himself the power to make the decision and Clinton gave an answer that could be used for anything (seriously, apply it to "trade with Cuba", "creating a bionic time lord with the brain of Hitler" or "should Dave switch to decaf?") because the easiest path for her to become President is to not do anything and trust Trump to implode in a ball of nationalising AT&T to build a wall out of phone cables.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

monkeyrun[/url]":38awqdh1]

THavoc[/url]":38awqdh1]I am not too hopeful this merger will be blocked even if it goes to the FCC.

very likely not, since AT&T is not a content company. So it's just a vertical integration. It won't create any sort of "content monopoly".

But they would probably set some ground rules like AT&T must license content to it's competitors at a reasonable rate.

The whole issue of media cross-ownership has a long history of being extremely contentious and (as is evidenced today) it's only becoming more so. Consider: In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 loosened restrictions on cross-ownership and even broader media mergers. This enabled formation of the conglomerate that would eventually exist as NBCUniversal; Comcast, NBC, Universal Studios and misc. other properties.

It may well be true that AT&T/Time Warner merger has a strong chance of receiving regulatory approval. But it's also true that this accelerating trend of consolidation represents a real and very serious threat to the fundamentals of democratic self-governance.

Perhaps it would prove impossible to ameliorate the damages that have resulted from permitting the creation of the NBCUniversal corporate monolith. We should not, however, multiply those damages by approving a similarly monolithic AT&T/Time Warner merged debacle.

 

[Sulik2]

Kilroy420[/url]":14y8va6a]

THavoc[/url]":14y8va6a]I am not too hopeful this merger will be blocked even if it goes to the FCC.

The NYT would agree. Apparently AT&T has literally an army of lobbyists already at work to ensure the merger goes through. This is should be criminal if it weren't the American way of doing politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/techn ... .html?_r=0

"AT&T is the biggest donor to federal lawmakers and their causes among cable and cellular telecommunications companies, with its employees and political action committee sending money to 374 of the House’s 435 members and 85 of the Senate’s 100 members this election cycle. That adds up to more than $11.3 million in donations since 2015, four times as much as Verizon Communications, according to a tally by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group."

What an absolute joke the US government has become. A corporatocracy in reality is what it has become. Constituency and ethics no longer matter. Political donations do.

 

[soulsabr]

PRMan[/url]":m6hqfff4]"We take a very simple approach here: we follow the law and so whatever the law requires, that's always what we'll do."

IE, we always screw our customers as much as the law allows (and until we are told otherwise).

First Corollary: If we can't screw then hard enough we'll write laws that allow us to screw then harder.

 

[soulsabr]

Hemlocke[/url]":2lps58e8]Begone, foul merger! The power of Tom compels you!

... Uhm, the power of Tom allowed the Direct TV merger. Just FYI.

 

[RedRadioFlyer]

Jon Brodkin[/url]":1qq4sb2g]...an FCC review, which in the past has killed deals...

Yes, but all the examples you cited were cases of one ISP/cable provider trying to acquire another ISP/cable provider; thus reducing direct competition in a market where it's almost non existent already. Such a merger is much easier to justify blocking.

By contrast, the only other case I'm aware of where an ISP/cable company wanted to acquire a TV network was the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. That got got approved in part because it's more of a vertical integration and they only compete indirectly in some areas.

I don't see how the FCC could realistically approve Comcast/NBC and then deny AT&T/Time Warner without being accused of playing favorites.

 

[bibigon]

RedRadioFlyer[/url]":yzsf2xb2]

Jon Brodkin[/url]":yzsf2xb2]...an FCC review, which in the past has killed deals...

Yes, but all the examples you cited were cases of one ISP/cable provider trying to acquire another ISP/cable provider; thus reducing direct competition in a market where it's almost non existent already. Such a merger is much easier to justify blocking.

By contrast, the only other case I'm aware of where an ISP/cable company wanted to acquire a TV network was the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. That got got approved in part because it's more of a vertical integration and they only compete indirectly in some areas.

I don't see how the FCC could realistically approve Comcast/NBC and then deny AT&T/Time Warner without being accused of playing favorites.

Time Warner/Turner, and AOI/Time Warner both involved the same sorts of vertical issues as AT&T/Time Warner, and were both approved with similar conditions as Comcast/NBCU. Those deals also had some horizontal issues, so were in some ways more difficult to get done than this deal.

That said, if the FCC or DOJ wanted to block the deal, they could perhaps find a defensible ground that this is the merger of a wireless carrier with a content provider, which to my knowledge, hasn't been reviewed before. This is salient insofar as the gatekeeper concerns are different. Comcast acquired NBCU, but had very little incentive to try and make NBCU content exclusive to Comcast. Comcast has limited geographic footprint, and little ability to expand that footprint with the way the market is divided between cable companies. If you live somewhere serviced by another cable provider (say Charter), it's not like you can really switch cable providers to get access to the NBCU content. So making NBCU content exclusive to Comcast would be pointless for Comcast: it couldn't reasonably drive a lot more subscribers. Their addressable market is quite limited.

That's not true with wireless. The addressable market of wireless customers for AT&T is everyone with a mobile phone. I don't know that AT&T would want to do this, but it's at least plausible that AT&T might think they can drive more revenue by making Time Warner *wireless* content exclusive to AT&T wireless customers, with the idea being that 66% of the country currently uses someone other than AT&T for wireless, some portion of which may switch if the only way to get Time Warner content on their phone is to have AT&T.

Put simply: AT&T wireless is in a more competitive market than Comcast cable is, so the potential gains from marginal anticompetitve behaviors are larger.

 

[MindedOne]

Baron von Robber[/url]":1duad1kj]"That's 57 licenses that could trigger an FCC review."
Make it so!.............1 at a time. That should slow things down for about 100 years

These aren't utility poles.