October 2016

FCC Triennial Report to Congress: Open Internet Order Was Pro-Small Business

The Federal Communications Commission released "Section 257 Triennial Report to Congress Identifying and Eliminating Market Entry Barriers For Entrepreneurs and other Small Businesses." The FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler says it has created "unprecedented opportunities for new and diverse media voices to find audiences," primarily through Open Internet policies like Title II reclassification of Internet service providers. The FCC was asked by Congress to give a status report every three years and to make recommendations for legislative changes that would further the goals of "1) diversity of media voices, 2) vigorous economic competition, 3) technological advancement, and 4) promotion of the public convenience and necessity."

One of the changes the FCC is looking for, while Congress is asking, is more time to investigate complaints, saying that the current one-year statute of limitations should be tripled to three years, arguing that would "strengthen its ability to enforce its rules, "including its activities to protect small businesses." While it says it has acted on numerous fronts, the most important has been "the development of an open, interconnected broadband ecosystem that has given small firms access to marketing and production capabilities that were once available only to large and established firms." "Our Open Internet Order protects entrepreneurs and small businesses’ free and open access to the Internet, enabling innovation without permission," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. "We all know the stories of young entrepreneurs who used the open Internet to start companies in dorm-rooms and garages that would eventually topple incumbents to become world-leading companies. But fast, fair, and open networks don’t just offer a platform to build web-based companies, they also help small brick-and-mortar businesses grow." The report argues that high-speed access has "radically" lowered small business entry costs, and has also "taken action to create new opportunities for small companies to acquire crucial inputs such as wireless spectrum and broadcast licenses" and has "reduced paperwork requirements for small firms."

Regulators could freeze AT&T's $85 billion plan to buy Time Warner

To help you understand the regulatory hurdles that face AT&T and Time Warner, we've put together this FAQ.

How is the Comcast-NBC Universal deal similar to AT&T's proposed merger with Time Warner?: Like the Comcast-NBC Universal deal, the tie-up between AT&T and Time Warner is called a "vertical" merger. These companies don't directly compete with each other. Via its wireless, broadband and satellite TV networks, AT&T distributes the content Time Warner creates. This differs from AT&T's failed T-Mobile deal in 2011, which was considered a "horizontal" merger. In that scenario, AT&T was attempting to buy a direct competitor. Its businesses and customers overlapped almost all of T-Mobile's footprint.

If the deal had been allowed to go through, there would have been one less competitor in the wireless market. Would you expect regulators to put conditions on this deal?: Definitely. But critics have said AT&T, like Comcast, has demonstrated that it doesn't honor its merger commitments. They point to complaints from the early and mid-2000s when AT&T was gobbling up smaller phone companies, such as SBC and Bell South.

What do you think will happen?: With so many moving parts, it's really hard to say what will happen. Moffett gives the merger only a 50 percent chance of getting approved.

AT&T, Time Warner and the Death of Privacy

[Commentary] A problem that AT&T presents, that would only be exacerbated by the merger, is the potential to invade the privacy of its millions of customers. In 2006, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein revealed that the company was secretly sharing all of its customers’ metadata with the National Security Agency. Klein, who installed the fiber-splitting hardware in a secret room at the main AT&T facility in San Francisco, had his whistleblowing allegations confirmed several years later by Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. While that dragnet surveillance program was supposedly shut down in 2011, a similar surveillance program still exists. It’s called “Project Hemisphere.” It was exposed by The New York Times in 2013, with substantiating documents just revealed this week in The Daily Beast. In “Project Hemisphere,” AT&T sells metadata to law enforcement, under the aegis of the so-called war on drugs. A police agency sends in a request for all the data related to a particular person or telephone number, and, for a major fee and without a subpoena, AT&T delivers a sophisticated data set, that can, according to The Daily Beast, “determine where a target is located, with whom he speaks, and potentially why.”

Where you go, what you watch, text and share, with whom you speak, all your Internet searches and preferences, all gathered and “vertically integrated,” sold to police and perhaps, in the future, to any number of AT&T’s corporate customers. We can’t know if Alexander Graham Bell envisioned this brave new digital world when he invented the telephone. But this is the future that is fast approaching, unless people rise up and stop this merger.

Block this mega merger: Opposing view

[Commentary] AT&T’s proposed buyout of Time Warner already has raised serious concerns from public interest groups and bipartisan lawmakers alike. “Too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” says Donald Trump. “Less concentration, I think, is generally helpful, especially in the media,” says Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Sen Tim Kaine (D-VA). They have good reason to be worried.

This huge merger would put unprecedented media power — over the Internet, mobile phones, satellite TV, cable channels like CNN and HBO, movie studios and more — under one roof. If this mega merger goes through, AT&T will be saddled with more than $350 billion in total liabilities. What does that mean for subscribers? Higher monthly bills. That’s not idle speculation: It’s exactly what AT&T did after merging with DirecTV. Higher broadband prices will put essential Internet access further out of reach for too many families. Policymakers in Washington are starting to realize what the rest of us already knew: These media mega mergers don’t serve anyone besides Wall Street bankers and overpaid media execs awaiting their golden parachutes. There’s only one thing for the next administration to do: Block this deal.

[Craig Aaron is the president, and Dana Floberg is a policy fellow, at Free Press.]

AT&T/Time Warner: The Case Against Monster Bell

[Commentary] This merger is ginormous. It would put the nation’s largest multichannel video provider (thanks to newly acquired DirecTV), the second-largest wireless company and the third-largest broadband provider under the same corporate umbrella as HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT and the Warner Bros. movie studio. Forget Ma Bell. This is Monster Bell.

AT&T Can’t Be Trusted: For years and through multiple merger proceedings, AT&T has promised to expand high-speed broadband and failed to deliver, only to resurrect the same promises when it’s ready to make another deal. AT&T’s list of lies and chicanery is too long to reprint here.

More Than Just a Merger: It’s important to recognize just how much the political landscape has shifted. There is deep popular distrust of the rigged system that AT&T/Time Warner represents and broad bipartisan frustration with the failure of merger after merger to deliver any public benefits.
Is there really enough popular and political will to stand up to AT&T’s lobbying juggernaut and block this deal? Stranger things have happened.

[Craig Aaron is the president and CEO of Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund]

Are our merger analysis methods well suited to tackle AT&T / Time Warner?

[Commentary] What few commentators have so far identified is that the body of competition law instruments likely to be called upon to examine these mergers may not be well suited to analyze a modern economy consisting of complex, interconnected internet platforms serving a market of heterogeneous individuals.

The “Structure-conduct-performance” model is dead: Competition law has long been predicated upon the “Structure-Conduct-Performance” view of economic interaction. Market structure (the number of firms in the market, the ease of entry and exit by new firms) governs the conduct of firms (how they interact upstream with suppliers and downstream with customers), which determines market performance (the distribution of the gains arising from those interactions).

Long live multi-sided platforms and complex systems: The disintermediating effect of the internet has enabled consumers to interact directly at many different points along the value chain, often simultaneously.

Modern media mergers are messy: Applying any requirement for competitive neutrality (e.g. undoing apparently anti-competitive cross-subsidies) in just one of these markets will lead to ripples across all of the interconnected platforms as complex relationships recalibrate to the new settings.

[Howell is a faculty member at the School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.]

Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

Imagine if, during the Jim Crow era, a newspaper offered advertisers the option of placing ads only in copies that went to white readers. That’s basically what Facebook is doing nowadays.

The ubiquitous social network not only allows advertisers to target users by their interests or background, it also gives advertisers the ability to exclude specific groups it calls “Ethnic Affinities.” Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment. The ad we purchased was targeted to Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an “affinity” for African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic people. When we showed Facebook’s racial exclusion options to a prominent civil rights lawyer John Relman, he gasped and said, “This is horrifying. This is massively illegal. This is about as blatant a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act as one can find.”