Ownership

Charter Communications responded to charges by New York regulators that it’s behind on obligations to expand its network tied to its merger last year with Time Warner Cable.

"Charter has met and even exceeded the vast majority of our key year-one commitments in New York associated with the merger," the company said in a statement. While it conceded that some delays have been caused by pole-attachment issues, the No. 2 U.S. cable operator added: "Thousands of upstate consumers now have access to Spectrum services where approvals and make-ready have occurred, and we have a solid deployment plan to reach the thousands of additional homes in our commitment.” The statement came after the New York Department of Public Service announced that Comcast is behind in its pledge, and that the cable company had agreed to pay $12 million on network expansion, as well as another $1 million to provide telecom equipment to low-income New York residents.

Comcast shares have tripled over the past five years even as network neutrality was debated and then approved by President Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission in February 2015. Yet despite a pronouncement from President Donald Trump's new FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, that he plans to kill net neutrality rules that regulate internet service providers as public utilities, the outlook for Comcast's stock going forward isn't nearly as bright, media analyst firm MoffettNathanson LLC said in a reported published June 20.

That's partly to do with Comcast's prosperous run-up -- sales grew to $80 billion in 2016 from $55 billion in 2011 -- as well as accelerating declines in cable TV subscribers and a flattening picture for internet growth. For MoffettNathanson, it all comes down to pricing power. Yes, your friendly neighborhood (monopoly) broadband provider can be expected to use Washington's deregulatory mood to raise prices. But it's unclear whether Comcast and other broadband providers will be able to hike prices enough to offset broader slowdowns in their core businesses: internet services and pay-TV.

An ad industry watchdog says it will refer Verizon to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission for refusing to participate in an investigation of ads touting broadband service. The move by the National Advertising Division, a self-regulatory unit administered by the Better Business Bureau, stemmed from cable company Comcast's challenge to Verizon's ad boasts, including claims that "Only FiOS gives you equal upload and download speeds" and that FiOS is the "fastest" and "most reliable" Internet service. Comcast argued to the NAD that Comcast speeds were "faster and more reliable" than Verizon's, according to tests by the FCC. Comcast also said that its top-tier service offers 2 Gbps in both directions, which would contradict Verizon's claim of being the only service to offer equally fast upstream and downstream speeds.

A Q&A with former Federal Communications Commission member Michael Copps.

CBS CEO Les Moonves said it best: “I don’t know if Donald Trump is good for the country. but he’s damn good for CBS.” The election was just a glorified reality show and I do not think it was an aberration. Until we get that big picture straightened out and we get a civic dialogue that’s worthy of the American people and that actually advances citizens’ ability to practice the art of self-government — that informs citizens so they can cast intelligent votes and we stop making such damn-fool decisions — we’re in serious trouble. To me, that remains the problem of problems, it remains at the top of the list. Journalism continues to go south, thanks to big media and its strangulation of news, and there’s not much left in the way of community or local media. Add to that an internet that has not even started thinking seriously about how it supports journalism. You have these big companies like Google and Facebook who run the news and sell all the ads next to it, but what do they put back into journalism? It isn’t much. I don’t think right now that commercial media is going to fix itself or even that we can save it with any policy that’s likely in the near-term, so we have to start looking at other alternatives. We have to talk about public media — public media probably has to get its act together somewhat, too.

An interview with Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA).

Freshman Congressman Rep Ro Khanna (D-CA), who represents the South Bay, including a big chunk of Silicon Valley, said that the Amazon-Whole Foods deal shows why the government should think differently about mergers. “This as a case study for how we think about antitrust policy,” he said. “It’s the particulars here.” Rep Khanna said that recent antitrust cases have turned on the question of whether a merger would, in point of fact, immediately raise prices for consumers. Drawing on the work of Matt Stoller and Lina Khan at the New America Foundation, he traced that very narrow test to Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox, which was a move away from decades of more expansive thinking about industry concentration. In this interview, Khanna calls for a “reorientation” of antitrust decision making to look at a much broader set of concerns, including the effect that a merger could have on jobs, wages, innovation, and small businesses. Whether he can get traction for this idea might be a bellwether for how well the populist wave in US politics can translate into policy reprioritization.

Rupert Murdoch’s legacy as a media mogul will be tested on June 20 when British regulators report to the government whether 21st Century Fox should be allowed to buy the rest of Sky, the British satellite giant. Murdoch has long dreamed of adding Sky to his array of global media assets. His media conglomerate, 21st Century Fox, already owns a 39 percent stake in the British satellite provider that also has divisions in Italy, Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and had proposed taking over Sky in 2010, but that effort was abandoned amid a telephone hacking scandal.

As part of their review, British regulators are scrutinizing whether 21st Century Fox meets the country’s broadcasting standards and whether the $14.9 billion takeover would unfairly hamper the British media landscape. They are also evaluating whether 21st Century Fox executives are “fit and proper” to retain broadcasting licenses in the United Kingdom. The details of the review are not expected to be made public on June 20.

Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods is the M&A deal of the year, with the potential to massively reroute consumer retail spending. The spillover effects of economic disruption at this scale – both positive and negative – are beyond anyone’s capacity to predict. That said, only a fool would claim that Amazon is not having society-wide impacts, including exacerbating the age-old tension between labor and technology capital.

[Commentary] In proposing to buy WholeFoods for $14 billion, Amazon has surprisingly invited unwelcome serious antitrust investigation into, and public discussion about, Amazon’s core conflicted retail/MarketPlace business model and the many alleged predatory, discriminatory, and unfair standard Amazon business practices, that Amazon commits, not only in the grocery business segment, but in all other retail segments.

If antitrust authorities consider that the half of Amazon’s retail business that is not direct to American consumers, but it involves Amazon MarketPlace (where its competitors must come and become business-consumer-customers of Amazon to reach all their offline customers when they shop online), then this transaction will undergo a much rockier and problematic antitrust review.

By now you’ve probably heard that this is a golden age for journalism — how The New York Times and The Washington Post are warring for scoops in ways reminiscent of the Watergate era; how an information-hungry public is sending subscriptions and television news ratings soaring, reinvigorating journalists and reaffirming their mission (“Democracy Dies in Darkness” and all that).

But the story isn’t complete if it doesn’t include Univision News, one of the most striking examples I’ve seen all year of a news organization that is meeting the moment. It is the leading news source for Hispanics in the United States, citizen and noncitizen alike — a core audience that has an almost existential stake in the Trump administration’s policies. These include moves to starve “sanctuary cities” of federal funds and to end the Obama-era attempt to protect from deportation the undocumented parents of citizen children — which, Univision was first to report, the administration did on June 15.

A half-dozen consumer groups have asked the federal government to take action against Navient, a student loan servicer, and have accused the company of “harassing and abusing” borrowers with repeated automated telephone calls, even after being asked to stop. In a request filed on June 12 with the Federal Communications Commission, the National Consumer Law Center and other groups accused Navient of calling borrowers’ cellphones multiple times a day, and often many times a week, totaling hundreds or in some cases thousands of calls over a period of months or years.

The groups asked the FCC to take enforcement action against Navient for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making repeated “robocalls” to student loan borrowers and other consumers. The letter asks the agency to force Navient “to stop making robocalls to consumers from whom it does not have consent to call, or consumers whose consent has been revoked.”