FCC Chairman Says His Agency Won't Review AT&T's Time Warner Purchase (engadget.com) 104
Today, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai confirmed that his agency would not review AT&T's Time Warner purchase, clearing the way for the Justice Department to likely approve the deal. Engadget reports: Last month, AT&T revealed how it might structure its deal to acquire Time Warner without having to go through FCC review. The communications giant noted that it "anticipated that Time Warner will not need to transfer any of its FCC licenses ... after the closing of the transaction." That means that the FCC wouldn't need to review the transaction. "That is the regulatory hook for FCC review," Pai said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "My understanding is that the deal won't be presented to the commission." The WSJ notes that this would leave the Justice Department as the only governmental agency reviewing the potential deal. Time Warner has said that it has "dozens" of FCC licenses, but the company believes those won't need to be transferred to AT&T as part of the merger, thus keeping the FCC out of the deal. The report notes that the deal still might not go through even if the FCC won't review the transaction. There's a lot of opposition to it from consumer advocacy groups, and President Donald Trump has said he opposes the deal.
Really (Score:5, Informative)
Back to the days of monopolies and kings queens and peasants. ISPs are utilities and should be regulated as such
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Back? We are already there, this is just two smaller monopolies becoming one larger monopoly.
Sure there is "some" competition out there, lets not act as though we had something awesome before now when we did not have much of anything.
Re: (Score:1)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly of location, not by type of business. If you're the only taxi company allowed to operate in NYC then you have an monopoly in that area even though there are thousands of taxi companies throughout the nation.
Take a look at a cable franchise map (Score:5, Informative)
Have a look at a franchise map and get back to us on that. The New York map is entertaining because there are so many places where one company is permitted to operate on one side of the street, amd another company on the other side of the street. Yes there are several companies in New York, each granted legally enforced monopolies in specific neighborhoods.
This is about the time someone pipes up and says "cities aren't allowed to grant monopolies anymore." Read that law and see what it actually says, or if you're in hurry just go to the New York City web site and look at the map of monopolies enforced by the city. To summarize the law in one sentence:
Cities may not grant brand new legally enforced monopolies - unless they hold a hearing first.
Re: (Score:1)
Time fucking Warner already sold off its cable division to some other MSO conglomerate. This is the content side of the house being bought by AT&T. Why can't people understand this fact?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh we do understand it but what you aren't understanding is AT&T also acquired DirecTV which still lowers competition in the media provider sector.
Blaming cities is short-sighted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs are utilities and should be regulated as such
The difference is that utilities are typically a monopoly and ISPs are not. Yes, we should certainly add more regulation to someone who wants to run an ISP so that it is even harder for competition to exist, not.
Re:Really (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you live where you can get cable Internet at a single address from multiple companies? Where do you live where you can get a copper line owned by two different companies (and no, I'm not talking CLECs where 10,000 companies can buy the copper line, or DSL service from AT&T, but where you can get two copper lines owned by two separate companies)?
Nowhere in the US I've ever seen. Zero competition (often enforced by law) is a monopoly. Even if it's a micro monopoly by zip code, or a duopoly if you consider copper and coax to be the same thing. Though, there is a spread of fiber, and the last address I looked at in rural NYS had the option of fiber from 3 companies (some at $1000+ a month, but available at the address none the less). But most of the US doesn't have those options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> Where do you live where you can get cable Internet at a single address from multiple companies?
Some boston suburbs (but not boston proper).
You can get verizon fios/fios-tv, [verizon.com] Comcast ISP and TV, [xfinity.com] and RCN ISP and TV [rcn.com] all at the same address.
Source: I use to live there. Now I live in chattanooga where I get EPB gigabit fiber for cheaper than any of the choices I had available in Arlington.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
False
They all have various kinds of fiber.
FTTH, FTTC, FTTN
But when has being utterly ignorant of a topic ever stopped you from pontificating as if your fantasies were important?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that if you have two choices for a connection, the copper monopoly, or the coax monopoly, you live in a monopoly area. Most Americans are in that situation.
Why not argue that 5 GB (per month) 3G competes with 1 Gbps (per second) unlimited FTTH?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed all the "not me" haven't given a single location where there is competition for the copper lines or competition for the coax.
We've already told you why. Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP. The fact you cannot imagine any other ISP than what comes over a copper pair via DSL is your problem and does not a monopoly ISP make. Given that you also seem to recognize "coax provider" as another way to connect to a different ISP but can't fathom that it proves ISP is not a monopoly makes the discussion pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Your demand is irrelevant to the actual topic, which is not "copper line provider", but ISP.
Your deflection would be accurate if none of the line providers were ISPs. But they are all ISPs, and all monopolies (even if limited in scope of monopoly), so they all end up with monopolistic advantage in their ISP, due to a monopoly of the type of access.
Or do I need to define "monopoly" and "ISP" in monosyllabic terms so you can keep up?
Re: (Score:2)
Your deflection would be accurate if none of the line providers were ISPs. But they are all ISPs, and all monopolies
They are monopolies IN THEIR MEDIUM, but NOT THEIR ISP SERVICE. "All cable companies that provide ISP service are monopolies" is not the same as "all ISPs are monopolies." You want to regulate ISPs as utilities because they are monopolies, but THEY ARE NOT. Regulate the actual monopoly maybe, which is not the ISP part of the business. Don't make it harder for ISP competition to exist in the first place by regulating all ISPs as if they were monopolies -- a concept that is patently absurd BY DEFINITION.
Or do I need to define "monopoly" and "ISP" in monosyllabic terms so you can keep up?
You n
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs are generally monopolies.
Sorry, but no. When there is more than one of them, it's not a monopoly.
Everywhere I've lived in the US, there has been only one company owning copper to an address, and only one company who could legally provide coax to an address.
So that's two ISPs to start with, and since "ISP" is not synonymous with "copper" or "coax", there are actually many more. I can name four just in this small city without even trying. That's without considering the major backbone providers like Level 3. In fact, right where I am sitting, I currently personally deal with five different ISPs, and through work I access three more. Eight competing ISPs. How is that a monopoly in any way, sh
Re: (Score:2)
There is NO PLACE in the US where an ISP has a legal monopoly. Not a single one. "Enforced by law" is hyperbole.
In most places only one company can run copper to an address, by law. And in most places, only one company can run coax into the house, by law.
Prove one of those wrong, or you are a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
In most places only one company can run copper to an address, by law.
"Run copper" is not how ISP is defined. Please stop. There is no law creating a monopoly for ISPs. There are simply TOO MANY ISPs to choose from for anyone to think there is some monopoly involved.
And in most places, only one company can run coax into the house, by law.
Again, "run coax" is not how ISP is defined. But diverging into the topic of cable monopoly, even though it is irrelevant to the issue of whether ISPs are monopolies or not, I'll point out that it is not "by law" that there is only one cable company in any locality, it is "by contract". That contract is called a f
Re: (Score:2)
Again, "run coax" is not how ISP is defined.
I never said otherwise. Stop lying. Seems that's your only retort, "I don't like reality, so I'll lie about it." Unfortunately, reality proves you wrong. No major coax provider isn't an ISP. That I point out that reality doesn't mean I'm saying all ISPs are coax providers, or that I'm otherwise defining ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, "run coax" is not how ISP is defined.
I never said otherwise.
Of course you did. Every time you try to defend your claim that ISPs are monopolies you trot out that you can't get cable service from more than one company. That is an implicit statement that you think that "ISP" is defined by "cable service". You didn't say it in exactly those words, but that is the natural meaning to your statements.
Stop lying. Seems that's your only retort,
My "retort" to the claim that ISPs are monopolies because you can't get cable service from more than one company is the truth: "ISP" is not defined or limited to "cable servi
Re: (Score:2)
your claim that ISPs are monopolies
Again, your only report is more lies. Quote me. You won't, because you are lying. I've talked about the access monopolies. That is all. I've mentioned that the access monopolies are all ISPs. That the access monopolies can abuse their access monopoly in their ISP business influences ISP business. Your lie is simply a lie. You can't quote me saying that. You misinterpret and infer to pick a fight. But reality proves you wrong. A careful reading of my words proves you wrong. You are wrong, and lyi
Re:Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when the whole system is owned by R's, this is what you get.
we all knew this. but the rednecks just didn't care.
STIGGINIT!
(sigh....)
what a long fucking 4 years this is gonna be. damn!
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the days of monopolies and kings queens and peasants. ISPs are utilities and should be regulated as such
I agree 100%, both with your vision of the future and that we need our government to be on our side. But I feel I should point out that this particular case isn't really about ISPs directly, since Time Warner Cable was already bought by Charter and is now being marketed as Spectrum, while AT&T (also an ISP, of course) is buying Time Warner's other business, which include TV networks and a lot of content. I know a lot of folks understand this, but many surely aren't as up to speed.
Deathstar Telecom (Score:2)
Dereg Hell (Score:1)
NOOOOooooooooooo!
They both suck maggot filled rotting corpses on their best days.
Less competition will make them go from an F- to a G.
Re: (Score:1)
Ooops, sorry, wrong envelope. My bad. The "moon" group won.
Re:...what (Score:5, Informative)
Approving mergers generally falls under the purview of the FTC (see merger review [ftc.gov]).
The only reason the FCC came up is due to the fact that the two companies may have had to transfer FCC licenses as part of the deal. Since it appears no transferal is taking place, the FCC is not involved.
Re: (Score:2)
they will probably keep the companies separate legal entities and lease the TWC licenses for some low price
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Licensing ham radios, so their broadcasts don't interfere with my UHF stations.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC's primary purpose was to make sure your broadcast transmitter was operating correctly. Having them be the keepers of the internet is a stretch IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise! Not. (Score:1)
Re:Surprise! Not. (Score:4, Informative)
There, fixed it for you (Score:2, Informative)
FCC Chairman Says His Agency Won't Review Anything That Might Benefit Consumers (or inconvenience the wealthy).
To be honest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AFAIK the only FCC license Time Warner holds anymore is for a somewhat also-ran TV station in Atlanta that used to be the great WTBS, but has since been outsourced to the owner of another station there and has no ties to the TBS cable channel anymore. It will probably be sold to the owner of said other station in all likelihood.
TW also holds a few commercial licenses for satellite distribution of things like HBO, but those are not the typical licenses in a merger/acquisition that would involve a full "public interest" FCC review(*). Selling the TV station (essentially) removes the administrative authority for the FCC to review the merger (no authority, no review).
Regardless of whether you are in favor of, or against, a full review, this appears to be the right decision for the FCC under their regulatory authority.
(*) And if the F
Re: (Score:2)
FUUUUUU... (Score:1)
...CK!!!!!
Never AT&T (Score:3)
I remember when AT&T took over my @Home cable modem service. The prices went way up and the service got really really bad. Back when I had @Home I had 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up (originally 10M up and down). Back then that was still pretty insane. Then AT&T took it over and it became ATTBI. AT&T decided that 1Mbps was too much bandwidth and lowered it to 128Kbps up. On top of that, they aggregated EVERYONE's bandwidth through the same 128Kbps, so now I'm sharing 128Kbps up along with all of my neighbors. At the best of times with ping I only got 40% packet loss. Needless to say, dial-up was a lot faster than my "broadband". It was like this for 9 months. AT&T support consisted of "did you reboot your computer and router and modem?" which, of course, did absolutely nothing. AT&T eventually fixed it, but even newspaper articles describing their crappy service didn't change matters.
Finally Comcast took it over and Comcast was a godsend compared to AT&T. You know things are bad when you praise Comcast. Even Comcast's crappy customer service is orders of magnitude better than what I experienced with AT&T.
I will NEVER use AT&T again. I currently use Comcast business, which, while expensive, is much better than residential.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have that backwards. SBC bought AT&T and then renamed itself to use the AT&T name.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when AT&T took over my @Home cable modem service. The prices went way up and the service got really really bad.
The same thing happened to everyone whose @Home got taken over by someone, for me it was Mediacom. See, @Home wasn't being run sustainably, and so it went out of business...
Wrong agency! FTC, not FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC is not the right agency to review mergers for anticompetitive issues. FCC is about tech, not competition.
The relevant agency is the F *T* C (Federal Trade Commission).
Now maybe they need some legislation to give them a budget bump and/or a juristictional tweak/clarification if they're to (once again) take on the telecom giants over antitrust issues. But if so it's high time that was done.
ORLY? (Score:2)
Both FTC and FCC (and EPA and many others) are getting their budgets slashed.
ORLY? Maybe the others. But the FTC? They hardly have any budget to slash.
I'd like to see where you're getting the idea that the FTC's budget is getting the axe.
For starters, it's an ideal tool to spank the media conglomerates which own and control the news outlets that have roasted him. Much of the anti-consumer pathologies the ISPs engage in appear to be directed to giving the content part of the containing conglomerate's ope
Re: (Score:2)
"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services."
So yes the FCC does have a say in this merger. Aga
Re: (Score:2)
I think they both are. I think it's correct that the FCC should review mergers when consolidation of significant amounts of licensed spectrum or other assets that fall under the purview of the FCC. And I think the FTC should review mergers based on the impact from a trade and consumer point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
The job of the FCC is to "..regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states..."
It is a lot more than just tech. Ass-hole.
Thank your local trumper... (Score:1)
For voting in a guy that found some of the dumbest human beings on the planet to staff important positions.
Trump himself wont do the damage, The morally bankrupt 89IQ rich idiots he appointed will.
Re: (Score:2)
the tumpanzees will NEVER admit they made a mistake.
as long as they are STIGGINIT to the 'liburals' they are happy.
they could lose their health insurance, be jobless and still think that they 'won'.
we really should have an IQ test for voters. if you aren't at least average, you don't get a vote.
dumb voters are why we are in the shitty state of things. they are so easily manipulated (BUT, HER EMAILS!) and they are entirely the wrong people to decide the future of this country, as a whole.
I truly believe: w
Re: (Score:2)
the tumpanzees will NEVER admit they made a mistake.
as long as they are STIGGINIT to the 'liburals' they are happy.
they could lose their health insurance, be jobless and still think that they 'won'.
That right there is exactly why this is so hard to stomach -- even when the current administration fails miserably, lies to us, lies about lying to us, claims everyone else is lying, and all of us non-rich folks suffer, the self-proclaimed conservative right will never admit their mistakes and will simply make excuses, and blame The Democrat Party. Hell, Rush Limbaugh still blames Bill Clinton for everything that goes wrong these days. I'm one o' them "liburals"(I say progressive), but I'd much rather have
Thank who? (Score:3)
the tumpanzees will NEVER admit they made a mistake.
as long as they are STIGGINIT to the 'liburals' they are happy.
they could lose their health insurance, be jobless and still think that they 'won'.
we really should have an IQ test for voters. if you aren't at least average, you don't get a vote.
dumb voters are why we are in the shitty state of things. they are so easily manipulated (BUT, HER EMAILS!) and they are entirely the wrong people to decide the future of this country, as a whole.
You do realize that Obama appointed him FCC commissioner in 2012, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Was Obama forced to appoint Pai?
Yes.
Were Democrats in senate forced to confirm him?
Anyone that wasn't living in a bomb shelter for the previous 6 years knows that the senate was in nominal republican control. If a the democratic party members objected to his appointment, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference.
Didn't trump want to block this? (Score:2)
Last I heard Donald Trump was opposed to the AT&T/Timer Warner merger. The FCC is right in saying they don't have jurisdiction here but unless Trump has changed his mind, he should still be able to direct the agencies that DO have jurisdiction on this to block it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump tends to be a constitutionalist, he doesn't like the government overstepping it's boundaries. I think the Justice Department and FTC need to be looking at abolishing all regulations and subsidies that grant these big players monopoly status while keeping small players out of the market and investigate them for past performance (how long have we been paying for broadband buildout, if you are under 20, your parents were already paying for it).
Re: (Score:2)
If trump is a constitutionalist and doesn't support the government overstepping its boundaries, why wont he end the unconstitutional spying by the NSA?
Or is he another hypocrite who is only constitutionalist when it suits him...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Didn't trump want to block this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump? A constitutionalist? Are you mad? That consideration has never crossed his mind, which isn't saying much since most considerations haven't. And he never met a deal he couldn't find a way to pervert to shining his halo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the infrastructure, primarily paid for by tax payers, which the government has granted to the big players and now we have to pay them exorbitant fees to use it?
The Telecom Act you refer to permitted the Baby Bell's to merge again to the point we now have only a handful of 'competitors'. True access to poles, ask Google Fiber about that. I've inquired about getting access to a fiber for a business location, they quoted me a $12k 'access fee' and we don't even have to interrupt the TWC wiring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Working backwards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What else do you EXPECT from an Indian? (Score:1)