It’s funny what a million dollars in political contributions, support for the right candidate and a liberal meme can buy you in Washington these days.  For Google, it is buying them a free pass as they amass growing power in Washington and the marketplace.

AT&T, while unionized, does not have the same liberal bent as Google.  They are more a traditional Beltway player.  Open Secrets.org describes their strategy as “Although the company has historically favored Republicans in its political giving, people and political action committees associated with AT&T have as of late generally split their contributions between Democrats and the GOP.”

Recently both Google and AT&T made strategic acquisitions.  How they were treated by the politicized Department of Justice makes an interesting statement.

Google is a giant and growing by the day. Google purchased Motorola and ITA Software, which builds online flight and ticket information software for travel websites.  Google paid $700 million for ITA and Motorola for $12 billion.  The acquisition of ITA allows Google to corner the market for travel and Motorola gives Google monopoly on thousands of patents that will help stave off competitive threats and patent-infringement lawsuits.

Despite howls of protests from the travel industry, that feared Google would crowd out other travel websites when combined with Google’s search engine.  Yet the Justice Department approved Google’s purchase with a caveat, Google must also set up a formal reporting system for anyone who believes it is acting unfairly.  With regard to the purchase of Motorola, DOJ seems poised to approve the purchase as well.

But for AT&T, the Department of Justice has been less than hospitable.  DOJ has filed a lawsuit trying to block the purchase of T-Mobile, arguing that it will hurt competition.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

Justice Department officials say they’ve filed suit to block AT&T’s $39 billion deal to buy T-Mobile USA.

The government contends that the acquisition of the No. 4 wireless carrier in the country by No. 2 AT&T would reduce competition and raise prices.

At a news conference Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the combination would result in tens of millions of consumers facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products.

(more…)

The media reform cabal is at it again.  The same professional Soros-funded astroturfers who brought us Van Jones to demand “media justice” and SaveTheInternet and Net Neutrality have been focused on a new target.  For months now, Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, and the New America Foundation have been thwarting the proposed merger of cell phone providers AT&T and T-Mobile, saying the move would raise prices for consumers and cost jobs.  As the deal sits with the FCC, which just this week temporarily halted its review of the proposal, AT&T and T-Mobile have tried to reassure consumers and activists that the merger would lower prices, increase access to service in rural areas and give consumers better choices.  The AFL-CIO, which represents 42,000 AT&T workers through the CWA, agrees with AT&T and T-Mobile.  Ironically, that puts the country’s most powerful labor federation on the opposite side of its progressive media reform allies.

But as these supposed media reformers actively work with community groups and state and federal agencies to oppose corporate interests on behalf of consumers, they fail to divulge their own ties to competitive corporate interests. And now, there are reports that a state commission may also have played a role in helping the competition.

As Amanda Carey has detailed at The Daily Caller, these Net Neutrality advocates have a long history of opposing these very companies, with the support of corporate competitors.

(more…)

We have oft discussed the Orwellian manner Leftists do, well, everything.

And specifically how they go about naming their gaggles – the groups they form to advance their Leftist agenda.

The Media Marxists looking to eradicate all private ownership of news and communications – so as to have the government be your sole provider of news and communications – are a part of the Leftist misdirection that calls themselves “public interest” or “consumer interest” groups.

What could be better – and less innocuous – then that?

Just about everything.

—–

As far as the “consumer interest” – let’s rationally examine who has a real stake in it.

Is it the Media Marxist groups – who represent no one and nothing save for a shaved shard of a pro-government, free market-loathing constituency consisting almost exclusively of themselves?

Or is it the media companies – who seek to everyday deliver whatever it is the most consumers possible are interested in?  So as to entice these consumers to hire, watch, listen to and read them?

Obviously, it is the latter.

(more…)

(And we do not mean this august publication.)

John Donne famously said no man is an island.  He didn’t live to see the Media Marxists and their absurd policy positions.

These Leftist alleged media “reformers” incessantly demand massive government insertion into and interference with every free market-media nook and cranny.

Insertion and interference in which almost no one else has any interest.

Save, of course, for the other forces of Big Government – Big Government being always interested in expanding its authoritarian sway.

We have noted this previously.  For instance, the Media Marxists have all along been strident proponents of Network Neutrality – a government takeover of the Internet that was and remains the kid sitting by himself in the high school cafeteria – almost no one else wanted anything to do with it.

Except, again, Big Government.  President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) joined the Media Marxists at the lonely lunch table – and unilaterally and illegally imposed Net Neutrality.

So radical and foolish is Net Neutrality that – in addition to 302 members of the then Democrat-controlled Congress and a unanimous D.C. Circuit court – a gaggle of normally pro-government groups are opposed to its imposition.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), the Urban League and the Sierra Club, to name but a few.

And then there were the unions.

(more…)

This Wednesday, Congress will have its first chance to look under the hood of the proposed $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T. The Senate will hold a hearing on the deal, featuring representatives from AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Cellular South, the Communications Workers of America, and Public Knowledge.

The hearing is a kabuki dance of sorts because, though the Congress plays an important oversight role, it has no formal part in approving (or not) the acquisition.  That job rests with the FCC and DoJ.

While no one knows if, when, or in what form the resulting approval will look like (if approval in fact occurs), the hearing will help all sides begin to put forward their best PR case to the American public.

I believe that the acquisition – though complex and challenging for policymakers – will benefit the public interest.  Yes, it will pare the market down by one, resulting in three major nationwide providers.  But the market will remain effectively competitive.  Consumers will benefit through the roll out of new and better mobile broadband services from a stronger AT&T.  And this will in turn spur direct competition from the major and regional wireless players, as well as in services that are considered substitutes.

But, as the existence of the hearing reveals, the acquisition is not a done deal.  Many questions abound, which Congress and the American public have a right to know about.

So, if I were a Senator sitting up on the dais – one who could see consumer benefit as a result of this acquisition – what top five questions would I want answered?

(more…)

As you may have read, just the other day AT&T announced its intended purchase of T-Mobile for $39 billion.  With the move, AT&T will be the largest mobile carrier in the nation, serving about 130 million Americans.

Many factors likely hastened the acquisition.  Chief among them is the lack of spectrum and related infrastructure for AT&T at a time when wireless broadband use is exploding (you may be reading this story on one such wireless broadband device – a smartphone or tablet).

The move is not a done deal, of course.  It needs regulatory approval from the FCC and DOJ.  And, this is where the horse-trading comes in.  There will be concessions. The trick for the company is to limit them, ensuring they’re narrowly tailored to the acquisition at hand.  The game for policymakers and anti-private property activists is to make them as expansive as possible, addressing policy considerations and other giveaways that could not be obtained in the legislative and regulatory arenas.

One area that will find increased scrutiny is the newly created Net Neutrality regulations – rules which were, many feel, strong-armed by the FCC onto the previously regulation-free Internet.  Notes Bruce Gottlieb, ex-Chief Counsel to FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski:

[T]he FCC’s recent network neutrality decision created less restrictive rule for mobile Internet access service, as compared to wired service, in part due to assumptions about competition in wireless. Expect calls to revisit this decision, as well.

This is not to suggest that the acquisition is bad for consumers.  In fact, I think it help them. They’ll benefit from a stronger company, which will more quickly be able to roll out the next generation of spectrum-guzzling, wireless broadband services we crave.  It will also spur direct competition, and competition in adjacent markets, such as landline broadband. The ecosystem for devices, applications and services will explode, too.  And prices – which have been below the CPI – will likely remain low and affordable (especially considering the added value of more bandwidth, enabling ever-more powerful tools on the network).

(more…)