Click here to view the embedded video.

I’m trying to imagine the moment when that itsy bitsy company AT&T decided, “Hey, we’re only grossing $124 billion. We only have 300,000 employees. Our assets are only worth $268 billion. Why don’t we go out and ‘eat’ another company? Why not T-Mobile? They only have 34 million customers. Their gross income is a paltry $21 billion.”

Have you seen the TV commercials advertising how great it’ll be if these two companies operate as one rather than — God forbid — competing with one another? This will be good for America, they always say, just like the previous “consolidations” that allowed CBS to be gobbled up by Viacom, ABC to be consumed by the Walt Disney Company, NBC by Comcast, and of course Fox by News Corp. They are, like Antonia in Man of La Mancha, only thinking of us.

Actually, those mergers were not good for America. Our purported “regulators” sided, as they almost always do, with “the regulated,” and everyone won…except the public.  

Here’s one of the best dissenting arguments I’ve read:

AT&T argues that its merger with T-Mobile will have a profound effect upon its ability to provide broader and better mobile broadband coverage at lower costs to US customers. According to AT&T, these benefits will be based on the greater scale and scope of the merged entity and hence the higher network efficiencies and lower costs per customer it will be able to realize.

But AT&T argues simultaneously that the merger will not have any effect upon the intensity of competition in the US mobile market, invoking the alleged strengths of competitors who are today much smaller than itself (or even not yet in operation such as LightSquared). So perhaps these other operators are much more capable and efficient than AT&T in being able to achieve competitive outputs despite their far smaller scale and scope, although AT&T claims it has been doing all it can and exhausting all available alternatives to increase the performance of its services to its customers. Or perhaps scale and scope are not all that important over a very broad range in affecting a mobile operator’s competitor’s effectiveness, in which case it becomes hard to understand why an already large AT&T should find substantial — even critical — added value in becoming even larger.

In effect, AT&T is arguing that it can have its cake, and others can eat it too. But if you accept AT&T’s arguments about the benefits of scale and scope, then you have to agree that a duopoly is bound to emerge if the transaction with T-Mobile is approved, i.e. AT&T’s implication that competition will ensure that a duopoly is not the inevitable outcome of the merger is not credible.

Acceptance of AT&T’s position that its merger with T-Mobile USA will (a) Bring enormous benefits to the US economy and mobile customers thanks to its increased scale and scope but (b) Not however lead to any significant reduction in competition is logically inconsistent, insane and outrageous – like playing Tina Turner’s song “What’s Love Got to Do With It” at a wedding. The conclusion that this transaction is unjustified and unjustifiable holds whether you believe AT&T’s mutually incompatible sets of claims about the merger (large merger-specific benefits and insignificant reduction in competition) or recognize that in reality both of them are equally unfounded. Unless of course you ignore all shreds of reason and evidence like many in today’s US Congress.

When I was working for Columbia Pictures, CBS, Polygram, and MGM, “getting bigger” invariably allowed us to be more abusive in the marketplace. As an operating person, I’m sure I’m not alone on this.

It would be refreshing if AT&T said what they were really thinking: “We love this idea because many of us will become very rich when the deal goes through and screw the public anyway.”

Instead, they claim that their “merger with T-Mobile will have a profound effect on [their] ability to provide broader and better mobile broadband coverage at lower costs to US customers.”

Sure it will!

I’m only thinking of him,
I’m only thinking of him,
Whatever I may do or say;
I’m only thinking of him!
In my body, it’s well-known,
There is not one selfish bone…
I’m only thinking and worrying about him!

– Antonia (Man of La Mancha)

Related posts:

1. What’s the Use of Having Power if You Don’t Abuse It? by Norman Horowitz When I was at MGM, the person...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When I was at MGM, the person in charge of selling pay television (Jim) called me from Toronto to tell me that the Canadian pay TV buyer (John) had said that he could only buy rights to 18 of our pictures for the coming year. He was saving the rest of his money to buy independent films that he liked.

My obnoxious reply was, “Please tell John that there are two numbers of pictures available to him from MGM and that’s all of them or none of them.” Jim told me that John had told him that I would say just that.

I had the power, and I abused it. Why? Because there was no one to stop me!  

In 1949, the FCC introduced the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced.

Good luck defining “honest, equitable, and balanced.” The doctrine never really meant anything.

As I’ve said before, freedom of the press (as it pertains to electronic delivery) is sadly limited to those that own the presses.

In the intervening 40+ years, “the system” has allowed the creation of “monster” media companies such as Comcast/NBC/Universal, Time Warner/TBS/TNT/CNN, News Corp/Fox Network/Fox, CBS/Viacom, and lest we forget The Walt Disney Company/ABC.

Several years ago, I asked the head of NBC, Ben Silverman, why NBC had not done a single documentary concerning our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with NBC’s commitment  to “serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” He replied, “Norman, it would interfere with my schedule and my profitability.”

In my opinion, the for-profit media has not served our country well, and it appears that the feds don’t care one iota because they count on the media for “face time” and will never risk offending them.

They have the power, and they abuse it. Why? Because no one will stop them!

America needs a “break up the Yankees” attitude, but it appears that America does not care.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker has announced that she will leave the Commission to join the media monster Comcast as Senior VP of Government Affairs. Baker, a Republican, had voted in favor of the Comcast-NBC/Universal merger.

What follows is fiction. I made up parts of the story in order to make my point. The “set up” is true, but the end is totally fictitious.

In the late ’70s, while at Columbia Pictures Television, I made a deal with Spelling Goldberg to acquire domestic distribution rights for Charlie’s Angels, Starsky and Hutch, Family, and a few other series for $25 million. A short time after the deal closed, I resigned from Columbia in order to become an independent producer with Spelling Goldberg for a lot of money.

Would there have been anything inherently wrong with my doing that? No, not at all. But it would’ve appeared very suspect.  

I shall not attempt to further define the kind of conflict Baker’s being hired by Comcast represents. But it gives additional evidence that our country is less governed by the “elected” and increasingly governed by the lobbyists.

It’s upsetting that one of the “cops” responsible for regulating a major segment of the media and who has recently voted on issues concerning Comcast has “only moments later” gone to work for Comcast, who to me is (metaphorically speaking) one of the “robbers.”

It also bothers me that I haven’t seen many objections to this announcement. I wonder why.

Ms. Baker to leave the Commission and join Comcast may be “no big deal,” but it illustrates the coziness of the relationships between the regulators and the regulated.

Baker didn’t initiate the Comcast deal to take over NBC. She works for a government body to whom this deal was presented. She was one of the people who decided if it should be approved. She considered all the arguments, did her due diligence to the best of her ability, and decided that, yes, with a few caveats, the deal should be approved.

The next day, or week, or month, she gets a call from Comcast, asking her what her future plans are, knowing that she’s leaving the government body. She says, “I’ve got a few irons in the fire. Why do you ask?” Comcast says, “Come work for us. We thought you were very fair in your evaluation of our deal. We could use you on our team.”

She says yes.

Doesn’t it seem that at least possible that Comcast is somehow paying her off for approving the NBC deal?

Even if that’s not what’s directly going on, doesn’t it send a message to all regulators that, if you cooperate with the regulated, you too can be rewarded with a great job?

As the song goes…

Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?

Related posts:

1. Fear Not: The Private Sector Will Take Care of It All At his satirical best… — AWO by Norman Horowitz Sadly,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comcast ‘TV Anywhere – launched as Xfinity TV beta – has gone live.

If you are a Comcast customer with a Comcast login, you can browse and view an expanded collection of videos, including a sizable holiday list as well as content from premium channels (if subscribed).  Being at snowbound at home with three little girls may make this ‘must see TV’ in my house.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.