Proponents
of AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner simplistically frame the
deal as vertical integration by a content creator and a conduit provider. Such combinations of non-competing
enterprises typically trigger less antitrust concern and regulatory scrutiny. However, such a characterization ignores the potential
for this combination to harm consumers and both competing content providers and
carriers.
Even
opponents to the deal miss a major harmful consequence having the potential for
equal or greater impact than the usual reference to raising competitors’ costs
and denying access to “must see” content.
Consider a scenario
where AT&T seeks to extract even higher content carriage payments from
competing cable, satellite and streaming operators. Even if the company could demonstrate that it is
not gouging, but retaining existing profit margins, AT&T can accrue two
benefits from having the Time Warner content inventory, coupled with multiple
content delivery services. First, AT&T
can use its multiple conduit buying power to extract bulk discounts. Having DirectTV, UVerse wireline broadband
and wireless broadband offer three delivery options for “must see” content. Second, AT&T has multiple carrier flavors
to offer a service alternative to disgruntled subscribers of competing conduit
operators.
In a time
when video content subscribers have grown weary of triple digit monthly bills,
some facing even higher rates, will migrate from an AT&T competitor to an
AT&T video conduit option. Rather
than lose revenues from cord shavers, AT&T stands to gain new subscribers
when a Comcast or Cox subscriber migrates to AT&T’s DirecTV, UVerse or
broadband streaming using an AT&T wired or nationally available wireless
option.
Note also
that the FCC Republican majority has disclaimed any reason—or jurisdiction—to investigate
the acquisition. This stand offish FCC
does have jurisdiction to investigate disputes about the availability and cost
of content to AT&T competitors and also channel placement and tiering
issues. The Commission has displayed
little interest and competency to resolve disputes. Can you recall the last time the FCC
conducted a full evidentiary hearing? Did
you know the full Commission reversed the findings of an Administrative Law
Judge addressing program access issues?
It looks
like AT&T wins even if it has to make structural accommodations to secure
regulatory approval.
No comments:
Post a Comment