Monty Solomon posted:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/atts-trump-justice.html?ref=todayspaper
(In truth, I think this link is what Monty had intended to send, but it did not
appear in the Freelists archive, which is the only way I read posts to this
list.)
This is a bit of a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Concerning
the vertical merger, the columnist says, "But this is supposed to be a
pro-business, antiregulation, conservative administration."
No it's not! It has never been that way, not from back during the campaign, and
it's certainly not the case today. Pro-business to some extent, sure. But
hardly extremist anti-regulatory territory. Trump has thumbed his nose at both
sides of the aisle, which is THE ONLY reason he managed to win the election.
And is the reason he's having such a tough time with the Republicans in
Congress. If he had played the far right yahoo card, he would have lost the
election hands down. Funny how journalists continue to miss this point.
"Unpredictable" is a far better way to think of Trump's policies.
"What's different this time? Vertical mergers have long had liberal critics,
and Senate liberals Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others have expressed
public misgivings about AT&T's bid."
So, celebrate! I'm assuming the columnist agrees that vertical mergers should
be examined carefully, and this one should be no different.
"In the meantime, companies like Google and Facebook are gobbling up digital
advertising dollars. 'How do we compete with these guys?' Stephenson wonders.
'If we can't take someone with less than 10 percent of viewership and pair it
with distribution, what can we do?'"
Compete on their own terms, as an OTT service, firewalled from the telecom
service side of AT&T's business. It's hardly surprising that a company offering
a telecom service is intrinsically different from a company using the telecom
service to do business. If Trump gets this, then hallelujah.
"That's the economic question. Then there's the political one. Donald Trump
makes no secret of his feelings about CNN, a Turner subsidiary. On Tuesday he
reiterated his view that the merger was 'not a good deal for the country.'"
Yeah, speculating on the political angle/excuse may suggest ulterior motives,
but it sounds like pointless whining if the results are what the columnist and
Trump opponents would have wanted anyway? Conspiracy theories aside, be happy.
"As for liberals, those inclined to agree with Justice's decision should note
how similar it is to the administration's curious outreach to Russia. The
curiosity isn't that there is no rational argument for improving relations with
Moscow or opposing the merger. It's that the argument is being made by an
administration whose ideological instincts otherwise lean in the opposite
direction."
Or perhaps liberals haven't yet figured it out. What "instincts otherwise lean
in the opposite direction"? Putin and Trump both have instincts of showmen. The
problem is with the press. They have some oddball preconceived notion of what
Trump SHOULD think, and that he SHOULD be a far right yahoo and religious
zealot. That's the reason they are always so wrong, so puzzled, and why they
were so off the mark understanding wha'happened last November.
Pay attention to facts, and less attention to your own preconceived notions of
what the facts SHOULD be.
Bert
------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/atts-trump-justice.html?ref=todayspaper
Opinion | Op-Ed Columnist
AT&T's C.E.O. Meets Trump's Justice
Bret Stephens NOV. 24, 2017
"I have no evidence that there's been inappropriate behavior. What I have is a
really peculiar timeline."
I'm on the line with Randall Stephenson, AT&T's chief executive. I've heard
other C.E.O.s offer up brutal judgments of this and previous administrations -
invariably in off-the-record interviews. This one's on the record.
Stephenson is battling the Justice Department, which this week sued to block
AT&T's $85.4 billion bid for Time Warner. The suit marks the first time in
nearly 40 years that Justice has tried to quash such a deal, known as a
vertical merger. The Obama administration approved a similar merger - one that
brings together companies that don't compete and that offer different products
and services - between Comcast and NBC Universal in 2011.
What's different this time? Vertical mergers have long had liberal critics, and
Senate liberals Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and others have expressed
public misgivings about AT&T's bid.
But this is supposed to be a pro-business, antiregulation, conservative
administration. And Makan Delrahim, a political appointee who served as Donald
Trump's deputy White House counsel before taking over Justice's Antitrust
Division, previously said of the deal, "I don't see this as a major antitrust
problem."
That was before he got his current job. Once he did, Stephenson says,
"Temperatures change rather quickly, and Delrahim's own attitude changes rather
quickly."
Consider the timeline: Delrahim is confirmed on Sept. 27 as his department
seems to be moving toward a consent decree for the merger. On Oct. 27, CNN
breaks the story that the special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges in the
Russia probe. On Oct. 30, the president and the vice president are to have a
private lunch with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is nothing if not eager
to get back into his boss's good graces.
On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal gets the bombshell scoop that the Justice
Department is inclined to block AT&T's bid. The same day, the president answers
a radio host's question about Hillary Clinton's emails by saying he is "very
frustrated" that he is "not supposed to be involved with the Justice
Department."
In other words, either Delrahim has miraculously seen the liberal light when it
comes to vertical mergers, or he's channeling the wishes, implied or explicit,
of the "very frustrated" man who has made his feelings about the merger well
known and could yet make him Sessions's successor.
The government claims that the merged company could jack up prices on other
distributors for must-watch content like H.B.O.'s "Game of Thrones," and that
it would also "slow the industry's transition to new and exciting video
distribution models." But the arguments, Stephenson notes, are "bizarre at
best."
"One has to assume two things," he says of the idea that the merger will lead
to higher prices for consumers. "That [Time Warner subsidiary] Turner has
market power, and that [AT&T subsidiary] DirecTV has market power." But with
roughly 10 percent and 20 percent of their respective markets, they don't. As
for the industry's "transition," has the government not heard of Amazon Prime?
In the meantime, companies like Google and Facebook are gobbling up digital
advertising dollars. "How do we compete with these guys?" Stephenson wonders.
"If we can't take someone with less than 10 percent of viewership and pair it
with distribution, what can we do?"
That's the economic question. Then there's the political one. Donald Trump
makes no secret of his feelings about CNN, a Turner subsidiary. On Tuesday he
reiterated his view that the merger was "not a good deal for the country."
I ask Stephenson whether the government proposed the divestiture of CNN as a
condition for its consent. He won't say, citing the confidentiality of
negotiations with the government. It has been widely reported that the
government had suggested the sale of Turner as one possible way out of the
impasse.
But the circumstantial case that the Justice Department's decision is
politically motivated is compelling. For conservatives, it's a fresh reminder
that the administration's pro-business convictions go only as far as the
president's convenience. A Sanders presidency would also have opposed the
merger, though at least it would have done so honestly. What we have instead is
economic policy conducted as an extension of presidential pique.
As for liberals, those inclined to agree with Justice's decision should note
how similar it is to the administration's curious outreach to Russia. The
curiosity isn't that there is no rational argument for improving relations with
Moscow or opposing the merger. It's that the argument is being made by an
administration whose ideological instincts otherwise lean in the opposite
direction.
I ask Stephenson if the government's suit smacks of the kind of political risk
multinational companies often face in autocratic countries such as Russia or
Turkey, where the whims of the ruler have a way of translating into the
judgment of regulators and courts.
"I don't know if there has been political interference, but it's logical to ask
questions," he says. "You'd have to be naïve not to."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
