Connect with us

Antitrust

T-Mobile’s Acquisition of Sprint Passes Federal Muster, But 16 States Press On in Opposition

Published

on

Photo of event at the Capitol Forum by Masha Abarinova

WASHINGTON, November 14. 2019- Despite the approval of the T-Mobile-Sprint merger by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, 16 state attorneys general are still determined to block the acquisition. Policy experts at Thursday’s Capitol Forum conference advocated both the benefits and drawbacks of the merger, as well as how it will affect competition in the wireless industry.

The state AGs will have a hard time proving that the merger is harmful to consumers, said Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell. A substantial amount of competition analysis, he said, is necessary to show that higher pricing and other adverse effects may arise.

The agencies’ decision is the correct call, McDowell continued, because the FCC has the public interest standard in mind, whereas the DOJ has the antitrust expertise to support it.

Sprint alone cannot build a nationwide coast-to-coast 5G wireless network, said McDowell. The carrier has deployed the service in only nine cities so far, and T-Mobile is expanding their 5G coverage at a much more rapid pace.

Competition is ultimately the best enforcer of the merger, he said, with customers leading the drive-testing for innovation.

INCOMPAS Chief Advocate and General Counsel Angie Kronenberg argued that the merger will benefit the wholesale wireless market and particularly DISH Network Corporation’s contract with T-Mobile.

DISH holds a unique place in this transaction, she said, because unlike other merger participants, it will develop its own 5G wireless network and subsequently help users transition from 4G services.

A fourth major wireless network, Kronenberg added, is necessary to help consumers get the service they need. Moreover, DISH has a history of disrupting entrenched markets, such as broadcast radio and satellite services. It doesn’t seem far-fetched for DISH to enter the wireless market as a full-fledged, 5G facilitated network, she said.

Billions of dollars are at risk if DISH fails to meet its buildout requirements in the allotted timeframe, Kronenberg said. That’s why the company has huge incentives to increase 5G rollout rates that can put immediate downward pressure on pricing.

On the opposing side of the merger, Deborah Goldman, director of Research and Telecommunications Policy at Communication Workers of America, argued that it may not deliver the services promised and have unilateral anticompetitive effects.

Goldman referred to Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel’s past statement about the harm the merger may bring to the distribution of mid-band spectrum. The FCC can better serve the public interest, she said, if it explored alternative options to a price-rising, competitor-killing merger.

DISH Network has also been underperforming in sales the past few years, Goldman continued, making it unlikely that DISH can replace the competition lost by the merger.

Market structure, Goldman said, is key in disruption. Even if there is an excess capacity of spectrum, the wireless market is still highly influenced by competitors. It’s also not entirely certain that Sprint alone is unable to rollout 5G services, she said, as the company possesses thousands of small cell tower leases and spectrum assets from its corporate owner, SoftBank.

Regarding the litigation process itself, legal experts at the conference said that the states have a tough case to make and that the attorneys present must be careful not to politicize the trial.

A horizontal merger has the presumption that the judge will defer to the state, said Corey Roush, partner at Akin Gump. State AGs will need ample time to prove that the merger is anticompetitive and establish a counter-narrative to what the government is putting forward.

However, Roush added, since the trial will not take place in D.C., where judges are more deferential to the federal government, the state clients have a slightly better chance of winning the case. The defendants need to prove that they have the right market to build upon the merger, he said.

The federal government can make a case that Sprint is ill-equipped to move forward with 5G alone, said Baker Botts Partner Michael Perry, if the company’s current shares do not reflect the wireless market’s competitive reality.

Moreover, the current presidential administration has not been aggressive as it would like with antitrust enforcement, Perry added. It would be unwise for the federal defendants to take a partisan stance against the state AGs, since state antitrust enforcers may have different political interests.

It would be a big loss for states, Roush said, if the court makes it appear that the White House is influencing its decision. It may cause states without a predominant Democratic population, such as Texas, to pull out of the trial and have unforeseen complications on the national wireless market.

Antitrust

Public Interest Groups Urge Passage of Six Antitrust Bills Targeting Big Tech

Nearly 60 public interest groups signed a letter to House leaders to call a vote on six antitrust bills.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2021 – Nearly 60 public interest groups signed a letter Thursday urging the House party leaders to push for a vote on six antirust bills that cleared the House judiciary committee in June.

The goal of the six bills is to rein in the power of Big Tech through new antirust liability provisions, including new merger and acquisition review, measures to prevent anticompetitive activity, and providing government enforcers more power to break-up or separate big businesses. They include American Choice and Innovation Online Act, H.R. 3816, Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, H.R. 3826, Ending Platform Monopolies Act, H.R. 3825, Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act, H.R. 3849, Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, H.R. 3843, and State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, H.R. 3460.

The letter, which was directed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, were promoting a package of six bills that were the result of a two-year bipartisan investigation that included 10 hearings, featuring the testimony of the CEOs of the major tech companies, 240 interviews, 1.3 million documents and a 450-page report, the letter notes.

“We believe that these bills will bring urgently needed change and accountability to these companies and an industry that most Americans agree is already doing great harm to our democracy,” the letter said. Public Citizen was the first of the 58 groups on the letter.

America has a monopoly problem. Monopoly power lowers wages, reduces innovation and entrepreneurship, exacerbates income and regional inequality, undermines the free press and access to information, and perpetuates toxic systems of racial, gender, and class dominance,” the letter alleged.

“Big Tech monopolies are at the center of many of these problems,” it continued. “Reining in these companies is an essential first step to reverse the damage of concentrated corporate power throughout our economy. The bills that passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support, do just that and it is imperative that they move forward in the House.”

List of signatories:

  • Public Citizen
  • Accountable Tech
  • Action Center on Race & the Economy
  • ALIGN: The Alliance for a Greater New York
  • Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding
  • American Booksellers Association
  • American Family Voices
  • American Independent Business Alliance
  • American Specialty Toy Retailing Association
  • Artist Rights Alliance
  • Athena
  • Cambridge Local First
  • Center for American Progress
  • Center for Digital Democracy
  • Center for Popular Democracy
  • Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws
  • Decode Democracy
  • Demos
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Friends of the Earth
  • Future of Music Coalition
  • Gig Workers Rising
  • Global Exchange
  • Indivisible Georgia Coalition
  • Indivisible Hawaii
  • Indivisible Ulster/NY19
  • Institute for Local Self-Reliance
  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters
  • Jobs With Justice
  • Kairos Action
  • Local First Arizona
  • Louisville Independent Business Alliance
  • Main Street Alliance
  • Mainers for Accountable Leadership
  • Media Alliance
  • Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO
  • National Employment Law Project
  • New York Communities For Change
  • New York Communities for Change
  • North American Hardware and Paint Association
  • Open Markets Institute
  • Our Revolution
  • PowerSwitch Action
  • Public Knowledge
  • Running Industry Association
  • Secure Elections Network
  • Service Employees International Union
  • Shop Local Raleigh/Greater Raleigh Merchants Association
  • SIMBA (Spokane Independent Metro Business Alliance)
  • Small Business Rising
  • Stand Up Nashville
  • StayLocal, an initiative of Urban Conservancy
  • Strategic Organizing Center
  • SumOfUs
  • The Democratic Coalition
  • UltraViolet
  • Venice Resistance
  • Warehouse workers for justice

Continue Reading

Antitrust

FTC Commissioner Phillips Warns About Shifting Direction of Agency

Noah Phillips voiced concern about the scope and practices of the Biden administration’s FTC.

Published

on

FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2021 — Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips said at a Hudson Institute webinar on Monday that he’s concerned about the direction the competition watchdog is moving toward considering recent events.

Phillips said the left-leaning voices in Washington and the appointment of Lina Khan to chair the agency has left him wondering about the legacy of the last 40 years of competition regulation in America – which have been hallmarked by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. That legislation effectively gave the FTC the ability to review mergers and acquisitions before they were finalized, rather than afterward, which governed pre-legislation.

Under Biden-appointee Lina Khan, Phillips described how the FTC has done away with the process of early termination. In the past, this process made it unnecessary for every single company to provide advanced notice and advanced approval for mergers. “Historically, parties have been able to come to the agencies and say, ‘You’re not interested in this, can we just go ahead and finish our deal,’ and the agencies have said ‘yes.’”

He said this is no longer the case, and that every single merger must provide advanced notice and approval. “What we’re introducing is an inefficiency in the market for transactions that we have no interest in pursuing, just for the sake of it. I think that’s a problem,” he continued. “My concern is that it is making merger enforcement less effective, less efficient, and less fair.”

Phillips pointed to left-of-center and leftist voices in Congress, such as Rep. David Cicilline, D-New York, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, who, at the outset of the pandemic, wanted to ban all acquisitions and mergers—regardless of their merit. He described this view as falling outside of mainstream perspectives, but noteworthy nonetheless.

“I don’t think that is what most people believe,” Phillips remarked. “I don’t think that is what Hart-Scott-Rodino envisions.”

This webinar took place only a couple of weeks after Phillips spoke at the Technology Policy Institute’s 2021 Aspen Forum, where he voiced similar concerns, stating that he feared that this new direction would make it more difficult for the FTC to hear cases that it should, and defended the commission’s record against critics who said it was lax under the Trump Administration.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

Antitrust Experts Zero In on Big Tech and Consumer Welfare Standard at Aspen Forum

At Aspen forum, a red-hot focus on Big Tech, antitrust and consumer welfare.

Published

on

Photo of the antitrust panel at TPI's Aspen Forum by Ben Kahn

ASPEN, Colorado, August 17, 2021— The Biden administration is taking a much harder line against big technology companies than was done by previous presidents, and is doing so by looking beyond the traditional consumer welfare standard of antitrust economics.

But the antitrust and competition economists making these assessments at the Technology Policy Institute conference here on Monday disagreed sharply about whether antitrust law should move beyond that consumer welfare standard.

Some these experts – including sitting Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips – disagreed with stances taken by Biden’s hand-picked FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan.

Others, including Harvard Business School Professor Shane Greenstein, said that it was absolutely necessary for the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division to investigate the gargantuan sums of money exchanged between big tech titans Google and Apple.

Speaking on a spirited panel session in the morning, “How is the U.S. Reshaping Antitrust,” Greenstein said Google pays Apple approximately $8 billion a year to make the Google search engine the default internet browser on all Apple devices.

Though this may not have historically fallen under the purview of antitrust, Greenstein was accusatory in his evaluation of the situation: “I’m sorry, no.” As to whether the antitrust division should investigate the matter, he said, “Go for it, guys.”

For a session on “Antitrust, the Consumer Welfare Standard and Big Tech Platforms,” see Broadband Breakfast Live Online on Wednesday, February 24, 2021. 

‘Deconcentration’ is not the goal of antitrust policy

But Carl Shapiro, professor of business strategy emeritus at University of California at Berkeley, dissented from Greenstein’s broader antitrust perspective.

“The goals of antitrust should be to promote competition—full stop,” said Shapiro. Deconcentration is not the goal of the FTC. The agency will have to determine whether it would depart from this long-held view, he said, and decide whether it would opt instead to consider concentration itself as evil.

“That’s not a version of capitalism that I want,” said Shapiro.

The primary issue is how one chooses to define competition, said Howard Shelanski, professor of law at Georgetown University. The dominant perspective has viewed competition through the lens of price effects. Other schools of thought borrow a wider aperture, considering this like privacy, wealth distribution, political power, product quality, and product variety when determining whether something improves or diminishes competition.

The more metrics that are accounted for, the more issues present themselves.

To this, FTC Commissioner Phillips responded, “If you are trying to solve everything at once, you will solve nothing at all.”

While polite, Phillips disagreed with FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan

At the beginning of the panel discussion, TPI President Emeritus Tom Lenard opened the session by asking Phillips for his impression of Khan.

Phillips responded diplomatically, joking that this question had not been on the list he had been sent. Because Khan has only been on the job for two months, it is too early for him to give a fully fleshed out appraisal of her time as chairwoman. “It’s always exciting to get new blood,” he said.

While he said he was supportive of Khan’s efforts to improve transparency by holding public meetings, he was critical of the direction in which the FTC is heading.

Proposed rule changes would create “needless friction” by delaying mergers that do not present a danger to consumers. This will make the agency less effective and less efficient.

“I worry that we are needlessly impeding our ability” to hear cases, he said.

Successes by big tech firms are ‘not a failure of antitrust’

Shapiro added that, in his view, concentration within an industry should not be viewed as a negative thing and that it is merely indicative of the fact that bigger companies are often simply more efficient and can compete more effectively in their industry. “That is not a failure of antitrust,” he said.

Shelanski said that he harbored serious reservations about expanding the consideration of antitrust. He noted that as it stands now, it is basically left to the FTC to decide how to pursue antitrust cases.

If the agency were to include considerations of value judgments, public health, environmentalism and wealth distribution, the country would need stronger democratic institutions to pursue this approach.

Former FTC Acting Chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen, now with Baker Botts’s Antitrust and Competition Law Practice Group, shared Shelanski’s concerns about the ability of the FTC to make big, sweeping considerations on its own.

The public should not view the careful and deliberate approach to FTC decisions as lax. Indeed, she said, the commission has “done a pretty good job.”

Phillips agreed, stating that under the Trump Administration, the FTC had blocked more than 20 mergers—the most since 2001.

When asked if he felt whether antitrust guidelines should be revisited, he responded with skepticism, “There is a lot of promise of revisitation without much discussion of where [the FTC] is going.”

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending