Tech Daily Dose's Andrew Noyes points out that it's been a while since they announced the "merger of equals." We've had multiple hearings on both the House and Senate sides of the Capitol, with mixed signals from both chambers, as well as the FCC. Still, Noyes, along with his sources doubt it will be approved:
Now, the Justice Department has a clear statutory responsibility to review mergers like this. The FCC, on the other hand, does so under the auspices of approving the transfer of licenses. While DoJ has clear guidelines they follow, aka antitrust law, the FCC uses a vague "public interest" standard taken from the Communications Act of 1934. They even have had a "merger review team" that reviews certain mergers, and approves them subject to "voluntary" conditions, aka blackmail.For months, merger-watchers have been inclined to believe that the combination, albeit delayed, would get the government's blessing but now at least one analyst isn't as hopeful. The merger "now appear less likely," Pacific Crest analyst Erik Olbeter said in a research note.
"Prospects for the merger have become increasingly cloudy," he said, noting that the waiting game suggests Justice and the FCC are having trouble justifying the deal.
I could go on at length about how insane the duplicated effort by the DoJ and FCC is, or why the FCC has no business dealing with antitrust law, or how their process is totally arbitrary, but former FCC Commissioner and economist Harold Furchtgott-Roth does a great job in his book A Tough Act to Follow.
I'm not a fan of huge sprawling monopolies, but I still don't understand how this merger wouldn't benefit the public interest. Instead of two licensees with the same types of stock channels and limited speciality channels, we could have one and use the duplicates for new content, new channels, etc.
Besides, the FCC's job really shouldn't include approving mergers. Stick to keeping the spectrum well-managed and get us some net neutrality.
I hope to speak with Mr. Furchtgott-Roth at some point. I'm a fan of his book, and it would be nice to hear from an economist instead of a lawyer on what should work and why.
