AT&T Promises to Protect Net Neutrality — If It Gets to Buy DirecTV

The telecom giant appears to have learned from its failed bid for T-Mobile.

 A DirecTV sattelite dish sits on a roof on May 19, 2014 in New York City. AT&T agreed May 18, to buy DirecTV for $48.5 billion.  
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
May 19, 2014, 10:07 a.m.

AT&T is of­fer­ing up a slew of good­ies to try to con­vince reg­u­lat­ors to let it buy Dir­ecTV.

The pro­pos­als tar­get some top pri­or­it­ies of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in an at­tempt to grease the wheels for reg­u­lat­ory ap­prov­al of the $48.5 bil­lion deal.

For three years, AT&T prom­ises to abide by the 2010 net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions, even though those rules were thrown out by a court earli­er this year. The com­pany also prom­ised to ex­pand high-speed In­ter­net ac­cess in rur­al areas, and it won’t force con­sumers in­to buy­ing lar­ger bundles of TV and In­ter­net ser­vices for at least three years.

On a con­fer­ence call Monday, AT&T CEO Ran­dall Steph­en­son said the con­di­tions are de­signed to al­low the com­pan­ies to “get out in front” of po­ten­tial reg­u­lat­ory con­cerns.

The tele­com gi­ant ap­pears to have learned some les­sons from its failed 2011 bid for T-Mo­bile. AT&T es­sen­tially offered no con­ces­sions up front for that mer­ger — des­pite the fact that the com­pany was try­ing to take out one of its main com­pet­it­ors, an ob­vi­ous red flag for reg­u­lat­ors.

Op­pos­i­tion from the Justice De­part­ment and Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion forced AT&T to aban­don its bid for T-Mo­bile, ul­ti­mately cost­ing the com­pany bil­lions of dol­lars.

John Bergmay­er, a staff at­tor­ney with Pub­lic Know­ledge, said of­fer­ing no con­di­tions in its T-Mo­bile deal “made them look ar­rog­ant.”

Com­cast, on the oth­er hand, quickly offered up con­ces­sions such as giv­ing up sub­scribers and an ex­pan­ded net-neut­ral­ity com­mit­ment in its bid for Time Warner Cable. The massive cable mer­ger is still un­der re­view.

“Com­cast is really savvy, and I think AT&T is learn­ing,” Bergmay­er said.

Wal­ter Piecyk, an in­dustry ana­lyst with the firm BTIG, agreed that AT&T is try­ing to use car­rots rather than its typ­ic­al “loud, in-your-face ap­proach.”

“You learn from your mis­takes,” Piecyk said.

Un­like the T-Mo­bile deal, AT&T is not re­quired to pay Dir­ecTV any money if the deal falls apart. 

It’s un­clear ex­actly what AT&T’s net-neut­ral­ity prom­ise means. The FCC is un­der fire be­cause it is try­ing to write new net-neut­ral­ity rules that would likely al­low In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders to charge web­sites for faster ser­vice in some cases.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4950) }}

But a top Com­cast ex­ec­ut­ive re­cently said he be­lieves even the stronger 2010 rules al­lowed for In­ter­net “fast lanes.” FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er also sug­ges­ted that the old rules wouldn’t have totally barred paid pri­or­it­iz­a­tion of In­ter­net traffic.

AT&T didn’t provide any de­tails about how it in­ter­prets the old rules. Ad­di­tion­ally, the 2010 or­der largely ex­emp­ted cell-phone ser­vice — AT&T’s main busi­ness.

AT&T also said it plans to bid at least $9 bil­lion in the FCC’s up­com­ing auc­tion of air­wave li­censes. The prom­ise is not con­di­tion­al on get­ting ap­prov­al of the Dir­ecTV deal, but Piecyk ar­gued there’s an im­pli­cit link.

“It’s a pub­lic prom­ise to spend $9 bil­lion wheth­er it’s con­di­tioned or not,” he said. “It’s a mes­sage sent to the FCC say­ing, “Here’s what we’re do­ing for you.’”

The gov­ern­ment is re­ly­ing on rev­en­ue from the air­wave auc­tion to build a na­tion­wide high-speed com­mu­nic­a­tions net­work for first re­spon­ders.

AT&T’s prom­ise to provide broad­band ser­vice to an ad­di­tion­al 15 mil­lion con­sumers mostly in rur­al areas fits with the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s goal of uni­ver­sal In­ter­net ac­cess and could be a hit with rur­al state law­makers.

But Bergmay­er ques­tioned wheth­er that com­mit­ment has any con­nec­tion to the Dir­ecTV deal.

“Why couldn’t they just do that any­way?” he asked.

AT&T says the “syn­er­gies” of the Dir­ecTV deal will en­able the ex­pan­sion of its net­work.

What We're Following See More »
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”