Adam Thierer's Blog, page 117

Why Did Sprint Pile On the DOJ's AT&T / T-Mobile Suit?

[Cross posted at Truthonthemarket]

So, the AT&T / T-Mobile transaction gets more and more interesting.  Sprint has filed a complaint challenging the transaction.  I've been commenting on the weakness of the DOJ complaint and in particular, its heavy reliance on market structure to make inferences about competitive effects. The heavy dose of structural presumption in the DOJ complaint — especially in light of the DOJ / FTC's new Horizontal Merger Guidelines which stress reducing that emphasis because it is grounded in outdated economic thinking in favor of analysis of actual competitive effects — reads more like a 1960s complaint than a modern post-2010 Guidelines approach.

There is a question that jumps out here.  What does Sprint get for jumping into full litigation mode rather than free-riding upon the DOJ's case?  They could certainly free-ride and retain some influence over the DOJ case with economic submissions.   The DOJ is not a passive plaintiff.  This is the DOJ of "reinvigorated" antitrust enforcement.  There is an even more obvious cost to getting involved.  The conventional antitrust wisdom requires skepticism of private suits by rivals for the reasons I discussed here.   Rivals often have a financial incentive to sue more efficient competitors.  Various substantive and procedural stands of antitrust attempt to minimize the costs of providing rivals with generous remedies and a private right of action under the antitrust laws.  Suffice it to say, a rival suit doesn't get the same attention as one brought by the DOJ or FTC.

So why do it?

I think the answer is pretty clear.  There are at least two important inferences to draw from Sprint's complaint.

The first is that it is a sign that the DOJ's structure-based complaint is pretty weak sauce.  David Balto described the complaint as missing "the red meat."   Its heavy on reliance on outdated structural presumptions, strays far from the intellectual foundations of the new Merger Guidelines, doesn't acknowledge efficiencies, and has been embarrassingly shown up by the market reaction.   I certainly agree with Balto that the DOJ complaint isn't the agency's best work.  So, apparently did the market  — with Sprint's stock price surging instead of the decline predicted by various theories of competitive harm posited in the complaint.

Sprint, by filing this claim, reveals its view that the DOJ is not likely to prevail on the merits on those claims.   Or at a minimum that Sprint's involvement increases the likelihood.  Given the skepticism about rival suits, I'm skeptical.  To reconcile these views one must read the Sprint complaint.  It heavily pushes an "exclusionary theory" of the merger (i.e. "vertical effects") omitted by the DOJ in its own complaint.  The basic theory is that the post-merger firm will deprive rivals from access to backhaul or handsets.  I've argued that the exclusionary theory doesn't fare much better in explaining the market reaction to the DOJ's challenge.  But it at least has going for it that it can explain the Sprint's stock price reaction: if the merger successfully prevents exclusion, it should improve outcomes for rivals.  The problem is that this explanation doesn't square too nicely with the market reaction of other rivals likely to suffer from exclusion (smaller carriers) and big guys like Verizon who would benefit from watching AT&T bear the full cost of excluding rivals (an expensive strategy) while it reaped the benefits.

Thus, I think the second lesson is that its pretty clear that Sprint views the omission of these exclusionary theories as a critical weakness in the DOJ's complaint — critical enough to take the relatively rare step of filing a separate private challenge.  Given large increase in Sprint's stock in reaction to the news of challenge — its got a lot at stake here and its willing to spend some of that rather than free-riding on the DOJ challenge for the chance to prove it is right.  I remain skeptical; but its an interesting development nonetheless.

Michael Nelson on digital preservation

On the podcast this week, Michael Nelson, Associate Professor at Old Dominion University, developed, along with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, "Memento," a technical framework aimed at better integrating the current and the past web. In the past, archiving history involved collecting tangible things such as letters and newspapers. Now, Nelson points out, the web has become a primary medium with no serious preservation system in place. He discusses how the web is stuck in the perpetual now, making it difficult to view past information. The goal behind Memento, according to Nelson, is to create an all-inclusive Internet archive system, which will allow users to engage in a form of Internet time travel, surpassing the current archive systems such as the Wayback Machine.

Related Links


Memento site"Old Dominion U. professor is trying to save Internet history", Washington Post"Memento Project wins Digital Preservation Award 2010″, Digital Preservation Coalition

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we'd like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

The Spectrum Argument Lives, Debunking Letter-Gate, and Why the DOJ Is Still Wrong to Try to Stop the AT&T/T-Mobile Merger

Milton Mueller responded to my post Wednesday on the DOJ's decision to halt the AT&T/T-Mobile merger by asserting that there was no evidence the merger would lead to "anything innovative and progressive" and claiming "[t]he spectrum argument fell apart months ago, as factual inquiries revealed that AT&T had more spectrum than Verizon and the mistakenly posted lawyer's letter revealed that it would be much less expensive to expand its capacity than to acquire T-Mobile."  With respect to Milton, I think he's been suckered by the "big is bad" crowd at Public Knowledge and Free Press.  But he's hardly alone and these claims — claims that may well have under-girded the DOJ's decision to step in to some extent — merit thorough refutation.

To begin with, LTE is "progress" and "innovation" over 3G and other quasi-4G technologies.  AT&T is attempting to make an enormous (and risky) investment in deploying LTE technology reliably and to almost everyone in the US–something T-Mobile certainly couldn't do on its own and something AT&T would have been able to do only partially and over a longer time horizon and, presumably, at greater expense.  Such investments are exactly the things that spur innovation across the ecosystem in the first place.  No doubt AT&T's success here would help drive the next big thing–just as quashing it will make the next big thing merely the next medium-sized thing.

The "Spectrum Argument"

The spectrum argument that Milton claims "fell apart months ago" is the real story here, the real driver of this merger, and the reason why the DOJ's action yesterday is, indeed, a blow to progress.  That argument, unfortunately, still stands firm.  Even more, the irony is that to a significant extent the spectrum shortfall is a product of the government's own making–through mismanagement of spectrum by the FCC, political dithering by Congress, and local government intransigence on tower siting and co-location–and the notion of the government now intervening here to "fix" one of the most significant private efforts to make progress despite these government impediments is really troubling.

Anyway, here's what we know about spectrum:  There isn't enough of it in large enough blocks and in bands suitable for broadband deployment using available technology to fully satisfy current–let alone future–demand.

Two incredibly detailed government sources for this conclusion are the FCC's 15th Annual Wireless Competition Report and the National Broadband Plan.  Here's FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski summarizing the current state of affairs (pdf):

The point deserves emphasis:  the clock is ticking on our mobile future. The FCC is an expert agency staffed with first-rate employees who have been working on spectrum allocation for decades – and let me tell you what the career engineers are telling me. Demand for spectrum is rapidly outstripping supply. The networks we have today won't be able to handle consumer and business needs.

* * *

To avoid this crisis, the National Broadband Plan recommended reallocating 500 megahertz of spectrum for broadband, nearly double the amount that is currently available.

* * *

First, there are some who say that the spectrum crunch is greatly exaggerated – indeed, that there is no crunch coming. They also suggest that there are large blocks of spectrum just lying around – and that some licensees, such as cable and wireless companies, are just sitting on top of, or "hoarding," unused spectrum that could readily solve that problem. That's just not true.

* * *

The looming spectrum shortage is real – and it is the alleged hoarding that is illusory.

It is not hoarding if a company paid millions or billions of dollars for spectrum at auction and is complying with the FCC's build-out rules. There is no evidence of non-compliance. . . . [T]he spectrum crunch will not be solved by the build-out of already allocated spectrum.

All of the evidence suggests that spectrum suitable for mobile broadband is scarce and growing scarcer.  Full stop.

It is troubling that critics–particularly those with little if any business experience–are so certain that even with no obvious source of additional spectrum suitable for LTE coming from the government any time soon, and even with exponential growth in broadband (including mobile) data use, AT&T's current spectrum holdings are sufficient to satisfy its business plans (and its investors and stockholders).  You'd think AT&T would be delighted to hear this news–what we really need is a shareholder resolution to put Gigi Sohn on the board!

But seriously, put yourself in AT&T's shoes for a moment.  Its long-term plans require the company to deploy significantly more spectrum than it currently holds in a reasonable time horizon (even granting Milton's dubious premise that the company is squatting on scads of unused spectrum–remember that even if AT&T had all the spectrum sitting in its proverbial bank vault it would still be just about a third of the total amount of spectrum we're predicted to need in just a few years).  Considering the various impediments of net neutrality regulation, congressional politics, presidential politics (think this had anything to do with claims about job losses from the merger, by chance?), reluctant broadcasters, the FCC, state PUCs, environmental groups and probably 10-12 others . . . the chances of being able to obtain the necessary spectrum and cell tower sitings in any other reasonable fashion were perhaps appropriately deemed . . . slim.

With the T-Mobile deal, on the other hand, "AT&T will gain cell sites equivalent to what would have taken on average five years to build without the transaction, and double that in some markets. AT&T's network density will increase by approximately 30 percent in some of its most populated areas." (Source).  I just don't see how this jibes with the claim that the spectrum argument has fallen apart.

But there is a larger, "meta" point to make here, and it's one that policy scolds and government regulators too often forget.  Even if none of that were true, as long as we don't know for sure what is optimal and do know the DOJ is both a political organization made up of human beings operating not only under said ignorance but with incentives that don't necessarily translate into "maximize social welfare" and also devoid of any actual "skin in the game," I think the basic, simple, time-tested, logical and self-evident error cost principle counsels pretty firmly against intervention.  Humility, not hubris should rule the roost.

And that's especially true since you know what will happen if the DOJ (or the FCC) succeeds in preventing AT&T from buying T-Mobile?  T-Mobile will still disappear and we'll still be left with (according to the DOJ's analysis) the terrifying prospect of only 3 national wireless telecom providers.  Only, in that case, everyone's going to think a lot harder about investing in future developments that might warrant integration or cooperation or . . . well, the DOJ will challenge anything, so add to the list patent pools, too much success, not enough sharing, etc., etc.  And you wonder why I think this might constitute an assault on innovation?

Now, as for Milton's specific claims, reminiscent of Public Knowledge's and Free Press' talking points, let me quote AT&T's Public Interest Statement discussing its own particular spectrum holdings:

Because of the high demand for broadband service, AT&T already has had to deploy four carriers (for a total of 40 MHz of spectrum) for UMTS [3G] in some areas—and it will need to deploy more in the near future, even if doing so squeezes its GSM spectrum allocation and compromises GSM service quality . . . .  AT&T expects that, given the relative infancy of the LTE ecosystem and the time needed to migrate subscribers, it will need to continue to allocate spectrum to UMTS services for a substantial number of years—indeed, even longer than AT&T needs to continue allocating spectrum for GSM services.

* * *

AT&T has begun deployment of LTE services using its AWS and 700 MHz spectrum and currently plans to cover more than 250 million people by the end of 2013

* * *

AT&T projects it will need to use its 850 MHz and 1900 MHz spectrum holdings to support GSM and UMTS services for a number of years and, in the meantime, will not be able to re-deploy them for more spectrally efficient LTE services.

* * *

AT&T's existing WCS spectrum holdings cannot be used for this purpose either, because the technical rules for the WCS band, such as limits on the power spectral density limits, make it infeasible to use that band for broadband service.

In other words, I don't think AT&T has been (nor could it be, given the FCC's detailed knowledge on the subject) hiding its spectrum holdings.  Instead, the company has been making quite clear that the spectrum it has is simply insufficient to meet anticipated demand.  And, well, duh!  Anyone who uses AT&T knows its network is overloaded.  Some of that's because of tower-siting issues, some because it simply didn't anticipate the extent of demand it would face.  I heard somewhere that no matter how hard they try to account for their perpetual under-accounting, every estimate by every mobile provider of anticipated spectrum needs in the past two decades or so has fallen short.  I'm quite sure that AT&T didn't anticipate in 2007 that spectrum usage would increase by 8000% (yes, that's thousand) by 2010.

Moreover, there will always (in any sensible system) be excess capacity at times–as it happens, at (conveniently) the times when spectrum usage is often counted–in order to deal with peak loads.  It is no more sensible to deploy capacity sufficient to handle the maximum load 100% of the time than it is to deploy capacity to handle only the minimum load 100% of the time.  Does that mean the often-unused spectrum is "excess"?  Clearly not.

Moreover (again), not all spectrum is in contiguous blocks sufficient to deploy LTE.  AT&T (at least) claims that is the case with much of its existing spectrum.  Spectrum isn't simply fungible, and un-nuanced claims that "AT&T has X megahertz of spectrum and it is plenty" are just meaningless.  Again, just because Free Press says otherwise does not make it so.  You can simply discount AT&T's claims if you like–I'm sure it's possible they're just lying; but you should probably be careful whose "information" you believe instead.

But, no, Milton, the spectrum argument did not "fall apart months ago."  Gigi Sohn, Harold Feld and Sprint just said it did.  There's a difference.

"Letter-Gate"

As for the infamous letter alleged to show that AT&T could expand LTE service from its previously-planned 80% of the country to the 97% it promises if the merger goes through for significantly less than it would cost to buy T-Mobile:  I don't know exactly what its import is—but no one outside AT&T and, maybe, the FCC really does, either.  But I think a little sensible skepticism is in order.

First, for those who haven't read it, the letter says, in relevant part:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss AT&T's current LTE deployment plans to reach 80 percent of the U.S. population by the end of 2013…; the estimated [Begin Confidential Information] $3.8 billion [End Confidential Information] in additional capital expenditures to expand LTE coverage from 80 to 97 percent of the U.S. population; and AT&T's commitment to expand LTE to over 97 percent of the U.S. population as a result of this transaction.

That part, "$3.8 billion," between the words "Begin Confidential Information" and "End Confidential Information" was supposed to be redacted, but apparently wasn't when the letter was first posted to the FCC's website.

While Public Knowledge and other critics of the deal would have you believe that this proves AT&T could roll-out nationwide LTE service for 1/10 of the cost of the T-Mobile deal, it's basically impossible to tell what this number really means–except it certainly doesn't mean that.

Claims about its meaning are actually largely content-less; nothing I've seen asks (or can possibly answer) whether the number in the letter was full cost, partial cost, annualized cost, based off of what baseline, etc., etc.  Moreover, unless I'm mistaken, nothing in the letter said anything at all about $3.8 billion being used to relieve congestion, meet future demand, increase speeds, reduce latency, expand coverage in urban areas, etc.  It seems to me that it's referring to "additional" (additional to what?) capital expense to build infrastructure to make it even possible to offer LTE coverage to 97% of the U.S. population following the merger.  AT&T has from the outset said (bragged, more like it, because it's supposed to bring lots of jobs and that's what the politicians care about) that it planned to spend an "additional" $8 billion–additional to the $39 billion required to buy T-Mobile, that is–to build out its infrastructure as part of the deal.  But neither this letter nor any of AT&T's statements (nor anyone with any familiarity with the relevant facts) has ever said it could or would have full-speed, LTE service available and up and running to 97% of the country for $3.8 billion or even $8 billion–or even merely $39 billion.  In fact, AT&T seemed to be saying that it was going to cost at least $47 billion to make that happen (and I can assure you that doesn't begin to account for all the costs associated with integrating T-Mobile with AT&T once the $39 billion is out the door).

As I've alluded to above, deploying LTE service to rural areas is probably not as important for AT&T as increasing its network's capacity in urban areas. The T-Mobile deal allows AT&T to alleviate the congestion problems experienced by its existing customers in urban areas more quickly than any other option–and because T-Mobile's network is already up and running, that's still true even if the federal government was somehow able to make tons of spectrum immediately available.  Moreover, with respect to the $3.8 billion, as I've discussed at length above, without T-Mobile's–or someone's!–additional spectrum and the miraculous removal of local government impediments to tower construction, pretty much no amount of money would enable AT&T to actually deliver LTE service to 97% of the country.  Is that what it would cost to build the extra pieces of hardware necessary to support such an offering?  That sounds plausible.  But actually deliver it? Hardly.

And just to play this out, let's say the letter did mean just that — that AT&T could deliver real, fine LTE service to 97% of the country for a mere $3.8 billion direct, marginal outlay, even without T-Mobile.  It is still the case that none of us outsiders knows what such a claim would assume about where the necessary spectrum would come from and what, absent the merger, the effect would be on existing 3G coverage, congestion, pricing, etc., and what the expected ROI for such a project would be.  Elsewhere in the letter its author states that AT&T considered whether making this investment (without the T-Mobile merger) was prudent, and repeatedly rejected it.  In other words, all those armchair CEOs are organizing AT&T's business and spending its money without the foggiest clue as to what the real consequences would be of doing so–and then claiming that, although, unlike them, actually in possession of the data relevant to such an assessment, AT&T must be lying, and could only justify spending $39 billion to buy T-Mobile as a means of securing its monopoly power.

And I think it's important to gut check that claim, as well, as it's what critics claim to fear (The Ma Bell from the Black Lagoon).  Unpacked, it goes something like this:

Given that:

 AT&T is going to spend $39 billion to buy T-Mobile;
It is going to spend $8 billion to build additional infrastructure;
Having bought T-Mobile, it is going to incur some ungodly amount of expense integrating T-Mobile's assets and employees with its own;
It is going to incur huge, ongoing additional costs to govern a now-larger, more-complex organization;
It is going to continue to be regulated by the FCC and watched carefully by the DOJ and its unofficial consumer watchdog minions;
It will continue to face competition from its current largest and second-largest competitor;
It will continue to face entry threats from the likes of Dish and Lightsquared;
It will continue to face competition from fixed broadband offered by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner;
It will do all this quite publicly, under the watchful eyes of Congress and its union to whom it has made all manner of politically-expedient promises;

 Then it follows that:

Although it can't muster the gumption to risk $3.8 billion to legitimately (it is claimed) extend full LTE coverage to 97% of the U.S. population, it nevertheless thinks it's a sure bet that it will be able to recoup all of these expenditures, in this competitive and regulatory environment, by virtue of having thus taken out not its largest, not even its second-largest, but its smallest "national" competitor, and thereby having converted itself into an unfettered monopolist. QED.

The mind boggles.

So.  Back to Milton and his suggestion that I was wrong to claim that the DOJ's action here is a threat to innovation and progress and his assertion that AT&T's claims surrounding the benefits of the transaction fail to stand up to scrutiny:  C'mon, Miltons of the world!  Where's your normally healthy skepticism?  I know you don't like big infrastructure providers.  I know you're angry your iPhone isn't as functional as it is beautiful.  I know capitalists are only slightly more trustworthy than regulators (or is it the other way around?).  But why give in so credulously to the claims of the professional critics?  Isn't it more likely that the deal's critics are just blowing smoke here because they don't like any consolidation?  It doesn't take much research to understand (to the extent anyone can understand something so complex) the current state of the U.S. broadband market and its discontents–and why something like this merger is a plausible response.  And you don't have to like, trust, or even stand the sight of any business executive to know that, however stupid or evil, he is still constrained by powerful market forces beyond his ken.  And "Letter-Gate" is just another pseudo-scandal contrived to suit an agenda of aggressive government meddling.

We all ought to be more wary of such claims, less quick to join anyone in condemning big as bad, and far less quick to, implicitly or explicitly, substitute the known depredations of the government for the possible ones of the market without a hell of a lot better evidence to do so.

Do Exclusionary Theories of the AT&T / T-Mobile Transaction Better Explain the Market's Reaction to the DOJ's Decision to Challenge the Merger?

[Cross posted at Truthonthemarket]

I don't think so.

Let's start from the beginning.  In my last post, I pointed out that simple economic theory generates some pretty clear predictions concerning the impact of a merger on rival stock prices.  If a merger is results in a more efficient competitor, and more intense post-merger competition, rivals are made worse off while consumers benefit.  On the other hand, if a merger is is likely to result in collusion or a unilateral price increase, the rivals firms are made better off while consumers suffer.

I pointed to this graph of Sprint and Clearwire stock prices increasing dramatically upon announcement of the merger to illustrate the point that it appears rivals are doing quite well:

The WSJ reports the increases at 5.9% and 11.5%, respectively.  In reaction to the WSJ and other stories highlighting this market reaction to the DOJ complaint, I asked what I think is an important set of questions:

How many of the statements in the DOJ complaint, press release and analysis are consistent with this market reaction?  If the post-merger market would be less competitive than the status quo, as the DOJ complaint hypothesizes, why would the market reward Sprint and Clearwire for an increased likelihood of facing greater competition in the future?

A few of our always excellent commenters argued that the analysis above was either incomplete or incorrect.  My claim was that the dramatic increase in stock market prices of Sprint and Clearwire were more consistent with a procompetitive merger than the theories in the DOJ complaint.

Commenters raised three important points and I appreciate their thoughtful responses.

First, the procompetitive theory does not explain the change in all stock market prices.  For example, readers pointed out that Verizon's stock barely ticked downward, while smaller carriers MetroPCS and Leap both fell (.8% and 2.3%, respectively, according to the WSJ).  The procompetitive theory, the commenters argued, implies that Verizon and these other rivals should move upward.

Second, they argue that perhaps an exclusionary theory of the merger better explains these stock price reactions.  Indeed, the new 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines included (not without controversy) potential exclusionary effects ("Enhanced market power may also make it more likely that the merged entity can profitably and effectively engage in exclusionary conduct. ").  Rick Brunell of AAI writes:

Although the smaller carriers may gain in the short run due from a merger that raises prices, they also may lose in the long run due to its exclusionary effects, a theory that was front and center of Sprint's opposition (and the smaller carriers'). Notably Verizon, which has no reason to fear exclusion and would have the most to lose if the merger were actually efficient, has not opposed the merger."

Similarly, Matt Bodie writes:

Why wouldn't the market's reaction be a sign of this: (a) the AT&T/T-Mobile merger will give the new entity strong market power, (b) there are strong anticompetitive as well as efficiency gains from being bigger and having more market size, (c) the newly merged company would use that power to crush its weakest competitors, i.e. Sprint? After all, isn't there a traditional story where monopolists cut prices to drive other competitors out, but then gradually raise price once their market power allows it, especially in industries with high barriers to entry?"

The basics of the exclusionary theory of the merger is that the anticompetitive harm is not coordination or unilateral price increases from the direct acquisition of market power, i.e. the elimination of competition from a close rival.  Rather, the exclusionary theory posits that the post-merger firm will have sufficient market power to exclude rivals from access to a critical input (e.g. backhaul) and, as Matt has it, "crush its weakest competitors."  So to Matt, yes, there is that theory in antitrust.  But note that the post-merger share of the combined entity here would be nowhere close to traditional monopoly power standards required to make out a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  The new Guidelines do quasi-endorse the possibility of a Minority-Report like merger enforcement search for exclusion that doesn't reach Section 2 standards post-merger, but might someday, but also needs to be stopped now.  But it is decidedly not standard in merger analysis. And this case is probably not a good test case for that theory; at least the DOJ thinks so.  But no, I don't think the market reaction is reflecting concerns about exclusion.  More on that in a second.  But for now note that this is not simply a legal point.  While the law requires the demonstration of monopoly power for a Section 2 claim, the economic literature focusing upon exclusion also considers market power a necessary but not sufficient condition for competitive harm.  For the same reasons the exclusion claim would be rejected post-merger on legal grounds if we accept the market definition alleged by the DOJ, exclusion is unlikely as a matter of economics.

Put simply, the exclusionary theory's proponents argue that it can explain the increase in Sprint's stock price (reduced likelihood of future exclusion because of the DOJ challenge) and Verizon's inconsequential reaction (it has "no reason to fear exclusion").

Just so everybody is seeing the same thing — here is a chart with 5 days of trading including Verizon, Sprint, Clearwire, MetroPCS, Leap and the S&P 500.

Third, commenters argue that this simple analysis doesn't account for other important factors.  NB writes:

Why did you choose Sprint particularly? Verizon, a larger and far more significant competitor, had its stock drop sharply in that same period you show Sprint "surging". MetroPCS's stock also dropped.So what does it mean when a weak competitor's stock jumps but two other competitors who are doing well have their stock drop? Other than that there are clearly more factors in play here?

Enough questions; time for answers.

Why Didn't I Include the Exclusionary Theory of Harm?

I plead guilty.  Or at least guilty with an explanation.  I didn't discuss the possibility of exclusion and whether it would better explain these market reactions than the theory that the merger is efficient or anticompetitive because it will facilitate coordination or unilateral price increases.  As it turns out, however, the reason is that the post was motivated by the following question:

How many of the statements in the DOJ complaint, press release and analysis are consistent with this market reaction?

Turns out, I'm in pretty good company in omitting this theory.  The DOJ didn't allege it either.  As discussed above, the DOJ specifically alleged that the merger would result in coordinated effects in the national market and/or unilateral price increases.  Rick Brunell accurately points out that Sprint and AAI have both made these arguments.  Indeed, when I testified in the House on the merger, there were a lot of questions raised about exclusionary concerns.   But the bottom line is that they are not in the Complaint.  Apparently, those arguments did not persuade the Justice Department.  I have no intention on running from the interesting question posed by the commenters that the exclusion theory does a better job of explaining market price reactions.  That's next.  But for now, let me say that I think there is a good reason the DOJ did not accept the Sprint / AAI invitation to adopt the exclusion theory.

Does Exclusion Do A Better Job of Explaining Verizon's Non-Movement or Slight Fall? 

I think proponents of the exclusion theory of the merger have a tough task here.  Notice that the prediction of the exclusionary theory is NOT that Verizon's stock price will stay put or fall.  Instead, it is that it will increase post-merger.  While Brunell observes that Verizon need not fear post-merger exclusion itself, it would certainly be happy to free-ride on the allegedly imminent exclusionary efforts of the newly merged firm.  Post-Chicagoans often invoke the argument that "competition is a public good" when explaining why a downstream input provider has reason to go along with an upstream firm's attempt to monopolize.   Bork argued that the downstream firm had no reason to engage in a contract with the upstream provider that would increase the likelihood that he would be facing an upstream monopolist (and thus worse terms of trade) tomorrow.  The classic Post-Chicago response is that each downstream firm doesn't take into account the impact of his private decision to enter into such a contract with the would-be monopolist — that is, competition is a public good.  The flip side of this argument is that exclusion is a public good too!   To put it more concretely, if the post-merger combination of AT&T / T-Mobile were able to successfully exclude Sprint and smaller carriers such as MetroPCS and Leap, and thereby reduce competition, the clear implication of this theory is that Verizon would benefit.

The relevant economics here are not limited to the possibility that post-merger AT&T would successfully exclude Verizon.  Think about it: both Verizon and the post-merger firm would benefit from the exclusionary efforts and reduced competition.  However, Verizon would stand to gain even more!  After all, it isn't paying the $39 billion purchase price for the acquisition (or any of the other costs of implementing an expensive exclusion campaign).  Thus, an announcement to block the would-be exclusionary merger — the one that would allow Verizon to outsource the exclusion of its rivals to AT&T on the cheap — wouldn't happen.  Verizon stock should fall relative to the market in response to this lost opportunity.  The unilateral and coordinated effects theories in the DOJ complaint are at significant tension with the stock market reactions of firms like Sprint (and its affiliated venture, Clearwire).  The exclusion theory predicts a large decrease in stock price for Verizon with the announcement.  None of these comfortably fit the facts.  Verizon more or less tracks the S&P with a slight drop.  What about the smaller carriers?  Take a look at the chart.  MetroPCS barely moved relative to the market (in fact, may have increased relative to the market over the relevant time period); Leap is down a bit more than the market.  Here, with the smaller carriers there is not a lot of movement in any direction.  But, contra NB's comment ("Verizon, a larger and far more significant competitor, had its stock drop sharply in that same period you show Sprint "surging". MetroPCS's stock also dropped."), Verizon's small fall relative to the market is nowhere near the magnitude of the positive effect on Sprint and Clearwire.

But what about competition?  Isn't it true that if the merger was procompetitive a challenge announcement would likely mean less competition for Verizon and also predict an increase in stock price?  AAI's comment tries to have this both ways.  If Verizon's price stays still, its because it has nothing to fear from exclusion (contra the economics above); if it goes down, the DOJ announcement has decreased the likelihood of those coordinated effects Sprint and AAI argued were so likely (but then there is Sprint's big jump); and if Verizon prices increase then it just means that we weren't right in the first instance than they were safe from exclusion.  One is reminded of Tom Smith and his incredible bread machine.   But this leads to an interesting point.  Brunell and AAI (and perhaps other proponents of the DOJ challenge), as pointed out in the comments, appear to agree with me that stock market reactions are probative evidence of competitive effects.  Perhaps they believe that the exclusionary theory is a better explanation of the facts — I obviously don't think so.  But we are where we are.  That theory is not alleged.  Now that we've observed the quite significant stock market reaction of Sprint to the challenge announcement.  Do we at least agree those facts are in tension with the coordinated effects theory made so prominent in the DOJ complaint?

Couldn't There Be Other Important Factors Explaining Stock Price Movements Unrelated to the Competitive Implications of the DOJ's Challenge?

To write the question is to answer it.  You bet there could be.  And indeed, I wrote in the first post that while the fairly dramatic stock price reactions of Sprint and Clearwire were probative, the post was not a full-blown event study that would account for those events, formulate a market model, and test for the abnormal returns surrounding the announcement controlling for other important events.  Further, not all competitors are created equal.  Under the efficiency story, the distribution of benefits will accrue proportionately to the rivals who were most likely to face increased competition post-merger (and now are more likely not to).  I certainly agree with Rick Brunell's summary comment that the stock price evidence is somewhat "mixed."  There are small and relatively ambiguous effects — once one includes the market performance — on the stock prices of Metro and Verizon.  Leap is more clearly down, even if by a small amount relative to the market.   There may well be a variety of factors unrelated to the announcement confounding effects here.  This is the reason we do real event studies in practice and why I do not believe the simple collection of evidence here warrants sweeping conclusions about the merits of the merger.

However, the DOJ complaint tells us that the important competitive players in the market — the "Big Four" — are AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon.  Focusing upon the non-merging big 4, we see Sprint's price going up dramatically and Verizon's staying put.  The former is simply more consistent with procompetitive theories than the coordinated effects and unilateral effects theories alleged in the DOJ complaint.  One might expect an announcement to block a procompetitive merger to have a greater positive impact on Verizon stock.  But, as many have observed in the press, the impact of the merger upon Verizon is complicated by a number of factors, not the least of which is that the challenge announcement increases the likelihood that the DOJ is committed to challenging any future attempts to merger by Verizon.  Unless spectrum capacity is increased dramatically (see this excellent Adam Thierer post on this score) in the very near future it is difficult to see how the reduced ability to exercise that significant and valuable option would not also impact Verizon.  Thus, while not a slam dunk by any means, the procompetitive theory of the merger does a pretty decent job on the Big Four.   It certainly beats the coordination theory trumpeted in the Complaint.  As for the attempt of AAI and Sprint to salvage the DOJ complaint with the exclusionary theory — perhaps it is not too late to amend, but it isn't there now and I'd warn the DOJ against including it.  With respect to the DOJ's Big Four, the exclusionary theory is not only new and relatively controversial in the Guidelines, but also makes a strong prediction concerning a Verizon stock price increase that is inconsistent with the data.

There will certainly be more data as we move along.  And it should interesting to watch how things unfold both in the market and between the DOJ and FCC as well.  For now, however, color me unconvinced by the heavy reliance upon the structural, "Big 4 collusion" story leading the Complaint and the attempts to save it with exclusionary theories.

Why Silicon Valley should fear U.S. v AT&T

On Forbes this morning, I argue that the Department of Justice's effort to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger signals a dangerous turn in antitrust enforcement.

While President Obama promised during his campaign to "reinvigorate" antitrust, few expected the agency would turn its attention with such laser-like precision on the technology sector, one of the few bright spots in the economy.  But as Comcast, Google, Intel, Oracle and now AT&T can testify, the agency seems determined to make its mark on the digital economy.  If only it had the slightest idea how that economy actually worked, and why it works so well.

Silicon Valley should take careful note of the dark turn in the agency's view of what constitutes competitive harm.  But if experience is any guide, they probably won't.  The tech community believes that if they ignore Washington, it isn't really there, and explains away contrary evidence as random catastrophe, as unpredictable as an earthquake in Virginia.

Regardless of how this case resolves itself, that's increasingly a dangerous attitude for entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and tech leaders.  It's morning in Palo Alto.  But is anyone awake?

Why Is Sprint's Stock Surging Upon the Announcement of the DOJ's Challenge to the Proposed AT&T / T-Mobile Merger?

[Cross posted at Truthonthemarket]

Basic economic theory underlies the conventional antitrust wisdom that if a merger makes the merging party a more effective competitor by lowering its costs, rivals facing this more effective competitor post-merger are made worse off, but consumers benefit. On the other hand, if a merger is likely to result in collusion or a unilateral price increase, the rival firm is made better off while consumers suffer. In the latter case — the one the DOJ complaint asserts we are experiencing with respect to the proposed AT&T merger — marketwide coordination or reduction of competition resulting in higher prices makes the non-merging rival better off.

Basic economic theory thus generates a set of clear testable implications for the DOJ's theory of the transaction:

events that the merger more likely should have a negative impact upon non-merging rivals' stock prices when the merger is procompetitive (reflecting the likelihood the firm will face a more efficient, lower-cost rival in the future);
events that make a merger less likely should have a positive impact upon non-merging rivals' stock prices when the merger is procompetitive (reflecting the reduced likelihood that the merger will face the more efficient competitor in the future)
by similar economic logic, events that make an anticompetitive merger more likely to occur should result in increase non-merging rivals' stock prices (who will benefit from higher market prices) while events that make an anticompetitive merger less likely should decrease non-merging rivals' stock prices.

The DOJ complaint clearly stakes out its position that the merger will be anticompetitive, and result in higher market prices. Paragraph 36 of the DOJ's complaint focuses upon potential post-merger coordination:

The substantial increase in concentration that would result from this merger, and the reduction in the number of nationwide providers from four to three, likely will lead to lessened competition due to an enhanced risk of anticompetitive coordination. … Any anti competitive coordination at a national level would result in higher nationwide prices (or other nationwide harm) by the remaining national providers, Verizon, Sprint, and the merged entity. Such harm would affect consumers all across the nation, including those in rural areas with limited T-Mobile presence.

Paragraph 37 of the DOJ complaint turns to unilateral effects:

The proposed merger likely would lessen competition through elimination of head-to-head competition between AT&T and T-Mobile. … The proposed merger would, therefore, likely eliminate important competition between AT&T and T-Mobile.

If the DOJ's allegations are correct, one would expect the market price for prominent non-merging rivals such as Sprint to fall upon today's announcement that the DOJ will challenge the merger. This is because the announcement decreases the likelihood that an anticompetitive merger will occur, and thus deprives the opportunity for non-merging rivals to enjoy the increased market prices and margins that would follow from post-merger collusion or unilateral price increases.

The NY Times Dealbook headline suggests otherwise: "Sprint Shares Surge on AT&T Setback." Geoff highlighted several of the DOJ's claims in the report. As the case unfolds, I think an important question to ask is how many of those allegations are consistent with the following data showing the market reactions of Sprint and Clearwire stock prices today. I've included Clearwire both because Sprint owns a majority share in it and because of its recent announcement of plans to enter the 4G LTE space.

I've not run a full-blown event study here, obviously.  But the positive jump for Sprint (Blue Line) & Clearwire (Green Line) today in response to the announcement is hard to miss.  How many of the statements in the DOJ complaint, press release and analysis are consistent with this market reaction?  If the post-merger market would be less competitive than the status quo, as the DOJ complaint hypothesizes, why would the market reward Sprint and Clearwire for an increased likelihood of facing greater competition in the future?  The simplest alternative hypothesis is that the merger is likely procompetitive and rivals are enjoying a premium for the increased likelihood that they will avoid more intense competition in the future.  Is there a reason here to reject that simple hypothesis?  Will the market reaction induce the DOJ to revisit its priors?

Let me say something good about DOJ's AT&T/T-Mobile decision …

I can't help but think that there might be  a big advantage of having the AT&T-T-Mobile merger go to court.  For once, the high-profile action everyone pays attention to will occur in an antitrust forum where the decision criterion is the effects of the merger on consumer welfare, period.   Regardless of what one thinks about the merger, it's nice to see that we'll finally have a knock-down, drag-out fight based on whether a big telecommunications merger harms consumers and competition.  That's the antitrust standard the Department of Justice has to satisfy in order to prevent the merger. 

This will be a refreshing change from the Federal Communications Commission's "public interest" standard, which allows the commission to object on grounds other than consumer welfare and demand all manner of concessions that have nothing to do with remedying anticompetitive effects of a deal. Case in point: Comcast must now offer broadband service for $9.95 per month to low-income households as a condition for getting approval to buy 51 percent of NBCUniversal. Now, I'm all for seeing low-income households get access to broadband, but subsidizing one subset of customers has little to do with mitigating any possible anticompetitive effects of allowing a cable company to own NBCUniversal. As FCC Commissioners McDowell and Baker said in their statement on that transaction, "Any proposed remedies should be narrow and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes." 

In short, if AT&T wins in court, the FCC should approve the merger promptly without additional conditions.

A couple of quick thoughts on the DOJ's filing to block AT&T/T-Mobile

[Cross posted at Truthonthemarket]

As Josh noted, the DOJ filed a complaint today to block the merger. I'm sure we'll have much, much more to say on the topic, but here are a few things that jump out at me from perusing the complaint:

The DOJ distinguishes between the business ("Enterprise") market and the consumer market. This is actually a good play on their part, on the one hand, because it is more sensible to claim a national market for business customers who may be purchasing plans for widely-geographically-dispersed employees. I would question how common this actually is, however, given that, I'm sure, most businesses that buy group cell plans are not IBM but are instead pretty small and pretty local, but still, it's a good ploy.
But it has one significant problem: The DOJ also seems to be stressing a coordinated effects story, making T-Mobile out to be a disruptive maverick disciplining the bigger carriers. But–and this is, of course an empirical matter I will have to look in to–I highly doubt that T-Mobile plays anything like this role in the Enterprise market, at least for those enterprises that fit the DOJ's overly-broad description. In fact, the DOJ admits as much in para. 43 of its Complaint. Of course, the DOJ claims this was all about to change, but that's not a very convincing story coupled with the fact that DT, T-Mobile's parent, was reducing its investment in the company anyway. The reality is that Enterprise was not a key part of T-Mobile's business model–if it occupied any cognizable part of it at all– and it can hardly be considered a maverick in a market in which it doesn't actually operate.
On coordinated effects, I think the claim that T-Mobile is a maverick is pretty easily refuted, and not only in the Enterprise realm. As Josh has pointed out in his Congressional testimony, a maverick is a term of art in antitrust, and it's just not enough that a firm may be offering products at a lower price–there is nothing "maverick-y" about a firm that offers a different, less valuable product at a lower price. I have seen no evidence to suggest that T-Mobile offered the kind of pricing constraint on AT&T that would be required to make it out to be a maverick.
Meanwhile, I know this is just a complaint and even post-Twombly pleading standards are lower than standards of proof, but the DOJ does seem t make a lot out of its HHI numbers. In part this is a function of its adoption of a national relevant geographic market. But (as noted above even for most Enterprise customers) this is just absurd. As the FCC itself has noted, consumers buy cell service where they "live, work and travel." For most everyone, this is local.
Meanwhile, even on a national level, the blithe dismissal of a whole range of competitors is untenable. MetroPCS, Cell South and many other companies have broad regional coverage (MetroPCS even has next-gen LTE service in something like 17 cities) and roaming agreements with each other and with the larger carriers that give them national coverage. Why they should be excluded from consideration is baffling. Moreover, Dish has just announced plans to build a national 4G network (take that, DOJ claim that entry is just impossible here!). And perhaps most important the real competition here is not for mobile telephone service. The merger is about broadband. Mobile is one way of getting broadband. So is cable and DSL and WiMax, etc. That market includes such insignificant competitors as Time Warner, Comcast and Cox. Calling this a 4 to 3 merger strains credulity, particularly under the new merger guidelines.
Moreover, the DOJ already said as much! In its letter to the FCC on the FCC's National Broadband Plan the DOJ says:

Ultimately what matters for any given consumer is the set of broadband offerings available to that consumer, including their technical characteristics and the commercial terms and conditions on which they are offered. Competitive conditions vary considerably for consumers in different geographic locales.

The DOJ also said this, in the same letter:

[W]ith differentiated products subject to large economies of scale (relative to the size of the market), the Department does not expect to see a large number of suppliers. . . . [Rather, the DOJ cautions the FCC agains] striving for broadband markets that look like textbook markets of perfect competition, with many price-taking firms. That market structure is unsuitable for the provision of broadband services.

Quite the different tune, now that it's the DOJ's turn to spring into action rather than simply admonish the antitrust activities of a sister agency!

I'm sure there is lots more, but I must say I'm really surprised and disappointed by this filing. Effective, efficient provision of mobile broadband service is a complicated business. It is severely hampered by constraints of the government's own doing — both in terms of the government's failure to make available spectrum to enable companies to build out large-scale broadband networks, and in local governments' continued intransigence in permitting new cell towers and even co-location of cell sites on existing towers that would relieve some of the infuriating congestion we now experience.

This decision by the DOJ is an ill-conceived assault on innovation and progress in what may be the one shining segment of our bedraggled economy.

Gerald Faulhaber on the economics of net neutrality

On the podcast this week, Gerald Faulhaber, Professor Emeritus at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Law School, discusses his new paper in Communications & Convergence Review entitled Economics of Net Neutrality: A Review. Faulhaber delves into the network neutrality debate noting that consumers do not want complete neutrality since they approve of ISPs blocking content such as child pornography or malware. He explains that there is little evidence that violations of net neutrality have actually occurred, so that consumers today getting as much neutrality as they want. Faulhaber submits that implementing prophylactic regulations will only stifle innovation and encourage rent seeking.

Related Links


Economics of Net Neutrality: A Review , by Faulhaber
"FCC makes Net neutrality rules official", cnet.com
"Getting a Fix on Network Neutrality", knowledge@wharton

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we'd like to ask you to comment at the webpage for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

What's in a Pseudo-name? Privacy, Free Expression & Real Names on Google+ & Facebook

Republished from 

Privacy advocates are attacking Google again, this time for requiring that field-testers of its new, invite-only Google+ social network use "the names they commonly go by in the real world." After initially suspending Google+ accounts flagged as pseudonymous, Google has clarified that such users will be given four days to add their real names to their profiles. Users who don't like the policy can export all data they've put into Google+ and leave.

Cyber-sociologist Danah Boyd  "an authoritarian assertion of power … [by] privileged white Americans … over vulnerable people [like] abuse survivors, activists, LGBT people, women, and young people." In 2003, she denounced the "Fakester genocide" perpetrated by Friendster, the first major "real name" social network. Facebook later faced similar criticism from her and others for its purge of "Fakebookers" – those using fake names on the popular social network.

Boyd and others are right that anonymity can be "a shield from the tyranny of the majority," as the U.S. Supreme Court has said while striking down laws requiring speakers to identify themselves. But, like the rest of the First Amendment, the right to anonymous speech limits government, not private actors. In other words, while the First Amendment bars government from forcing us to identify ourselves, those who sign up for Google+ must play by Google's rules.

Boyd wants to regulate social-media giants as public utilities, but – unlike government bans – we can opt out of these services. Google and Facebook merely offer trusted communities that compete with sites like Twitter, where pseudonyms thrive alongside real names. With over 200 million users, Twitter has met the very demand Boyd cites –but she's not satisfied.

As a gay activist myself, I'm sympathetic to her privacy concerns. But, as much as I respect Boyd, I find her obsession with "privilege" unhelpful. The engineers who design new social-networking tools may indeed tend to under-value the concerns of particularly privacy-sensitive users or groups. But their critics under-value authenticity's benefits even more – or simply refuse to acknowledge that privacy is in tension with civility and usability, among other values.

We are more civil when those around us know who we are, and Google+ aims to "make connecting with people on the web more like connecting with people in the real world." When we interact regularly, we hold each other accountable through the same "reputation markets" that discipline companies. We don't shout obscenities or slurs in quiet restaurants or "spam" other patrons with useless product offers. In general, the more users disguise themselves with aliases, the less responsible they feel for their own actions – and the more spam, incivility, hatred, and outright defamation will reign online.

For some, the problem isn't so much privacy as "regimentation." Boyd even refuses to capitalize her name – for . But all social interaction rests on conventions like capitalization of proper names, which make even unique and exotic names like mine, Szoka, "usable" in print.

We navigate real-world interaction by putting faces to names. A "real name" social network allows us to connect with, and keep up with, each other much the same way: through common names (orpseudonyms – you can list both on Google+). The more work we have to do to map online identities to real life, as on Twitter, the less useful the site is as a map of the real world. "Wait, who's PreciousPony1987, again?"

Common names are the most basic structure of social interaction, and the key to the usability of Facebook and Google+. Expression can certainly suffer if users lack control over content they share. My gay friends and I might well use Facebook Pages (even) more if we could limit visibility of our interest in sensitive subjects. If Facebook doesn't keep evolving, some might switch to Google+, which doesn't allow sharing of interests ("Sparks") at all. Personally, I hope they'll both find a happy balance between sharing and privacy; between usability and empowerment.

At worst, pseudonyms shield trolls, bullies, and stalkers. At best, for most who use them, they're a poor proxy for what users really want: easy control over who sees which aspects of their identity. Facebook has developed tools that allow users to decide who can see which update, photo, etc. It's up to users to take the time to configure such lists and choose an appropriate audience for the things they share.

Such sorting is optional on Facebook, but unavoidable on Google+: When one user "connects" with another, sharing content with them requires adding them to a "Circle." Even better for privacy-worriers is the fact that, on Google+, just because someone adds you to his or her "Circle" doesn't mean you have to reciprocate, meaning there's less inadvertent sharing.

In short, technology is increasingly empowering users to make privacy choices for themselves. Reputational pressure and competition should keep both Google+ and Facebook working to make these privacy controls more useful. The one threat that privacy controls can't manage is government snooping.

Pseudonyms are valuable for dissent – in Egypt, China, colonial America, and for whistleblowers inside corporations and labour unions. Better legal protections would help to protect our rights by ensuring that courts weigh legitimate demands of law enforcement with user privacy before granting access to private content. But, ultimately, companies have little ability to resist government demands for user data – so why lull users into the false security pseudonyms can create?

In general, as with most "privacy" debates, the "real name" wars can't be reduced to "fundamental rights" or "power." Ultimately, users are best served by competing services continually innovating to find the right balance of competing interests. Google+ and Facebook's answer to privacy-sensitive users is right, however harsh it sounds: "This isn't the right social network for your particular needs." Twitter is just one of many platforms available for those who feel they need online pseudonyms, with niche services like BlackPlanet and Gay.com catering to minority users.

Fortunately for Boyd, Twitter is an open platform, which she and others could extend to offer more of the functionality of Facebook and Google+. But no service can be all things to all people. This is the cardinal rule of usability for all users, from the most "privileged" to the most "vulnerable."