AT&T与时代华纳合并或将损害消费者利益

鉴于AT&T与时代华纳的合并交易已经被这两家公司正式批准，监管审查——包括参议院确认听证会（在付费专区）——很快就将开始，并且预计会延续至明年相当长一段时间。政府官员和国会议员将详细审查这笔交易有可能对客户产生的诸多影响，但他们的主要关切很可能是，它是否会扭曲或者限制客户访问那些经由AT&T旗下网络传输的内容。

这笔交易对消费者构成的风险是显而易见的。继其收购DirecTV后，AT&T已然成为美国最大的付费电视运营商。它也是第二大无线数据提供商和第三大宽带提供商。这意味着，在消费者跨多个平台使用的带宽中，AT&T控制着相当大比重。收购一家类似时代华纳这种量级的内容提供商，将使得AT&T有足够的动力让自己的内容比竞争对手更快速地传输，或者更容易获得。

长期奉行的公共承运人(common carrier)法律，以及最近确定的网络中立性规则(net neutrality)，均限制网络拥有者从事这种“自我交易”(self-dealing)。但最近的一些市场创新不断冲击这种限制，进而使得这笔交易看起来更成问题。

最典型的例子莫过于所谓的“零率”方案。在这类方案中，移动网络区别对待各类数据。诸如德国电信的Binge On和AT&T的Sponsored Data这类计划，允许客户访问视频、音乐或其他内容，但由此产生的流量并不会扣减客户的移动数据套餐。

批评者称，这些计划使得消费者更有可能访问老牌大公司提供的内容，从而威胁到创新和信息自由。尽管相互捆绑在一起的提供商苦口婆心地解释为什么这些方案并不违反网络中立精神，但真正重要的是，他们这样做完全符合法律条文。

尽管德国电信承受了相当大一部分指责（以及广大消费者的热情），但更应该被指责的，其实是AT&T的方案。这是因为，Binge On并没有向Netflix等参与公司收取费用，而Sponsored Data则反其道而行之。参与该方案的内容提供商包括Beats Music、Netflix和亚马逊Prime Video。

最后两家公司是时代华纳旗下HBO频道的直接竞争对手，由此引出一个大问题：在合并后的AT&T和时代华纳公司中，这套方案将如何运行？这家新公司是否会对自己的内容采取“零率”政策？抑或，它将终止这套方案，从而使得AT&T的手机客户在访问所有非时代华纳的内容时，不得不支付更高昂的代价？这些情况足以敲响监管警钟。

有线电视领域不存在直接等同于“零率”的政策，但有线付费电视、在线流媒体和内容生产商之间复杂且不断演变的关系，给消费者构成了其他潜在风险。近几年最接近AT&T-时代华纳的合并交易，或许是康卡斯特对NBC环球实施的收购（这笔交易已于2011年完成）。当时，监管机构直言不讳地表达了他们的关切：这样一家由电信公司和内容公司组成的巨无霸，可能会扼杀竞争者，比如当时刚刚诞生的在线流媒体公司Hulu。

联邦通信委员会(FCC)提出的条件包括，康卡斯特必须把内容授权给竞争对手；不得持有Hulu的股权；建立一项低成本宽带服务；播放更多的本地和西班牙语节目。康卡斯特显然没有完全遵从其中许多要求。或许正是出于这种原因，该公司随后对时代华纳有限公司（一家独立于时代华纳的实体）实施的收购遭到监管机构断然拒绝。FCC主席汤姆·惠勒总结称，这笔交易“将对竞争和创新，包括在线视频提供商接触和服务消费者的能力，构成一种不可接受的风险。”

AT&T-时代华纳的合并交易将诱发类似的担忧。传输时代华纳竞争对手拥有的电视节目时，AT&T也许会向其宽带用户提供较低品质的视频流。这将是非法的，但它完全可以暗中进行。比如，FCC于2007年发现，在对等网络(P2P)上，康卡斯特对用户的带宽实施了不当限制——该公司可能认为，这些P2P网络与它的有线电视节目包存在竞争关系。

但AT&T不是康卡斯特。该公司在消费者关系方面的记录总体上更加清白，这应该会帮助他们通过监管审查。去年，AT&T对DirectTV展开的收购顺利获批，后者的橄榄球节目《NFL Sunday Ticket》是这笔交易的一大吸引力。但监管部门的批文仍然警告称，合并后的公司不能对特定内容或数据实施“与使用情况挂钩的歧视性津贴。”

在未来几个月中，AT&T必须证明，他们已经不折不扣地遵守了这些承诺，而且能够持续遵守——哪怕其中涉及更多他们自己的内容。（财富中文网）

译者：Kevin

With the AT&T-Time Warner merger officially approved by the companies, regulatory review—including confirmed Senate hearings (paywall)—will begin soon, and is expected to stretch on for much of next year. Officials and lawmakers will be looking at many ways the deal could affect customers, but a huge portion of their attention is likely to be on how it could skew or limit access to content over AT&T-owned networks.

The deal’s risk to consumers is clear. Following its acquisition of DirecTV, AT&T is the largest pay-TV operator in the US. It is also the second-largest wireless data provider and the third-largest broadband provider. That means AT&T controls a huge proportion of the bandwidth consumers use across multiple platforms. Buying a content producer like Time Warner would give it a big motive to make its own content faster or more accessible than competitors’.

Both longstanding common carrier laws and more recent net neutrality rules restrict that kind of self-dealing by network owners. But some recent market innovations have pushed against those limits, potentially making the deal look more problematic.

The prime example here is the advent of what are known as ‘zero-rating’ programs, in which mobile networks treat some data differently than others. Plans like T-Mobile’s Binge On and AT&T’s Sponsored Data allow customers to access video, music, or other content without it counting against their mobile data caps.

Critics have said the plans threaten innovation and freedom of information by making consumers more likely to access content from established, larger players. Providers have tied themselves in knots explaining why these programs don’t violate the spirit of net neutrality, but what really matters is that they’re within the letter of the law.

Though T-Mobile caught the brunt of such criticism (along with general consumer enthusiasm for the plan), it arguably applies even more to AT&T’s program. That’s because while Binge On doesn’t charge companies like Netflix to participate, AT&T’s Sponsored Data program does. Participating content providers have included Beats Music, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video.

Those last two compete directly with Time Warner properties like HBO, raising big questions about how the program would work in a combined AT&T-Time Warner. Would the new company zero-rate its own content by default? Or perhaps end the program, and make all non-Time Warner content more expensive for AT&T mobile customers to access? Those scenarios could ring major regulatory alarm bells.

There is no direct equivalent to zero-rating in cable television, but the complex and evolving market relationships between paid cable, online streaming, and content producers present other potential risks to consumers. Probably the closest recent parallel to the AT&T-Time Warner deal was the acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast, completed in 2011. At the time, regulators were vocal in their concerns that such a large combined telecom and content company could stifle competition, including from then-new online streaming companies like Hulu.

Conditions imposed by the FCC included that Comcast license content to competitors, step back from a stake in Hulu, establish a low-cost broadband service, and air more local and Spanish-language programming. Comcast’s apparent failure to fully comply with many of those requirements may have contributed to the regulatory rejection of its subsequent bid to take over Time Warner Cable (a separate entity from Time Warner). FCC chairman Tom Wheeler concluded that that deal “would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.”

AT&T-Time Warner will raise similar concerns. AT&T might be tempted to give its broadband customers lower-quality streams of, say, television programs owned by Time Warner competitors. That would be illegal, but it can and has been done clandestinely. For instance, Comcast was found by the FCC in 2007 to have improperly restricted the bandwidth of users on peer-to-peer networks, which could have been considered competitive with its cable packages.

But AT&T isn’t Comcast, and their generally cleaner record with consumers should help them with regulators. They succeeded in their last go-round, winning approval last year of the acquisition of DirectTV, whose NFL Sunday Ticket programming was a major draw in the deal. But in their approval, regulators still warned the combined company not to impose “discriminatory usage-based allowances” on certain content or data.

In the coming months, AT&T will have to prove they’ve kept that promise, and can keep on keeping it, even with much more of their own content in play.