APPEALS COURT TO EXPEDITE CHALLENGE TO AT&T-COMCAST MERGER
U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., put challenge by consumer groups to merger of AT&T Broadband and Comcast on its own version of “rocket docket,” issuing order late Mon. granting motion by Media Access Project (MAP) to expedite case. MAP, acting on behalf of Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union and Center for Digital Democracy, technically is challenging FCC, not companies themselves, in 2 separate but related cases. For purposes of efficiency, court has put 2 cases together in same docket. Court’s decision to expedite case doesn’t in any way go to heart of MAP’s arguments or whether they have merit, just that case warrants speedy attention.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
MAP is challenging FCC’s decision to approve merger. Commission gave go-ahead to companies on condition that combined new company divested itself of its interest in Time Warner Entertainment in 5-1/2 years (CD Nov 14 p1). Thrust of MAP’s argument is that merger, which would give new Comcast close to 30% of multichannel video program distribution (MVPD) market, is anticompetitive, will hurt consumers and stifle innovation and creativity in programming and on Internet. MAP also is challenging decision by FCC to block consumer groups from accessing Internet service provider agreement that companies reached with America Online.
FCC spokeswoman declined to comment, as did Comcast spokesman, except to say court’s order was routine and had been expected.
Court’s order set timetable for briefs, with first set from MAP and consumer groups jointly due Jan. 15, FCC response Feb. 18, and any parties granted status as intervenors in case, such as Comcast, by Feb. 25. Joint reply brief from MAP and others is due March 11 and final briefs March 25. In its order, court didn’t indicate when it would hear arguments, but given procedural schedule it laid out, they could begin as early as spring or summer.
MAP Pres. Andrew Schwartzman said he believed court decied to expedite case because “there will be potentially adverse consequences of a failure to decide it quickly.” Quick action also will benefit Comcast, Schwartzman said he believed, because speedy decision would minimize uncertainty surrounding merger. Schwartzman called decision “a modest tactical advantage” and said if judges “thought this [appeal] was just silly or something they were going to dispose of without a lot of attention, they wouldn’t afford this treatment.” Granting motion means court will have to adjust its own schedule for oral argument, “which they don’t do too lightly,” Schwartzman said.