Marketplace Morning Report’s Chris Farrell is excited about AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile for what it means for the U.S. economy. From “The positive side of the AT&T-T-Mobile merger“:

CEOs for the past couple of years have been scared. They’ve been in a survival mode. Well, they’re now leaving the bunker. They’re willing to take a risk; they’re going to buy a business, they’re going to expand. And so, the famous phrase of John Maynard Keynes: Animal spirits of capitalism, at least in the executive suite, are being unleashed.

Extra points to Farrell for invoking Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”: “I think we’re seeing more growth, I think we’re seeing more opportunity. So overall, job creation. But if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, job losses.”

The Hill also blogs today on the predictable opposition for reactionary “consumer groups,” with a good response from AT&T. From “Groups say AT&T merger is job killer“:

“We have a metric that every billion dollars results in 7,000 new jobs, so I think that’s bringing new jobs to the economy, bringing new jobs to the country, extending a critical infrastructure to the country, and I think it’s good for the overall economy,” AT&T executive Ralph de la Vega said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday.

“We have said we are going to invest an additional $8 billion — $8 billion — in infrastructure to facilitate us making this merger work and extending LTE to 95 percent of the population,” he said.

Block efficiency, innovation and investment, and jobs will wither away.

• AT&T’s March 20 news release, “AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA From Deutsche Telekom“
• More at the MobilizeEverything site.

Companies and associations released statements following the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Comcast v. FCC, which held that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority in attempting to regulate that network management practices of broadband providers.

CTIA – The Wireless Association, a statement from President and CEO Steve Largent: 

Today’s unanimous and very thorough opinion in the Comcast case makes clear that the FCC needs to focus on the important task of making the promise of the National Broadband Plan a reality by spurring investment, innovation and job growth, and turn away from calls to impose restrictive regulations on broadband providers and the Internet ecosystem. We look forward to working with the FCC Chairman and Commissioners on these efforts, which are vital to U.S. leadership in the broadband age. This decision from the Court of Appeals suggests that it is time to turn away from murky regulatory debates and focus on connecting all Americans and leading the world in broadband.

Verizon statement, Randal S. Milch, executive vice president and general counsel:

Today’s decision in Comcast vs. FCC will have no impact on the experience of Internet users.  Consumers are in the driver’s seat in today’s market-driven Internet ecosystem, and their interests remain fully protected.  The court recognized that the FCC does have Title I ancillary authority over Internet access.  In this case, the FCC simply failed to link its actions to its statutory responsibilities.  The FCC’s authority supplements the various other consumer protection and competition laws that apply to all members of the Internet ecosystem.\

Comcast statement, Sena Fitzmaurice, vice president of government communications:

We are gratified by the Court’s decision today to vacate the previous FCC’s order.  Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation. We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want.   Comcast remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and we will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.

AT&T statement, Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs:

AT&T made a commitment to abide by the FCC’s Open Internet Principles when they were first formulated in 2005, and we will continue to do so. Those facts have not been changed by today’s action by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. AT&T supports an open Internet. That is what our customers count on us to deliver, and we will not disappoint them. (continue reading…)

Politico, “Next front: Selling what Congress did:

Starting Monday, a coalition of progressive groups — from labor unions to health care advocates — will sink millions of dollars into television advertising and sponsor grass-roots events in swing House districts thanking Democrats for passing the law and highlighting its importance for average Americans.

“We’re going to let our friends know we are going to be there for them,” said AFSCME President Gerald McEntee. “We expect in three months, the American people will understand the bill and they will be happy and satisfied with it.”

More on Rep. Henry Waxman demanding companies explain their accounting charges for health care, from Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. prosecutor, at National Review’s The Corner, “Thugocracy Whipsaws Capitalism“:

I worked for many years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in whose backyard was Wall Street.

If a company like AT&T failed to make a legally mandated restatement of its financial position while continuing to participate in the capital markets, it would be investigated and the responsible management officials would likely find themselves prosecuted while the SEC, concurrently, went after the company and its officials in civil enforcement suits. There are prosecutors and investigators who would salivate at the prospect of doing such a career-making case.

If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy.

If history is any guide, we’ll soon see inventive class action lawyers join in the harassment, suing companies that make the accounting charges.

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is calling major corporate executives to a hearing to challenge the accounting charges their companies have made in response to passage of the health care legislation. (Bloomberg, “AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs.”)

From the committee’s homepage:

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on April 21, 2010, regarding claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company’s ability to provide health insurance to their employees. These assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.

They’re not “claims,” they are financial and accounting decisions the companies are required by law to make and report. President John Engler of the National Association of Manufacturers addressed the company charges in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Friday. Engler:

There was a suggestion, “Oh, these companies are overstating this, they’re making it up.” But, remember, the CEO and the CFO sign …under Sarbanes-Oxley under penalty of law the accuracy of the statements. They cannot make this up. Cannot!

The Administration originally tried to spin the charges as hyped or “irresponsible,” but the White House has obviously decided to change its approach. White House economic advisor Valerie Jarrett was just on ABC’s “This Week,” and she responded to the questions about the company charges as serious ones warranting a serious response.

Jarrett argued the companies will benefit more in the big picture, long run, from the health care legislation even with the charge offs. And, she continued, the White House has talked to the Business Roundtable during the drafting of the health care legislation, and agreed with the group’s request to delay parts of the law’s effects until 2013. So the White House now, after a little hemming and hawing, clearly regards the companies’ actions and businesses’ objections as legitimate.

If there’s anything that’s suspect, it’s the always hyperpoliticized accusations of the Oversight and Investigations panel. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized Saturday in “The ObamaCare Writedown“:

Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don’t like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

This Saturday is one of the big annual cultural days in Washington, D.,C., the National Book Festival on the Mall. It’s an event sponsored by the Library of Congress but paid for by private sponsors. (AT&T, for example, supports the children’s events.)

There’s a long, long list of authors speaking. We’ll be trying to catch Mark Kurlansky, who has written the engaging, commodity-related history books, “Cod” and “Salt.” (Hoping he’ll do “Zinc” and “Sisal,” too.)

Here’s the official poster, which prominently displays familiar images from “Alice in Wonderland.” Hope it’s not a pre-1985 version, banned by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

More seriously, one of our goals of walking through the exhibits tomorrow is to see whether there’s any reference to the CPSIA’s outlawing of children’s books that could conceivably, possibly, potentially have minute but not-dangerous amounts of lead in their inks or other components.

Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com today catches us up on the book-related damage from the CPSIA, noting that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has yet to issue guidance for pre-1985 books. He quotes from a Publisher’s Weekly article:

Thom Barthelmess, president of the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the American Library Association, says most librarians are waiting to see what happens. “We’re hoping for a happy resolution, so our collections aren’t decimated,” he says. If the CPSC’s ruling results in libraries needing to pull books from shelves, “there would be huge ramifications,” he continues. “If we lose a lot of titles printed before 1986, many of which are irreplaceable, it would have a huge impact on the nature of our collections.”

If we had to guess, it would be that few people — if anyone — participating in the National Book Festival will be familiar with the CPSIA’s book banning. Hope to be proved wrong.

Responses to FCC Chairman Genachowski’s speech proposing a process to arrive at federal “net neutrality” regulations.

The Washington Post reports, “AT&T Says Keep Net Neutrality Rules Off Wireless“:

In response to the announcement, AT&T officials said they would support broadly the principles outlined by Genachowski for their wireline business. They don’t think the rules should apply to wireless.

“We are concerned, however, that the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America, wireless services,” Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president of external and legislative affairs, said in a statement.

From The Hill, “FCC chairman outlines net neutrality rules“:

Verizon Vice President of Regulatory Affairs David Young said the company supports an open Internet, but said placing formal rules over network operations could lead “to unintended consequences.”

“We certainly don’t want to see the Internet locked in stone as it is today,” he said. “The Internet needs to be free to continue to evolve.”

From CTIA — the Wireless Association, a statement from Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Chris Guttman-McCabe, excerpts:

As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy.

As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern ‘has to do with limited competition among service providers.’ This is at the core of our concerns. Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?

Note, as well, Guttman-McCabe’s comments on investment.

(continue reading…)