Back in August, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the mobile division of Motorola, for a whopping $12.5 Billion. As with any large acquisition, the deal must be approved before it can go all the way through and be final.

Now, a consumer watchdog group wants European regulators to not approve the deal under the grounds that it is anticompetitive and a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

Depending on who you ask, the deal isn’t a monopoly at all. The company is acquiring just one smartphone manufacturer which also happens to give them access to their set top boxes and other hardware. On the other hand, it would allow them to directly control many aspects which is why the concern.

Via PCMag:

“The Internet is too important to allow an unregulated monopolist to dominate it,” John M. Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project, wrote to the EU’s competition commissioner, Joaquin Almunia.”

“Simpson argued that a combined Google and Motorola would “provide Google with unprecedented dominance in virtually all aspects of the mobile world—manufacturing, operating systems, search and advertising. It would be a virtually unstoppable juggernaut. We urge you to block the deal.”

Competition is quite fierce in the smartphone and TV market and the Motorola Mobility deal will allow Google to get a better “leg up” so to speak and have a bigger impact on the Android marketplace than just their operating system itself.

Do you think the Google/Motorola Mobility deal should be approved?

Consumer Group Wants Regulators To Not Approve Google, Motorola Deal is a post from: The Inquisitr

AT&T has recently claimed that a merger with T-Mobile would create upwards of 96,000 jobs, a statement that FCC Wireless Bureau leader Rick Kaplan casts doubts about.

According to Kaplan AT&T officials have done “almost nothing in response” to calls for proof regarding their jobs claim. In terms of what AT&T has promised they would only create 5,000 low-level call center jobs by returning them from offshore call centers to the United States.

A study by several advocacy groups with the endorsement of Sprint Wireless recently pointed out that almost all mergers have resulted in job cuts as company’s look to eliminate overlapping jobs while attempting to earn back the money they spent to make the merger a reality. In fact AT&T called for “synergies” when announcing the merger, a term that typically means cost-cutting measures will be taken, often in the form of job loss.

In the meantime the Department of Justice has sued AT&T to block the merger, arguing that it is anti-competitive while the FCC may also follow suit and reject the merger.

As Electronista points out:

“AT&T may have sabotaged its own case after an unintentionally unredacted FCC filing revealed an internal estimate that it only needs $3.8 billion to reach its 95 to 97 percent LTE coverage claims, not $39 billion and eliminating a major competitor.”

I can’t possible understand how eliminating one of the four largest wireless company’s in American can be good for customers. Do you believe the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is anti-competitive and bad for the cellular industry in general?

FCC Doesn’t Buy AT&T Claim That T-Mobile Merger Will Create Jobs is a post from: The Inquisitr

Google officials on Tuesday asked the U.S. judge overseeing the government’s lawsuit to stop the AT&T/T-Mobile merger to protect their confidential internal data in the case.

Google officials are worried that their “competitively sensitive” data related to internal products and launch plans could be exposed as information pertaining to AT&T and T-Mobile is released.

Google made their request in Washington, asking U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle to have the parties provide advanced notice to the company for any disclosures in court or to experts.

According to Google’s lawsuit intervention notice:

“Without such additional protection, Google and other non- parties could find their confidential information — such as Google’s business plans related to Android — in the hands of competitors (or their competitors’ consultants), or even in newspapers, without having had prior notice of its disclosure.”

The lawsuit has been active since August 31 when the U.S. Justice Department sued AT&T and T-Mobile owners Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE). Officials say the two company’s would “substantially” reduce competition and seven states joined the lawsuit while agreeing that the merger would be anti-competitive in nature.

AT&T and T-Mobile have not commented about Google’s part in the lawsuit which doesn’t target their relationship and only asks for care in dealing with sensitive information.

Google Asks Judge In AT&T Merger Lawsuit To Protect “Sensitive Data” is a post from: The Inquisitr

The time frame of this could shift to 2011 depending on how long it takes for all the details to be worked out but be assured that when the Comcast purchase of NBC goes ahead the consumer is is going to get the short end of the stick – a very short stick.

Now to be honest when I first heard of the plan for Comcast to buy NBC my initial reaction was that it was an exceedingly stupid idea but that was pretty well the end of it. Then I was reading a post by Chez at Dues Ex Malcontent that pointed to a post by Josh Silvers at Huffington Post that took a look at this pending deal and didn’t like what he saw.

While he makes four major points in his argument as to why this isn’t a good idea, it is the middle two that should give anyone pause

• The Comcast-NBC behemoth would control several distribution platforms — a major television network, the largest cable company and the largest Internet service provider. The merged company will have strong incentives and the market power to discriminate in granting access to its wealth of programming. It will have the incentive and market power to enforce anticompetitive “bundling” and price-gouge other cable companies, especially smaller cable companies.
• As the largest cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast will have the motive to move NBC’s video content behind a pay wall that will mean higher costs for consumers, and it would stunt the growth of the Internet as an alternative medium for video service. Placing video content behind a pay wall that is only available to Comcast cable customers is a classic example of “anticompetitive bundling.” That is, consumers who want Internet access to NBC programming will be forced to buy the bundle of cable and Internet.

The idea that one company would have that much control over the complete chain of entertainment – from creation to distribution to access is worrisome in my opinion.

There are those that will argue though that old media companies like NBC are a dying breed and that by Comcast buying them all that is happening is the extending of the inevitable in which case Comcast would come to regret the move. One good friend suggests that the change that is coming to the whole entertainment business within the next five to ten years will basically nullify any dangers that this kind of deal might bring to the consumer.

My point and I still think this is that regardless of whether the media industry changes radically in that time frame it doesn’t change the fact that there is a period of time where a company with the kind of control that Comcast will have could have an extremely negative impact on the consumer and possibly technology.

However there is always the chance of an upside to this as my friend Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins pointed out to me when we chatted about this

Actually, it could be a good thing.

I’d hafta look at all the P&L sheets, but if NBC really tanks big time soon, and Comcast is highly vested in it, it could lead the the death of the company.

or a severe devaluation similar to the AOL Time Warner thing.

Gotta love the optimist I suppose but I am still left with a really bad feeling that nothing good is going to come out of this deal.

What do you think? Does this deal seem like an exceedingly bad idea to you and why aren’t more people talking about it and the potential fallout from it?

2010 could be the biggest disaster in the making for consumers and media is a post from: The Inquisitr

Now before you get all in an uproar this is pure and unadulterated rumour and speculation being talked about in the blogosphere. The idea that is considering the financial problems that the N.Y. Times is in that this would be a good time for Google to pick up the company. I first heard this today in a post by Susan Mernit; who thinks it is a good idea.

In her post today Susan pointed to an older post she had written back in 2006 where the idea of Google buying up the Old Grey Lady was first being talked about. Her point in this post is that here we are in 2009 and this idea is popping again. Her main reference point is the DealScape blog where Gerald Murphy writes about the idea

For one, John Ellis at RealClear Markets said earlier this year the Sulzbergers would run into the arms of Google to avoid any takeover from Rupert Murdoch, who reportedly covets the Times. Meanwhile, cash-flush Google reportedly would be able to scoop up the Times, which includes prime New York real estate, for $4 billion or possibly less in this declining market. Ellis argues the addition would make sense for Google because it would be able to "make money repurposing the cultural and culinary coverage, to pick just two categories, of the New York Times, across both its Internet and mobile platforms."

Now as much as the very idea of this happening is probably giving the social media mavens a woodie of their lifetimes I just don’t foresee this happening anytime soon. As Murphy points out as well in his post the Times owners – the Sulzberger family – will do; and borrow, anything they possibly can to keep the paper in family control.

About the only thing that could even possibly change the scales in the favour of anybody would be if Murdoch made a run for the Grey Lady. If that was to happen I think the Sulzberger family would be open to anything – even being bought up by Google.

But I wouldn’t place any bets on it happening.

Could Google be the N.Y. Times salvation? is a post from: The Inquisitr