鑒于AT&T與時代華納的合并交易已經(jīng)被這兩家公司正式批準(zhǔn)，監(jiān)管審查——包括參議院確認(rèn)聽證會（在付費(fèi)專區(qū)）——很快就將開始，并且預(yù)計會延續(xù)至明年相當(dāng)長一段時間。政府官員和國會議員將詳細(xì)審查這筆交易有可能對客戶產(chǎn)生的諸多影響，但他們的主要關(guān)切很可能是，它是否會扭曲或者限制客戶訪問那些經(jīng)由AT&T旗下網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳輸?shù)膬?nèi)容。

這筆交易對消費(fèi)者構(gòu)成的風(fēng)險是顯而易見的。繼其收購DirecTV后，AT&T已然成為美國最大的付費(fèi)電視運(yùn)營商。它也是第二大無線數(shù)據(jù)提供商和第三大寬帶提供商。這意味著，在消費(fèi)者跨多個平臺使用的帶寬中，AT&T控制著相當(dāng)大比重。收購一家類似時代華納這種量級的內(nèi)容提供商，將使得AT&T有足夠的動力讓自己的內(nèi)容比競爭對手更快速地傳輸，或者更容易獲得。

長期奉行的公共承運(yùn)人(common carrier)法律，以及最近確定的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立性規(guī)則(net neutrality)，均限制網(wǎng)絡(luò)擁有者從事這種“自我交易”(self-dealing)。但最近的一些市場創(chuàng)新不斷沖擊這種限制，進(jìn)而使得這筆交易看起來更成問題。

最典型的例子莫過于所謂的“零率”方案。在這類方案中，移動網(wǎng)絡(luò)區(qū)別對待各類數(shù)據(jù)。諸如德國電信的Binge On和AT&T的Sponsored Data這類計劃，允許客戶訪問視頻、音樂或其他內(nèi)容，但由此產(chǎn)生的流量并不會扣減客戶的移動數(shù)據(jù)套餐。

批評者稱，這些計劃使得消費(fèi)者更有可能訪問老牌大公司提供的內(nèi)容，從而威脅到創(chuàng)新和信息自由。盡管相互捆綁在一起的提供商苦口婆心地解釋為什么這些方案并不違反網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立精神，但真正重要的是，他們這樣做完全符合法律條文。

盡管德國電信承受了相當(dāng)大一部分指責(zé)（以及廣大消費(fèi)者的熱情），但更應(yīng)該被指責(zé)的，其實是AT&T的方案。這是因為，Binge On并沒有向Netflix等參與公司收取費(fèi)用，而Sponsored Data則反其道而行之。參與該方案的內(nèi)容提供商包括Beats Music、Netflix和亞馬遜Prime Video。

最后兩家公司是時代華納旗下HBO頻道的直接競爭對手，由此引出一個大問題：在合并后的AT&T和時代華納公司中，這套方案將如何運(yùn)行？這家新公司是否會對自己的內(nèi)容采取“零率”政策？抑或，它將終止這套方案，從而使得AT&T的手機(jī)客戶在訪問所有非時代華納的內(nèi)容時，不得不支付更高昂的代價？這些情況足以敲響監(jiān)管警鐘。

有線電視領(lǐng)域不存在直接等同于“零率”的政策，但有線付費(fèi)電視、在線流媒體和內(nèi)容生產(chǎn)商之間復(fù)雜且不斷演變的關(guān)系，給消費(fèi)者構(gòu)成了其他潛在風(fēng)險。近幾年最接近AT&T-時代華納的合并交易，或許是康卡斯特對NBC環(huán)球?qū)嵤┑氖召彛ㄟ@筆交易已于2011年完成）。當(dāng)時，監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)直言不諱地表達(dá)了他們的關(guān)切：這樣一家由電信公司和內(nèi)容公司組成的巨無霸，可能會扼殺競爭者，比如當(dāng)時剛剛誕生的在線流媒體公司Hulu。

聯(lián)邦通信委員會(FCC)提出的條件包括，康卡斯特必須把內(nèi)容授權(quán)給競爭對手；不得持有Hulu的股權(quán)；建立一項低成本寬帶服務(wù)；播放更多的本地和西班牙語節(jié)目?？悼ㄋ固仫@然沒有完全遵從其中許多要求?；蛟S正是出于這種原因，該公司隨后對時代華納有限公司（一家獨(dú)立于時代華納的實體）實施的收購遭到監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)斷然拒絕。FCC主席湯姆·惠勒總結(jié)稱，這筆交易“將對競爭和創(chuàng)新，包括在線視頻提供商接觸和服務(wù)消費(fèi)者的能力，構(gòu)成一種不可接受的風(fēng)險。”

AT&T-時代華納的合并交易將誘發(fā)類似的擔(dān)憂。傳輸時代華納競爭對手擁有的電視節(jié)目時，AT&T也許會向其寬帶用戶提供較低品質(zhì)的視頻流。這將是非法的，但它完全可以暗中進(jìn)行。比如，F(xiàn)CC于2007年發(fā)現(xiàn)，在對等網(wǎng)絡(luò)(P2P)上，康卡斯特對用戶的帶寬實施了不當(dāng)限制——該公司可能認(rèn)為，這些P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)與它的有線電視節(jié)目包存在競爭關(guān)系。

但AT&T不是康卡斯特。該公司在消費(fèi)者關(guān)系方面的記錄總體上更加清白，這應(yīng)該會幫助他們通過監(jiān)管審查。去年，AT&T對DirectTV展開的收購順利獲批，后者的橄欖球節(jié)目《NFL Sunday Ticket》是這筆交易的一大吸引力。但監(jiān)管部門的批文仍然警告稱，合并后的公司不能對特定內(nèi)容或數(shù)據(jù)實施“與使用情況掛鉤的歧視性津貼。”

在未來幾個月中，AT&T必須證明，他們已經(jīng)不折不扣地遵守了這些承諾，而且能夠持續(xù)遵守——哪怕其中涉及更多他們自己的內(nèi)容。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：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.