After no small amount of anticipation, it’s official: AT&T has announced that it’s acquiring Time Warner for the equivalent of $85.4 billion in cash and stock. The move gives one of the US’ largest telecoms control over some of the biggest names in movies and TV, including HBO, Turner and Warner Bros. That includes rights to broadcast MLB, NBA and NCAA March Madness games, we’d add. If you ask AT&T, this is a "perfect match" that mates top-tier content with a ton of distribution points. It can easily deliver quality shows over the internet (especially on mobile), conventional TV or in theaters. AT&T won’t have to jump through hoops to license material for playback on your platform of choice, and it can create original material just for a specific medium — say, bite-sized videos for your phone.
It should also help the telecom explore "new advertising options" to help pay for that material.
The deal is an ambitious one, and there are no guarantees that it’ll close by the end of 2017 as AT&T expects. While the boards of both companies are unanimously in favor of the merger, regulators are likely to take a very, very close look at this purchase for hints of unfair competition. Remember how regulators scuttled AT&T’s attempted buyout of T-Mobile? Just because Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal went through doesn’t mean that AT&T’s purchase is a lock. Officials will want to be sure that AT&T doesn’t give itself anti-competitive advantages, such as making life difficult for rival providers wanting access to its channels. It may have to make concessions to guarantee that the takeover goes through. When both Senator Al Frankenand presidential candidate Donald Trump are worried, you know it won’t be an easy process.
It doesn’t take much to see why AT&T would be willing to take the risk, though. The firm likely doesn’t want to take the chance of being left behind by the likes of Comcast, and owning Time Warner would give it an edge over other large phone carriers that have to license premium video, if they offer a video service at all. This helps it prepare for a future where internet streams dominate the media landscape. As it stands, AT&T appears confident that it won’t run into legal trouble. Unofficial reports suggest that it would pay Time Warner $500 million if the deal goes south, which is a pittance compared to the billions it paid when the T-Mobile merger fell apart.
Daniel Huang, co-founder of Mophie*, wants to change the way that we think about transport. That’s why he quit the company that made him famous to start Immotor in April of 2016. Now, Huang is on a mission to "define the future of personal transportation." The result is the Immotor Go, a battery-powered foldaway scooter that’s designed to travel for up to 30km on a single charge.
We’ve seen plenty of other pedestrian-level electric transports, from ZBoard’s electric skateboard through to whatever the hell we’re calling Hoverboards these days. But Immotor is hoping that its battery tech savvy and almost Tesla-like approach to building a vehicle will give it an edge. For instance, the company says that the Go will receive periodic software updates that’ll bring future upgrades to the vehicle whenever you buy one. In addition, the unit packs intelligent GPS, device tracking, cruise control and the ability to autonomously follow you around.
Rounding out the spec list is Immotor’s "safe and functional Super Battery," which it promises won’t combust like so many other devices over the last few years. The company claims that its proprietary power cells come with a customized operating system that’ll keep the cells balanced and regulate efficient power draw. In addition, these batteries can be puled out and used as a standard power pack for any number of consumer devices like hairdryers and laptops. At least, so long as you’ve got the necessary adapters.
The company also offered up a credibility-straining claim that its Super Batteries won’t explode, even when they’ve been punctured. When I pushed them for more explanation, the response could be boiled down to two points: firstly, the units are built with a thick metal casing that’ll make it difficult for anyone to damage one by accident, and second because they just won’t, okay, so stop being such a narc. Then again, Huang was CEO of Mophie for a decade and has been joined in his new firm by Christian Sheder, a former executive at XPal Power. So they’re going to get an inch-worth of trust to demonstrate how these claims will operate out in the real world.
The Go itself has two slots inside its neck-based battery compartment that enables users to swap in one or two of the 99W cells. With one installed, the device has an ultimate range of around 15km, while two cells will effectively double that journey time. The scooter has two modes: one that prioritizes range over speed and a power assist setting that’ll boost the power when you’re carrying heavy loads. Oh, and so long as it’s folded, Immotor claims that it’s perfectly safe to take onto an airplane. The vehicle’s top speed is 30km, although that will inevitably have an effect on your overall range.
There’s also a series of features just for millennials, including the ability to charge your phone from a USB port in the handlebar. You can even use a button on one of the handles to activate the camera on your smartphone should you want to snap images as you ride. Each Go also comes with an always-on link to the company’s customer service team, which should help with tracking if your ride goes missing and any technical issues.
It all sounds like the sort of thing a hip urban commuter would love to zoom around with, but you can’t buy one just yet. Instead, you’ll have to pledge some cash to Indiegogo and wait until March or April 2017 for your device to ship. Early birds can grab one of these for the tasty price of $399, while latecomers will have to stump up $599. For that, you’ll receive an Immotor Go with one 99W Super Battery and an AC adapter.
* Or, more accurately, the company that went on to buy Mophie, adopt its name and turn it into a battery case sensation.
In all my years playing video games, I didn’t think a title about building a subway system could be any fun. Well, publisher Playdigious found a way, thanks to a new game on Google Play called Mini Metro.
In Mini Metro, you are tasked with building subway systems in real locations around the world. Unlike a Bridge Constructor game, Mini Metro is extremely minimalistic. Essentially, your construction will look like an actual subway map you would see at a station, with the different colored lines and stations.Â
To start, you will be given a few stations that you need to connect. From there, more stations will pop up, plus more riders who need to get to varying stations. In order meet every rider’s needs, you must prepare the best routes and the resources you will need to complete an area. Should you invest in more cars for the growing amount of riders? Should you make a larger hub for the holding of passengers as they wait for a transfer train? All of these problems, and much more, are what await you in Mini Metro.
For a couple of pro tips, in order to know where riders need to go as they appear at the stations, notice what shape they are. Stations are labeled as shapes (circles, triangle, square, etc), and rider destinations are the corresponding shapes. I will say, your first run may end poorly, but after a few tries, I was able to unlock a few new levels. The game ends once a station is overcrowded, so be sure to manage your resources as you unlock them.
As I mentioned previously, you will be building subway systems in real world locations. The game starts you off in London, but once unlocked, you can create systems in New York City, San Francisco, and all across the globe.
The game is priced at $4.99, but I must stress what your money is getting you. There are no ads, all features are unlocked (ability to speed up time in-game), and it also features a responsive soundtrack. As someone who hates in-app purchases, the $5 seems very well spent.
For years, scientists have been digging into dirt mounds and mud pits across the globe to uncover new antibiotics. But they may have to look no further than their own pile of poop.
The microbes bustling in our bellies may be gold mines for new antibiotic drugs, researchers report this week in Nature Chemical Biology. As proof of gut-bugs’ potential, the authors dug up a new bacteria-busting drug that can reverse resistance in pathogens and help kill off methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria. In mice with lethal MRSA infections, the drug helped cure 100 percent of infections.
The finding shouldn’t be surprising; many of modern medicine’s most powerful antibiotics were pilfered from microbes. The tiny critters use the drugs to defend themselves from other microbes and battle for turf and resources. But, as bacteria develop resistance—creating an urgent public health crisis—scientists have been seeking new drugs to usurp. In their search, many scientists turned to sifting through exotic soils and sediments. They assumed that the molecular weaponry of bacteria closest to us had already been tapped. Yet, as more researchers delve into the complex microbial communities within us—our microbiomes—they’re finding new depths to plumb.
The study isn’t the first example of scientists looking within for new drugs. As Ars reported back in July, researchers found another MRSA-killing antibiotic among bacteria battling over boogers in the nose. In the new study, researchers at Rockefeller University and Rutgers University searched the deep depths of our guts.
As is often the case, the researchers weren’t able to grow the microbes that live in our innards for their research. (Scientists have yet to figure out the right conditions and resources needed to grow the vast majority of microbes in labs, which are very different from their natural environments.) Instead, the researchers pored over the microbes’ genetic sequences—which can be deciphered without having to grow them—and tried to spot unique codes for large peptides that could be antibiotics. They found 25 such sequences and used the code to synthetically create compounds.
Two of those turned out be antibiotics, dubbed humimycin A and humimycin B. The two drugs, derived from related DNA sequences in Rhodococcus equi and R. erythropolis bacteria, could kill off pathogenic and harmless gut microbes alike. MRSA strains could survive much higher doses of the two drugs, but they rendered the resistant microbes susceptible to another class of antibiotics called β-lactam. When researchers infected 10 mice with MRSA and gave them just a β-lactam antibiotic, only two survived 48-hours. In another group of ten that the scientists treated with humimycin alone, only five lived. But with a combination of a β-lactam and humimycin, all the mice survived.
While the data suggests humimycins could be a new treatment regimen, the researchers’ tracks could be a path to even more antibiotics. “We believe this approach will enable broad and rapid access to diverse bioactive compounds inspired by gene clusters found in the ever-growing assemblage of microbial sequence data,†they concluded.
Advocacy groups are urging US regulators to consider blocking AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner Inc., but AT&T may be able to avoid any review by the Federal Communications Commission.
The merger will be analyzed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), but AT&T has said the FCC will be involved only if any FCC licenses are transferred to AT&T. A TV station is an example of something that requires an FCC license, but AT&T said that itself and Time Warner are still “determining which FCC licenses, if any, will be transferred to AT&T in connection with the transaction.”
The reason for this uncertainty is that “despite its big media footprint, Time Warner has only one FCC-regulated broadcast station, WPCH-TV in Atlanta,” Reuters reported. “Time Warner could sell the license to try to avoid a formal FCC review, several analysts said.” (Time Warner Inc. is completely separate from Time Warner Cable, which was sold to Charter this year after an FCC review.)
WPCH-TV, which is unaffiliated with any major network, is a small station that broadcasts re-runs and old movies, and it’s likely worth very little relative to the $85.4 billion AT&T/Time Warner deal, Bloomberg reported. “Companies use sales, transfers, and spinoffs around larger deals in order to face friendlier regulatory review ‘all the time,’ Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Geetha Ranganathan said in an interview,” Bloomberg wrote.
Antitrust and the public interest
AT&T has frequently clashed with the FCC over net neutrality rules and other regulations, so it wouldn’t be surprising if AT&T wants to avoid review by the agency. AT&T has said one of the benefits of owning Time Warner is that the company is less heavily regulated than AT&T’s existing businesses.
The DOJ and FCC follow very different processes when reviewing mergers. The FCC can block a merger if it doesn’t serve the public interest, and the burden is on the merging parties to prove that Americans will benefit.
The DOJ can block mergers by suing in federal court, but the federal agency faces the burden of proof and must convince a court that the merger would violate antitrust laws. The DOJ and FCC coordinate on merger reviews when they’re both involved, and their combined influence was enough to sink Comcast’s attempt to purchase Time Warner Cable in 2015 and AT&T’s attempt to purchase T-Mobile USA in 2011. With AT&T/Time Warner, the DOJ could be going it alone.
The FCC says that its own decisions on mergers “must be based on the public record” developed through the public comment process. By contrast, the DOJ’s antitrust authorities “conduct a confidential investigation, and if they believe that consummation of the merger would violate the antitrust laws, they must go to court to stop the merger or get approval for a settlement that will prevent any competitive harms.”
Still, the DOJ by itself could either try to block the merger or allow it to proceed only if AT&T signs a consent decree with conditions designed to prevent competitive harm, similar to the decree signed by Comcast when it bought NBCUniversal. Consumer advocates, AT&T’s competitors, and lawmakers may try to influence the DOJ by speaking out against the deal.
Potential harm to competitors
Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge argued that the merger raises many competitive concerns. As Public Knowledge Senior Counsel John Bergmayer said:
Vertical integration between programming and distribution in particular raises a number of issues. [AT&T-owned] DirecTV, for instance, might favor Time Warner content, crowding out or refusing to carry alternative and independent programming that viewers might prefer. AT&T might also make it more expensive or difficult for competitors to DirecTV or to its streaming service to access Time Warner programming, hoping to drive customers to its own platforms. AT&T could also give preferential treatment to its own programming and services on its broadband networks—indeed, it has already announced that it plans to zero-rate its upcoming online video service. Increased vertical integration could also increase AT&T’s opportunities for data collection, which has relevance to FCC privacy initiatives. Similar sorts of self-dealing and discrimination issues have been at the center of the review of similar deals in the past, such as Comcast’s acquisition of NBCUniversal.
Bergmayer said the merger highlights the importance of the FCC’s proposal to impose new privacy rules on ISPs, which would require ISPs to get opt-in consent from consumers before sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other third parties.
Opposition to AT&T/Time Warner may also come from the American Cable Association, which represents small- and medium-sized cable companies that compete against AT&T’s home Internet and TV services. “As the FCC has found in past mergers, combining valuable content with pay-TV distribution causes harm to consumers and competition in the pay-TV market,” the group’s CEO, Matthew Polka, said. “If an AT&T/Time Warner deal is forged as reported, the vertical integration of the merged company must be an issue that regulators closely examine.”
US Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pledged to scrutinize the deal, saying that he’s “skeptical of huge media mergers because they can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.” Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), leaders of the antitrust subcommittee, said that “an acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T would potentially raise significant antitrust issues, which the subcommittee would carefully examine.†Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged regulators to block the merger.
Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump said his administration would block the AT&T/Time Warner merger “because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.” A spokesperson for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said she “certainly thinks regulators should look at it.”
AT&T argues that customers will benefit from the merger by receiving “enhanced access to premium content on all their devices, new choices for mobile and streaming video services, and a stronger competitive alternative to cable TV companies.”
With AT&T’s wireless network and Time Warner’s programming, “the combined company will strive to become the first US mobile provider to compete nationwide with cable companies in the provision of bundled mobile broadband and video,” AT&T said. “And it will deliver more innovation with new forms of original content built for mobile and social, which builds on Time Warner’s HBO Now and the upcoming launch of AT&T’s [online streaming] offering DirecTV Now.”
AT&T says it expects to close the Time Warner merger by the end of 2017.
