Thread by @mediamorphis

Some strange alchemy in the Tribunal's rejection of @CompBureau bid to block the Rogers/Shaw deal. Eg the Bureau expert's models predicted modest price ↑ in AB & BC if deal approved. But when the Tribunal gave ctl of that model to Rogers' expert to 'adapt' to include: 1/X #CTRS

a. Israel's assumptions + b. the hypothetical cost savings + other benefits Videotron is said to achieve via web of contracts w/ post merger Rogers those modest ↑ magically turn into huge price ↓. 2/ #CRTC

This is a cornerstone of Tribunal's conclusion that the deal does not result in SPLC BUT consumer benefits. Interestingly, the Tribunal does accept that there will be significant price ↑ but paints them as exception. These exceptions, tho, seem to be quite significant. 3/

There's a lot of such magical thinking in the Tribunal's ruling. Eg instead of assessing a key plank of the Bureau's case, eg that Shaw sitting out 3500Mhz/5G spectrum auction once the deal was announced=a SLPC, the Tribunal speculates on what Videotron will do w/ 5G in 2 yrs. 4/

The Tribunal also spends 4 pp (paras 162-83) on likely effects of the deal on Shaw Mobile which accounts for ~20% of Shaw's wireless subs & isn't incl in divestiture to Videotron, but rejects need to look at what cld happen to Freedom prices-~80% of Shaw's subs-w/o the merger.5/

The Tribunal also stresses how it will use future looking methods to inform its decision thereby discounting what history of coms markets, mergers, regulation, & Freedom's experience since being acquired by Shaw teach us. 6/

Despite privileging the future over the past as a principle, however, the Tribunal sets aside 'forward looking methods' when that seems to suit, eg. assessing Shaw sitting out spectrum auctions, share of gross subscriber additions (SOGA) as index of where market is going, etc. 7/

Ironically, in rejecting the Bureau's claim that the Tribunal must base its ruling on the "original" Rogers/Shaw deal vs the modified 3-way deal b/w Rogers, Shaw & Videotron, the Tribunal rests its thin case on a reference to a US coal mining merger (p. 25). 8/

That analogy flops not only b/c coal mining is so 19 & early 20 century but b/c a horizontal mining merger is as dissimilar to a complex M&A b/w the 2nd & 4th largest communications, Internet & media conglomerates as can possibly be. 9/

That's crucial too b/c so much of what the Tribunal claims as forward looking thinking is speculative thinking about what Videotron will be able to achieve based on a. its 'sweet deal' w/ Rogers & b. the CRTC's regulated wireline & wireless wholesale regimes-which are a mess. 10/

This latter pt also seems pivotal to the Bureau's appeal to the FCA since by swapping in the 3-way RSV deal after the Bureau's s92 bid 2 block the deal was filed, the Tribunal resorts to assessing a potential deal that more or less rests on "trust us", this will be good for...11/

..us, competition & Canadians. But the whole thing is a magnificent creation of the companies only cobbled together after the Bureau & ISED notified R & S that the orig. deal was a non-starter & in the face of the Bureau shooting down several R & S proposed divestitures. 12/

The Tribunal's embrace of RSV's remedy is matched by the extent to which its rvw of non-price aspects of the deal fails to consider, eg. how Shaw's maverick stand has lowered prices, extended service to un-/underserved people, driven far bigger mobile data plans by all...13/

operators, & other non-price aspects of service quality. Dr. Osberg's points about equity, public goods, social necessities, etc. are nowhere to be found, ruled out of bounds early on by the Tribunal's "future" orientation & consumer benefits claims. 14/

The Tribunal's sensitivity to the things that make coms services unique in terms of their role as infrastructure of society, economy & people's daily lives are about as blunt as its analogy to coal mining at the heart of this ruling. The result is a lump of coal for xmas. 15/

In sum, at least at 1st reading, this is a frustrating & uninspired decision. It unduly defers to corporate interests & shows little awareness of the history or contemporary realities of the coms services markets that will be impacted by this deal--if it succeeds. 16/

All this is over-and-above the fact that, the "expedited procedure" agreed to by all parties notwithstanding, the Tribunal seems to have rushed to get its ruling on this massive deal out the door in 15 days whereas much simpler cases take on avg 216 days. gmicp.org/competition-tr…

Ahem, forgot a word: "accept that there will be [SOME] significant price ↑....".