FORTUNE -- It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Internet service providers in the U.S. are far too powerful and sheltered from competition. Americans pay far more for Internet access -- which runs at laughably slow speeds -- than denizens of pretty much any other developed country.
So, how is that Comcast (CMCSA), the nation's largest broadband Internet provider, and Time Warner Cable (TWC), the nation's second-largest provider, think they can get around U.S. antitrust laws and merge? Doesn't the industry need more competition, not less?
Indeed, the usual rule of thumb the Department of Justice uses to determine whether it should allow a merger to go through is something called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Here's how the department explains it:
The term "HHI" means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20%, the HHI is 2,600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2,600).
The HHI takes into account the relative size distribution of the firms in a market. It approaches zero when a market is occupied by a large number of firms of relatively equal size and reaches its maximum of 10,000 points when a market is controlled by a single firm. The HHI increases both as the number of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity in size between those firms increases.
The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 and 2,500 points to be moderately concentrated, and consider markets in which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points to be highly concentrated.
By this measure, the market for broadband across the entire U.S. has an HHI of 896. The merger of TWC and Comcast would nearly double the HHI for broadband Internet to 1591, an increase far above the 200-point-increase the DOJ says is "likely to enhance market power" and set off antitrust warning bells. (Comcast and Time Warner Cable are, of course, also in the pay TV business, but that market is more subject to competition, as consumers have the option of satellite and streaming services if they are unhappy with their TV provider.)
The problem is that the Feds don't look at national markets when determining whether to bring an antitrust action. They look at the many local markets across the country in which companies compete. And as Comcast executive vice president David Cohen said on a conference call announcing the merger, "Time Warner and Comcast do not compete in any relevant market" when it comes to broadband Internet access.
In other words, there already is almost no competition in the broadband Internet market, and the Feds can't come in and create competition where there isn't any to begin with. Meanwhile, because more competition exists in the cable TV market, the two companies will likely need to make concessions on that front.
According to Susan Crawford, visiting professor at Harvard University and author of Captive Audience, The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the Gilded Age, efforts to create more competition in the broadband market are going to have to come from the FCC or Congress, rather than the Justice Department. Either body could come forward and declare Internet an essential utility service like electricity or water and create regulations that would either force more competition or at least bar companies from charging monopolistic prices for poor service. Says Crawford, "The FCC needs to step in and act like a cop on the beat."
Compared to the SEC, it's incredibly unlikely JPMorgan has had a shortage of financial experts capable of detecting Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The bank received several red flags but they went nowhere.Nin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jan 8, 2014 5:00 AM ET
The deal is a bigger loss for SAC, and perhaps the government, than it is for Stephen Cohen.
FORTUNE -- We now have a much bigger number for how much money average investors lose to insider trading. It's at least $1.8 billion.
That's how much money SAC Capital agreed to pay on Monday, along with pleading guilty to the criminal insider trading charges. The question is whether getting to that number, and MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 5, 2013 8:58 AM ET
Why is the Justice Department fighting the bank just so it can hand a pile of money to hedge funds?
FORTUNE -- The Justice Department's proposed $13 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase over mortgage misdeeds has stalled, and the issue appears to be this: Who should pay for WaMu's poo?
The Justice Department says JPMorgan (JPM). JPMorgan says an FDIC trust. The correct answer may not be the one you think.
Here are MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Oct 31, 2013 1:58 PM ET
With a reported $13 billion settlement, JPMorgan has put the rest of the banking industry at risk of further government attacks, and it has raised the bar for potential fines from the big banks.
By Cyrus Sanati
FORTUNE -- JPMorgan's reported $13 billion settlement with U.S. authorities over shady investment practices sets a precedent that could have ghastly consequences for the bank, as well as for its main rivals. In rolling MOREOct 21, 2013 10:22 AM ET
Despite a slew of private suits, the government apparently can't find anything wrong with Morgan Stanley.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 26, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Lots of people at JPMorgan worked together to hide losses from investors and regulators. Only two of them may be going to jail.
FORTUNE -- Long live the Whale.
The most fascinating thing about the government's charge that JPMorgan Chase employees committed fraud in connection with the bank's $6 billion trading loss, and the one that will have the largest reverberations for Wall Street, is not who is being charged, but who MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 14, 2013 3:31 PM ET
Jamie Dimon's firm's legal woes just got a bit worse.
FORTUNE -- The Justice Department has concluded that JPMorgan Chase broke federal securities law in connection with subprime and Alt-A mortgage bonds that the firm sold between 2005 and 2007.
The bank disclosed that it had received the notice of violation in May on Wednesday in its regular quarterly earnings filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bank, which is the MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 7, 2013 6:23 PM ET
With evidence this solid, it's fair to ask once again whether Wall Street regulators are being too tepid.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Jul 25, 2013 3:09 PM ET
While fair lending settlements might compensate some borrowers, they're little more than paltry payouts in the grand scheme of things. By Nin-Hai TsengNin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jul 17, 2012 1:09 PM ET
|The Deep Web you don't know about|
|Pizza chain Sbarro files for bankruptcy|
|Colorado gets $2 million from marijuana taxes|
|Invest $1 million, try for a U.S. green card|
|Shodan: The scariest search engine on the Internet|