A digital dos Bolsonaro no projeto que quer mudar a TV paga (e pode afetar o streaming)

Filhos do presidente fazem lobby para aprovar texto em tramitação no Senado que beneficia fusão da AT&T e Time Warner. Senador do PT estuda apoiá-lo, se incluir cota de produção nacional para empresas como Netflix

AFONSO BENITES

Brasília 13 SET 2019 - 13:25 BRT

Vídeo de Eduardo Bolsonaro a favor da fusão.

Depois de ver fracassada sua tentativa de pressionar a Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações para que a entidade aprovasse ainda neste ano a compra da Time Warner pela AT&T no Brasil, o Governo Jair Bolsonaro (PSL) aposta agora no Senado uma alternativa que vai beneficiar as duas empresas americanas. Na próxima quarta-feira, a Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia pretende votar o projeto de lei 3.832/2019, que altera as regras da TV paga no país e suspende a proibição de propriedade cruzada, o que permitiria a fusão de quem produz conteúdo (Warner) com quem o distribui (AT&T, a controladora da Sky). A defesa do negócio das gigantes americanas no Brasil virou uma bandeira aberta do Planalto e, especialmente, do deputado Eduardo Bolsonaro, em campanha para ser o novo embaixador do Brasil nos EUA.

O texto, que se aprovado na comissão vai direto para a apreciação da Câmara, movimenta também as atenções e os lobbies da gigante local, Globo, e suas concorrentes Record, SBT e RedeTV, sócias da programadora de TV a cabo Simba —as últimas cultivam relações mais próximas como os Bolsonaro. Enquanto as nacionais ainda não chegaram a um consenso em pontos da matéria, como a prerrogativa de compra dos direitos de grandes eventos, outro tema embola o debate: a inclusão da Internet, o que pode ter impacto ainda mais amplo.

Caso uma emenda ao texto seja aceita, os canais de streaming, como Netflix e HBO GO, entrariam na lei e seriam equiparados aos canais de TV por assinatura e poderiam ser obrigados a exibir uma cota mínima de produção brasileira. Esse grupo é chamado de over the top (OTT – nomenclatura para transmissão não linear pela Internet). Hoje, os canais por assinatura têm de ter ao menos 3h30 de produção local por semana em sua grade de programação. No caso das OTTs, não está claro como seria essa cota, já que não é possível mensurar a sua grade pela quantidade de horas de transmissão. Tampouco a emenda ao projeto de lei deixa claro como seria feita essa contabilidade.

As iminentes alterações atingem um mercado em queda, o das TVs pagas, que registraram 17,5 milhões de assinantes no ano passado (550.000 assinantes a menos que em 2017) e um ascensão, das OTTs, que supera os 10 milhões no Brasil. Os dados são da Anatel e do mercado. A tendência é que as plataformas digitais superem em poucos anos as TVs por assinatura.

O rastro da família Bolsonaro nessa negociação está no lobby pela aprovação da proposta. O principal articulador para os Governos brasileiro e americano é o deputado federal Eduardo Bolsonaro (PSL-SP), filho do presidente que deve ser indicado para assumir a embaixada do Brasil nos Estados Unidos, o que depende ainda da aprovação do Senado. A pedido da gestão Donald Trump, ele chegou a ir pessoalmente à Anatel para angariar apoio à fusão das companhias, já aprovada pelo Cade (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica).

O pedido do deputado foi ignorado por enquanto. Dos cinco conselheiros, dois votaram a favor da união da AT&T com a Time Warner,. Um pediu vistas de 120 dias no processo. Os outros dois ainda não votaram. Em Brasília, Eduardo é visto como um lobista aguerrido em favor do Governo Trump, o que ele nega. Seu irmão, o senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PSL-RJ), é outro negociador junto aos congressistas na matéria. Flávio conversou com ao menos quatro dos membros da Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia pedindo votos a favor da mudança legal.

Segundo especialistas, caso o projeto de lei seja aprovado de forma terminativa na comissão do Senado (não precisa passar no plenário) e, posteriormente, na Câmara, o processo que tramita na Anatel será extinto, já que a lei brasileira passaria a autorizar essa união. “Uma lei federal se sobrepõe a uma norma de agência reguladora”, explicou o advogado especialista em fusões e aquisições Paulo Bardella, do escritório Viseu Advogados.

“Tem gente querendo pegar carona”

O relator do projeto de lei na Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia, senador Arolde Oliveira (PSD-RJ), um aliado de Bolsonaro, diz que as mudanças não são apenas direcionadas para a AT&T. “Queremos apenas destravar o problema da propriedade cruzada e permitir que o país tenha mais investimentos”, afirma.

Já o opositor ao bolsonarismo, Rogério Carvalho (PT-SE), afirma que, caso seja garantida a cota de produção local para as OTTs, a oposição deve votar junto com o Governo. “Desde que a lei da TV paga surgiu, diversos produtores independentes surgiram no país. Queremos que criar um marco para que a produção voltada para a Internet respeite essa produção local”, ponderou Carvalho. Ele é o autor da emenda que pode alterar as regras para as empresas de streaming.

Na opinião do senador Oliveira, contudo, o assunto ainda não está pacificado. “Tem gente querendo pegar carona em um projeto que é simples. Por mim, não mudamos nada de Internet agora”, afirmou. Sua ideia é incluir esse tema em um projeto de lei mais profundo, no qual todos os aspectos das OTTs seriam debatidos, desde a criação de limites de produção até eventuais cobranças taxas. Sairá vencedor do primeiro round dessa batalha quem obtiver ao menos 9 dos 17 votos dos senadores da comissão na próxima quarta.

China na liderança do 5G

A tecnologia 5G está às vésperas do lançamento, e a China está caminhando para dominar esse mercado. A ferramenta para isso é uma gigantesca rede de fibra ótica interligando Ásia e Europa (incluindo aí a Rússia) em paralelo a uma malha ferroviária, tudo financiado pelos chineses. A rede ótica é crucial para transmitir a gigantesca quantidade de dados envolvendo a conexão 5G, e, como dona da rede, a China terá o poder de escolher que equipamentos irão se conectar a ela. A expectativa é que fabricantes chineses como a Huawei tenham prioridade ou mesmo exclusividade. E os EUA ainda não têm um plano para reagir a isso. (Wired)

https://www.wired.com/story/china-will-likely-corner-5g-market-us-no-plan/

Fusões Telecom USA

Sprint e T-Mobile, duas das quatro grandes operadoras de telefonia nos EUA, anunciaram sua intenção de se juntar em uma só companhia. Cabe agora aos reguladores dizer se há ameaça à competição. O nome que valerá é o da T-Mobile e os CEOs garantem que, com economia de escala, poderão baixar preços. Têm, ambas, tido dificuldades de enfrentar as concorrentes maiores, AT&T e Verizon. Combinadas, teriam 100 milhões de clientes.

Aliás... O negócio periga repercutir no Brasil. Se liberado, o governo americano estará reconhecendo que o mercado não é grande o suficiente para quatro operadoras. E, no Brasil, a Oi enfrenta dificuldades e pode muito bem ser comprada por uma das outras três.

Sprint and T-Mobile have announced that they will merge

The new company will be called T-Mobile

By Andrew Liptak@AndrewLiptak  Apr 29, 2018, 12:17pm

The number of major wireless carriers in the United States could shrink from four to three. Sprint and T-Mobile have announced that they intend to merge. The merger will need to be approved by regulators and the companies’ shareholders.

The combined company will be based in Bellevue, Washington, and it will be called T-Mobile. Current T-Mobile CEO John Legere will run the combined company, while T-Mobile COO Mike Sievert will become the new company’s COO and president. T-Mobile’s majority owner Deutsche Telekom will hold a 42 percent stake in the company, while Sprint’s majority owner SoftBank will hold 27 percent, with public stakeholders holding the rest. Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son will sit on the combined company’s board.

The companies say that by combining, they’ll be able to lower prices and take advantage of “greater economies of scale.” The two companies have trailed their larger rivals, AT&T and Verizon, and the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile will help give them a boost as they begin to deploy their next-generation 5G network across the country. The combined company will have nearly 100 million customers.

The merger comes after years of on-and-off talks between the two companies. Sprint had been prepared to buy T-Mobile in 2014, but those talks didn’t go anywhere. They resumed those talks in May of last year and came close in September to reaching a deal, only for Sprint to call them off in October. T-Mobile then made its own offer in November, but that quickly collapsed as well. The talks resumed again earlier this month, and on Friday, CNBC said that the two were closing in on a merger to the tune of $26 billion.

While the two companies have agreed to merge, they still have an uphill battle before that actually happens: the deal will have to be cleared by regulators, who might not be happy about the smaller number of carriers. In 2011, a planned merger between AT&T and T-Mobile attracted fierce resistance from regulators, and it was ultimately canceled.

IN THIS STORYSTREAM

T-Mobile and Sprint: all the news about the merger

• T-Mobile says it has seven major competitors, which is complete nonsense
• Sprint and T-Mobile have announced that they will merge

Cabo submarino de 10,8 mil km levará sinal de internet de SP a NY

FILIPE OLIVEIRA
DE SÃO PAULO

13/09/2017 10h43

	Seaborn/Divulgação
	Vista aérea das escavações em Praia Grande (SP) para implantação de cabo submarino entre SP e NY

Um cabo submarino de 10,8 mil quilômetros de extensão será inaugurado nesta quarta-feira (13) para transmitir sinal de internet de São Paulo diretamente para Nova York.

Chamado Seabras 1, ele é a primeira iniciativa de grande escala da empresa americana Seaborn, sediada em Boston.

Sua construção envolveu mais de cinco anos de trabalho e investimentos de mais de US$ 500 milhões. Os recursos vieram da gestora de fundos suíça Partners Group e de financiamentos obtidos pela Seaborn.

O Seabras 1 terá seis pares de fibra ótica e capacidade de transmissão de 72 terabytes por segundo. A base terrestre dele no Brasil fica na Praia Grande (SP). De lá, segue pelo subsolo até a capital paulista.

Larry Schwartz, presidente da Seaborn, diz que, por oferecer a primeira rota direta entre as duas cidades, o que permite maior velocidade, o cabo será usado para transmissão de dados no mercado financeiro.

Ele transmitirá ordens de compra e venda em alta velocidade feita por softwares inteligentes, na modalidade conhecida como "high frequency trading", em serviço da empresa chamado Seaspeed.

"Outras rotas poderiam levar dados de São Paulo a Nova York indiretamente, mas essa é a primeira conexão direta entre os dois centros financeiros, o que faz dele uma alternativa mais rápida."

Schwartz afirma já ter contratos fechados para empresas especializadas no serviço, porém não informa quantas empresas o usarão.

A estrutura também será usada por empresas de telecomunicações e outros segmentos. Schwartz diz que a Telecom Italia (dona da Tim) e a Tata Consulting, por exemplo, transmitirão dados a partir dele.

Segundo o executivo, projetos como o Seabras 1 aumentam a concorrência no setor de conectividade e, como consequência, reduzem preços para consumidores.

EXPANSÃO

A empresa planeja uma ampliação da estrutura de internet a partir da expansão do Seabras 1 para a Argentina, a partir de ligação com a cidade de Las Toninas.

No momento, a companhia realiza concorrência para decidir parceiro para realizar a obra.

Schwartz afirma que a empresa também avalia a possibilidade de incluir ramificações do Seabras 1 para ter em sua rota Estados como Rio de Janeiro,Fortaleza e Flórida.

"Queremos fazer do Brasil um eixo de conexões, aproveitando seu papel de destaque na região."

O cabo submarino foi construido em parceria com a empresa francesa Alcatel Lucent, subsidiária da Nokia.

Noam Chomsky - Sobre o desenvolvimento tecnológico (IPhones And Intellectual Property)

Noam Chomsky on intellectual property

That’s a very interesting question. It has an interesting history. The World Trade Organization, the Uruguay round that set up the World Trade Organization imposed, it’s called a “free trade agreement”. It’s in fact a highly protectionist agreement. The US is strongly opposed to free trade, just as business leaders are, just as they’re opposed to a market economy. A crucial part of the Uruguay round, WTO, NAFTA, and the rest of them, is very strong (what are called) intellectual property rights. What it actually means is rights that guarantee monopoly pricing power to private tyrannies.

So take, say, a drug corporation. Most of the serious research and development, the hard part of it, is funded by the public. In fact most of the economy comes out of public expenditures through the state system, which is the source of most innovation and development. I mean computers, the internet. Just go through the range, it’s all coming out of the state system primarily. There is research and development in the corporate system, some, but it’s mostly at the marketing end. And the same is true of drugs.

Once the corporations gain the benefit of the public paying the costs and taking the risks, they want to monopolize the profit. And the intellectual property rights, they’re not for small inventors. In fact the people doing the work in the corporations, they don’t get anything out of it, like a dollar if they invent something. It’s the corporate tyrannies that are making the profits, and they want to guarantee them.

The World Trade Organization proposed new, enhanced intellectual property rights, patent rights, which means monopoly pricing rights, far beyond anything that existed in the past. In fact they are not only designed to maximize monopoly pricing, and profit, but also to prevent development. That’s rather crucial. WTO rules introduced product patents. Used to be you could patent a process, but not the product. Which means if some smart guy could figure out a better way of doing it, he could do it. They want to block that. It’s important to block development and progress, in order to ensure monopoly rights. So they now have product patents.

Well if you take a look at, say, US history. Suppose the colonies after independence had been forced to accept that regime. Do you know what we’d be doing now? Well first of all there’d be very few of us here. But those of us who would be here would be pursuing our comparative advantage and exporting fish and fur. That’s what economists tell you is right. Pursue your comparative advantage. That was our comparative advantage. We certainly wouldn’t have had a textile industry. British textiles were way cheaper and better. Actually British textiles were cheaper and better because Britain had crushed Irish and Indian superior textile manufacturers and stolen their techniques. So they were now the preeminent textile manufacturer, by force of course.

The US would never have had a textile industry. It grew up around Massachusetts, but the only way it could develop was extremely high tariffs which protected unviable US industries. So the textile industry developed, and that has a spin off into other industries. And so it continues.

The US would never have had a steel industry. Again same reason. British steel was way superior. One of the reasons is because they were stealing Indian techniques. British engineers were going to India to learn about steel-making well into the 19th century. Britain ran the country by force, so they could take what they knew. And they develop a steel industry. And the US imposed extremely high tariffs, also massive government involvement, through the military system as usual. And the US developed a steel industry. And so it continues. Right up to the present.

Furthermore that’s true of every single developed society. That’s one of the best known truths of economic history. The only countries that developed are the ones that pursued these techniques. The ones that weren’t able… There were countries that were forced to adopt “free trade” and “liberalization”: the colonies, and they got destroyed. And the divide between the first and the third world is really since the 18th century. It wasn’t very much in the 18th century, and it’s very sharply along these lines.

Well, that’s what the intellectual property rights are for. In fact there’s a name for it in economic history. Friedrich List, famous German political economist in the 19th century, who was actually borrowing from Andrew Hamilton, called it “kicking away the ladder”. First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can’t do it.

Intellectual property rights has very little to do with individual initiative. I mean, Einstein didn’t have any intellectual property rights on relativity theory. Science and innovation is carried out by people that are interested in it. That’s the way science works. There’s an effort in very recent years to commercialize it, like they commercialize everything else. So you don’t do it because it’s exciting and challenging, and you want to find out something new, and you want the world to benefit from it. You do it because maybe you can make some money out of it. I mean that’s a… you can make your own judgment about the moral value. I think it’s extremely cheapening, but, also destructive of initiative and development.

And the profits don’t go back to individual inventors. It’s a very well studied topic. Take one that’s really well studied, MIT’s involved: computer controlled machine tools, a very fundamental component of the economy. Well, there’s a very good study of this by David Nobel, a leading political economist. What he pointed out and discovered is the techniques were invented by some small guy, you know working in his garage somewhere in, I think, Michigan. Actually when the MIT mechanical engineering department learned about it they picked them up and they developed them and extended them and so on. And then the corporations came in and picked them up from them, and finally it became a core part of US industry. Well, what happened to the guy who invented it? He’s still probably working in his garage in Michigan, or wherever it is. And that’s very typical.

I just don’t think it has much to do with innovation or independence. It has to do with protecting major concentrations of power, which mostly got their power as a public gift, and making sure that they can maintain and expand their power. And these are highly protectionist devices and I don’t think… You really have to ram them down people’s throats. They don’t make any economic sense or any other sense.

(Source: thescienceofdestruction.wordpress.com)

Yahoo warns Verizon might kill $4.8 billion deal

by Jose Pagliery   @Jose_PaglieryNovember 9, 2016: 8:11 PM ET

Timeline: The rise and fall of Yahoo

Verizon might rescind its $4.8 billion offer to buy Yahoo, in part because of the damage resulting from the colossal hack of Yahoo customers, the technology company said Wednesday.

Yahoo (YHOO, Tech30) said there's "no assurance" that Verizon will actually go through with the deal, according to its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The filing also revealed that it's "facing investigations by a number of federal, state, and foreign governmental officials and agencies" over the hack -- and these could result in "potential fines."

Verizon defended the deal in late October at a Wall Street Journal Digital Conference, arguing that it "absolutely" still makes sense.

Verizon offered to buy Yahoo's core internet assets in July. But two months later, Yahoo shocked its potential buyer with news that "at least 500 million" Yahoo user accounts had been stolen by a hacker in 2014 -- one of the largest consumer hacks ever. Yahoo alerted the public a couple of days later.

Yahoo has since been hit with 23 consumer class action lawsuits over the hack, according to the company. Hackers were able to steal a list of customer names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birthdays, security questions and encoded versions of passwords.

Related: Verizon exec on Yahoo deal: 'We have to be careful'

Verizon (VZA) now "may seek to terminate the stock purchase agreement or renegotiate the terms of the sale" because of the "security incident," Yahoo warned investors in Wednesday's filing.

Yahoo stressed in its filing Wednesday that the hack is not having a "material adverse impact" on its business.

"We are confident in Yahoo's value and we continue to work towards integration with Verizon," a Yahoo spokesperson told CNNMoney.

The tech company's stock value didn't immediately shift on the news.

Yahoo blames a government for hacking into its computer network saying that its attacker was "a state-sponsored actor."

Yahoo has struggled under the leadership of Marissa Meyer. Under Mayer's direction, Yahoo has acquired dozens of startups -- and spent lavishly on hiring celebrity journalists. But its bets haven't paid off. One of its most notable assets, the social network Tumblr, has struggled for years to make a profit.

Verizon declined to comment.

CNNMoney (New York)First published November 9, 2016: 8:11 PM ET

AT&T seeks to buy Time Warner for nearly $86bn

The deal is believed to be the biggest so far in the world this year

US telecoms giant AT&T has announced that it will buy entertainment group Time Warner for nearly $86bn (£70bn).

The deal - one of the biggest this year - still needs approval from regulators.

If the takeover goes through, it would combine AT&T's distribution network with content from the Warner Brothers film studios and the cable TV channels HBO and CNN.

AT&T's chairman described it as "a perfect match" but critics say it concentrates too much media power.

'Complementary strengths'

The deal is likely to be closely scrutinised by US antitrust regulators. AT&T is already the third largest cable TV provider in the US.

Randall Stephenson, who is both chairman and CEO of AT&T, said he did not anticipate any regulatory obstacles, saying any concerns could be overcome if concessions were made.

"This is a perfect match of two companies with complementary strengths who can bring a fresh approach to how the media and communications industry works for customers, content creators, distributors and advertisers," he said.

---

Analysis: Joe Lynam, BBC correspondent

AT&T has the means by which millions of Americans consume their entertainment. It owns the platform - be that cable or broadband - which enables people to watch their favourite shows. But it does not - until now- own the shows or the "content" which households want to watch, be that Game of Thrones, CNN or live NBA basketball.

Buying Time Warner, which we should not confuse with Time Warner Cable, allows AT&T to become a full service media provider and one of the more important companies in the world.

It allows a newly-merged entity to steal a march on the likes of Verizon or Comcast in a very competitive US market.

But the deal may never happen. It could be deemed anti-competitive by regulators because AT&T already owns mobile phone, broadband and cable TV networks, and allowing it to control the shows as well might deprive consumers of choice.

---

An AT&T statement said that aim of the deal was to give customers "unmatched choice, quality, value and experiences that will define the future of media and communications" and the new company would "lead the next wave of innovation in converging media and communications industry".

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said if he is elected, he will block the deal.

"It's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few," he said on Saturday, before the deal was confirmed.

Image copyrightHELEN SLOAN/HBO

Image captionRevenue from HBO, which shows Game of Thrones, contributes about 18% of Time Warner's total revenue

AT&T will pay $107.50 for each Time Warner share, in a combination of cash and stock, worth $85.4bn overall, according to a statement.

AT&T said it expected the deal to be completed by the end of 2017.

Other media company shares, including Discovery, AMC, Netflix and CBS, recently rose as investors speculated that a deal could spark a fresh wave of takeovers and mergers among media and technology companies.

AT&T, which has a market value of about $238bn, has already made moves to turn itself into a media powerhouse, buying satellite TV provider DirecTV last year for $48.5bn.

Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes has, however, resisted selling in the past. The company rejected an $80bn offer from Twenty-First Century Fox Inc in 2014.

The deal gives AT&T access to a major producer of content as it seeks to diversify away from its core telecoms business. Rival Verizon is currently in negotiations to buy Yahoo and has already bought AOL, owner of Huffington Post.

Some analysts, however, question whether AT&T needs to mount a complete takeover of Time Warner.