REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Communications Commission said on Monday it approved Time Warner Inc’s sale of a broadcast station in Atlanta to Meredith Corp, a transaction that could help speed Time Warner’s planned merger with AT&T Inc.

In January, AT&T said it expected to be able to bypass the FCC in its planned $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner because it would not seek to transfer any significant Time Warner licenses.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said previously he did not plan to use the proposed TV station license transfer as a way to examine the AT&T-Time Warner merger. About a dozen senators had urged him to review the deal.

The station that Time Warner is selling, WPCH-TV, for $70 million, is its only FCC-regulated broadcast station. It has other, more minor FCC licenses.

Meredith has operated WPCH-TV for Time Warner since 2011. It was previously known as WTBS. The station is no longer considered a superstation in the United States, after Turner Broadcasting System created a new national network it dubbed TBS. WTBS changed its over-the-air call letters to WPCH, rebranded as “Peachtree TV,” and is considered an independent television station airing off-network sitcoms and dramas. However, WPCH is still widely seen across Canada, where it remains a “superstation” after Canadian regulators refused to allow Canadian providers to carry Turner’s TBS network.

WPCH-TV, an independent TV station in Atlanta, dubs itself as “Peachtree TV.”

In a statement on Monday, Meredith said it was pleased the FCC approved the application and that it anticipated “moving forward expeditiously to close this deal.”

The company said in February it expected to close on the sale by June 30 and that the deal would not have a material impact on its results.

Time Warner did not immediately comment on the FCC approval.

The Justice Department has to prove a proposed deal harms competition in order to block it. The FCC has broad leeway to block a merger it deems is not in the “public interest” and can impose additional conditions.

AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told CNBC in February the Justice Department review was ongoing and he thought the deal would close by the end of the year.

“It’s a clean transaction,” he said.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Additional reporting by Stop the Cap!/Phillip Dampier.)

Jamie Oliver

Altice dislikes the cost of cable programming, so the media and cable empire is increasingly turning in-house to launch alternative channels it owns and operates.

In Europe, Altice will launch its own cooking channel “My Cuisine” starting in June.

Offre Media reports the network will initially be distributed in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and Portugal, but Altice is known for exporting its cable networks across its vast cable empire. The new channel will be accompanied by a print magazine with a digital version, a mobile app, and ongoing recipe blog.

Programming will originate in Altice’s network studios and from a programming partnership Altice has with FreemantleMedia, which is contracted to produce cooking-related shows with Jamie Oliver for at least three years.

My Cuisine will be available on SFR-Numericable in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg and will be made available to cable systems in Switzerland and Francophone Africa.

It will be the second foray into cooking channels by Altice, which already operates one for customers of Hot Cable in Israel.

Altice owns and operates Cablevision and Suddenlink in the United States.

A telecommunications bill largely written at the behest of AT&T now working its way through the Illinois legislature would allow AT&T to discontinue landline telephone service in the state, potentially eliminating traditional phone service that more than a million Illinois residents and businesses still depend on.

“The Illinois Telecom Act is up for review in the 2017 legislative session, and AT&T is pushing two deregulation bills—Senate Bill 1381 and House Bill 2691,” says the Citizen’s Utility Board (CUB) website. “The bills would open the door for the company to end traditional home phone service in Illinois and push consumers onto less affordable and reliable alternatives.”

Consumer advocates urged Illinoisans to visit SaveOurPhoneService.com to send messages to the General Assembly against AT&T’s deregulation bills, or they can also call a special toll-free hotline, at 1-844-220-5552, to talk to their legislators.

With Illinois’ Telecommunications Act under review and set to expire July 1, AT&T’s bills would:

• Abolish the state requirement that AT&T serve traditional landline customers. That authority would be ceded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Illinois would be stripped of any meaningful oversight to protect AT&T’s 1.2 million business and residential landline customers from inferior service.
• Abolish low-cost calling plans. The General Assembly mandates that AT&T offer three “Consumer’s Choice” plans, which were created by CUB under a legal settlement. Illinois’ best local phone deals, which cost about $3 to $20 a month, have saved callers millions of dollars, and are under a state-mandated price freeze.

For many in Illinois still bypassed by AT&T’s U-verse fiber-to-the-neighborhood system, the measure could leave customers with just two choices for home phone service – a local cable operator or a wireless mobile provider — both potentially more expensive and less reliable than basic landline service.

“It doesn’t take someone with an economic degree that one option, one unregulated option for people, isn’t very cheap. So I’m sure cable is sitting back licking their chops,” said Citizens Utility Board director of governmental affairs Bryan McDaniel.

Some Chicago-area residents, like Michele Charous and Carol Kolen, prefer traditional landline service for its cost and reliability. A significant percentage of older residents still depend on affordable rotary dial landline phone service from AT&T — a service the phone company now wants to scrap.

AT&T claims more than 90% of Illinois customers have either replaced landline service for a cell phone or have switched to digital U-verse phone service from AT&T or a cable operator. But AT&T doesn’t mention its network upgrades have bypassed large rural sections of the state, and its U-verse phone service can cost more than a traditional landline.

Kolen and Charous claim their AT&T landline service has proven reliable for decades, while cell service has not, especially in an emergency.

Katherine Panny adds she is in her 80s, does not have a cellphone or a computer and has a rotary dial phone on her kitchen wall. She said she likes it.

“I depend on this landline with my life,” she said.

“We are not at the point we can guarantee that this is going to work all the time,” added Kolen.

AT&T’s part supplier.

“I would be just isolated because how would I be able to talk anybody if the battery died or I forgot to charge it what would I do,” Charous said.

“For a lot of people a landline is there most reliable and affordable lifeline to vital services,” said Jim Chilsen, of the Citizens Utility Board. “Our fear is that, what AT&T really wants to do is push consumers onto phone options that tend to be more expensive and tend to be less reliable.”

AT&T Illinois and Midwest president Paul La Schiazza gave some stark admissions to reporters about the state of AT&T’s wireline network in Illinois.

By the end of this year, “less than 10 percent of the households [in Illinois] will have an old style, voice-only line in their home,” La Schiazza said. AT&T is losing about 1,000 traditional landline customers a day. Maintenance on the traditional telephone system is also getting more difficult, and the phone company is turning to some unique sources for parts these days.

“Believe it or not, even AT&T at times, has to go to eBay to scrounge for parts to keep these ‘old-style’ switches running,” he said.

WMAQ in Chicago reports some Illinois consumers are worried AT&T is about to pull the plug on their landline home phone service. (2:38)

So much for the “small-dollar donors” President Donald Trump touted as his biggest financial supporters. A new campaign finance report released today shows about three dozen billionaires and corporations bankrolled almost half the inauguration expenses of the president, doubling what President Obama collected for each of his two inaugurations.

Despite a campaign that promised to “drain the swamp” of corporate influence and special interests in Washington, Trump’s team accepted checks valued in the millions from individuals and companies with matters before regulators or Congress. The Wall Street Journal reports they include billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who gave $5 million; hedge-fund executive Robert Mercer, who gave $1 million; Marlene Ricketts, a member of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs, who gave $1 million; and Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, who gave $1 million.

While the Republican National Committee was concerned enough about a $250,000 contribution from Russian-American businessman Alexander Shustorovich to return it, President Trump had no reservations accepting a $1 million check from Shustorovich, who has close ties to the Putin government and various state-owned companies. Shustorovich raised alarms with national security officials who rejected some of his U.S. business deals in the past on national-security grounds.

Trump also accepted huge contributions from corporations with dealings in Washington and his Administration. Chief among the top donors was AT&T, along with Pfizer, Boeing, and Qualcomm, that all donated $1 million each. Boeing’s check arrived about a month after Trump tweet-slammed Boeing for the “out of control” cost of the new 747 Air Force One. Trump has been silent about Boeing since the check arrived. AT&T’s check may also prove a good investment if Trump abandons his commitment to oppose the AT&T-Time Warner, Inc., merger now before regulators.

The Journal reports Trump’s extravagant corporate donor list threatens to undercut the president’s message that he isn’t beholden to anyone — special interests or wealthy donors. In contrast, President Obama banned corporate funding of his 2009 inauguration. The newspaper adds, in some cases, the donations arrived days after the president selected executives at those companies to serve in his administration.