9 ms·
Justice Department suing AT&T to block $85B bid for Time Warner
- koverda 9y agoLove the photo of the building with the old Bell logo still somewhat visible.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoIt's Creative Commons-licensed! https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/418219038/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/418219038/
- sparcpile 9y agoMr. Bill has been running the sunhelp.org website and ran the Sun Managers distribution list for years. He's quite into the old Bell System.
- advisedwang 9y agoDoesn't the FTC usually conduct review of mergers? It has authority to deny mergers without resorting to suing, right? Why does this need the DoJ to sue?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ensignavenger 9y agoIn America, we have a concept where only the Judicial branch can interpret the laws. So, Congress passes a law, those laws sometimes give agencies like the FTC regulatory powers- but only a judge can interpret the laws to ultimately decide what those regulatory powers are. In this case, a judge will need to look at the laws passed by Congress, any relevant regulation (and if that regulation was legally authorized by Congress), and determine if this merger would violate those laws.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It has authority to deny mergers without resorting to suing, right? No. It's power to stop or modify mergers is entirely by initiating legal action or negotiated consent agreements. Either the government gets a court order against the merger or it can move forward. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers/premerger-notification-and-merger https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
- pfisch 9y agoThis is great. Unless Trump is doing this for a petty grudge, then it is super fucked up. They should split nbc from comcast as well.
- stochastic_monk 9y agoWhich he is. [1] I'm all for antitrust, but to block this (which is a largely orthogonal merger), break up Sinclair first. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/business/att-time-warner-cnn-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/business/att-time-warner-...
- jabretti 9y ago>This is great. Unless Trump is doing this I look forward to seven more years of this kind of thing.
- jeffdavis 9y agoThe problem is that the government has such arbitrary power to begin with. They don't even have the decency to pre-approve deals before the companies in question go out on a limb and announce the plan.
- swang 9y agoHmm. FCC allows rules to let Sinclair Broadcasting expand to becoming a monopoly. OK! Net Neutrality? Possibly gone by next month. AT&T and Time Warner to merge together?: "It would mean higher monthly television bills and fewer of the new, emerging innovative options that consumers are beginning to enjoy." Yes I know the FCC is not the DOJ, or the FTC. Just seems like Republican-led departments and commissions can't seem to get their story straight on whether mergers and fewer options are beneficial to customers or not. I'm not for this merger. But certainly seems like Trump's interference in this is probably going to udnermine any semblance of partiality by the DOJ.
- acheron 9y agoWhile I hesitate to presume any logic on the part of government agencies, I don’t see a problem. I would assume the answer is that the specific facts of each individual case are considered, rather than applying a blanket “all mergers are bad/good”.
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoSounds right to me. Net Neutrality: impinges on profits of big telecoms. Sinclair: amazing opportunity to simultaneously reward a major republican donor and disseminate overtly biased, conservative talking points in millions of American homes. ATT: great opportunity to kneecap CNN, which the President hates.
- chmln 9y agoYou have a good point, but don't kid yourself with "overtly biased, conservative talking points". There is little to no truly balanced and fact-oriented media. Obviously, except for those perceived as such by their respective viewers on either side of the political spectrum.
- Skylled 9y agoI don't think he's exaggerating. Watch the segment that John Oliver did on Sinclair. The content of the "must run" pieces is definitely alarming.
- myrandomcomment 9y agoThe reality here is that the President is blocking this deal because of his issues with CNN (To those that think this is not being driven by the Whitehouse...I have this bridge I am trying to sell....). This is purely political and I am sure the President’s statements will be front and centre in the court battle. Never though I would be on the side of AT&T or a cable company.
- wybiral 9y ago> Never though I would be on the side of AT&T or a cable company. You can oppose the AT&T merger and also call bullshit on the whitehouse if that does turn out to be the motivator here. They aren't mutually exclusive. I find it shady if that's the only reason for this happening. But mostly just shady because it hasn't taken place in previous deals where it should have. However... That doesn't mean I'm any less against the AT&T merger.
- losteric 9y agoThe last thing this country needs is more media consolidations... Trump snuck in to office partially because of past conservative-leaning mergers and acquisitions
- TheGrassyKnoll 9y agoMassive mergers like this should never even get off the ground. They do because Wall Street makes a ton-o-money doing them. How would this merger increase competition and lower consumer prices ?
- losteric 9y agoTheir argument is that the base internet access package will be cheaper than now... Neglecting to mention everyone will pay more for the "deluxe" package that gives them access to what they have today.
- bbayles 9y agoThis is nonsense. The DOJ is asking for either DirecTV or Turner Broadcasting be excluded from the deal, because being under the same roof would be a huge boost to DirectTV over its competitors - cable companies and Dish Network. Turner Broadcasting includes several channels. Both TNT and TBS are probably more important to the deal than CNN (the former has higher ratings than CNN across the board; the latter does in primetime); the idea that it's the sole focus for DOJ is highly questionable. Furthermore, how does DOJ's actual demand hurt CNN? AT&T could spin out Time Warner and keep the Turner channels. Or even if Time Warner spun out the Turner channels, they wouldn't go away (they were independent of Time Warner in the 1990s). I'm as anti-Trump as the next guy, but the idea that there's not a rational basis for DOJ's demand is simply mistaken.
- MR4D 9y agoThis is the THIRD time that AT&T has been sued for antitrust reasons. So for, they are 0-2. Side note: with net neutrality going away, doesn’t AT&T have the ability to raise rates on Disney, Netflix, and others to stream across their network without a slowdown?
- shmerl 9y agoLet AT&T spend $85B on fiber optics upgrades.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- skinnymuch 9y agoThey are buying Time Warner. Not Time Warner Cable. The latter is owned by Charter.
- shmerl 9y agoThat doesn't change the fact that they have tons of rotting DSL networks that should be upgraded. I was being sarcastic, saying that all that money could upgrade them probably many times over.
- obmelvin 9y agoWow, I'm not GP, but thanks for that comment. I was surprised that no one is talking about how this will affect internet quality and price in many regions. Turns out, no one's talking about it here because it isn't the issue I thought it was... The more you know.
- andrewhillman 9y agoEveryone is quick to bring up President Trump. If you don’t think about the media landscape (big scary picture) and are quick to say this is lawsuit is a political move you are naive and uninformed. If this isn’t blocked overtime you will see companies like Google and FB attempting to gain more power and control in the same way. The DOJ had no other choice. They had to sue to protect the interest of consumers. They see where things are heading and its not good. These deals are never good for consumers. When a few companies have too much power and control their only goal is to get more at the expense of the consumer. This is dangerous and should not be taken lightly.
- rayiner 9y agoConsolidation can be both good and bad for consumers. Consolidation can permit economies of scale which can drive down prices of sufficient competition remains in the market. Amazon, for example, just couldn’t offer the same services at the same price if it were say, 20 different competing companies. Same thing for Wal-Mart, or Google.
- QAPereo 9y agoComcast... Verizon...
- whathaschanged 9y agoIncreased profits come from somewhere. Nothing is ultimately good for consumers, they are just misled to believe it is. Increased jobs, in the case of walmart, come at the price of workers having to apply for foodstamps to live. Cheaper prices come at the cost of driving local stores out of business. Google and amazon are shitty companies too, no matter how much they pay for good PR.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoAmazon, Walmart, and Google were each one, focused company that got to where they were that way. Mergers of companies that scheme on their customers with oligopoly or monopoly tactics have almost always been bad for their customers. Also, if they were so great, they wouldn't be lobbying to block taxpayer-funded alternatives because it's always better when it's the private sector. The municipal versions would be slower, have worse service, cost more, and fall apart due to red tape. Yet, many that occurred despite Comcast et al's bribes to politicians were delivering better and faster service at same price or cheaper. Better to split them up even further with regulations on things like sharing lines to force them to improve speed and service.
- empath75 9y agoI'm against media consolidation in general, but Trump has so polluted the waters with his crusade against CNN that there's no way they'll win the court case. AT&T and Time Warner will enter in his twitter feed as evidence and courts will side with them. Really the only thing that's preventing Trump from being one of the worst leaders in history is that he's so bad at his job that he can't successfully implement his own bad ideas.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago>>but Trump has so polluted the waters with his crusade against CNN that there's no way they'll win the court case. AT&T and Time Warner will enter in his twitter feed as evidence and courts will side with them. You think federal judges give a rat's @ss about what Trump tweets? Plus it will be appealed and appealed.
- lightbyte 9y ago>You think federal judges give a rat's @ss about what Trump tweets? Yes, in fact there already have been multiple cases where his tweets were used against him.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoExecutive orders issued by him. No doubt Trump wants to screw CNN, but the courts will not care what he wants. That was my point: "don't give a rat's @ss" meaning thy will not follow /bow to him.
- trisimix 9y agoWhy would donald trumps mnssages matter? Is the justice departments case based soLely on the president wanting the merger to not go through? Those are two seperate cases. This lawsuit is going to court motives are a seperate crime.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- LeoJiWoo 9y agoI'm not for this merger, so I'm pleased but . . . I want DOJ to start doing their job and monopoly busting (without regard to politics). We have several industries engaged in anti-competitive behavior at a scale far larger than big oil.