16 ms·
AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner
- erric 8y ago>Judge Leon limited how DOJ lawyers questioned certain witnesses and expressed visible skepticism of testimony by the government’s chief economic witness, who presented an empirical model that predicted the deal would lead to small but significant price increases in monthly cable bills. AT&T countered with its own academic economist who said it wouldn’t. Yeah, I’m sure this won’t lead to _small_ price increases for consumers.
- Sacho 8y agoThis is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Here is the judge's opinion which actually explains his rationale: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/17-2511opinion.pdf http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/17-2511opinion.p... His rationale on this particular is over 30 pages long. It starts at page 57-ish.
- Waterluvian 8y agoNeither of these companies really affects me as a non-American. But it feels like it just paves the way for mergers of companies that do. I started thinking of international examples, which got me thinking about Google and Apple. Who in a way feel like they're post-colossal-merger companies already. And I mean... It kind of sucks but it's not nearly as awful as I feared it might look like.
- chimeracoder 8y agoHere's a neutral article (as opposed to a press release) with some more of the history and significance: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2018/06/12/att-wins-antitrust-battle-time-warner https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2018/06/12/att-wins-...
- rosser 8y agoI'm so glad the end of Net Neutrality has ushered in an era of unprecedented competition in the broadband market. EDIT: Yes, this acquisition is of the content division of Time Warner, not the ISP, which was previously acquired — by another broadband provider, mooting my general point how, again?
- Confiks 8y agoAnother comment [1] indicated that "this isn't the internet Time Warner (...) this is the entertainment Time Warner". Is that correct? (I'm not familiar with the US broadband market) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17297966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17297966
- wmf 8y agoTime Warner Cable (the ISP) was already bought by Charter and renamed to Spectrum.
- opencl 8y agoThis has nothing to do with the broadband market. Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009 and subsequently bought up by Spectrum in 2016.
- rosser 8y agoIt has plenty to do with the broadband market, if you happen to be an AT&T subscriber, and especially if they're your only choice. This, coupled with their no longer being restrained from the kinds of shenanigans that NN barred, positions them to force preferential choices on their subscribers and wring more money out of them for the privilege of accessing competing services. This is only good for people holding T and TWX, and probably not even most of them.
- opencl 8y agoI would certainly agree with that but your original comment was specifically about competition in the broadband market, which this deal has absolutely zero effect on and your post seemed to be based on the common misunderstanding of TWC still being part of TW.
- rjurney 8y agoGreat. More and bigger monopolies forming in networks/media.
- etaioinshrdlu 8y agoWhy does the date on the article say 2016?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- daeken 8y agoThat's when the deal was arranged between the companies. It was just approved by the government. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/att-time-warner-ruling.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/att-time-warner-ruling.html
- rubyn00bie 8y agoThat's when it was originally published, it was just approved... and is still AT&Ts "go to" page for the information. Additionally, you can see their "applauding of the courts" here: http://about.att.com/story/court_rules.html http://about.att.com/story/court_rules.html ... and now excuse me while I try to figure out what the remaining horcruxes are so I can destroy them, and stop it (MA Bell) from coming back to power /s
- Xixi 8y agoThe article is probably the original announcement. The merger was approved today [1]. https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-is-set-to-decide-whether-at-t-and-time-warner-can-merge-1528832942 https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-is-set-to-decide-whether-...
- graboy 8y agoBecause it's from 2016, that's when the acquisition was originally announced (check the internet archive). The real news is that the court just approved the acquisition: http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_time_warner.html http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_time_warner.html
- jshap70 8y agoconsumer protection: what is it
- komali2 8y agohttps://i.imgflip.com/2c40f3.jpg https://i.imgflip.com/2c40f3.jpg (I know, I'm sorry)
- fermienrico 8y agoThen don't post it. Sigh.
- jandrese 8y agoYet more media consolidation. And this one has the inherent conflicts of interest you get when a distributor buys out a producer. And of course the idea of protecting the public interest isn't a thing anymore in DC.
- platinumrad 8y agoTo be fair, the DOJ actually tried to stop this but was overruled by the courts.
- gm-conspiracy 8y agoJeff Sessions, servant of the people?
- ghostbrainalpha 8y agoJeff Sessions, servant of some of the people?
- ribosometronome 8y agoTo be fair, the DOJ's motives were completely tainted by Trump's hostility toward CNN.
- paulddraper 8y agoObviously, whatever Trump does is bad, whether busting monopolies or not busting monopolies.
- jakevn 8y agoHas Trump been busting monopolies?
- paulddraper 8y agoWell, that was the attempt here.
- walru 8y ago>to lead the next generation in innovation. Meanwhile I have 300k internet in Pasadena, CA. That's the fastest they offer. My roommate doesn't care and won't upgrade to Spectrum. Why is it whenever I read the above it means the opposite?
- ddtaylor 8y agoHow much AT&T Time Warner stock does your roomate own?!
- walru 8y agoNone. He's a luddite.
- JAFTEM 8y agoAlso have bad internet in LA. I grew up in North Dakota though, and back there my family is getting 1 gigabit internet for $100/mo from Midcontinent. Absolutely bizarre and ridiculous that North Dakota, a state that has far less developed infrastructure than either coast, has better internet than Los Angeles.
- BigChiefSmokem 8y agoI'm in LA and I pay Spectrum $54 a month for 100mb and saw that their gigabit service is $104 a month for new subscribers.
- scarface74 8y agoWhat's the upstream? Comcast offers 1 gigabit down but only 35Mbps up. AT&T offers gigabit up and down for $70 a month. I usually get at least 900Mbps up and down.
- rayiner 8y agoIs it? I’ve got two fiber lines into my house in a Maryland county where most people are on septic and well. Unsurprisingly, Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment.
- xeromal 8y agoFYI, this isn't the internet Time Warner. This is the entertainment Time Warner. The internet Time Warner is run by Spectrum these days.
- djsumdog 8y agoDoes that really matter? Just because it isn't becoming an Internet monopoly, it's still a content+distribution mega-corp that can squeeze its competitors and limit options for consumers.
- EpicEng 8y agoIt matters when ~50% of the comments are talking about net neutrality and Time Warner Cable hasn't existed for more than two years.
- rosser 8y agoIt also seems to matter as a diversionary tactic, employed to curtail discussion of the dearth of meaningful competition in broadband. And it ignores that TWC was acquired by another ISP, meaning that sale, whenever it happened, also curtailed broadband competition. On top of all that, with the end of NN, AT&T can preferentially shove TWX content in your face, and force you to pay extra to consume someone else's. That is absolutely relevant, and it's disingenuous, at best, to suggest otherwise.
- windows_tips 8y agoIs there actually a market for things like CNN? It seems that CNN being shoved in your face is kind of its thing.
- rosser 8y agoI mean as opposed to, say, Netflix or Hulu. AT&T can, under the present legal regime, perfectly legitimately say, "Here's all this 'free' content for you. You'll have to subscribe to the 'Not Our Content' package to access those other services..." But, sure. Let's run with your example: imagine you had an ISP who let you read Fox News for free, but charged you to visit CNN.
- bradleyankrom 8y agothis is from 2016, when the terms of the merger were agreed upon but still required government approval.
- casefields 8y ago“AT&T’s Time Warner Takeover Wins Judge’s Approval in Defeat for Justice Dept.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/business/dealbook/att-time-warner-ruling-antitrust-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/business/dealbook/att-tim... What does that sound like to you bud?
- shmerl 8y agoSo, will anti-trust please bust this monster? And split Comcast along the way too (media from ISP), for good measure.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gzu 8y agoIt’s crazy to me how one judge gets to decide the fate of a 100 billion dollar merger. Humans are fallible.
- atmosx 8y agoAre you proposing to use AI (or what we call AI nowadays) instead? :-)
- 1137 8y ago// super advanced AI for court decision while (defendant.getSumOfContrib(partyInCharge)<= Gov.Judicial.Common.RULE_FAVOR_MINIMUM) { delay(); }
- TillE 8y agoI think it would not necessarily be insane to envision a system which hands off non-obvious regulatory cases to the legislature, to amend the law such that this and future cases could be trivially decided.
- atmosx 8y agoOnly an engineer could entertain this idea.
- aurailious 8y agoWell, the judge has to base the decision on a whole bunch of laws. It's not like judges get to decide this on their own.
- hermitdev 8y agoExcept when they do. Activist judges & judicial legislation [0] are not a new thing. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judicial%20legislation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judicial%20legisl...
- 8y ago
- trynumber9 8y agoThe DOJ had tried to stop the deal[1] but it appears that the court ruled it could carry on [2]. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a statement the DOJ was "disappointed with the Court's decision today. We continue to believe that the pay-TV market will be less competitive and less innovative as a result of the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. We will closely review the Court's opinion and consider next steps in light of our commitment to preserving competition for the benefit of American consumers." [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time-warner-m-a-at-t/u-s-justice-dept-att-settlement-talks-failed-court-filing-idUSKBN1E92RS https://www.reuters.com/article/us-time-warner-m-a-at-t/u-s-... [2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-on-att-time-warner-merger-live-stream/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-on-att-time-warner-...
- dm8 8y agoCan they appeal the case in higher courts?
- jld 8y agoThe merger is set to close next Monday. DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. I think the DOJ will just take it as a loss.
- mehrdadn 8y ago> DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. What would they have to lose?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mattnewton 8y agoTaxpayer dollars I guess? Still don’t like the tone of that though.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mikece 8y agoThis is a distribution company -- internet, cable TV, satellite -- acquiring a content company (the communications portion of Time Warner was spun off as Spectrum). Isn't this just a vertical integration?
- SippinLean 8y agoTime Warner's cable business was spun off as Time Warner Cable, which Charter Communications later acquired. Charter's cable/internet/tv brand is Spectrum.
- mikece 8y agoYou are right -- I stand corrected.
- gimmeThaBeet 8y agoDefinitely. There are a lot of valid debates you can have about whether or not this is a good thing, but it's very arguably the 'correct' decision in the sense of precedent, and as you are implying, the less surprising one.
- toufique 8y agoDislike
- roflc0ptic 8y agoIn the context of net neutrality ending, this looks like AT&T acquiring the means to exploit discriminatory traffic routing. It seems like there will be a gold rush of sorts, towards building walled gardens, segmenting the Internet into fiefs. Does ending NN allow an ISP to completely block a website? I.e. to what extent does this also open up the door to overt political censorship?
- jhall1468 8y agoTime Warner the ISP was bought years ago. This is Time Warner the entertainment company.
- tacomonstrous 8y agoAT&T is an ISP. They also own DirecTV, and now CNN and associated media entities.
- jhall1468 8y agoI'm well aware. My point was that people were talking about the issue like it was Time Warner the ISP. It isn't.
- droopybuns 8y agoThere are two examples of websites being blocked that I can point to, none involving ISPs: 1) Google blocking Microsoft and Amazon devices from accessing YouTube content. 2) FBI takeovers of DNS entries to web servers or TOR nodes. And if political censorship is your biggest concern, should youtube be held accountable for blocking firearms content on their site? Where are the examples of ISPs blocking web pages? Throttling != blocking. Bandwidth is not infinite. Edit: If facts are inconvenient, that downvote button provides a nutritional burst of serotonin.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- staunch 8y agoTechnology will help the citizenry destroy these evil megacorps. It's just a matter of time and some improvements in technology. The world where ABC/CBS/NBC/NYTimes/Time/etc could control what people think is over. In the near future we will have a much more educated populace. They will flex their power in ways that seem unimaginable now. When the information revolution finally arrives, these megacorps will be the first against the wall
- allthenews 8y agoYou put too much faith into the average person's desire for education. Most people don't know and/or don't care.
- awat 8y agoThis is sadly my experience too. Both my parents are educators and life long learners. It still floors me how many conversations they had with my younger siblings friends parents (I was present) were it more or less went. Friend parent makes baseless or incorrect assertion my history buff father retorted and they just said well I don’t care anyways.
- ergothus 8y agoAre you trying for irony? Given that this is just one of several recent cases where companies are locking down the technology that informs people - the technology you are counting on to take on these corps.
- myrandomcomment 8y agoThe average IQ is 100 remember. :) Most people do not care. They happily give up all privacy to FB and Google. The funny thing is everyone was worried about the world turning into a version of 1984 and it looks like Brave New World and F451 was more on target.
- traek 8y agoNB this is "Time Warner the media company", not Time Warner Cable (which is now Spectrum.) This isn't broadband consolidation but rather media/entertainment consolidation. The deal is most closely comparable to Comcast's acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011.
- walshemj 8y agoWhich is what a lot of ex telecoms monopolies are doing as they cant really grow organically anymore another example is BT sport funny how Murdoch's press started bashing BT after they started competing with Sky
- efficax 8y agoThis is nuts. This means there is now only one last-mile broadband provider in plenty of big markets. Milwaukee, for example, now no longer has any competition in the broadband space.
- banachtarski 8y agoWhat does this have to do with broadband
- amyjess 8y agoDespite the name, Time Warner doesn't own Time Warner Cable. They split years ago.
- static_noise 8y agoMergers like this are required to keep competition and the free market alive.
- dang 8y agoCould you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
- dang 8y agoMerging the threads now. Submitted URLs so far, besides this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/business/dealbook/att-time-warner-ruling-antitrust-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/business/dealbook/att-tim... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/att-time-warner-ruling.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/att-time-warner-ruling.html https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2018/06/12/att-wins-antitrust-battle-time-warner https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2018/06/12/att-wins-... http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_time_warner.html http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_time_warner.html If anyone knows a significantly better URL for this submission, let us know and we can change it again.
- class4behavior 8y agohttps://variety.com/2018/biz/news/att-time-warner-merger-approved-1202840369/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/att-time-warner-merger-app... More details, especially where it matters. and a more analytic language.
- dang 8y agoOk, we'll change to that from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/at-t-wins-antitrust-ruling-allowing-takeover-of-time-warner https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/at-t-wins.... Thanks!
- zanny 8y agoPerfect time to rename the company to "usher in a new era of innovation". How about calling the new AT&T Bell? Because this merged company will be way worse an anticompetitive monopoly than the exploitative operator of the US switched phone network ever could have been.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoGood grief. Why can't we stop all this consolidation already? This is only good for shareholders. The cons clearly outweigh the pros for consumers.
- c3534l 8y agoThe courts seem to be letting telecoms consolidate to a degree that is unprecedented (Bell, at least, had a fairly narrow scope), because they think the internet means these companies have competition. I think they're severely under-estimating the power these companies have and the risk that these mergers create to both consumers and our democracy.
- kuraudo 8y agoThat or they don't care. I'd be very interested to know what kind of positions the friends & families of these judges hold related to the mergers they approve.
- niftich 8y agoThe acquisition target is 'Time Warner Inc.', primarily a television and film company, whose products and subvisions include HBO and Cinemax, the TV networks CNN, TBS, Turner Classic Movies, TNT, and various joint ventures with US sports leagues, and Warner Bros, which now includes DC Comics/DC Entertainment. Meanwhile, AT&T is largely a telecom and satellite broadcast company, which under its various subsidiaries offers bulk telecom interconnect, and satellite television, and is a wired and wireless ISP. Therefore, this sounds more like vertical integration of an infrastructure-and-ISP company buying a media company in much the same vein as Comcast acquiring full ownership of NBCUniversal in 2013, or Verizon acquiring AOL -- which in 2001 bought Time Warner, then AOL got spun out in 2009 -- and Yahoo.
- xigency 8y agoThe part that bothers me about each of those acquisitions is that none of those utility companies are well-liked by their customers (instead being the most hated companies). The fact that they all have the ability to acquire these other large entities which aren't reviled shows that they really are scalping their customers. And it isn't just Comcast or AT&T or Verizon, it's all of them. That is highly irregular for them to all be so despised and successful.
- grigjd3 8y agoWhat do you mean highly irregular? They all have regional monopolies. Of course they have crap service and high prices.
- ajonnav 8y ago> The judge indicated during the trial that he wasn’t buying Shapiro’s projection. After his testimony, Leon said he was "confused." Further explanation from Shapiro didn’t help. "I’m not sure I got it, but it’s too late and too hot to belabor the point any further," the judge said. Amazing on so many different levels. (Shapiro is the economist whose model the DOJ based their case off of).
- _rpd 8y agoAbsolutely shameful. AI judges can't come soon enough.
- SrslyJosh 8y agoWhere do you think the training data for AI judges would come from?
- vokep 8y agoevaluations of historical judgements made and what the consequences were. How to define good/bad consequences becomes the problem then, but thats the nature of it.
- coderdude 8y agoThis is the HN quote of the century
- peterwwillis 8y ago
- fomopop 8y agoFor those who cut the cord, some things that may come out of this: 1. AT&T announced they were launching an entertainment only live streaming service for $15 (or free to AT&T subscribers) which will compete with Philo. 2. They will continue to give away free or cheap HBO to AT&T or DIRECTV NOW customers 3. Comcast will more aggressively bid for FOX which means either Disney or Comcast will become the majority stakeholder for Hulu https://medium.com/fomopop/what-at-t-time-warner-deal-means-for-cord-cutting-d68bd3f8b81 https://medium.com/fomopop/what-at-t-time-warner-deal-means-...
- dv_dt 8y agoSo is anyone actually trying to write legislation to bar ISPs from co-owning content creation companies? Is there a basis for this? Or is there some other type of anti-media/connectivity consolidation on the horizon even as a thought experiment?
- nullbull 8y agoAnti-trust is truly dead. We're re-doing the gilded age everyone, strap in. This'll be great this time, we promise.
- ksk 8y agoIt seems like every commercial actor wants to be the platform (add "value" as an integrator/provider), and avoid being abstracted out under the platform. "Internet is just a dumb pipe" "Why dont all PCs ship with just a vanilla Windows install" OR "Why don't all smartphones just install vanilla Android" "The programmer is irrelevant" "The OS is irrelevant" "The browser used is irrelevant" "Cable providers are irrelevant" etc.. etc
- i_am_nomad 8y agoIn many cases that’s known as “commoditizing your complement.” https://www.gwern.net/Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement
- jadedhacker 8y agoMedia consolidation infographic from 2011. Back then, six companies controlled 90% of the market. I wonder where we're at now? http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-...
- mxschumacher 8y agothrough the rise of original content production from Amazon and Netflix and the overall shift to internet delivery (including Youtube and Podcasts) I'd argue we're in a less concentrated situation today.
- anonymous5133 8y agoCompletely agree as well.
- jadedhacker 8y agoYes and no. I agree 100% for podcasts. However, while Youtube and Netflix are encouraging more producers they retain veto power on their platforms. This is key. In the case of Netflix, it's obvious they only host what they want on their platform. In the case of Youtube, they are increasingly banning videos. This isn't my particular hobbyhorse issue, but it was the first result for "youtube ban political videos" and it has a huge constituency. "Youtube to Ban Videos Promoting Gun Sales" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/business/youtube-gun-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/business/youtube-gun-ban.... VICE Motherboard chronicles Youtube's history of escalating censorship. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59jgka/a-brief-history-of-youtube-censorship https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/59jgka/a-brief-hi... On a decentralized platform (i.e. the real web) this would be impossible or nearly so. You might disagree with or laugh at the people losing money or literally being censored on one of the biggest public squares in the world, but it's not democratic and media consolidation will never ever result in something compatible with the free and open exchange of ideas.
- basch 8y agoThis 90% is absurd. What about: ATT - DirecTV, Time Warner (WB, Turner, HBO) Verizon - Yahoo, AOL Comcast - XFinity, NBCUniversal Disney - 21st Century Fox? Sony - Pictures, Television, Music/Publishing Netflix Amazon Google/Youtube Facebook Microsoft National Amusements (CBS/Viacom(Paramount)) Fox Broadcasting/Fox Sports Sinclair Broadcast Group/Tribune Company? Vivendi - Canal+, Universal Music Group Bertelsmann - Random House, Penguin, RTL, BMG Lionsgate Crown Castle - Hallmark Discovery - Scripps Interactive, TLC, Animal Planet, US Networks AMC Networks Kobalt Warner Music Group - Warner/Chappell News Corp Tronc Time inc Hearst Corporation Gannett Advanced Publications Meredith Corp HarperCollins New York Times Company Wenner Media Getty Gray Nexstar Tegna iHeartMedia (ClearChannel) AMC Theaters Madison Square Garden Regal Cinemark MindGeek Televisa Univision Communications Sprint/T-Mobile? Charter Communications (Bright House Networks, Spectrum Internet formerly Time Warner Cable) Dish Cox Altice USA (Optimum Online, Suddenlink Communications) CenturyLink Frontier
- dschuler 8y agoIt's interesting that the Trump administration was eager to block this deal (Trump has made statements in favor of preventing this merger), while enthusiastically repealing net neutrality. Maybe expecting consistency here is reading too much into the tea leaves. At the same time, AT&T stock is down in after hours trading. Does this mean that investors believe this merger will be bad for AT&T, or at least for short-term profits? Maybe tomorrow's reaction will be different as the entire market will weigh in on the decision.
- makomk 8y agoThe fundamental philosophy at play here, I think - so far as there is one - is that government regulation cannot and should not be used to try and regulate away the negative effects of lack of competition, that instead it should ensure that a competitive marketplace exists and let the market take care of it. If I recall correctly, there's an explanation of this position from Ajit Pai's FCC, which in particular references the NBC Universal-Comcast merger and explains why the FCC no longer wishes to allow such mergers.
- dschuler 8y agoThat makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
- droopybuns 8y agoThis move makes AT&T the largest private debt holder in the United States. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2017/06/30/can-att-king-debt-keep-paying-ever-higher-dividends https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2017/06/30/can-att-k... It’s tough to be nimble with financial responsibility this large. It is not obvious to me that this is a good thing for the shareholders. It’s for this reason that I’d rather see us focus on incentives for local ISP competition rather than regulatory burdens designed to keep elephants this large in check. Net neutrality has to be powerful enough to curb AT&T’s legal teams. Scrappy local ISPs aren’t going to have the same resources for responding to regulatory requests. It entrenches the big players.
- 8y ago
- amelius 8y agoCan't we have a system where the bigger the merger, the more compelling the arguments for it should be? Like a $10M merger should have 1 strong argument in favor of the consumer, a $100M merger should have 2 strong arguments, and a $100B merger should have 5 strong arguments in favor of the consumer (and I'm being forgiving by using a logarithmic scale here).
- ReverseCold 8y agoHot take: An $X m merger should never go through. (I haven't thought about the downsides, but I can't see anything obvious?)
- chopin 8y agoIt could be split up into several mergers below $X.
- ReverseCold 8y agoI'd assume there would be a rule to prevent structuring
- fallingfrog 8y agoNationalize'em.
- kregasaurusrex 8y agoLink to the court's ruling: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4502506/U-S-v-AT-amp-T-Decision.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4502506/U-S-v-AT-...
- DeepYogurt 8y agoLooking like AT&T needs to be broken up again.
- Bucephalus355 8y agoI want to give an unconventional view that supports this decision. The two companies merging are walking into a trap. Their size makes them an attractive target for nationalization. ATT started off as a private company. It’s size however lead to it being effectively taken over by the government. The resulting monopoly came to employ 1 million people at its height. Adjusted for population growth, that’s be like the entirety of all the military branches today. Before anyone mentions anything about automation though, let me say, there are plenty of jobs. If any of you have had the pleasure of a company giving you a secretary, you know that many jobs that have supposedly been automated, we are just doing without. Also as cyber security becomes more of a concern, none of these jobs can be outsourced. Can you imagine whatever company builds our 5G network having their NOC in say Costa Rica (assuming world relations continue to deteriorate), or customer support outsourcing to the Philippines? I know my views are wrong in some areas, but I hope they open a few new ways of viewing things.
- ganoushoreilly 8y ago"Also as cyber security becomes more of a concern, none of these jobs can be outsourced." I wish you were correct, but this doesn't actually seem to be the case. You have people outsourcing directly, or going with MSSP that are themselves outsourcing. I'd say a good 70% of the customers I deal with in the space are in this boat, most of which are in Financials and High Tech (engineering) spaces.
- s2g 8y ago> Their size makes them an attractive target for nationalization Sure, except this is America.
- sriku 8y agoHot on the heels of FCC repealing net neutrality?
- mortdeus 8y agoMaybe this will cause Trump to retaliate by bringing back net neutrality?
- oli5679 8y agoDoes anyone have a link the the analysis done by Carl Shapiro?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- trumped 8y agoSince the government already logs the content of all internet pipes, I think that they should nationalize all ISPs... it would be much cheaper.
- imbokodo 8y agoLenin wrote about the inevitability of monopoly in 1916. He would not have been surprised that the 1911 break up of Standard Oil would be undone in 1999 with the ExxonMobil, nor the slow reconsolidation of the Baby Bells, nor the other monopolies bringing us back to the gilded age. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch01.htm http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch0...
- delbel 8y agoFunny, at the same time he took money from the Warburg family to fund his revolution that killed millions, the Warburg family went on to be part ownership of Standard Oil during the same period.
- jaequery 8y agoi wonder what this means for our privacy. could this somehow be a step toward national surveillance?
- a-dub 8y ago"we want the cca deal stopped now! we want the cca deal stopped now!" meanwhile, didn't trump make a campaign promise to prevent this exact merger? interesting timing.
- Sacho 8y agoThe plaintiff trying to block the merger is Trump's administration's DOJ.
- stevenwoo 8y agoI had forgotten of this until I read this article on the Atlantic, but there is an organization dedicated to breaking up the new form of monopolies like AT&T+Time Warner, Google, Amazon, Facebook, originally funded by Google, the Open Markets Institute https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/lina-khan-antitrust/561743/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/lina-kh...
- vpribish 8y agoGot some sharp legal minds at work in this discussion. Really digging into the relevant parts of vertical vs horizontal anti-trust enforcement in a free market for media and a regulated one for content delivery. I especially love the nuanced extrapolation into healthcare and social media. Super work, just super.
- rayiner 8y agoCognitive dissonance is interesting. For example, tech folks generally love Japan and Hong Kong's railroads. But those systems work so well because of the exact sort of vertical integration techies get apoplectic about when it comes to the Internet: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-inf.... JR and MTR not only are private companies that own and operate the railroads, they own a ton of the land around the rail stations. They thus can capture value from both sides of a two-sided market--the customers going to a business near a rail station, and the business that benefits from having a rail station near it. That greatly increases incentive to invest in rail compared to a system where value can only be captured from the rider. Interestingly, vertical integration also increases competition, as is the case in urban areas of Japan. If you can leverage your low-margin transit product to sell your high-margin real estate product, you have vastly more incentive to compete with other firms on the transit product. Indeed, the vastly lower deployment costs enabled by 5G suggest an alternative vision of the future. We may end up with a system where you subscribe to "Google 5G" or "Facebook 5G" or even "Netflix 5G" service. It will be abhorrent to those who visualize a platonic model of infrastructure separated from content, but may in practice work a lot better than heavy government involvement in the infrastructure layer.
- njarboe 8y agoLots of trolly transportation systems were built in the US with the same model. Build a line out to the cheep farmland you own near a city/town, charge low fairs (not nearly enough to cover your capital costs and running costs), but now you can sell lots for housing at 10x or 20x the price you bought the land for. Once all the lots are sold, having the trolly pay for itself is difficult, especially after people can buy cars(hello model T) and not pay your monopoly trolly ride price. Almost all those trolly lines were shut down.
- rayiner 8y agoThat's more an issue of trollies becoming obsolete--government-run trolly lines or purely private ones that did not own the surrounding land also did not survive.
- transfire 8y agoHello, Ma Bell.
- sureaboutthis 8y agoAnything related to ATT is doomed. I've dealt with that company both professionally and personally and it's a mess. How it's managed to get this big and survive is beyond me. Their services are horrible, expensive, and you spend more time fixing their billing errors and getting a rep on the phone than you do anything else. It's a sad day for the modern age.
- circa 8y agoThe only good that can come of this all is that the Time Warner name will finally go away. (yes i know this is the media company vs. the cable company but this is the end of it!) the rest of the deal, is not so great. edit: not vs.* but 2 different entities with similar names.
- seymour333 8y ago"AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner, Judge Buys Boat"
- profalseidol 8y agoCapitalism as expected