3 ms·

It's interesting that the Trump administration was eager to block this deal (Trump has made statements in favor of preventing this merger), while enthusiastical

It'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 ago
The 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 ago
  That makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
droopybuns 8y ago
This 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.
- dschuler 8y ago
  I was wondering about the debt involved to pull off this deal, thanks for the link.

makomk 8y ago

The 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 ago
That makes sense. Thanks for the insight.

droopybuns 8y ago

This 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.

dschuler 8y ago
I was wondering about the debt involved to pull off this deal, thanks for the link.