Not true. There has been a consistency in how DOJ has handled mergers through Democratic and Republican administrations. Impartial analysts looking at this decision say it has nothing to do with increasing cost to consumers, any more than the merger of Entercom and CBS Radio. AT&T has deep pockets and they will fight this.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
AT&T/Time-Warner merger
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Not true. There has been a consistency in how DOJ has handled mergers through Democratic and Republican administrations. Impartial analysts looking at this decision say it has nothing to do with increasing cost to consumers, any more than the merger of Entercom and CBS Radio. AT&T has deep pockets and they will fight this.
Wasn't AOL-Time Warner merging in 1995 under Clinton?
No. You're the second person in this thread to say that.
Time Warner merged with Turner Broadcasting in 1996.
AOL merged with Time Warner in 2001
yeah, the AOL-Time Warner merger (aka the real reason why WCW died and got bought out by it's rival WWE, thus ending true competition in that industry in the US) happen under W.'s watch.
I guess I don't see why Time Warner merging with AOL caused WCW to die. If anything, it was Warner's poor management of Turner's assets that led to this, but more likely was the result of WWE simply doing a better job at promoting its brand. Warner has not been a well managed enterprise. The original merger with Time, Inc. was debt riddled and constrained both companies. Buying Turner held a lot of potential but was bungled by Warner's management. The merger with AOL was a disaster. Now, the AT&T merger isn't likely to happen.
He wouldn't leave office for a full year. Remember, the winner in the November presidential election doesn't become president until the following January. Even if the deal was finally OK'd in the first months of the Bush administration, most of the vetting of the deal by the DOJ had to have taken place under Clinton.
Keep in mind that when Time & Warner merged, the combined company was managed by Time, not Warner. Gerald Levin, who came up through Time, became CEO of the combined company. The merger took place under the George Bush administration. The company under Levin grew and diversified. Adding Turner was another good move for both companies, and made Ted Turner a very wealthy man. The disaster was AOL. Turner Broadcasting has its own management, it's own CEO, and it's own Chairman. So if you don't like how it's managed, it's because of its own Chairman, not because of Time Warner.
Time Warner AOL was approved by the FTC 1-11-2001, Bush was sworn in on 1-20-2001 9 days later. So it was formed under Clinton.
But the Bush FTC was responsible for the SBC and AT&T merger, which in my opinion stifled competition and should have not taken place.
But the Bush FTC was responsible for the SBC and AT&T merger, which in my opinion stifled competition and should have not taken place.
I think you're right. Had that merger not happened, you would not have this one on the table.
When SBC bought AT&T, AT&T was but a shell of its former self. AT&T had already divested its cable assets by that point. It was just a long distance company merging with a local phone company that then took the name of the firm being taken over.
In any case, The merger now on the table isn't going to happen, and it has nothing to do with CNN.
We'll see. AT&T can demonstrate by using the example of current assets that the combination will lead to LOWER prices, not higher prices. The government doesn't understand the content marketplace. The government is using 19th century metrics in a 21st century environment.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ays-company-would-never-buy-cnn-idUSKBN1DT2MQ
Here's an update for pretty obvious reasons according to Fox leader Lachlan Murdoch over CNN.
Here's an update for pretty obvious reasons according to Fox leader Lachlan Murdoch over CNN.
It's an interesting question to ask. It would be interesting for Fox to actually make the offer just to see how the DOJ would respond.
http://deadline.com/2017/12/judge-s...bid-to-block-att-time-warner-deal-1202222207/
Update the March 19th trial date is announced for the Time Warner/AT&T deal.
Update the March 19th trial date is announced for the Time Warner/AT&T deal.
I think the impact of this will neither impact Fox/Disney nor Sinclair/Tribune. With AT&T/TW you have content and distribution getting together. While Disney has ABC, they don't own any cable distribution of note, neither does fox. While Sinclair and Tribune have some minor content production, it's mostly OTA distribution getting together. If TW/AT&T ultimately is allowed to proceed, it will require divestitures far exceeding what AT&T has proposed or is likely to accept.
I think this deal is a goner, rightfully so, AT&T will have to pay another fat fee as a result of a failed acquisition, and the AT&T CEO will be shown the door.
I think this deal is a goner, rightfully so, AT&T will have to pay another fat fee as a result of a failed acquisition, and the AT&T CEO will be shown the door.
If AT&T owned the ONLY system of distribution, the DOJ would have a point. If there were no other options other than AT&T distribution. But that's not the case. AT&T competes with other services from Verizon and Comcast. In the case of Comcast and Universal, the government can show no examples where content costs have increased because they're co-owned. In the case of AT&T and DirecTV, the service has actually become cheaper, because AT&T offers satellite as part of a bundle. So it's cheaper than it was before the merger.
The other problem the administration has is that one way to control potential cost increases is to retain net neutrality. Net neutrality laws are a hedge against companies like AT&T from increasing costs for content through their distribution system. So if the DOJ strikes down this merger, they will provide ammunition to those who don't like their position on net neutrality.
The other problem the administration has is that one way to control potential cost increases is to retain net neutrality. Net neutrality laws are a hedge against companies like AT&T from increasing costs for content through their distribution system. So if the DOJ strikes down this merger, they will provide ammunition to those who don't like their position on net neutrality.
Net Neutrality is gone.
Your analysis is flawed, in any case.
DOJ only has to show the potential for increases and they can use data after the Comcast/NBCU merger. Costs did increase and they can be attributed, at least in part to the marrying of content with distribution.
I doubt this even goes to trial. Either AT&T goes hat in hand to DOJ agreeing to a large list of divestitures before March, or they just give up.
They'll lose at trial and then lose in the appeals. In the meantime both AT&T and TW remain in limbo from any real planning ability hurting them competitively.
This merger deserves to fail.
Your analysis is flawed, in any case.
DOJ only has to show the potential for increases and they can use data after the Comcast/NBCU merger. Costs did increase and they can be attributed, at least in part to the marrying of content with distribution.
I doubt this even goes to trial. Either AT&T goes hat in hand to DOJ agreeing to a large list of divestitures before March, or they just give up.
They'll lose at trial and then lose in the appeals. In the meantime both AT&T and TW remain in limbo from any real planning ability hurting them competitively.
This merger deserves to fail.
Sure Republicans will ram it through regardless of my analysis, just like everything else they've done. But if rising costs is their concern, they should retain net neutrality. Just as if controlling the deficit is a concern, they should vote no on the tax bill.
Costs will increase regardless of who owns what. That is how companies work. Even if the merger fails, costs will increase. Killing net neutrality will also increase consumer costs.
The Senator appears to agree with my analysis, making the connection between this deal and net neutrality.
- Status