-
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
if the Government wants to give AT&T and Time Warner a very hard time when it comes to their merger, then both companies should just go ahead and agree the cancel the merger since they know the DOJ and the FCC won't approve it due to political bias as it has something to do with CNN. and if this merger is indeed canceled, then i can see Time Warner getting bought out by a foreign company, possibly based in China to spite the US Government.
Except there is a huge termination fee. If the judge allows them to seek certain documents, it's worth it.
If it is political bias, don't you think someone has to challenge it? AT&T has the deep pockets to do it.
Maybe...or maybe they believe in selective anti-trust enforcement. The judge will decide.
Ummmm, yeah. That's clearly it.
Brief filed that says DOJ objection to AT&T-Time Warner merger is unconstitutional:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...hallenge-potential-trump-interference-n855036
It says there are consequences when the president uses the DOJ to enforce a personal agenda
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...hallenge-potential-trump-interference-n855036
It says there are consequences when the president uses the DOJ to enforce a personal agenda
The "well researched arguments" are all speculative. If AT&T did in fact conspire with Comcast to raise prices, which is a crazy suggestion, the DOJ could come back after the merger and charge them with anti-trust, the way they did with Microsoft 20 years ago. Anyone who has ever dealt with AT&T for their bundle packages knows the entire approach is to create packages for consumers that are cheaper, not more expensive. But if AT&T ever in the future uses its size to be anti-competitive, there is no reason why the DOJ can't at that time call them a monopoly. That's what happened in the 1970s. Same with Comcast. Just because that merger was approved doesn't mean it can't be broken up at some point in the future if anti-trust behavior occurs.
This is why AT&T is the evil empire they clearly are a monopoly like in the 80's time for them to sell off some of their assets. Looks like AT&T isn't going to get there greedy hands on Time Warner which I think Charter Spectrum should buy Time Warner since they did buy TWC a couple of years ago would get them in the content business even know they have got deals with AMC & Viacom to create shows for those networks.
Seems to me there used to be a law that would have prevented it, but it was repealed some time ago. A conservative judge might say this kind of case requires legislation preventing content and distribution by the same company, and is therefore not under jurisdiction of existing law.
Certainly that analysis is one that demonstrates that DoJ has legitimate concerns with allowing this merger to proceed. I doubt AT&T can overcome the arguments. They'll probably be better off not buying the whole enterprise anyway. TW is not a well managed company. If AT&T bides its time, they'll be able to cherry pick assets that actually have some legitimate worth. CNN obviously wouldn't be something they'd by in such a scenario.
It depends on if you view distribution in the 20th century view, using established traditional channels of transmission, or if you see it the way it is now, with anyone and everyone distributing their own content. Isn't that what Netflix does? They create video content and distribute it on their own platform. Google uses YouTube, it's wholly owned distribution platform, to distribute the content it creates. Amazon Fire is its own platform, creating new content for people to buy. This deal will simply put AT&T into this group of companies. Meanwhile Verizon has already bought Yahoo, and is looking to create content too. They could buy established content companies, like Warner Brothers, or do what Netflix did. What's the difference?
If the judge is saying you can't merge content and distribution, then AT&T should file an anti-trust suit against Netflix. Or Disney/Fox/Hulu.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/...-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
If the judge is saying you can't merge content and distribution, then AT&T should file an anti-trust suit against Netflix. Or Disney/Fox/Hulu.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/...-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
They certainly could try that, but would likely have even less success than they will with this poorly conceived merger. Further, DoJ has to assess the market where it is now. Those prior mergers could arguably have been executed at a time where there would've not been as severe impact to cable pricing as well as other impacts. DoJ needs not justify prior approvals in opposing a merger, only to lay out the facts as they currently sit. Disney is likely to face some opposition in its proposed merger with the Fox entertainment assets unless it comes to the table with some serious divestitures.
But that's not what their case is about. Instead they create some fiction about the future, assuming that AT&T would conspire with Comcast to drive up prices. Their case completely ignores the current marketplace where there is no barrier to creating a distribution system. The distribution system doesn't matter any more, because anyone has access to the same system.
In the past, AT&T or Verizon would use their network as a selling point, saying one is bigger or faster than the other. But now, that argument is moot. Both service are pretty equal. That's why the Verizon guy who used to say "Can you hear me now" works for the competition, and the issue is PRICE. It's not about making things more expensive. The battle is over making things cheaper. Bundling. You go to the AT&T store, and they want to create a bundle. Same with Comcast. The sales pitch isn't quality, but lower price. That's the world AT&T lives in now. The government's case ignores the current marketplace.
Actually it does, and here's the excerpt for you to read:
Section E explains that the merger would have
“coordinated effects.” That is, the merger would make it profitable, and likely, for AT&T and
Comcast/NBCU to coordinate to deny emerging Virtual MVPDs critical inputs, namely, NBC
and Time Warner programming. These three practices—each alone a violation of Section 7—
would reinforce one another, inflicting serious harm on competition and consumers.
----
This is the kind of fiction that's in the government case. And of course any such co-ordination would be illegal. That's why it's unlikely.
However, the judge can place limits on certain costs AT&T can charge, as the just did in the Sirius XM merger. Subscription prices can't be raised except for changes in music royalty rates. Those are the only increased costs that can be passed on to the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge did something similar here.
Last edited:
- Status