• 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

Time Warner and AT&T talk merger

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...at-power-time-warner-imperil-merger-with-at-t

Update by Bloomberg Satellite dishes licenses are at stake between AT&T and Time Warner.

Behind the Time Warner Inc. campus in Atlanta, more than a dozen massive dishes silently stream CNN newscasts, Cartoon Network shows and Turner Sports games to satellites in outer space.

They’re a vital link in the media giant’s global news and entertainment business. But they operate under licenses from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which means they also could be the biggest threat to Time Warner’s aspirations to merge with AT&T Inc.

Time Warner has dozens of FCC licenses, according to a Bloomberg review of FCC databases. Transferring them to AT&T would trigger a review by the agency, and the company is looking for ways to avoid that, according to a person familiar with the situation. Otherwise, the $85.4 billion deal could be exposed to an agency that’s been a graveyard for mergers.

In theory, Time Warner could sell its dishes to an unaffiliated third party and enter into a contract with them for the same services -- but in that case, the buyer would need to ask the FCC for a license to provide services in the same location over the same airwaves, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.

It’s possible the FCC would accept the application without a fuss, Schwartzman said. But, he said, FCC officials also might say, “Wait a minute! We’re not stupid -- you are evading this review.”

Offload Licenses?

In that case, the FCC, which regulates airwaves use, could insist on a thorough public hearing for the new license application, Schwartzman said.

The likely outcome? “Maybe, maybe not, is the bottom line,” he said.

AT&T believes it can “offload” licenses that would trigger an FCC review, RBC Capital Markets analyst Jonathan Atkin said in a note summarizing a Nov. 10 presentation by company executives to RBC’s Technology, Internet, Media and Telecommunications Conference.

Time Warner also holds a license for a television station, WPCH in Atlanta. There are well-established procedures to place such licenses into a trust while potential buyers are found, in effect removing them from a review, Schwartzman said.

According to Fred Campbell, a former chief of the FCC’s wireless bureau, the company could simply surrender the TV license.
 
Once again, the President doesn't approve mergers.

yes he won't, but people he has appointed to the SEC (the Stock Exchange Commission, not the college football conference based in the Southeastern states of the US) and the Department Of Justice and the FCC would do his biding and not approve it on his behalf.

also, don't forget, he has bad blood with CNN, which is owned by Time Warner, so he doesn't want the merger as he may be trying to punish a media outlet for talking about him in a bad way.
 
yes he won't, but people he has appointed to the SEC and the Department Of Justice and the FCC would do his biding

Not necessarily. He only appoints the Attorney General. The rest of the people in the Justice Department are civil service lifetime employees who are not political appointees. They do what's legal, and can stand up to legal challenges. We're seeing right now that Obama's Justice Department has defied him on the Clinton investigation, and on many other things. Quite often federal agencies defy the President, and we should expect to see a lot of that in the next administration. Also, if he starts "punishing the media," get set for a major First Amendment case that could bring him at odds with the Supreme Court. He may be the President, but his powers are very limited on purpose.
 
http://nypost.com/2017/02/09/att-execs-stuck-in-middle-of-trump-cnn-feud/

Here we go again Time Warner and the AT&T deal is somehow connected to Trump rants against CNN?

How do you solve a problem like CNN?

Top execs at AT&T, in the midst of acquiring Time Warner, are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to curry favor with the White House at the same time CNN’s journalists are putting the president under the Kleig lights.

Indeed, Time Warner-owned CNN’s terse relationship with the Trump administration worsened earlier this week with a high-profile dispute between adviser Kellyanne Conway over whether she being was banned from the cable news channel.

Then on Tuesday, “The Lead” anchor Jake Tapper conducted a tough interview with Conway over claims the media underreported terror attacks.

Tapper said it was hard to take criticism from a White House that has “little regard for facts or truth,” and “who calls us fake news for stories they don’t like.”

Meanwhile, AT&T appears to be making little traction in building relationships in DC, sources said. The Dallas telecom giant has been reaching out across the Beltway for feedback and advice on how to deal with the problem.

This is similar to this President Trump rants has a connection to the deal at Nordstrom even though in reality the Trump contract with Nordstrom was cut off due to the demographics of Nordstrom's customers.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/business/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-tj-maxx.html?_r=0

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/con...m-six-days-after-it-drops-ivanka-line-n718396
 
Last edited:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...just-might-kill-at-ts-time-warner-deal-989262

Update some how the president in at play here. But in reality its how congress and the courts will react to this deal.

The president’s view on the $85.4 billion merger has been quite un-Republican-like, and he wants to keep his campaign promise, which would mean intervening (and stifling CNN nemesis Jeff Zucker).
Donald Trump says he is determined to keep his campaign promises. It is a mantra in the West Wing. All campaign promises have to be turned into executive orders, legislation or regulatory action. That’s the agenda. There’s an actual checklist on which staffers tick off each promise. One of those promises — falling somewhere behind extreme vetting, repealing and replacing Obamacare (well, um, cough, blame someone else for that), tax reform, immigration bans, military expansion, budget cutting, a Mexican border wall and making NATO allies pay up — is to block the planned merger of AT&T and Time Warner.

I recently contacted Time Warner, which will receive $500 million if the $85.4 billion merger doesn’t go through, about the status of the deal and was pretty much told that the press- and politics-savvy company, led by Jeff Bewkes, was strictly in the backseat on this one. In fact, at the presidential inauguration party at Time Warner’s Washington government affairs offices (in sight of the White House) — where Carol Melton, who oversees the D.C. office, is regarded as one of the best public policy people in the media business — the talk was about closing the Capitol outpost.

So I got in touch with AT&T’s Washington office, which seemed confused about how to talk to a reporter. Claudia B. Jones, AT&T vp public affairs and communications, responded by sending me a press packet about the deal. I said thanks but that I was really looking to sit down with someone and hear a bit of the thinking — on background would be fine — about how AT&T was planning to navigate the new and strange realities of Trumpworld and its public disdain for the deal. Corporate PR then stepped in and offered an on-the-record interview with AT&T general counsel David McAtee.

Michael Wolff on Trump's Tech War and How Big Media Benefits
Now, one of the significant things that is occurring in the AT&T-TW merger — perhaps as important to its success as Trump’s acquiescence to the deal — is the transformation of AT&T, an infrastructure and industrial services giant, into a media company. Media companies, necessarily in the spotlight, indeed ever courting the spotlight, live in the media world. You probably can rank each major media company on the deftness with which it handles the media, and that ranking would be pretty close to a ranking of the relative success of each company (Disney, at the top, masterful; Viacom, at the bottom, not so good).

Anyway, trotting out your on-the-record general counsel might not suggest that you see the world of public perception, political backlash and the vagaries of a strange new president as quite a difficult needle to thread. A general counsel, one insisting on speaking strictly on the record, can only really deliver a legal party line, and is likely not going to offer a nuanced narrative of a nuanced political problem: What do you do when you need the government’s good will and the volatile new president doesn’t like you?

Trump’s view on the deal has been so far quite un-Republican-like. Rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to big corporations, he’s taking the liberal view of media mergers: Big media stifles opposing views (liberals, of course, don’t think mergers stifle conservative views, but rather more liberal ones). Then, too, Trump has had a running feud with the media, often vowing to make life hard for the business. His central bete noire is CNN, a division of Time Warner, which, put together with AT&T, might suddenly have more clout. On top of that, AT&T joining with Time Warner proposes to further advance the merger of media and digital, another liberal-leaning industry that Trump has been cool on. And then there’s Rupert Murdoch, who has Trump’s ear and who has been dissing the deal, which he sees as disadvantageous to his 21st Century Fox. Also, the future of Jeff Zucker, CNN’s chief, toward whom Trump now often expresses a blood enmity, could get rosier in a merger — he’s a potential new leader of Time Warner as a whole (an irony here is that his success at CNN has been aided by the great interest in Trump).

General counsel McAtee, on the call with me chaperoned by corporate PR, insisted on the technical righteousness of the deal: AT&T and Time Warner are not in the same business, therefore the Justice Department does not have an anti-trust case. Period.
Now, there are only two ways to confront the government’s opposition to a merger: You can argue the legal merits — and therefore the rights of the shareholders of the two companies to prevail against political disapproval — or you can work to change political opinion. AT&T’s CEO Randall Stephenson paid a visit to the president-elect at Trump Tower in early January, but beyond that, the company’s lobbying and PR efforts have been muted. There has been little effort to sell consumers on the benefits of the deal or to convince Washington that the deal has a political upside (or not a downside).

AT&T’s legal position may be a fairly solid one, or it would be if it were seeking to subsume any other company but a media company. Again, it’s thinking like an industrial giant rather than a would-be media giant. Media complicates the situation, because the government, with some amount of caprice, can stop a media merger by referring it not just to the Justice Department but to the FCC. While the Justice Department might have high hurdles in making an anti-trust case (it’s on the Justice Department to prove a company is a monopolist), all the FCC has to do to delay and effectively kill the deal is to find that it might not be in the “public interest” (it’s on the company to prove it is acting in the public interest). That’s what happened to Comcast’s efforts to merge with Time Warner Cable. Of note, while there are many jobs still open in the Trump administration, it has filled the FCC chairman’s job with Ajit Pai, an anti-regulation Republican. And while that might suggest he’s a free marketeer, he’s also a longtime foe of Obama-era FCC policies — ones that generally favored digital growth and expansion. He’s looking for actual and symbolic rollbacks.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom