U.S. Justice Department Files Lawsuit to Block Merger Between AT&T and Time Warner

[ProphetX]

This has nothing to do with the consumers and everything’s to do with CNN. if youve been living under a rock. Trump as been attacking CNN for reporting on his misdeeds by calling them “fake news”.

 

[AZ63]

Are you indicating by what you write here that you see no problem with partisan anti-trust conditions being imposed by a Justice Department at the behest of a president who does not like a particular type of journalism?

So you favor monopolies and think people benefit from that.
Gotcha, thanks. Just wanted to see where we differ.
[doublepost=1511292015][/doublepost]

Conditions. yes. BS partisan political quid pro quo. No

I agree and wish all political parties could remember to put the public first and not their pocket or position of power.

 

[Strelok]

This has nothing to do with the consumers and everything’s to do with CNN. if youve been living under a rock. Trump as been attacking CNN for reporting on his misdeeds by calling them “fake news”.

So? At the end of the day, who cares if he's just trying to get back at CNN? This is good for the consumer, even if you hate your current president.

Now lets get rid of that moron in the FCC and we can get back on track with having a decent Internet. Seriously, that guy needs to GO. Zero interest in what consumers want, probably taking kickbacks left and right from his telecom buddies.

 

[ProphetX]

So? At the end of the day, who cares if he's just trying to get back at CNN? This is good for the consumer, even if you hate your current president.

Now lets get rid of that moron in the FCC and we can get back on track with having a decent Internet. Seriously, that guy needs to GO. Zero interest in what consumers want, probably taking kickbacks left and right from his telecom buddies.

I agree. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. We can't have this dummy silencing the media and violating the constitution. I fought too hard and lost too many friends to see this country through away the one thing that we fought for.

 

[BuffaloTF]

So you favor monopolies and think people benefit from that.
Gotcha, thanks. Just wanted to see where we differ.
[doublepost=1511292015][/doublepost]
I agree and wish all political parties could remember to put the public first and not their pocket or position of power.

It's not a monopoly now, or after. No competition leaves the market, this is a customer buying a supplier. So yes, this is a purely political move - being forced on the antitrust chief at the DOJ that he appointed that already said publicly there's no reason it won't go through.

 

[Strelok]

I agree. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. We can't have this dummy silencing the media and violating the constitution. I fought too hard and lost too many friends to see this country through away the one thing that we fought for.

Please, he’s not going to silence any media. There are still laws in this country, and people won’t allow censorship. The only way CNN will die is if people stop watching/listening to them.

 

[ProphetX]

Please, he’s not going to silence any media. There are still laws in this country, and people won’t allow censorship. The only way CNN will die is if people stop watching/listening to them.

Well no ****. Be he’s trying his hardest to do so. And so far, Republicans are letting him do so. They need him right now. As soon as they don’t. He’s going down. Hard.

 

[AZ63]

It's not a monopoly now, or after. No competition leaves the market, this is a customer buying a supplier. So yes, this is a purely political move - being forced on the antitrust chief at the DOJ that he appointed that already said publicly there's no reason it won't go through.

Of course it does not become a monopoly after this "sale" but it does consolidate power. A "customer" buying a "supplier" removes competition from the market because now the "customer" controls that supply chain to the market and can limit, remove, or over charge that supply of goods to the market. Of course it limits competition.

 

[Mac 128]

Of course it does not become a monopoly after this "sale" but it does consolidate power. A "customer" buying a "supplier" removes competition from the market because now the "customer" controls that supply chain to the market and can limit, remove, or over charge that supply of goods to the market. Of course it limits competition.

So which is better? A distribution company like ATT starting its own production arm like Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu, slowly draining production companies like WB of its talent, until the company can't compete anymore in a marketplace where all of the distribution chains it sells to, own their own content, and net neutrality allows them to shut out any new startups, while the government prevents vertical consolidation between that production company and a distribution outlet; OR allowing that production company to be purchased by a distribution company so it can stay in business and compete with the likes of Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu, not to mention Disney, and NBC, FOX, CBS, and to a lesser extent Sony?

 

[BuffaloTF]

Of course it does not become a monopoly after this "sale" but it does consolidate power. A "customer" buying a "supplier" removes competition from the market because now the "customer" controls that supply chain to the market and can limit, remove, or over charge that supply of goods to the market. Of course it limits competition.

It actually could, and most assuredly will, serve to strengthen competition in what the market is becoming by having both companies coming together.

For the distributor -- the end customer is going over the top to acquire their content and not needing them that imcumbent distributor to serve them any longer, leaving them with decreased subscribers and revenues which would result in higher prices for those that remain for the same levels of service.

For the supplier -- the end customer is going over the top to companies that are their very own distributer and suppliers already, leaving them with decreased viewers and thus revenue and leaving them with smaller budgets to compete.

Bringing them together, you've now answered both the needs of both sides. Instead, what you're asking happen is for both of these sides to be unable to compete. We saw this play out at the end of the 90s, early 00s. Telcos ignored competition from non-traditional players in CableCos on both Internet and POTS. And they got crushed... to the point where even trying is quite pointless -- leaving us with basically cable only and exponentially climbing rates. Today, they're getting out ahead of the shift to IP delivery of content directly from the supplier, and we're saying no to the incumbents trying to match that? How incredibly short-sighted people are being...

 

[zulgand04]

TimeWarner has been in an "unwind" mode for a few years since it dropped AOL. TimeWarner Cable merged with Charter Communications a few years ago. Also, the TimeWarner Telecom Business is now a part of Level3/CenturyLink.

Additionally and as a result of Warner Music filing a number of lawsuits against thousands of "John Does" for sharing music in the 2000s, TimeWarner as a whole, has had serious problems attracting tech savvy, and educated talent to replace retiring employees. The industry is so behind, TimeWarner hasn't even started broadcasting in 4K yet, and from what I understand, 4K is going to need new satellites deployed. It's a big technology issue; HDTV satellites were supposed to last 15-20 years in orbit. This includes satellites used by CNN for reporters and news gathering.

AT&T is, was, and always will be a company that will have trouble with any merger or consolidation. The reason is because law students study the breakup of AT&T in law school. However, and today, AT&T is fundamentally and organizationally different than it was when they broke up in the 1980s. It's a completely different company. Heck, AT&T's HQ office is in a completely different state today. Everyone thinks AT&T in 1980 is the same company, when it isn't; and AT&T was the only company in history to have a Government-granted monopoly letter. Because of these things, AT&T will always have issues gaining favor in any business it enters into based on historical baggage.

If AT&T was known any other name, it'd probably be approved. The thing most people forget is in the 1980s, AT&T actually wanted to be broken up so it could compete in computers against IBM. IBM was using most of AT&T's patents at that time.

Which has always surprised me that SBC, went for the ATT brand for everything with the buyout of ATT Wireless, when Cingular was a popular and growing brand at the time.