Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Considers Buying Time Warner (bloomberg.com)

In what would likely be one of the largest telecommunications takeovers in American history, Bloomberg is reporting that ATT has discussed the idea of a possible merger or other partnership with Time Warner Inc (may be paywalled; alternate source). Bloomberg reports: The talks, which at this stage are informal, have focused on building relations between the companies rather than establishing the terms of a specific transaction, the people said, asking not to be identified as the deliberations are private. Neither side has yet hired a financial adviser, the people said. Acquiring Time Warner would give ATT, one of the biggest providers of pay-TV and of wireless and home internet service in the U.S., a collection of popular programming to offer to subscribers, from HBO to NBA basketball to the Cartoon Network. ATT CEO Randall Stephenson has been looking to add more content and original programming as part of his plan to transform the Dallas-based telecommunications company into a media and entertainment giant. Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bewkes is a willing seller if he gets an offer he thinks is fair, said one of the people. Bewkes and his board rejected an $85-a-share approach in 2014 from Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox Inc., which valued Time Warner at more than $75 billion. Last year, ATT paid $48.5 billion to acquire satellite-TV provider DirecTV, its biggest deal in at least 10 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ATT has been developing an internet-based version of the pay-TV service, called DirecTV now.

60 comments

  1. Do not fuck with HBO! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do not fuck with HBO!

    1. Re:Do not fuck with HBO! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Coming next season on HBO:

      GAME OF PHONES!

      Will Daenerys get a dead connection? Will the White Walkers expand their data plan? Find out more in the final season of Game of Phones.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. Open Letter to AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear AT&T,

    We already tried it. It didn't work out so well. You should learn from our mistakes.

    Sincerely,
    AOL

    1. Re:Open Letter to AT&T by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Who??

    2. Re:Open Letter to AT&T by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I suspect they won't care, because they will look at how Comcast has made bank on having NBC, and think they can pull the same thing off.

    3. Re:Open Letter to AT&T by balbeir · · Score: 1

      Garbage Truck + Garbage Truck = 2 Garbage Trucks

  3. Comcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't TWC just swallowed up by Comcast?

    1. Re:Comcast? by Nickodeimus · · Score: 2

      Charter

    2. Re:Comcast? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 4, Informative

      TFA is about Time Warner Inc, a separate entity from TWC.

    3. Re:Comcast? by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      Which is why virtually all of these articles (including this one) are incorrect about what's even available to be sold. Nobody knows what they're talking about. The original article even featured a photo of TWC.

  4. How about Yahoo? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about buying Yahoo too then they can be the unholy trinity:

    The most despised web search engine, a highly reviled telecommunications company, and a cable company (they're all evil).

    EA will be relegated to only the 2nd most evil entity on earth.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:How about Yahoo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they trying to compete with the devil?

    2. Re:How about Yahoo? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Not actually the cable company. That was already bought by Charter, and it was named Time Warner Cable.

      Time Warner, Inc. is the content company that owns Time Magazine, Warner Brothers Home Entertainment, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, etc.

      Yes, this is stupidly confusing.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:How about Yahoo? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      A great way to sabotage HBO now and streaming though.

    4. Re:How about Yahoo? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      > The most despised web search engine,

      I think Bing is despised more, and they provide the back end for Yahoo's shitty search results.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  5. Too late, they were already purchased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were bought up by another company and are now known as "Spectrum".

    1. Re:Too late, they were already purchased. by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      I believe that they only bought the cable arm so there's still a Time Warner portion that owns TV networks etc.

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:Too late, they were already purchased. by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      They're completely separate.

  6. TWAT&T? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is going to be fun!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:TWAT&T? by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the best laugh of the day :)

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  7. How about no... by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

    Why don't these large corporations stop buying up other large corporations to create gigantic monopolies, and instead focus their spending on satisfying their customers? Oh, right... because they're greedy.

    --
    Bite my shiny metal ass!
    1. Re:How about no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He has no profit!"

      Ferengi explain everything

    2. Re:How about no... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The market expects companies to grow at a certain rate no matter how big the company gets. The problem is that the larger a company gets the harder it is for it to keep growing at the same rate. Apple has been finding this out recently. Even though they are selling lots of phones the stock price isn't reflecting that because the analysts are always expecting Apple to sell more each quarter compared to the year before.

      The easiest, and sometimes the only, way for a company to grow at these expected rates is to acquire another large company. The cable companies are constrained to the areas they are already in. There is a bit of growth in the housing stock but not enough to create the growth required. Basically you are going to see more of these large mergers in the future as companies need to keep their revenues and incomes expanding for the markets but their core businesses won't allow that growth to happen.

    3. Re:How about no... by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      And what happens when there's nowhere to grow? No more competitors to acquire? Their stock can't keep going up, since there's no growth. Eventually it will all come to a halt, and very likely come crashing down. When investors see no reason to buy in anymore because there's no growth left, their stock will tank as people sell. Can they survive that? I would think it would be more advisable to maintain status quo and have a few competitors than to hit that brick wall where there's nowhere to go.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    4. Re:How about no... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      We'll be dead by that time. The whole economy is based on the growth is good mantra. Let's build more homes and fill them with more stuff. Make the roads bigger to hold ever more cars because public transport is bad. More channels on your cable or satellite service. More artists on the music streaming service. As long as the net income keeps rising the stock price keeps going up and the investors are happy. As long as GDP keeps going up the economists and politicians are happy. Grow baby grow.

  8. Block It by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Feds should block this one if it ever comes close to being attempted. We have an absolute dearth of competition as it stands now. I looked at moving from Time Warner for my internet and found AT&T is the only option in my area. TW is okay, but overpriced and I have never heard a good thing about AT&T. Allow the two to combine and I get the worst of both worlds.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Block It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the feds didn't block comcast + nbc universal, i doubt they'd even look in this one's direction either.

      they should have stopped this mega merger bullshit back around the time aol took its shot at time warner.

    2. Re:Block It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NBC Universal isn't an internet provider. Both ATT and TW are, so it SHOULD be blocked.

    3. Re:Block It by ffejie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time Warner is not Time Warner Cable. AT&T is not trying to buy their way into the ISP/Phone/Video space - they are already there with Uverse/DirecTV.

      Time Warner creates and owns content.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    4. Re:Block It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TW is not an internet provider. Time Warner Cable was, but they were already sold to Charter.

    5. Re:Block It by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      No, they aren't.

      Time Warner, Inc. != Time Warner Cable.

      And Time Warner Cable was already swallowed by Charter Communications. The NBC Universal / Comcast deal is quite similar to AT&T / Time Warner Inc., actually.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Block It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T were split up, and like the T1000 they just ooze back together again; sucking up anything nearby.

      Time Warner is also over priced shite. You think you have good service, with your over compressed HD channels and dogshit slow Internet service; but for those that got the change to compare to the massively overpriced FiOS? Yeah, we all switched, and the only ones that went back were the baseball fanatics when they couldn't get their season ticket shows.

    7. Re:Block It by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Oh.... thank you for the correction.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Block It by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      and dogshit slow Internet service

      Assuming you can even connect. I had an 8+ hour network outage a week or two back. (For some reason, whenever I get an outage on Time Warner it hardly ever lasts less than 4 hours straight. For awhile it was happening every 3 or 4 weeks.)

      That's right, I didn't even get 2 nines this month. (720 - 8) / 720 ~= 98.9% uptime

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  9. one corporation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon all corporations will merge into one uncontrollable entity that will do whatever it wants everywhere

  10. Re: In the 80's by Prod_Deity · · Score: 1

    Because politicians are more greedy this time around? Funny to hear, I know. The 80's were all about excess, but times haven't really changed all that much.

  11. Why we need Distributism more than ever by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    The only economic system the West hasn't tried on a serious level is Distributism and sadly, Distributism is the only system that answers this economic problem of having a faustian bargain of monopolies or government control. When a business has to operate on that dichotomy, society turns over the work to a non-profit corporation that manages the infrastructure as a social good, works fairly with the private sector and is sufficiently powerful to resist undue political pressure.

    If that sounds almost feudal, well it is influenced by the old feudal system. Under Distributism, such a corporation would not be state owned. It would be the equivalent of a feudal lord with a letter patent granting rights and authority to operate. That means Congress could still act and force its hand, but it would take Congress acting with a serious majority and mandate.

    1. Re:Why we need Distributism more than ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      West? Ths bullshit telco/TV/net supplier lack of competition is not a West issue, it's a US problem controlled by money and stooges. The nonsense you speak of does not apply to Europe, for example. Although the UK is going through a reduction in options as assholes like Virgin buy up everyone other than BT.

  12. invest in infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was going to say 'instead invest in improving their infrastructure.'

  13. Time Warner is NOT Time Warner Cable by mattwrock · · Score: 2

    The Time Warner that ATT wants is Warner Bros content, and cable content like Cartoon Network. Time Warner Cable is the cable and Internet provider which was purchased by Spectrum. This clearly an attempt by ATT to compete with Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu.

    --
    "Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
    1. Re:Time Warner is NOT Time Warner Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      timer warner being a different company than time warner cable still doesn't make the acquisition by at&t any better. either one under at&t would be absolutely horrible.

      at&t should not have been allowed to buy directv.
      at&t shouldn't have been allowed to buy cricket.
      at&t shouldn't have been allowed to buy bellsouth.
      sbc shouldn't have been allowed to buy at&t.
      sbc shouldn't have been allowed to buy ameritech.
      sbc shouldn't have been allowed to buy pacbell.
      at&t shouldn't have been allowed to buy tci.
      at&t shouldn't have been allowed to buy mediaone.
      (the above two created at&t broadband, their first effort into 'cable tv'; which they shouldn't have been allowed to sell to comcast)
      at&t shouldn't have been allowed to buy mccaw cellular.

      i'm sure i missed a bunch..... but the point is.. this is fucking ridiculous. acquisitions of this size never benefits the consumer.. NEVER.

    2. Re:Time Warner is NOT Time Warner Cable by PPH · · Score: 1

      Warner Bros content

      No problem. AT&T just needs to spin off their broadband, cellular and telecom operations. And then they can become a content provider.

      I think this was behind the split between Time Warner (Warner Bros) studios and Time Warner cable. some years ago. To avoid antitrust problems. And those reasons should still be valid.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Time Warner is NOT Time Warner Cable by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The Time Warner/Timer Warner Cable split had nothing to do with antitrust problems. Time Warner was primarily a content business, and the capital (and debt) heavy cable business was a bad fit. So they spun it off.

    4. Re:Time Warner is NOT Time Warner Cable by PPH · · Score: 1

      So they spun it off.

      So getting saddled with another capital and debt laden division now is a good idea why? If TWC was a stinker, then it stand to reason the AT&T will be a stinker as well. Unless it turns out that not being affiliated with a carrier is harmful to a content provider's business model. Like our network will carry your content only if your network carries our content. Sounds like mob bosses divvying up territory.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Re:Why we need Distributism more than ever - Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess I need to re-read works by GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, leading proponents of Distributism about a century ago, on that. My takeaway was the notion that no big legal entities were to be allowed, whether corporations or governments - all economic "units" were to be family-based, and thus highly atomized. Bigness per se was to be avoided, and personal involvement maximized. Maybe medieval style guilds of like trades had a place in the scheme, but I don't think that included their heavy-handed rule by a guild master, or entry barriers for newcomers; maybe more like current agricultural co-ops in the US?

    Needless to say, with every distributist being "independent" they had trouble combining to have any effective influence on public policy to those ends.

    Got any good links to your Distributist understanding?

  15. Re:In the 80's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The current AT&T is not the original AT&T. It's the company that bought parts of AT&T and renamed itself AT&T. Also, Comcast and the original AT&T had already merged years ago...

  16. Just reform Bell already by Ranbot · · Score: 1

    ...because some old time execs at AT&T want to party like it's 1982 again!

  17. Re:In the 80's by Etcetera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The current AT&T is not the original AT&T. It's the company that bought parts of AT&T and renamed itself AT&T. Also, Comcast and the original AT&T had already merged years ago...

    If it was the original AT&T, their service would be more reliable and their network better engineered.

    Seriously, Southwestern Bell sucked in all aspects of its service. When it bought PacBell customer service collapsed and general reliability problems started coming up out here in CA. I had the original AT&T Wireless mobile service here in San Diego and I seriously don't ever remember going under 3 bars anywhere, and this was over a decade ago. After SBC sucked up the old AT&T and took on its trade name, it didn't adopt old AT&T's engineering or reliability practices, or even AFAICT its work ethic....

    I do sometimes wonder what it's like to work for AT&T Corporation now, which lives on as the long distance subsidiary...

  18. Antitrush Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Content provider and content producer merging is a major risk, especially when both are effective monopolies in their markets.

    1. Re:Antitrush Violation by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Do tell what 'effective monopoly' you think Time Warner has.

    2. Re:Antitrush Violation by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Do tell what 'effective monopoly' you think Time Warner has.

      Who else has the rights to Batman and Bugs Bunny?

  19. Antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to antitrust? The Bell telephone system was broken up in 1984, and now we are going back to one telecommunications company.

  20. WTF US Governement? by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

    We don't have enough competition. The FCC has already allowed content distributors to be owned by Media Companies (Comcast/NBC as example). We need MORE internet freedom, not legalized cartels. What we are seeing is CORRUPTION, where the money from corporate interests is more important to regulatory approvals than the needs of the people. It's funny how the "freeest country in the world" is getting more controlled while former regimes like Germany and much of Europe are freeer and have much more competition than the US, and their governments protect the citizenry from this sort of thing much more than the US.

    My own situation, I have TWC for internet and my only other choice for relatively high speed is ATT UVerse. So we want to combine those pitiful two choices into no choice at all?

    1. Re:WTF US Governement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rant. Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about (as is usually the case with ranting idiots). Time Warner (TWX) IS NOT Time Warner CABLE (TWC).

  21. Full spectrum of suckage by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    AT&T sucks on the customer service and billing side. TWC sucks on the signal reliability side. When they merge, they'll cover the full spectrum of suckage. Perhaps that's why TWC is changing its name to "Spectrum".

    1. Re:Full spectrum of suckage by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That would be so much wittier and insightful if only Time Warner Cable had anything to do with this story.

  22. Common Carrier by PPH · · Score: 1

    OK, allow the purchase to take place. But then apply the FCC's authority over common carriers to the entire entity. Because nobody can be expected to pry apart the (necessarily proprietary) entanglements, cross division subsidies and preferential pricing deals that the separate parts can engage in.

    Time Warner, you want a federal regulator crawling around in the studio system (as close to organized crime as this country permits to exist)? Have fun.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.