Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Department of Justice Considers Blocking AT&T Deal For Time Warner (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the retaliatory-actions dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: AT&T and the U.S. Department of Justice are discussing conditions the No. 2 wireless carrier needs to meet in order for its acquisition of Time Warner Inc to win government approval. The $85.4 billion deal, hatched last October, is opposed by some consumer groups and TV companies on the grounds that it would give the wireless company too much power over the media it would carry on its own network. Donald Trump, who has accused media companies like Time Warner's CNN of being unfair to him, criticized the deal on the campaign trail last year and vowed that as president his Justice Department would block it. The proposed deal represents an early challenge for the Justice Department's new antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, a Trump appointee who was confirmed by Congress in late September. Delrahim may be looking to ramp up pressure on AT&T. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department was laying the groundwork for a potential lawsuit aimed at stopping the deal if settlement talks did not work out.

32 comments

  1. Political trustbusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better than no trustbusting at all, I suppose.

    1. Re:Political trustbusting by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Insane that these kinds of deals (this one and T-mobile/Sprint) are even starters.

      WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge? Thank dog for clueful Japanese bankers.

      #2 cable broadband company wants to buy #2 wireless data company? Shouldn't that draw laughter from regulators? Don't care why, any no is good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Political trustbusting by mysidia · · Score: 2

      WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge?

      The regulators are ultimately not empowered to ban a merger unless it violates the law; their duties are quite the opposite -- they are working for the telecoms they regulate. The regulators' primary role in these proceedings is to settle up issues with the proposed transactions so that the applicants can complete their transactions without causing violations.

    3. Re:Political trustbusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm biased here, having worked for one of these companies, but I honest;y can tell you you're wrong. This is NOT akin to TMobile/Sprint: that is a *horizontal monopoly*. AT&T does not own any content today. This is what you call a *vertical integration*. A network company buying a content company so they own the pipes and some of the content that goes down it. That is a lot different than two telcos merging so that competition shrinks. Today ATT and Time Warner are orthoganal, non competitors.

    4. Re:Political trustbusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of these deals are illegal under Clayton. The T-Mobile/Sprint merger is an egregious example of something that's already illegal under the current law, but may not ultimately be enforced because we've allowed our government to be bought by the highest bidder.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914

      In this case, it appears that Clayton wouldn't apply, but we should be extremely nervous about handing more power to a single company, allowing for other view points to be silenced.

      When all is said and done, the regulators need to look at more than just price when deciding whether or not to enforce the law. If consumers lose choices that means that they also have less or no control over the terms that goods and services are sold under. Those various ToS and EULAs that have been getting more and more abusive in divorcing customers from their rights are a good example.

    5. Re:Political trustbusting by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      That is what the Republicans sell us as "free market with consumer choice". It all reminds me of the day I dined in a government run Hungarian restaurant in the 80s. They had about a hundred tables all prepped, a 7 member combo playing, a huge menu...and after we ordered the waiter told us that the stove is broken and all we can eat is either rice with sauce or sauce with rice. In other words, this is not free market or consumer choice, this is nothing else than pseudocommunist government control with the aim of having one provider that is jumping when the gov says "jump" and one second grade provider without much weight so that it looks like there is free enterprise. Well, this is what we get from voting morons into office who think that cutting corporate taxes generates more jobs and higher wages.

    6. Re: Political trustbusting by hunter44102 · · Score: 1

      Either way, corporations that own the internet pipes (which have all the last mile connections to homes) should not be in the business of owning content. This further entrenches their monopoly on connections.

    7. Re:Political trustbusting by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Put down the crack pipe. Both parties are all for this.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the Justice Department was laying the groundwork for a potential lawsuit aimed at stopping the deal if settlement talks did not work out....

    In other words, the Justice department lawyers are doing their job in preparing for various contingencies.

  3. That's Crazy by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The administration would be foolish to punish the parent company of CNN,

    especially after all CNN has done to advance the notion of biased news reporting,

    allowing the administration to deflect all negative reporting as fake news® .

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The administration would be foolish to punish the parent company of CNN,

      especially after all CNN has done to advance the notion of biased news reporting,

      allowing the administration to deflect all negative reporting as fake news® .

      I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Fake news is news that is literally mostly made up. I.E. Pizzagate. If a news agency knows the source is likely not credible, then that would also likely be fake, or at least not reportable.

      Sometimes the opinion hosts wade into fake news, since they support it, directly or indirectly, or sometimes create it. Saying something is true, when you don't have evidence to support is likely fair to call fake.

      The daily show is called fake news, but then they base their show on real news and clips. Some of it might be considered fake, if it was pulled too far out of context.

      Donald Trump reporting that he had proof of Obama's fake birth certificate was him reporting and making up fake news. (i.e. lying) It was basically evidence 01 for the subject in recent times.

      At any rate, let's keep the definition correct. Fake news = Fictional.

    2. Re:That's Crazy by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Funny

      especially after all CNN has done to advance the notion of biased news reporting

      Partisans and pundits have always labeled those who don't support their own views as biased or liars. They did it in the Roman Republic; they continue to do so today.

      And, as in the past, these partisans and pundits don't like it when anybody calls out their gaslighting.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics deflects from how we don't need any more of these mega-monopolies controlling the internet, the news and the cell phone market.
      They all want to merge into Disney/Time Warner/ATT/Verizon.
      And they will if the government lets them. All businesses want to be a monopoly.

    4. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake news is news that is literally mostly made up.

      No, that was the trojan horse. Create some nebulous concept of "fake news" with a vague, implied definition that everyone can agree is a Bad Thing, then expand the definition to include legitimate news outlets you don't happen to like to justify censoring them. Bonus points if you can use manufactured xenophobia to help.

      Almost no one needs help differentiating (semi)legitimate mainstream news from literal "The Onion"-tier bullshit, and those who do don't exactly tend to be swing voters anyway. The flaw in the "fake news" scheme was it was much too transparent, hypocritical, and overzealous, allowing the right to effortlessly hijack the terminology for their own use.

      Donald Trump reporting that he had proof of Obama's fake birth certificate was him reporting and making up fake news. (i.e. lying) It was basically evidence 01 for the subject in recent times.

      If Jon Stewart et. al. can get a pass on gleefully distorting facts or flouting journalistic ethics to push their agendas by playing the "LOL NOT A REAL REPORTER" card, then Apprentice-era Trump gets an even bigger pass. He wasn't even playacting as a journalist.

    5. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not give Donald Trump or any functioning human credit for making up shit to legitimize our first African American president for like 5 years. It is not as if no one told him he was full of shit. He undoubtedly knew it early on. He just didn't care. It served his purpose.

      That, as near as I can tell, is a lot of the reason a lot on the right legitimately voted for Donald Trump, and still believe in him. He serves their purpose and that is enough for them. Now, I certainly wouldn't espouse a philosophy of ends justifying means, but that is what is going on.

    6. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the one hand, CNN is useful for Trump because they're his biggest (unwitting) allies in his war against the media. On his own he could never damage them as much as they damage himself. All he has to do is egg them on every now and then with a tweet or two.

      On the other hand, CNN is anything but alone in this position, so they're expendable in that regard.

      Fun fact: Only 33% of CNN's own viewers trust CNN. (as of january anyway)

    7. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not as if no one told him he was full of shit. He undoubtedly knew it early on. He just didn't care. It served his purpose.

      Meanwhile it's been months and months and months since Clapper and Comey and whoever else told CNN and the rest of us that the Trump/Russia collusion thing was bullshit, but here we are.

      making up shit to legitimize our first African American president for like 5 years.....That, as near as I can tell, is a lot of the reason a lot on the right legitimately voted for Donald Trump

      The Obama Derangement-types were going to vote republican in any case, and if you watched the GOP debates Trump didn't play up the 'Fuck Obama' angle any harder than anyone else. If anything those voters were probably far more animated by the 8 years' worth of free passes given to "our first African American president" by so many people purely because of his skin color.

    8. Re:That's Crazy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: Only 33% of CNN's own viewers trust CNN. [rasmussenreports.com] (as of january anyway)

      That's an interesting number, since it's several points higher than the percentage of the population that trusts Donald Trump.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:That's Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile it's been months and months and months since Clapper and Comey and whoever else told CNN and the rest of us that the Trump/Russia collusion thing was bullshit, but here we are.

      I'm pretty sure it's Trump that's expressed disdain towards Clapper and Comey for not pursuing a prosecution with the DEATH PENALTY against Crooked Hillary as he keeps trying to distract us towards.

      The Obama Derangement-types were going to vote republican in any case, and if you watched the GOP debates Trump didn't play up the 'Fuck Obama' angle any harder than anyone else.

      Ok, so they're all fuck-ups, is that supposed to make us feel better?

      If anything those voters were probably far more animated by the 8 years' worth of free passes given to "our first African American president" by so many people purely because of his skin color.

      You mean the totally made-up criticisms that dogged the Obama presidency because the GOP couldn't find their way to a legitimate criticism if they tried? They freaked out over Guantanamo for years, yet doggedly refused to let Obama do anything to close it, now their twitterer-in-chief is claiming that he wants to send somebody there. They had a shit-fit over Obama saying the police acted stupidly by confronting a man and arresting him after he was belligerent towards them in a relatively minor way, yet are cheering over the threatening confrontation of a bunch of people who were upset that the government wasn't letting a white guy graze his cows on their land for free. They had a freakout that the Affordable Care Act was passed without Republicans, now they're demanding that Democrats be blamed for not passing Trumpcare.

      Sorry, you must be from an alternate universe where Hitler won WW2 by liberating Russia, Poland, and France.

  4. considers... by zlives · · Score: 1

    yes citizen, we care about you that is why we consider with great deliberation... then meh, you get escrewed

  5. You mean government overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why is the government stepping in to a lawful agreement? If this isn't overreach, what is. AT&T should have been able to buy T-Mobile way back when, and should be allowed to buy Time Warner. At least we have some sane, Randian followers in office so this stuff will slow down, but this is one of the reasons why the US is in decline. Let them merge, give them a tax break because they generate jobs and keep our vital communications infrastructure going, and leave them the hell alone.

    1. Re:You mean government overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Found the paid shill.

      When large companies like AT&T and Time Warner merge, there are always redundant positions that get eliminated. Mergers like this never create more jobs.

    2. Re:You mean government overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much did AT&T and Time Warner pay you to post that?

      Perhaps you also post screeds against net neutrality as well.

    3. Re:You mean government overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, they create thousands of lucrative technology integration and project management contracts...

    4. Re:You mean government overreach? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Give me one, just ONE, example where corporate tax breaks generated jobs long term. All that tax breaks do is keep a few jobs around a bit longer that eventually get eliminated or sent overseas while big investors and the C-level-managers line their pockets with cash.

    5. Re:You mean government overreach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Devil's advocate: If tax breaks didn't create jobs, why is the majority of the Congress passing a bill to cut corporate taxes, explicitly for the reason for job creation? Congress has the best lawyers and guardians of our society's fabric, so I'm sure they probably know something. If they knew it wasn't for job creation, it wouldn't be on the table.

    6. Re:You mean government overreach? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Can you really be so ignorant about the lessons of history? The alternative is that you are just trolling; I sincerely hope that this is the case.

    7. Re:You mean government overreach? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      If anything, corporate tax cuts reduce incentives to "create" jobs or otherwise invest in the company. Salaries, benefits, and capital expeditures are all above the line, which means that they reduce total income and therefore total tax owed. Lowering taxes gives more incentive to keep above the line costs lower because there's less cost to allowing revenue through as profit.

  6. wtf I love giant corporate monopolies now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump says it's bad, so it must be good. Also something something Putin.

  7. This is scary by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    There are very good arguments in favor of more vigorous anti-trust enforcement and this wouldn't be an unreasonable place to start. But this really, really looks like the President trying to use his office to retaliate against media that criticizes him. That should concern everyone. The natural chilling effect should be obvious.

  8. Waiting for all the rabid left wingers... by guruevi · · Score: 0

    ...to tell us how blocking this deal is a bad thing.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Waiting for all the rabid left wingers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Trump's motivations that are questionable. I mean, really, just because he's upset at them and may block this deal, doesn't mean he'd stop Fox from selling expired Soylent Green or Sinclair Broadcasting from mandating 2 hours of Trump Worship every day.