Judge Rules AT&T Can Acquire Time Warner (wsj.com)

A federal judge said Tuesday that AT&T's $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner is legal, clearing the path for a deal that gives the pay-TV provider ownership of cable channels such as HBO and CNN as well as film studio Warner Bros. From a report: U.S. District Judge Richard Leon announced his decision in a packed courtroom, ruling that antitrust enforcers at the Justice Department had not proven their case against the merger. The decision, in one of the biggest antitrust cases in decades, is a milestone victory for AT&T as it looks to reposition itself in a rapidly evolving media landscape. Its deal for Time Warner, valued at roughly $80 billion, has been pending since October 2016. The acquisition means AT&T will be the nation's top pay-TV distributor, through its ownership of DirecTV, as well as the owner of some of the country's most sought-after channels: Time Warner's Turner networks -- including CNN, TBS and TNT -- as well as HBO, the most popular U.S. premium network.

Comments

Are you fucking kidding me?

[DogDude]

Now, our business has the choice of exactly *one* shitty ISP. Fucking wonderful.

It's really difficult to run a business in the US due to our shocking lack of regulations.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Merk42]

The Invisible Hand of the Free Market will work it out of course, regulation is bad.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Warner != Time Warner Cable

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Time Warner, the media company (owns a few TV stations), NOT Time Warner Cable, the cable company/ISP (now Spectrum). Although not as bad, it's not good either as you know the stations TW owns will disappear or royalties will go up for competing TV and streaming companies.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[ClickOnThis]

Now, our business has the choice of exactly *one* shitty ISP. Fucking wonderful.

What are you talking about? AT&T wants to buy a media company, not another ISP.

It's not that an ISP buying a media company doesn't concern me (especially with net neutrality now dead.) It's just that this doesn't reduce your choice of ISP.

It's really difficult to run a business in the US due to our shocking lack of regulations.

I'm certainly not anti-regulation. It's just not clear to me what regulation you think is missing here.

Now I'll grab some popcorn and watch as the libertarians flame both of us.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[DogDude]

It's just not clear to me what regulation you think is missing here.

We desperately need ISP's to be regulated like our electrical utilities are. Our options for Internet access are either shitty mega-corporation #1 (AT&T) or shitty mega-corporation #2 (Time-Warner... apparently NOT the same Time-Warner...?).

It's so bad that we have to have dual connections at each of our locations, so when one fails (as they often do), we can still have basic connectivity.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[swb]

No offense, but what rock have you been living under where "media companies" haven't become ISPs and often the only alternative ISPs to existing ILECs?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Now, our business has the choice of exactly *one* shitty ISP. Fucking wonderful.

There are a lot of reasons to hate this, mostly dealing with concentrated content/IP ownership. However, IIRC, the ISP service is being (or already was) spun off.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

competition occasionally forces some corners to be cut to keep prices in line, and everyone must then cut corners to keep up. It's a race to the bottom. If you had a choice of 10 ISP's, they would all be even shittier than the 2 you currently have because they'd all have a smaller slice of the pie.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still better than much of Seattle where the city council gave monopolies to one cable company(Comcast) and one telco(Qwest), but they didn't require them to offer service. Just sucks that I have dial-up at home and so many other coworkers do too.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[king neckbeard]

Yeah, if you agree with Adam Smith on the danger of monopolies, you are a "libtard."

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

We desperately need ISP's to be regulated like our electrical utilities are.

That's how the phone company is *now*.

Your proposal will do zero to fix anything.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[alvinrod]

If you want a choice of internet providers you should probably ask your local government to stop granting monopoly rights to a single company. Of course that would probably mean losing some kick-back money, so I don't see it happening unless you push for a municipal broadband initiative in your city. It might work if you're a small enough town, but good luck getting through the political machine in anything above 50,000 or more.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[ShanghaiBill]

if you dont like a free market, move to cuba or canaDUH

The term "free market" is ambiguous. It can mean "free of regulation" or it can mean "free of barriers to competition". In practice, these two things are often opposites, especially with businesses that are natural monopolies or that have strong network effects.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government’s case hinged on an economic model produced by Carl Shapiro, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, who predicted an annual price increase to consumers of at least $285 million. AT&T attacked that projection as baseless, repeatedly poking holes in the various inputs Shapiro used to calculate the estimate.

The judge indicated during the trial that he wasn’t buying Shapiro’s projection. After his testimony, Leon said he was "confused." Further explanation from Shapiro didn’t help.

"I’m not sure I got it, but it’s too late and too hot to belabor the point any further," the judge said."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/at-t-cleared-by-judge-to-buy-time-warner-create-media-giant

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are here to discuss AT&T buying Time Warner - the media company that is also 40% of all wired Internet connections in the entire country and serves Internet to 29 states.

Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable which was snarfed up by Charter Communications in 2016. Time Warner is on the list of US ISPs. I don't mind you being wrong, but there was no reason to be so rude.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[sycodon]

I'm losing track of who ate whom.

Time Warner was consumed by Spectrum. So is AT&T buying Spectrum or some leftover part of Time Warner?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great. Way to put a buzzkill on a great, profanity-laden rant.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Dragonslicer]

I usually differentiate them by using the terms "free market" and "fair market". Right-wing economics assumes that a fair market is a natural consequence of a free market; center/moderate-left economics rejects that assumption and believes that some amount of government intervention, such as antitrust regulation, is necessary to ensure a fair market.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really difficult to run a business in the US due to our shocking lack of regulations.

Wow. I mean, just freaking WOW.

Wow.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[ravenshrike]

In point of fact, regulations are probably responsible for the lack of competition in your area.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

found another libtard. i bet you didnt even read the adam smith book.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Obfuscant]

If you want a choice of internet providers you should probably ask your local government to stop granting monopoly rights to a single company.

Which ISP has been granted a monopoly by the government? It would be nice to know which one I shouldn't be dealing with as a way of punishing one of them.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[mi]

"Regulation" is what's keeping the current monopolies monopolies in the first place.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[ClickOnThis]

Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable which was snarfed up by Charter Communications in 2016. Time Warner is NOT on the list of US ISPs.

FTFY, although I'm sure you meant to add what I did. Thanks for the informative post.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Danathar]

Actually itâ(TM)s not the lack of regulations, itâ(TM)s the lack of GOOD regulations

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Calydor]

That's so adorable, you got your hands on a rare copy of Baby's First Sound Bite.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't like government interference in the market, then stop eating anything from a farm you fucking idiot.

You know how conservatives love to use the term libtard, but liberals don't really have a comeback for that? Because the term "conservative" is sullied enough on its own.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Obfuscant]

Still better than much of Seattle where the city council gave monopolies to one cable company(Comcast)

There are currently three "cable companies" franchised with the city of Seattle, and in 2015 the city did away with the 'franchise zones' that limited service areas.

There is no requirement for a franchise for an ISP. The "web" shows that there are at least 6 residential ISPs and 14 business class, with at least 7 of the latter offering gigabit network speeds.

What monopoly are you referring to?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Invisible hand picking your pocket.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[zlives]

did you? i mean china does censor pretty much everything so not sure what YOU actually read.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[alvinrod]

It's the typical business model in most cities as far as cable companies go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee. This is an extension of rules created under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which probably never anticipated cable companies becoming internet service providers. Here're the specific city laws for Seattle, though most cities will have something similar. Technically there's nothing there that necessitates a monopoly, but there's also nothing stopping a company from acquiring a non-compete clause either, which means they're legally the only company that has rights to offer service. Comcast was quite notorious for doing that.

There are also a large number of states which have laws that attempt to hinder or outright prevent local municipalities from creating their own ISP, which almost ensures they'll have to deal with one of the large national ISPs.

Personally I'm of the opinion that cities should be in charge of their own infrastructure (they can contract this out to some private entity if they feel they lack the ability to do this effectively themselves) and allow various companies to offer competing services to the city's residents. The problem has been that cities tried to treat internet access like a utility without bothering to put any rules in place for price restrictions or service requirements.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[zwede]

I'm losing track of who ate whom.

Time Warner was consumed by Spectrum. So is AT&T buying Spectrum or some leftover part of Time Warner?

Charter bought the ISP part of Time-Warner and branded it Spectrum. AT&T is now buying the content part (CNN, HBO etc) of Time-Warner.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[DogDude]

Our power company doesn't have any competition, but there are regulations that describe the level of service that they have to offer. Unless we're going to allow anybody with some cable to start buying wires and putting up utility poles, ISP's need to be regulated. Modern societies need working, reliable, reasonably priced Internet access, just like we need working, reliable, reasonably priced electric power.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Obfuscant]

It's the typical business model in most cities as far as cable companies go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Thank you for your lecture. I've been involved in cable franchise issues before. You seem to know about the act of 1984, but can't remember the followup federal law that prohibits exclusive franchises. Without an exclusive franchise, there is no government-granted monopoly.

You cited the franchise ordnance for Seattly, but apparently failed to read it. Refer to 21.60.050 A. Read all the words.

Technically there's nothing there that necessitates a monopoly,

Nothing necessitates a monopoly, and nothing there GRANTS a monopoly, either.

but there's also nothing stopping a company from acquiring a non-compete clause either

Do you understand that federal law overrides local law in this area? It is against FEDERAL LAW for the city of Seattle to grant an exclusive franchise to ANY cable operator. (Since there are no franchise requirements for ISPs, that's the only franchise issue here.)

Comcast was quite notorious for doing that.

Of course Comcast would try for exclusive franchises while they were still legal. It's common sense for them. BUT -- they've been illegal for more then twenty years. The last franchise agreement between Seattle and Comcast was reached in 2017 -- and the expiring one wasn't exclusive either. The franchise ordnance you cite is explicit on this.

There are also a large number of states which have laws that attempt to hinder or outright prevent local municipalities from creating their own ISP,

This has nothing to do with cable companies, and in any case does not create a government-granted monopoly. It's irrelevant.

Personally I'm of the opinion that cities should be in charge of their own infrastructure

That's a different issue. You've claimed that Comcast has a government-granted monopoly in Seattle, and the existence of three franchised cable companies, along with federal law, proves you wrong.

and allow various companies to offer competing services to the city's residents.

I've already made friends with Google, and it tells me that there are at least 6 residential and 14 business ISPs serving Seattle, and of those 14 at least 7 are gigabit. This is what you call "no competition"?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

the part that AT&T is buying is the part of that is the content side, since charter already bought the connection provider side a few years ago

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[raind]

If we let Marathon purchase GM would that be a â€oegood thing†? I know itâ€(TM)s not the same thing, just saying.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[fahrbot-bot]

Now, our business has the choice of exactly *one* shitty ISP. Fucking wonderful.

Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are now two different companies. The Cable subsidiary was sold off to Charter Communications in 2016 and now goes by Spectrum in most markets. AT&T is buying the former parent company Time Warner for its media properties.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember = regulation/socialism/safety net = pinko. You morons bought into this hook, line, and sinker for a century now, and today you are paying the price.

  Too bad I need to pay the price too (I am an American) >:(

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[kevmeister]

How can this have impacted you? Time-Warner spun off Time-Warner Cable years ago and it was purchased by Charter and is now called Spectrum. Or does Time-Warner own another ISP I am not aware of?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Warner has nothing to do with Time Warner Cable. They split in 2009

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I don't see how it's invisible, since I can see it flipping me off!

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[alvinrod]

Thank you for your lecture. I've been involved in cable franchise issues before. You seem to know about the act of 1984, but can't remember the followup federal law that prohibits exclusive franchises. Without an exclusive franchise, there is no government-granted monopoly.

Which law specifically are you referring to, as there were laws in the mid-90's that stated as much, but many of those previsions were stripped away in subsequent revisions to those laws or other federal acts passed at later dates. There likely were (and perhaps still are) laws that prevent a monopoly on internet service in a general sense, but those were easily circumvented as long as some telco was selling dialup. A de facto monopoly is just as good as a de jure monopoly.

Nothing necessitates a monopoly, and nothing there GRANTS a monopoly, either.

I somewhat picked Seattle at random as I am somewhat familiar with the internet situation there and their city code was easily accessible online. I don't live in Seattle, but I have several friends who still do and for a long while it was essentially Comcast only as far as cable (there was some DSL availability, but typically not something that anyone on /. would care to use) internet choices go. The city isn't required to grant anyone a franchise, so you can essentially create an unofficial monopoly if you've bought enough people to prevent competition from being permitted. There are plenty of new stories related to their problems with a lack of competition.

I will admit that I didn't read through the entire set of laws and was speaking in more of a general sense as most of the places I've lived over the years have had only a single choice for cable (and by extension internet) provider. You mention 14 ISPs serving Seattle, but I'm assuming you're speaking of the metro area and not the city proper. I'm also unsure as to what extent their coverage overlaps, but if there truly are 14 different companies offering service to the city, then I expect that consumers are getting much better deals than most other cities. You can't have 14 different companies competing for your money and making fat profits unless they're all colluding and engaging in price fixing, which would be quite hard with 14 different companies.

This has nothing to do with cable companies, and in any case does not create a government-granted monopoly. It's irrelevant.

A free market requires competition between entities. It doesn't matter if those are public or private entities, merely that they compete against each other and that consumers have choice. Any law that prevents some option for competition is harmful to consumers. If public entities have to play by the same rules as private companies and aren't themselves given special treatment, I fail to see how they cause harm.

Some free market advocates seems to think that this means outlawing any kind of publicly owned entities from participating in the market, but that's a short-sighted view as there's nothing that indicates a publicly owned entity must be given special treatment. It would be no different than giving private companies special treatment, which many cities have done. Perhaps you don't live in one where this is an issue, but if there's only one game in town and they're charging outrageous prices for a shit service, I have a hard time believing that it's because none of the other avaricious companies have decided that they're suddenly against swooping in to undercut the competition.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true (or at least not entirely true). Market position can keep a company a monopoly no matter what. An incumbent ISP could temporarily lower rates to drive an upstart out of business. They then slowly raise rates to what they used to be.

That's ignoring the fact that there's a massive sum of money required to run data lines since you have to be able to reach every building even if they aren't a customer. It'd be like laying down a second road system to reach a single house.

The article points out Google was allowed to build selectively. Cities want to avoid that because then poorer neighborhoods would likely be left out of luck. (Would you like it if you couldn't get a road built to your house?)

The right kind of regulation could fix this. Separate the infrastructure from the service. One company owns the fiber, but other companies pay to do the actual hookups to houses. The customer pays the service provider who pays the infrastructure company. A system like this already exist with cell phones and MVNOs.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also TW Telecom (that used to be Time Warner Telecom) but it split off from Time Warner in the 90s.

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

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Reverend Green]

Smith's Wealth of Nations is not about capitalism or "free markets". The famous "invisible hand" quote is not particularly important in the overall scheme of the book.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Reverend Green]

You are correct of course, that a "free market" where oligarchs have unbridled economic power rarely produces widespread opportunity and prosperity, which I assume is what you mean by a "fair market". But I think it is a mistake to tie that valid analysis into a stultifying left/right framework.

The overwhelming majority of self-identified liberals and conservatives both favor "fair market" policies intended to promote common prosperity. Only tiny minority interest groups like Libertarians and Intersectional Progressives tend to support "free market" corporate absolutism.

In what I'm sure is a complete coincidence, both Intersectional Progressives and Libertarians are handsomely funded by the oligarchy, thereby gaining a voice in the State that far exceeds what is warranted by their meager public support.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the AT&T shill!

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Reverend Green]

Yes. This. Regulation can be beneficial OR detrimental. Or often enough, a little of both.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Dog-Cow]

Who was talking about phone companies, you illiterate idiot?

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smith's Wealth of Nations is not about capitalism or "free markets".

There you go again - spouting obvious bullshit to make yourself feel smart. You've clearly never even read the books, or even cracked a list of chapters.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Dragonslicer]

That's true, and I should clarify by adding that right/left is a spectrum, not a set of two or three columns. A totally free market with zero government intervention would be at the far right end of the spectrum, and the farther you get from the right end (until you get far enough to the left that you're in the planned economy range), the more government intervention is believed to be needed to ensure a free market.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Reverend Green]

http://www.mondopolitico.com/l...

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

These same large corps that cry free market simultaneously do everything they can to block competition from entering the market. Comcast and AT&T have done everything in their power to block Google Fiber and municipal internet providers from providing genuine alternatives in every market they are allowed.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[drinkypoo]

When Seattle comes up in these conversations someone usually points out that once you get out of the city proper, internet coverage goes right into the toilet, with most addresses covered by only one or two options. Is this not true?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[samwichse]

This deal will be great for all of us!

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want a regulation that is detrimental?

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Reverend Green]

No one wants that. Unintended consequences.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY, although I'm sure you meant to add what I did. Thanks for the informative post.

Yup, thanks. I saw that mistake immediately after hitting Submit.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

If all regulations are detrimental, then there should be no regulations.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Derp derp derp

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Obfuscant]

There likely were (and perhaps still are) laws that prevent a monopoly on internet service in a general sense,

There is not now and never has been a government-granted monopoly for internet service. The cable television laws that allowed exclusive franchises and now prohibit them deal with cable television services, not ISPs.

The fact that there are 14 business-class ISPs at least for Seattle kind of proves this.

Some free market advocates seems to think that this means outlawing any kind of publicly owned entities from participating in the market,

This has nothing to do with outlawing municipal broadband. The reasonable restriction on municipal broadband systems is that they are deliberate and explicit attempts at bypassing the franchise contracts that the municipality forces some broadband providers to agree to (specifically broadband over the cable television infrastructure) while allowing the municipality to cherry pick the profitable areas of the municipality while still forcing the franchised company to provide the high-cost services to the entire franchise area. A secondary (and still reasonable objection, IMNSHO) is that the municipality it trying to directly compete with a company that it regulates and can do so without many of the costs that the company is required to deal with.

It would be like having a city law that requires all automotive repair shops to be licensed and provide service to any make and model of auto that a customer brings in, while the city runs a competing repair shop that has no licensing requirements and needs to service only the makes of cars owned by rich people. If a mechanic needs an expensive, specialized tool to work on Astin Martin TorqueMobile 3 engines and the city isn't including that model in their coverage, this is a cost that the city-regulated mechanics need to pay that the city itself avoids. There's the required auto analogy.

I don't live in Seattle, but I have several friends who still do and for a long while it was essentially Comcast only as far as cable

This is not proof of a government-granted monopoly. It may prove that there is a defacto monopoly based on economic issues -- which I, for one, have never denied. I will point out that "cable" is only one means of delivering services, and as such this is confusing the issue of "medium" with "message". If you want video services, you can use something other than cable TV; if you want broadband there are other media for that message than just cable TV wires.

The city isn't required to grant anyone a franchise,

Yes, sir, if you read the federal law on this, municipalities are required to issue franchises to any serious, reasonable competitor who agrees to the same requirements that the existing franchisee has to follow. It is explicit in the law that a competitor who feels they have been denied a franchise for inappropriate reasons may take the franchise authority to court.

You mention 14 ISPs serving Seattle, but I'm assuming you're speaking of the metro area and not the city proper.

I don't know of the difference, but all I had to do was ask Google the question "ISPs Seattle". City limits is city limits. Will every ISP run their lines to every house in the city? I don't know, and that's an issue between the ISP and the customer, not the resident and the city.

If public entities have to play by the same rules as private companies and aren't themselves given special treatment, I fail to see how they cause harm.

If you mean ALL the same rules, then I am close to agreement. There are inherent advantages to being a taxpayer backed not-for-profit that cannot be eliminated, so I still object on those terms.

then I expect that consumers are getting much better deals than most other cities.

Most other cities don't need 14 ISPs to serve al

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Obfuscant]

with most addresses covered by only one or two options. Is this not true?

I don't know, and it is irrelevant to the issue of whether there is a government-granted monopoly status to any of them. The answer to that is "no".

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Derp derp derp

Aaaah, pastor peen, why are you posting AC now?
Is it because you realized you've been hoist by your own petard?
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, amirite!?
You fuckhead, so goddamn fucking stupid arentchya?

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually differentiate them by using the terms "free market" and "fair market". Right-wing economics assumes that a fair market is a natural consequence of a free market; center/moderate-left economics rejects that assumption and believes that some amount of government intervention, such as antitrust regulation, is necessary to ensure a fair market.

That's a false differentiation.

The concept that no government regulation is present in a free market is a myth - which no rational person, whether right wing, center or left, believes. The word "free" means that people are free to choose to participate under the rules of the market, it does not mean that there are no rules.

Indeed, Adam Smith devoted approximately 20% of his famous book on free markets, The Wealth of Nations (1776) to the need for government regulation. That book is the historical basis of all modern capitalist systems. Regulation in this tradition can, of course, include concepts of fairness such as limitations on insider trading.

The primary difference between left wing and right is the desire of the left wing to have some sort of ill-defined "social justice" - a term that means whatever the demagogue of the moment wishes it to mean, and with no concern for facts or reality. Regulation in the eyes of these True Believers thus must be adjusted to serve this ill-defined goal, no matter how many times such attempts have failed to produce the desired result in the past.

The left wing is thus characterized by a lack of connection to reality, which in turn creates in the right wing by a desire to oppose the left at any cost (even if that does lead to knee-jerk reaction to regulation on the part of the right, which in turn leads to economic consequences that are almost as harmful to society as implementing the ideas of the left wing would be).

Basically, we are seeing a problem with education play out. If the left wing had a better education about how the real world works - and a better education in economic history - they wouldn't push such clueless nonsense, which in turn would allow for compromise on the part of the right wing - there can be no compromise with clueless fanatics but with better education the left wing would no longer have to be clueless fanatics - and that in turn would allow real beneficial change to occur. The left wing is its own worst enemy.

Ironically, some of the worst rent-seeking behaviour to be found anywhere in any developed nation - leading to all kinds of harmful economic and social consequences for the poor and the middle class - is found in professions with a strong left-wing bias, and in the big blue cities. See The Captured Economy for many examples of how this plays out in the USA.

Unfortunately, large companies in general are not a good idea for the long term health of society. They simply have too much bribe money available (though it may be disguised as "campaign contributions") - and at some level that's probably the basis for the current decision. The last thing we need is bigger companies, or more big companies.

Re: Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me you didn't just link to some website you googled up in a pathetic attempt to front that you've actually read the books.
Right? Right?

Your penis isn't so small that you couldn't stop yourself from defending your ego with such an obvious attempt at bullshitting, is it?

you sad little eunuch

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[thoughtlover]

ISPs, bah.. they're all crappy. The real problem is ...what if you're a Comcast customer and you turn to HBO for John Oliver and there's a message saying, "Comcast is sorry we can't air this channel anymore..."

And now the only way to watch HBO is via DirectTV, or pay for it directly via Fire, etc...

I predict that pirating will become more commonplace as more of the pipes own more of the content. Already there's talk that Netflix and Google should start building out their own networks.

Can we just declare the internet an f'in utility, please??

More monopolies

[Rick Schumann]

Monopolies are like candy to a culture of protectionism.

Breaking news...

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T just bought the state of Florida. All residents are now honorary line technicians, each month the profits from bill cramming will be dispersed evenly to each Floridian citizen in the form of Hulu credits.

Re:Breaking news...

[the_skywise]

Yay! I get free HBO!
"But you're essentially a sharecropper now!"
... I don't farm?

Not a problem

[PPH]

Just have AT&T divest its wireless and broadband services as a condition of the merger.

The judge was a W. Bush appointee

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you fucking expect?!

And we have "free market capitalist" Republicans in power.

What do you fucking expect?!

And I'm an AT&T shareholder and WoooHooooo!

Crony Capitalism for the WIN!!!!!

Thanks all you "Christians" who vote for MY people because of BS issues like abortion!

Thanks amosexuals for voting for my people because of your religious love of guns!!

YOU ARE ALL FUCKED!!!!

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!

now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Joe_Dragon]

now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

Re:now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I've rediscovered books. Modern entertainment just keeps getting worse and worse. Everything is easily predictable and often follows the one of a few emotional curves (forget what writers call them: attention grabber -> back story -> issue -> upcoming hero -> hero falters -> you can do it speech -> hero winning -> plot twist -> hero losing -> hero wins). Books and older series are better. Sometimes even the good guys lose.

Re:now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad I've rediscovered books. (...) Books and older series are better. Sometimes even the good guys lose.

I'm with you on this one. I no longer have a TV at home, nor do I have internet access, other than with my smartphone which has a 500 MB limit, so it helps me check timetables and such, but I can't binge watch a TV show on that. Books, both fiction and not, have a much higher value and I'm happier since I stopped with TV. And once you stop being spoon-fed commercials, your brain starts to notice how toxic they are.

Re: now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, thanks to the repeal of Net Neutrality, you can stream DirecTV on your AT&T phone with no charges against your data plan.

Re:now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney's got 'em on the hook already. The only thing to wonder about is whether or not Comcast can toss enough money at the situation to throw a wrench in it.

I dread the idea of Disney owning Firefly. What they've done to Star Wars? Imagine doing that to the crew of Serenity. And yes, I will impotently nerd-rage about it when it happens.

Re: now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[fish_in_the_c]

That would have nothing to do with net neutrality. T-Mobile has already been doing something similar for years. Not charging a consumer for a specific merchandise (in this case packets received) is no more about net neutrality then buy 1 get 1 free at a grocery store. When it because a issue with net neutrality is AT&T starts giving priority to Direct TV traffic vs Netflix thus making it difficult or impossible to watch Netflix on there network while making it really easy to watch there product. Net neutrally is about treating the packets on the network differently depending on service and or source, it has very little to do with the client ( or how much the consumer pays). That is where to problem comes in. Without net neutrally the ISP gains the ability to manipulate the customer experience with competitors products in a way that is difficult to detect and impossible to overcome. Consumers should be screaming at any company that does not treat all services they want use equally for 2 reasons.
  1) it should be your choice what you do with the bandwidth you paid for. Without net neutrality it is a little like buying a car, but the speed limit is different depending on weather you buy a honda or mozda , because mozda and honda own different roads, and while they can't stop a honda from driving on a mozda road they are now allowed to require all competitors cars to travel 5mph and ones owned by them to travel 100. Thus limiting your choice of places to shop and eat to the ones they would like.

  2) and more concerning, it means the ISP is snooping on every piece of data you are using. monitoring the packet types and the ip's they are coming from and influencing transmission speeds based on packet content. ( which also means they are likely logging that traffic ).
Strong net centrality laws would require that all packets be treated with the same priority and that ISP do not retain any network data unless it is actively being used for problem diagnosis.

The only reason there isn't a huge uproar about it , is because most people understand nothing about it.

Re: now fox will be sold to Comcast or Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I don't want DirecTV?

Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[shanen]

This calls for the more complete form of my sig:

#1 Freedom = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} != (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)

You have hit on the key term "~5" in your brief comment. Zero or one choice is not a meaningful choice. Two is the starting point of freedom, but most of us actually max out around 5 choices at a time. By the time you get up to 20 or 30 choices, you're helpless and the advertisers or slick salespeople are going to pull your strings, driven by the same kind of insane profit maximization that ATT is worshiping with this EVIL merger.

Short summary: Capitalism is deader than Communism. Socialism is sick and Libertarianism is a sick fantasy. The most successful governments now appear to be Putin's style of Kleptocracy or Xi's style of slightly benevolent Dictatorship. #PresidentTweety wants to combine the worst of those two, though he also likes Kim Jong-un's style. We are so phucked. Corporate cancerism RULZ.

In religious terms: There is no gawd but profit, and ATT wants to be a YUGER prophet!

Solution? Don't hold your breath, but how about a progressive tax on corporate profits linked to market share. In your [DogDude's] situation, now that ATT is the monopolist in your market, they would have to pay the highest tax rate on all of the profits they earn there. The goal would be to encourage them to reproduce by fission, but if they don't, then the taxes will pay for (1) extensive monitoring by honest [LOL] and unbribed [ROFLMAO] government regulators (to make sure they aren't abusing their customers too badly) and for (2) research into ways to break the monopoly. (LTE is actually such a technology, though it is actually being used by the cancers that own it to prevent breaking their monopolies.)

Re:Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[another_twilight]

The most successful governments now appear to be Putin's style of Kleptocracy or Xi's style of slightly benevolent Dictatorship

How do you define successful?

Listing countries by Human Development Index tends to show countries with left leaning social policies and centrist to slightly right economic ones. A mix of socialism and capitalism.

Picking other indices (longevity, happiness etc.) mixes the ranking, but not the conclusion. Extremes of any sort tend to be unstable and not especially successful over the long term.

Re:Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[shanen]

Good question. I was writing at the level of real world power plays between nations. For example, I would argue that ZTE was a largely criminal corporate cancer that had even earned bankruptcy, but Xi was able to bend little Trump over his knee and change his pointy little mind.

At the level you are writing, "successful" would point mostly at the Scandinavian counties, but Putin is losing little sleep worrying about them. Though Putin's personal wealth is unknown, the high estimates are around $200 billion, which would make him the richest man in the world. Of course no one is planning beyond his own death, but right now it looks like Putin may get to die with the most toys of all.

At risk of changing the subject or getting an off-topic mod, my prior comment helped lead me to this conclusion:

Trump's qualifications for public office:

1: Loves self
2: Hates enemies
3: No scruples
4: Short-term focus
5: YUGE balls

Re: Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump stole my beer! I saw him do it! That BASTARD!

Re:Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[another_twilight]

Thank you for the reply. It looks like I've misunderstood you when you've used 'successful governments' and appreciate the clarification.

Re:Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[drinkypoo]

I certainly won't hold my breath for it, but what is needed is a corporate income tax, not on their profits. Taxing profits still permits using a corporation as a tax shelter. A corporation which cannot be successful while paying income taxes should go away and let someone more efficient take their space in the market.

Re:Cancer beats freedom! (Where's the news?)

[shanen]

I think you are being confused by the complexity of tax laws. It sounds like you are trying to avoid the case of clever deductions where a corporation's losses can be used to evade taxes. I think such cases are almost always created with bribes to politicians, but the underlying rationales are absurd, usually something along the lines of "You have to protect this industry until it can recover" or "There will be too much suffering if you let this company die."

From my perspective, if a company cannot generate a profit, that's just too bad. That's exactly the kind of situation where the government should NOT be picking winners and losers because the refs are going to get targeted. The books need to be open and honest to make sure the corporations aren't playing games, but if there really are no profits then the government should stay out and let the company go bankrupt in peace. In other words, a corporation's real income is the profit, but it shouldn't be gamed with tricks like piling several years losses into one gigantic tax write-off--which often enough includes partial bankruptcy games to dodge the debts.

Of course it's never going to happen. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Tax policy to increase freedom is just my pipe dream. ATT's lust for infinite profit is more like an addiction to crack.

What? You are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are so willing to give up everything for convenience that they have completely forgotten who they used to be. Only 3 major players even control the news media in the US anymore. What do you expect? Most of our money goes to military endeavors anymore. Everything you type or say is recorded somewhere. Our "government" is nothing but people put into power by large corporations. Do you really think anyone is representing you anymore? We all (almost all) have failed to see what is coming. I cringe now everyone tells me that America is the most free country. I cringe when anyone suggests that America is a beacon of freedom. Every fucking thing you do or say is now being monitored by the corporations that have put their minions in control of every aspect of our governments. This was all predicted. Our forefathers may not have envisioned the technology, but they did know the evil that exists within the human desire for power. Do you really think that these federal positions are there to protect you? They are not. They are fulfilled by corporations that want to meet expectations from their shareholders. There is no one evil person to point at. If anyone should really be blamed in full, you will have to look in a mirror. You allowed this to happen. It isn't just this one thing. Every fucking day, we read of more corporate takeovers. I'm all for legitimate business, but why can't everyone see that these big corporations (not individuals within) are going to be the end of freedom? Why? Do you really love your spy gadgets that much? It isn't this headline that evoked this. Just getting tired of reading these types of headlines.

Free market == monopoly

[evanh]

This is the free market's outcome right now. Unregulated, ie: free for businesses, only has monopolistic outcomes. Oh, and that same unregulated situation also leads to slavery.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[youngone]

The tone of your comment makes me think that you regard monoploies as bad, but they're not.
As everyone knows giving ordinary people choices just makes them confused and angry. Things will be much better when there is only one huge business in America, then no-one will need to be confused or angry when they need some service or product.
This will also have the benefit that the one company left will not need to employ any political lobbyists, as the senators and congressmen (not to mention the president) will know exactly how to vote, because the laws can be supplied directly by the one company.
See? That's market efficiency at it's finest.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a circumstance where competition is impossible. Government prevents companies from ripping up sidewalks to install lines, or from broadcasting signals. They actively create monopolies as well.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[ArmoredDragon]

Ah yes, another communistic jab at capitalism. But you and your red comrades are wrong here: Free markets absolutely depend on regulation. Capitalism in general just doesn't work without it. (And as it turns out, neither does communism, in spite of that idiot Marx claiming that it doesn't even need any government.) The problem many have is that some regulations are quite heavy handed. Think about it, if in a free market, people were allowed to just steal from you through securities fraud without any repercussions, you're probably going to have fewer investors that think it is worth the risk, which means your economy will suffer.

So many of you ...*ahem*...useful...people...like to come around here and make jabs at free markets by doing some kind of a drive by post saying something like well's fargo stealing from their customers is free market at work, get a bunch of high fives from some comrade moderators, and then think you did the world a service by making false assertions about something you couldn't explain if you tried.

Free market means one thing, and one thing only: Prices are governed only by the forces of supply and demand. That's it.

So you can put down your rhetoric already. Prices can't be governed by the forces of supply and demand if some entity, whether that is a government, crime organization, or monopoly. Examples of heavy handed regulations are tariffs, which is a form of price control.

Breaking up monopolies is orthogonal to free markets, what isn't is stopping anti-competitive behavior, or more specifically, behaviors meant to manipulate prices. Even companies that aren't true monopolies can do this, and we do give them the smack-down on occasion. Consider Nintendo, who was exerting tons of upward pressure on video game prices in the 90's, even though they weren't a monopoly. Here's how they pulled that off:
- They put strict controls on the supply of games that were sold by telling the developers exactly how many they'll produce, and how many games they can publish in a year. Artificially keeping supply low keeps prices higher, effectively being a price control.
- They forbade developers from also developing on competing consoles, and they told Toys R' Us that if they carried games for any other console, then Nintendo would cut them off from the supply chain. This meant that all of the most popular titles went to the dominant platform, and less to others. This artificially kept the demand for nintendo games higher since they also had more exposure.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking up monopolies is orthogonal to free markets, what isn't is stopping anti-competitive behavior, or more specifically, behaviors meant to manipulate prices.

Breaking up monopolies is _not_ orthogonal to free markets, since it is one tool to stop anti-competitive behaviour. That being said, if you can stop the anti-competitive behaviour without breaking them then you achieve most of your goals, though that is easier said than done.

For instance a monopoly can (and do) play games like giving really low prices to get customers, which would drive a new entrant out of business.

The old saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is more true that ever. When you corner all related parts of a system the amount of power you can wield in a corrupt way is staggering. Sure, you can outlaw corruption, but that may not work so well. Better to make one company a data provider and a separate company with separate people behind it a tv channel, and so on, and so on. Better still to outlaw all this bundling of services, since again you can use your market hold to strangle competition which tends to result in higher prices or less choices.

In fact, outlawing bundling would just be a different way of restoring competition that is short of breaking up a company. That way a data provider that happens to sell tv, can't make the only reasonably package the one where you buy tv, internet, phone, and whatever else just to get a reasonable price.

Free markets also tend to optimize around price, and neglect externalities. Government can put its thumb on the scale when the cost of not putting its thumb on the scale is effectively higher when the externalities, such as pollution are added in.

So yes, free markets have their place and it is one we dare not ignore, but limited regulation improves on it by preventing abuse of power, environment, working conditions, etc, etc..

Re: Free market == monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets can only exist without Government regulation - what people forget is that includes corporations, limited liability and 'intellectual property ', to name a few. They are all forms of government interference in the market.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[fish_in_the_c]

oh, I had mod points yesterday but didn't use them.. that is funny :) LOL . Thanks :)

Re:Free market == monopoly

[fish_in_the_c]

Technically it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to use your monopoly to take over other markets or other segments of your existing market. However, there is a secondary problem that has developed in the sense that now companies are so diversified that it is impossible to tell which markets they are not part of. I'm not sure the best solution ,but one thing that might help would be a 'truth in branding law' that requires a company to a single registered name / brand/ trademark. At least then companies would have to stop pretending they didn't make both superior and inferior products, the reputation risk would be to all their products and so would be much greater. Right now they can keep damaging the consumer and just keep changing the name, so long as they can sell the product. Basically people should be able to own more the one company but a company should not. If it aquires another company they should need to abandon one of the brands ( or at least make their primary brand clearly identifiable with the product).

Something else that 'might' be an interesting idea, would be to make a better use of corporate charters. They could required to be more narrow in there company description. If the owners of a company want to create a different business it should have an independent , board, documents and branding.

Re: Free market == monopoly

[fish_in_the_c]

The fact that there are different types of corporate entries at all is part of the government regulations of a free market. Laws need to be balanced to ensure the exercise of Commerce and user choice, while at the same time preventing one actor from destroying the ability of others to conduct commerce. It is a not an easy equation. More over the specific laws need change depending on your goals. Is it better to optimize wealth or optimize average wealth. It is bad for society line general if any business is 'too large to fail' because it is the possibility of failure that inspires the struggle of competition.

Re:Free market == monopoly

[ArmoredDragon]

Breaking up monopolies is _not_ orthogonal to free markets, since it is one tool to stop anti-competitive behaviour.

False. Having a monopoly does not equal anti-competitive behavior, rather breaking up a monopoly is one among many remedies that can be used. In the case of Nintendo (not a monopoly,) the remedy was fining the crap out of them, and fining them harder if they continued. The remedy for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior was basically the same, and ultimately did not require a breakup to have the desired effect.

Google, for all intents and purposes, has a de-facto monopoly on search in Europe. By that I mean north of 97%. Google isn't using any anti-competitive behavior to keep it this way. The reason Google dominates there is because all of the others are utter shit. Breaking up Google in any way simply won't change that: Shitty bing still won't gain market share, nor will crappy yahoo or yandex. This also won't change for Google Maps, gmail, or any other service. You could argue that switching browser defaults may have an impact, but really likely it won't, and we saw why with firefox: In spite of using Yahoo as the default, most people still went out of their way to change the default to google. Even edge and IE users do this, enough so that Microsoft deliberately made switching search engines a convoluted process in edge, and forbids deleting bing as a search engine. Preventing windows phones from having anything besides edge as the default browser, with edge as its default search didn't do Microsoft any favors (though partly because people with windows phones were mostly just google and apple haters anyways, and didn't mind the sub-par user experience they had with those shitty phones.)

Re: Free market == monopoly

[ArmoredDragon]

Free markets can only exist without Government regulation - what people forget is that includes corporations, limited liability and 'intellectual property ', to name a few. They are all forms of government interference in the market.

If that was true, then it wouldn't be a free market, instead it would more closely resemble anarchy, and furthermore we wouldn't have any free markets at all as every single one of them is regulated. It only stops being a free market once price manipulation begins. Did you have a lobotomy, or did the meth cause permanent damage?

Re:What? You are surprised?

[l0ungeb0y]

Americans, and people in general honestly don't give a shit any more They feel they are entitled to what they have, and who wants to stand up and fight for anything?

Re: Trump surrenders to North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time the warmongering United states surrendered. More evil than the Soviet union ever was.

In 1978 when the Islamists began attacking the republic of afghanistan because the government was introducing reforms aimed at improving the life of women, increasing education and ironically, removing usury, the Soviet union intervened to protect what most western people would think are better morals.

This intimidated the US, a country that time and time again proved itself weak and fearful so they began arming the Mujahideen and provided them with support. This led to the slaughtering of up to 2 million Afghan civilians, mostly by the jihadists who later became the Taliban. The US lost control of their puppets as they always do because they tend to support the more brutal dictators in conflicts. Around this time was when the US was also funding Osama bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein, cake to power because of the US.

The US like to think they won WW2, the only military intervention that in hindsight could be said to be ethical. It was the Soviet union that defeated the Germans. What the US did was use nuclear weapons against civilians in Japan.

The US also with holds aid and resources to anyone they dislike under the guise of sanctions, severely hurting innocent civilians. It is often noted that if it wasn't for the the socialist countries providing such good living standards for their people, the standard of living in the US probably wouldn't have been so high. Since the end of the cold war the average United states citizen has become poorer and the money concentrated within the elite oligarchy.

US military interventions around the world have always been evil. No wonder north Korea felt they needed nuclear weapons. With the back tracking Trump is trying to do with Iran, it's a wonder the north Koreans are even willing to engage.

Cry some more APK! Waahh Trumpy go boom boom.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are like Donald Trump CRYING and getting butt-hurt that the Canadian President wasn't nice to him. "Whahh". CRY SOME MORE, loser.

(You know - Unlike Donald Trump you can't SURRENDER to North Korea to feed your ego.)

* You will never rise above the status of "treason-cuck" APK. Eunuchs like yourself are ALWAYS "triggered" by reality.

Your HOST FILES are BROKEN, just like your soul.

BR

Boom => Fucking - nailed it... br

Re:Cry some more APK! Waahh Trumpy go boom boom.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a complicated surgeon of underwhelming talents and unremarkable character

Re:Cry some more APK! Waahh Trumpy go boom boom.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true though, Trump did seem a bit defensive about Trudeau putting his foot down and, you know, wait for some reasonable concessions. Maybe Trump doesn't understand negotiation very well at all, except for how a mobster does it.

Re: Trump surrenders to North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Revisionist nonsense. But your kind is out of power and will never regain the US congress or presidency. Time for commie slugs to feel the pain again.

Keep media separate

[Anonymous Coward]

Pipe owners should not be media owners.

Conflict of interest.

Sony hardware went to shit when they became a media company as well. Media should not merge with anything else.

Re: Trump surrenders to North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm no communist. I'm too wealthy for that. Its not revisionist nonsense. The us installed the Taliban. The us installed Sadam Hussein. And many more evil dictators. The list of US war crimes and human rights attrocities outweighs what the Soviet union ever did. Maybe try step back from the propaganda for a moment.

Re:What? You are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're American, you have the right to speak for one American.
If you're not American, you have the right to speak for zero Americans.

This American gives a shit.

Please, inform us all of how exactly we should go about fighting against a MegaCorp with enough money to buy off the Antitrust regulators whose job it is to stop this kind of bullshit.

Single-payer Internet

[mi]

We desperately need ISP's to be regulated like our electrical utilities are.

No, we need electrical utilities deregulated like our ISPs are. The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

No, we need electrical utilities deregulated like our ISPs are.

Why?

Re:Single-payer Internet

[Bing Tsher E]

The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept [mises.org], back then was completely bogus [wordpress.com].

Re:Single-payer Internet

[Dog-Cow]

Those words do not answer the question. It seems, from the few comments I've read of yours, that you're an illogical moron.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[mi]

Because the nationalization made us less free — someone seeking to pursue happiness by creating an electricity-generation plant, is effectively barred from doing it by these fascist regulations. That should be a good enough reason for anyone with principles.

For those, whose principles aren't so solid, the words: "The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus," — provide additional explanation.

We've surrendered a liberty (of running and profiting from this kind of business) in exchange of safety (against a non-existent threat), and, as foretold, ended up with neither.

(Given your propensity for name-calling, I'm unlikely to continue this conversation.)

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

Wow, that's some serious nonsense.

How about this: Society as a whole greatly benefits from having reliable and affordable electrical service.

I'm sorry if you feel "less free" because of it, but your feelings aren't as important as the rest of society's needs.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[mi]

Society as a whole greatly benefits from having reliable and affordable electrical service.

That's an argument for nationalizing everything: food-production, house-cleaning, television and other media, automobiles...

your feelings aren't as important as the rest of society's needs.

So, you subscribe to the principle of: "The common interest before self-interest"?

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

For some things, competition is good. For some things, nationalization is good. For some things, a combination of both is good.

The world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Read a lot (not just that Ayn Rand junk). Think a lot. Best of luck!

Re:Single-payer Internet

[mi]

For some things, competition is good. For some things, nationalization is good

You are yet to identify the criteria — everything you said about nationalizing the Internet-service provision also applies to everything else.

Plus, I would still like a clarification on whether you still subscribe to the principle of "The common interest before self-interest". You certainly did subscribe to it 2 hours ago — has that changed?

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

There is no single criteria. A society of billions is very complicated. A simple "freedom is good" mantra simply doesn't work. If you're looking for some ideological argument, I have no interest in that, because it's futile, and ultimately, stupid. Yes, I think that utilities, including electrical service, and Internet service, are better as government regulated entities. If you want to tilt at windmills, you can do it without me.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[mi]

There is no single criteria.

Ok, so there is a multitude of criteria. And yet, for some reason, you wouldn't give even one example... Your argument was:

Society as a whole greatly benefits from having reliable and affordable electrical service.

I can replace the words "electrical service" with just about anything: "clothing", "kitchen appliances", "automobiles", "news-media" — and the statement will still be true. So, if you don't want to nationalize TV-stations, you must offer some criteria. Why is it Ok, in your opinion, to trample the rights of owners of Consolidated Edison, but not those of Ford or CNBC?

You also continue to ignore my question regarding the primate of Collective over the Individual. Your earlier statement: "your feelings aren't as important as the rest of society's needs," — is just a poor paraphrasing of the (in)famous collectivist slogan: "The common interest before self-interest".

Do you still share the above sentiment?

I have no interest in that

Oh, yes, you do. It is just that you realized, you lost the argument — that you either have to take back the collectivist nonsense, or endorse the mass-murder and/or economic devastation that inevitably follow from adopting it in earnest.

I think that utilities, including electrical service, and Internet service, are better as government regulated entities

If you can't — and we've already established that you cannot — identify what puts some service-providers into this class, but not all of them, then your "thinking" on this matter is irrational and undisciplined, and thus unworthy of mention.

Just a few posts earlier you condescended to advise me to "read" and to "think" — you even took a stab at my (presumed) reading list — and yet, are yourself unable to substantiate your own convictions nor explain the glaring self-inconsistency in your point of view...

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

You're a nutter. It's impossible to have multiple companies competing for providing electrical service. We'd have lines and trenches everywhere. It is a physical impossibility. Also, electrical service is too important to modern society to have to rely on for-profit businesses operating in their own interests.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Electrical, same as data: Municipality ought to provide the infrastructure for others to buy and sell.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[mi]

You're a nutter.

Oh, wow, name-calling... An admission of an argument lost...

It's impossible to have multiple companies competing for providing electrical service

This is bullshit, of course, but I'm not arguing with you any more.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[DogDude]

I'm not arguing with you any more.

You never started to.

Re:Single-payer Internet

[Bing Tsher E]

It seems. An illogical moron might render that judgement.

Go kiss your one-button mouse, you anachronism. You're not a dog nor a cow. Just a tedious monochrome icon.

And we go again.

[stroxor]

I think that after At&t will be acquired by Microsoft and then merge with Apple and get swallowed by Netflix then we wil live happily eve... end of the world

As the saying goes

[rsilvergun]

elections have consequences. You're the first person I've heard make the point that it's hard to run a business due to a _lack_ of regulations. I'm not saying you're wrong (you're dead on actually). But I've just had the narrative of regulations making business harder pounded into my skull so long it's hard to imagine the opposite, even when I logically what you're saying.

Re:As the saying goes

[MaryannG]

Pardon me but how does an election affect this whatsoever? The judge was appointed by W, the suit was initially brought by Obama's DOJ and continued and supported by Trump's. If you're keeping score that's one Republican appointed judge (which, of course, doesn't necessarily mean the judge is a Republican as well) ruling against the Republican president's DOJ whose lawsuit was originally brought by the preceding Democrat's DOJ. The sad and sorry truth is that anti-monopoly regulations are sufficient here...but the DOJ STILL has to actually bring SOMETHING to court. If you read articles about this online today, the DOJ case was nearly entirely absent of any actual evidence or proof that this merger will stifle competition. Yes, I know, to most that seems absolutely counter-intuitive and, thus, unbelievable. BUT...just because YOU believe it doesn't mean you can prove it. And proof is what our justice system currently works on.

Re:As the saying goes

[DogDude]

You're right. The lack of regulations generally help the big businesses; the ones who can afford to buy their politicians. In this example, AT&T/Time-Warner/Specturm/Comcast say that "regulations hurt their business" which means that they can't screw over their customers as much as they'd like to, or make as much money as they'd like to. All the while, those of us who rely on their services are left to twist in the the wind.

And of course, it's not just ISP's. The US also desperately needs some regulations regarding credit cards/merchant services, among other things (I'm just coming up with stuff that's difficult for us right now).

Re: As the saying goes

[Reverend Green]

"proof is what our justice system currently works on."

That, and big suitcases full of cash.

Re:As the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets be clear here, the lawsuit was filed Nov 30, 2017. It wasn't actually prosecuted until well into the trump installation. Given the way trump has slurped corporate cock, don't be surprised if we find out that the DOJ pulled their punches. The Commander of Cheese makes a bunch of noise, while in the background the corporatists who actually run the administration quietly abandon their duty. After all, that's what they are doing right now when it comes to defending the ACA in court against a frivolous lawsuit. In that case many of the DOJ lawyers are quitting their jobs because its so fucked up.

Re: As the saying goes

[MaryannG]

Oh. So AT&T bought the trial judge? Really? I mean, I get that throwing out anti-establishment kneejerk phrases establishes your street cred with all the cool kids but aside from the same old tired cynical excuses when things run contrary to your worldview...do you have any proof whatsoever of such a claim? Listen, I know going that extra micrometer is just another way "the man" is keeping you down but if you had bothered to look around some, you'd have run across articles where the trial judge was pretty much epically pissed at how little the government brought to the trial. According to him, virtually nothing to support their claim.

Re: As the saying goes

[Reverend Green]

The judicial system is corrupt from top to bottom. If you expect us to believe they did anything other than accept a big old bribe, the burden of proof is on you.

Re: As the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic. Make hyperbolic unsupported statement, demand that someone prove a negative.
*french kiss* perfect!

There are no conditions

[rsilvergun]

none whatsoever. The judge is letting it proceed as is. You have more conditions buying a candy bar from 7-11 than they're getting buying a competitor.

Re: There are no conditions

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a vertical merger. A company is buying one of its suppliers. That is not the same as buying a competitor. You might be thinking of Time Warner Cable, which was spun off two years ago and is now marketed as Spectrum Internet.

Show up to your primaries

[rsilvergun]

folks. And then at your mid-terms. If you want change you need to start voting these bums out. Don't forget most judges are appointed. The party that appointed this judge didn't. That's why this merger sailed through with zero conditions. And it's why you'll be paying $200/mo for high speed internet in a few years.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Richard Leon was nominated to the position by George W. Bush in 2001.

I will be interesting if Trump truly follows through with some trust busting. I give it a 30% he'll follow through with it.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got nothing to do with Time Warner Cable. Theres no merger of ISPs here

Re:Show up to your primaries

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the dems will break up the merger
(/s)

Re:Show up to your primaries

[pots]

you'll be paying $200/mo for high speed internet in a few years

That's only for Premium Internet though, the full package. I'm sure you'll be able to get a basic package pretty cheaply, giving access to all of the approved websites and services with only a fair and equitable number of injected ads.

Re:Show up to your primaries

[cyberchondriac]

You neglect to mention the suit against this merger was presented by a Republican president's DOJ, who continued to bring the lawsuit originally brought by the preceding Democrat's DOJ, rather than dropping it, to paraphrase a better worded post above.
It isn't about party, (both had opposition to it), it's about money.
And really, I think the judge's statement that insufficient evidence was presented to prevent the merger is laughable. No evidence should be needed to present a case that argues that a merger of this massive, colossal size is a bad idea, that's just obvious. I'll agree this is a shitty judge.

Letâ(TM)s make its simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Any merger worth over x billion must inherently be anti-competitive.

Re:Letâ(TM)s make its simple

[Wycliffe]

Any merger worth over x billion must inherently be anti-competitive.

I tried to post something similar a few hours ago. As we obviously can't be trusted to decide what is and is not a monopoly maybe we should just start taxing companies on market cap. An extra 10% per year per $100 billion would probably work nicely. So if you're an $800 billion dollar company like amazon or google then either start selling off chunks of your business or expect to pay 10% on the second 100 billion, 20% on the third $100 billion, etc.... Then we don't have to try to decide if and how to break them up. Let them figure out how to do that themselves. And once amazon is 8 small companies, it's easier to make sure those 8 don't collude.

Re:Letâ(TM)s make its simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting idea in spirit, but silly in practice -- market capitalization has very little to do with actual financial performance or revenue. Even taxing revenue or forcing sell off based on revenue is a more practical approach than what you propose.

Re:Letâ(TM)s make its simple

[Wycliffe]

Interesting idea in spirit, but silly in practice -- market capitalization has very little to do with actual financial performance or revenue. Even taxing revenue or forcing sell off based on revenue is a more practical approach than what you propose.

Revenue and profits vary greatly by industry. Market cap or assets is pretty straightforward. Do we really need/want trillion dollar companies? Certain industries like chip manufacturers and mining are massive operations that require significant capital and economy of scale but economy of scale has diminishing returns. At some point the negatives of massive corporations outweighs any benefit of economy of scale. Would amazon really be that much different if it was only a $100 billion dollar company instead of a $800 billion dollar company. Besides being a monopoly, the other problem with massive companies is the possibility of a single point of failure bringing society to a halt. Also, companies like Amazon are now larger than some countries. We need to have some check in place so that private companies don't eclipse the world governments and become the defacto government sending everyone back to "the company store" era.

Re:Letâ(TM)s make its simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenue and profits vary greatly by industry.

Which is why we tax profits, not revenue or market cap.

Market cap or assets is pretty straightforward.

Not for taxation purposes, because the company doesn't make money from having a ridiculous market cap nor have any control over it. For splitting up, maybe, not for imposing a tax.

"WildThing" vs. you domesticated drones

[Anonymous Coward]

"WildThing" https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12224584&cid=56774482/ (join us, won't you?) LOL!

* I've dusted the hell out of you here & am EXPOSING it elsewhere (see link above).

Thought you MIGHT like exposure in the limelight, but, then again?

Germs like YOU simply WITHER in sunlight - come, wither some more, lol!!!

APK

P.S.=> For YOUR listening pleasure (lol, not) & "dramatic effects"? THIS is ME (vs. YOU 'domesticated do-nothing ZERO "ne'er-do-well" SoyBOY TROLLS' like you) WildThing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mi3KNEpbA4/ ... apk

IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? LOL... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

POOR imitation of me = sincerest form of flattery (which only shows you are losers doing it, nothing more, w/ idle time on your hands (the devil's workshop)).

APK

P.S.=> What sort of a PUSSY does that? YOU DO, pussy impersonating me... apk

Re:IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? LOL... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you outline what you think are the parts that make it a poor imitation?

Because, speaking as someone who has been on /. for some time, I didn't pick it as a fake. The only thing I found odd was that it didn't mention hosts files, and AFAICT, that's pretty rare for you.

Also, you keep demanding that no-one can criticise you who hasn't done the same as you (we can't criticise the use of hosts files unless we've written a program that uses hosts files; we can't criticise you using your college sporting achievements as proof of current fitness unless we played two seasons of lacrosse) but then criticise anyone who acts the same as you as being imitators.

Seems like a double standard. Care to comment?

Re: IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? LOL... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused: which of these are fake apk and which are real apk (assuming there is such a creature and he's not a rogue AI)?

Re: IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? LOL... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure, but after checking carefully;

The first couple of posts that were purely political are out of character. APK usually doesn't comment politically, and certainly no exclusively. While not conclusive, they use single parenthesis only, wheras APK often nests his comments several layers deep. Check the 'imitating me' post for an example of nested parentheses.

I'm pretty sure the comments with bold are original APK; linking to posts in other threads is APK; weird filking is APK.

He tends to drop the hosts files thing when he goes full retard.

I'm curious, 'though, what APK sees as being the difference/similarities.

LOL! MOMMY HELP ME (golden wine)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hohohohoho see the CLASSIC proof of that here soyboys as you DRINK the golden wine https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12224690&cid=56774516/ straight from MY tap (of GOLDEN piss), all natural ingredients, naturally filtered (of ME pissing right into your shitbag mouths & funniest part is, you help me DO it - you LIKE it, lol!).

Do you LIKE the taste? Obviously yes - just like folks like my hosts engine, anything I put out, even piss, is GOOD (unlike "your kind").

Above all else though? Hey - MOMMY LOVES YOU!

APK

P.S.=> Hahahahaha (I think this is the BEST overall letting you SHEMALE soyboys destroy yourselves for GOLD (ask SuckerBERG about that - he's the expert as is all his kind are - heading into ZylonB & Furnace time again judging by what's happening - the PRICE of it is that, always, they don't learn)... apk

Re:LOL! MOMMY HELP ME (golden wine)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you LIKE the taste? Obviously yes - just like folks like my hosts engine,

Most honest thing you've ever said. People like your hosts engine just like the taste of piss.

Trump PEE TAPE lovingly remastered by APK

[Anonymous Coward]

Be HONEST. You masturbated at least once while posting this comment and dreaming of Trump covered in RUSSIAN HOOKER PISS.

Dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well monopoly it if you are a Jew though. CNN is all Jewish.

How is that POSSIBLE? Did you CHECK YOUR HOST FILE

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't your host file prevent this security vulnerability APK?

Welcome to the slaughterhouse, sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: regulation/safety net/socialism = pinko. You morons have bought into this bullshit for a century now, and now ALL Americans get to pay the price, myself included. >:(

Liberals are usually right

[Anonymous Coward]

And since the "free" market has failed to ever produce one fair market, us liberals are right.

It's ok. You can say it.

Re:Liberals are usually right

[Anonymous Coward]

As an evil right-winger, I'll make you a deal: I'll agree to regulated ISPs if you agree to regulate immigration.

Re:Liberals are usually right

[Bing Tsher E]

'Fair' is an extremely complicated word.

I won't expect you to understand this, though.

You think you're right. None of us know what the hell you even mean.

Re:Liberals are usually right

[Dragonslicer]

And since the "free" market has failed to ever produce one fair market, us liberals are right.

It's ok. You can say it.

I never said "you" (including myself, being a pretty mainstream left-of-center/Social Democrat) weren't.

Re: Trump surrenders to North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

The tens of millions killed by Stalin's monstrous rule outnumber the millions killed by the US's actions, even without counting the victims of the proxy wars promoted by the Soviet Union.

remember

[Anonymous Coward]

REMEMBER THE MURDER OF IAN MURDOCH, creator of Debian Linux and leading member of the Free Software community, killed Christmas 2015 by the notoriously corrupt San Francisco police department.

cha-ching!

[Reverend Green]

Something tells me a federal judge is going to be buying a new Tesla this week!

Re: Trump surrenders to North Korea

[ArmoredDragon]

In 1978 when the Islamists began attacking the republic of afghanistan because the government was introducing reforms aimed at improving the life of women, increasing education and ironically, removing usury, the Soviet union intervened to protect what most western people would think are better morals.

No comrade, that's not what happened. USSR invaded Afghanistan because they wanted to turn it into yet another soviet state as they had already been doing since WWII ended. The Afghanis didn't take kindly to that, and killed your fellow comrades, which actually made a decent contribution to what ultimately became end stage communism. You know that camo jacket and AK47 Osama was always sporting in his videos? He took them from a dead Russian general.

weak and fearful so they began arming the Mujahideen and provided them with support

Actually we didn't. This is the biggest myth among democrats, communists, and others that never seems to die. Osama bankrolled it himself with his oil money, refusing to have anybody assist other than muslims, referring to the ones sworn to him as mujaheddin (specifically referring to them as "his" mujahedin) whom he never would have allowed to accept support form the US. He did the same thing later to Kuwait when Iraq invaded, saying to them that only muslims should be allowed into what he called arab land (even though his "arab" land belonged to many more than just his race, like Persians, Kurds, Pashtun, Armenians, Azhjerbani, and many more.) Kuwait refused outright and opted for support from the US, which pissed him off, and nobody cared. In the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, the US armed and trained the northern alliance who hated both Osama and his fundamentalist crap alike, the same northern alliance that the US is working with in the modern Afghani war. And yes, the same US that has already lasted a lot longer in Afghanistan than the USSR did.

Anyways, I'm sorry we helped kill your communist paradise the USSR, I'm sure you loved and now miss the one and only vacation spot that existed in the entire soviet bloc with as much landmass the soviet bloc had that nobody ever wanted to visit, and the community grocery stores that were always out of food...those were your most cherished times...But it couldn't be helped. Gorbachev realized that it was simply impossible to prop up communism any longer, and the iron curtan was rusted and falling apart, so the wall wasn't going to last much longer. He made a bold move by establishing democracy, which the Russians didn't seem to care too much for given they keep electing a former member of the agency that used to terrorize them and now specializes in taking away their rights. Fortunately he, like virtually every other Russian of his time, understands just how shitty communism was, and how things improved for them once it ended, so while he's eroding your freedoms, at least he's not going to lead Russia in to that shitty existence again.

What exactly went wrong?

[lhunath]

What was the motivation of the judge? Why did he feel there was no antitrust violation? Is this a failure of the judiciary or a failure of the DoJ to build a decent case?

att used to block facetime on some plans so isp tv

[Joe_Dragon]

att used to block facetime on some plans so isp that also have tv can try to block some services unless you say buy an entertainment service can comes with tv or you buy say $100/mo+ internet plan. Say internet $70 + $50 unlimited (need to unlock entertainment service when you don't take an TV plan)

Hell Comcast can do that in some markets it's only comcast or slow dsl as your internet choices.