Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
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"?