Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Completes $85 Billion Time Warner Acquisition (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the done-deal dept.

AT&T on Thursday evening said that it has completed its $85 billion purchase of Time Warner, just two days after a judge ruled that the deal, originally announced two years ago, could proceed over objections from U.S. antitrust regulators. From a report: The Department of Justice did not file for an emergency stay of the judge's ruling, per the judge's request, but still reserves the right to appeal. In a statement, Randall Stephenson, chairman and chief executive of AT&T said moving forward his company will bring a fresh approach to how the media and entertainment industry works for consumers, content creators, distributors and advertisers. "The content and creative talent at Warner Bros., HBO and Turner are first-rate. Combine all that with AT&T's strengths in direct-to-consumer distribution, and we offer customers a differentiated, high-quality, mobile-first entertainment experience," he said.

87 comments

  1. how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    how long to get HBO 4K live on directv?

    1. Re:how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Funny

      How fast can you instal Plex on a Pi and learn how to use bittorrent?

    2. Re:how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you bittorrent that much copyrighted content without getting "three strikes" letters from your ISP?

    3. Re: how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's easy: Get a VPN subscription, join a private tracker, or both. I've been a serial copyright infringer for a long time, and only got those from public trackers. Usenet also works, but you have to aggressively download stuff before it gets dmca'd. This is possible with modern tools that really make the entire process seamless, even archive extraction and par2 (parity files) is entirely transparent. Sabnzbd is one such. People often combine those with other programs, like sickrage, that automatically tell sabnzbd what to pick up and the right time to pick it up.

    4. Re:how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by antdude · · Score: 1

      And others like cable TV services?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re: how long to get HBO 4K live on directv? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Given the successes the feds & some private companies have had taking over illicit sites or botnets... I'm just waiting for it to be revealed that one or more of the popular VPN providers has been keeping more data than is known, and suddenly instead of a single C&D for what they happened to catch you doing last month... you get a dozen (along with a settlement offer to avoid an even more expensive lawsuit) for everything that you grabbed over the last several years.

      Unless you fully control the other end, all a VPN does is give permission to a 3rd party to monitor your traffic.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  2. Damn, that was fast. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

    Or was I not paying attention? I sure wish they could fix OTHER important things as fast.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Damn, that was fast. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Grand Nagus would be pleased!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re: Damn, that was fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Ivan, it's getting old.

    3. Re: Damn, that was fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As ridiculous as our current media debacle is, it is a fundamentally new beast compared the horizontal monopolies of the past.

    4. Re: Damn, that was fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot pizzagate and hillarygate.

      Love how you are -1'd when your first point is the only thing to discuss in this story -- ATT is a monopoly one minute, and is allowed to get back to that position the next.

    5. Re: Damn, that was fast. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business as usual. This doesn't concern you citizen. -10 to your rations. Roll a d20 for a starvation check.

  3. Been there, Done that... by Etcetera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... Got the T-shirt:
    https://slashdot.org/story/00/01/10/0816250/aol-and-time-warner-confirm-merger-plans

    Also, these Slashdot pull quotes in the Washington Post are awesome:

    In one virtual gathering place for technology buffs yesterday--the Slashdot Web site--Managing Editor Robin Miller kicked off a rollicking debate over the merger with this screed: "Now you'll be able to get all your Internet needs, from connectivity to content to shopping, delivered by a single experienced company. No more need to deal with Web sites that stray from the party line, take risks . . . or any of that other messy old-fashioned 'Internet as anarchy' stuff.

    "To get online in the future, all you'll need to do is plug in your computer, turn off your brain, and enjoy!"

    If nothing else, AOL Time Warner will toil in a media environment that's undergoing a whirlwind evolution. No one can say with any certainty, for example, whether in a few years most consumers will go onto the Internet from their televisions, or whether tomorrow's TV viewers will watch their favorite shows on their computer screens.

    What's likely, however, is that high-speed Internet service will soon become a mass-market phenomenon. Access to the Internet via fatter cable lines is about 100 times faster than traditional phone and modem connections. And control over broadband is considered pivotal to the health of both companies, said Mark Berman, an analyst at Mediaweek.com, an online trade publication.

    - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/01/11/aol-to-acquire-time-warner-in-record-183-billion-merger/92bdb300-0f48-4dfd-ae7e-38d9aec6417a/?utm_term=.d94ff7b431e7

    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
  4. Great! When do they buy Alphabet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And when does Reddit buy Slashdot?

    1. Re:Great! When do they buy Alphabet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An I.T. closet cleaner bought Slashdot for three pennies on April 1, 2018.

    2. Re:Great! When do they buy Alphabet? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      And when does Reddit buy Slashdot?

      Why would Reddit want to do that? Reddit is growing while Slashdot is shrinking. Reddit code is being developed while Slashdot - which has had over a decade to figure out unicode and still hasn't done so - is festering. They'd be better off buying the IP rights to compuserve or prodigy.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re: Great! When do they buy Alphabet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And immediately lost all of his money in that investment. It hasn't paid off.

  5. Much ado about nothing by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that this will probably work out about as well as the AOL / Time Warner merger back around 2000. A lot of hullabaloo in the press and middle management from both sides sabotaging the supposed "synergistic experience" that the merger is designed to create over fear of becoming redundant as a result. You'll have executives who might know a fair bit about one field trying to make business decisions in another where they're no more knowledgeable than the average person off the street, and the results are all too predictable.

    1. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought it was smart, clever and interesting.

    2. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES PAY NO TAX
      The 'old' media losses will cancel out subscriptions, so the IRS is the looser here, bigtime. Being creative means paying little or no tax. Nice if they mentioned the losses available as future offsets.

    3. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're completely and totally wrong. aol was king of a dialup market that was starting its freefall when it bought time warner. at&t is dominate in several different areas.. satellite, wireless, braodband, telco, subscription tv, infrastructure, and more.. none of these have a decline coming anywhere near what dialup saw at the start of the broadband rollout. at&t is going to abuse the fuck out of their market positions.. and WE are going to be the ones paying for it. we're absolutely and totally fucked here.

    4. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... AOL had already been dead for years before that merger. Their only real asset was the AIM userbase. Time Warner's media empire is vast and provides substantial power over consumers. It's hard to fuck that kind of thing up with mismanagement, and chances are, fucking it up could be almost as bad for consumers than the wilful abuse that we're likely to see.

    5. Re:Much ado about nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd normally agree with this sentiment, but as large as both AT&T and Time Warner Cable are, this is troubling only from the position that, as I have Spectrum 'cable' Internet, I have no idea if that is now owned by AT&T.

      With what I've been looking at online, I honestly can't tell if they fall under this merger.

      Someone honestly needs to make a tree graph of what and how encompassing, this merger is across the US for Telecomm, Cable, and Internet services.

    6. Re:Much ado about nothing by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      It does not. Time Warner Cable split from Timer Warner. Time Warner Cable was then bought by Charter, and made into Spectrum, which you have today.

      AT&T bought Time Warner, which consists of things like CNN, HBO, Warner Bro studio, and a few other channels.

      This merger is a direct result of 2 things

      1) Comcast paving the way by buying NBC
      2) Rise of OTT providers becoming content producers (Netflix, Amazon).

  6. A billion here, a billion there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Soon it adds up to some real money (Saying often attributed to US Senator, Everett Dirksen).

  7. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I can watch The New Adventures of Robin Hood on my iPhone?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OboyOboyOboyOboy!!!

  8. Never fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T will just get bought out by Amazon and everything will be fine.

  9. Dear AT&T... by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    Please now that you have achieved global dominance now force DirecTV to fully support their own TiVo product. This Genie shit is shit. FFS you're still paying for them to air TiVo commercials that imply it's fully supported.

    1. Re:Dear AT&T... by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      They did a software update to my Genie about a month ago. Now everything is like molasses. Sometimes it's 4-5 seconds between when you press a button on the remote control and when the thing responds. It's absolutely ridiculous and borderline unusable. It wasn't that great before but if I had a way to roll it back, I sure would.

    2. Re:Dear AT&T... by tsa · · Score: 2

      Global dominance?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Dear AT&T... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely. As monopolies grow the likelihood of improving the customer's experience declines until it approaches zero.

  10. Up Next by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As promised, now that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was judge-approved, expect the Sprint/T-mobile deal to move forward. And for Fox to be bought by Disney or Comcast.
    By the time we have flying cars, there'll just be 3 conglomerates that one can work for, Shadowrun-style.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Up Next by youngone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By the time we have flying cars, there'll just be 3 conglomerates that one can work for, Shadowrun-style.

      That's the end goal of capitalism, unless it is regulated.
      Unfortuntely the corporations own those who appoint the regulators, so guess what is going to happen?
      You could view it as a good thing though, you won't need to go through all the worry and stress of having to choose. There will be one provider of any goods or services you may want.

      That's capitalism at it's most efficient right there.

    2. Re:Up Next by psycho12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which they traded for the worst kind of regulation: Pay Trump, and you can do anything you want. See the multitude of bribes being paid to Cohen, as well as the variety of payments to Trump properties worldwide.

    3. Re:Up Next by Jack9 · · Score: 0

      > Pay Trump, and you can do anything you want

      That's not unique to Trump. Historically, not to the Clintons.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like corporate socialism without the everyone gets the same thing for free part. Of course once we get a corporation of that magnitude it will be deemed to big to fail and the govt will take it over. Presto instant socialism

    5. Re:Up Next by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What fucking reality are you living in? Because it's not the one where the Trump administration's FCC just approved the merger in the FA over the objections of the Justice Department on the grounds it'll hurt consumers. Or the one where the Trump administration gave 1.5 Trillion in tax breaks to corporations that are busy using it to consolidate, buy up outstanding stock, buy smaller companies and gear up automation to lay people off.

    6. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean he used other people's money. He's broke. That's why he sold out to Putin.

    7. Re: Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once we reach that step, the corporation will be the de facto government, by having all the politicians on their payroll and the media under control.

    8. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um... Trump took donations pretty quickly when he started running and he is getting in trouble for using that to pay for his other stuff as well from what I hear just like how he is in trouble using his charity as a slush fund.

      And deregulation isn't always a good thing and overall, Trump seems to be trying to get rid of regulations you want to keep while trying to keep the regulations you want to get rid of. Just going into those details would turn this into a frigging book he is screwing up so much.

    9. Re:Up Next by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      Yes, he launched his campaign on his own dime and got pretty far by just saying outrageous things that caused the press to freak out, but pretty quickly had to start relying on donations and contributions like most other politicians.

      Sure, he's not adding to the regulatory burden, but the stuff he's removing is actually the stuff that actually makes sense and whose removal only benefits big corporations. In other words he's just as corrupt as they come.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    10. Re:Up Next by gtall · · Score: 3, Informative

      Launched the campaign on his own dime? Oh, I expect we'll need to overlook all the pac money he got, the wealthy donors he slimed. About halfway down the page at https://www.opensecrets.org/ne... shows his campaign donors. And his own money was in the form of loans if memory serves correct.

    11. Re:Up Next by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      See the multitude of bribes being paid to Cohen, as well as the variety of payments to Trump properties worldwide.

      Cohen's gonna flip to avoid going to FPMITA prison for the rest of his natural life and then some on umpty-ump charges of this and that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Up Next by ranton · · Score: 2

      As promised, now that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was judge-approved, expect the Sprint/T-mobile deal to move forward. And for Fox to be bought by Disney or Comcast.

      While this ruling does make a Fox/Comcast deal more likely (and the bid has already been made), it has little to do with the Sprint/T-mobile merger. The AT&T / Time Warner merger was a vertical merger, while the Sprint/T-mobile deal would be a horizontal one. The text of the ruling seems to say the deal was allowed at least in large part because they were not direct competitors. The Sprint / T-mobile merger may still happen, but this ruling doesn't give much insight into it.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Up Next by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Also considering the politically situation we are really close to Idiocracy being a documentary.

      All we need now is for Fuddruckers to begin the name changes.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    14. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time we have flying cars, there'll just be 3 conglomerates that one can work for, Shadowrun-style.

      That's the end goal of capitalism, unless it is regulated.

      Unfortuntely the corporations own those who appoint the regulators, so guess what is going to happen?

      You could view it as a good thing though, you won't need to go through all the worry and stress of having to choose. There will be one provider of any goods or services you may want.

      That's capitalism at it's most efficient right there.

      Maintaining a healthy competitive market through regulations absolutely IS a part of any capitalist ideology. Competition is entirely the reason capitalism provides any net benefit to society. Corporate singularity is the kind of thing that happens in the absence of any governance. A government with capitalist ideologies is the exact opposite of that.

    15. Re:Up Next by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Um... Trump took donations pretty quickly when he started running and he is getting in trouble for using that to pay for his other stuff as well from what I hear just like how he is in trouble using his charity as a slush fund.

      No. He tried to close down that charity long before his campaign picked up. Because he was in a long-standing beef with the (now resigned in disgrace) NY AG, he had to keep it and its books open pending some movement in the case. It sat for two years. The AG had to resign, and one of his minions decided, for obviously political reasons, to pick it up and announce it as a distraction on the same day that the DoG IG's report came out.

      Regardless, the foundation's bottom line is clear: the took in less money than they ultimately doled out to charity recipients. The family funded the set-up and administration of the foundation, so that no contributed donor money ever went to pay to run it. But the foundation dished out (to charitable recipients that are all on the record, you can read it for yourself) more money than donors provided, and the family had to make up the difference, adding yet more money to the fund to meet those gifts.

      Trump seems to be trying to get rid of regulations you want to keep while trying to keep the regulations you want to get rid of

      On balance, no. I'm pretty happy with the regulations he's scrapping and the few he's altered/added. Also happy with the Obama-era executive one-man-pen-signing stuff that he's allowed to expire or undo. Those are things that should have been done legislatively or through proper regulatory channels, but Obama too often dealt with it unilaterally and with deliberately temporary mechanisms as a way to make trouble for his successor and the legislature. Nobody will miss that approach.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what world are you living in where tier-1 ISP's are considered unregulated? Utility pole access alone represents a massive regulatory burden. The AT&T / Time Warner merger is happening with government support, not despite it.

    17. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His own dime? Are you a fucking idiot?

    18. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing a couple steps.

      Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft should, most likely, see some form of absorption into each other to become some completely global dominate tech provider. That won't happen fast, but with the way things are headed, I don't see how it can be avoided. It'll be a very long time coming, but once one of them merges with another, the rest should fall in line pretty quickly. The first merger, however it happens, will create a black hole effect and tech related companies will get sucked in at an ever increasing rate until it's just one massive conglomerate.

      That's where things will get interesting. Because once we get down to four, maybe five, massive companies, those companies will begin circling each other and trying to find the weak points. I wouldn't know exactly what's going to happen, but there's several possible paths.

      1. Hostile takeover attempts.
      2. Collusion to avoid mutually assured destruction. Most likely in the open, because no one will have the power to stop it.
      3. Conglomerates form their own nation states to house employees, and create military style defense forces. These defense forces eventually lead to actual war between the conglomerates.
      4. Resources run out and the tipping point is reached. Stone age badge achieved.
      5. One or more of the conglomerates develops nuclear weapons, er, I meant power stations, and boo-boos their way into blowing us all to hell.

      There's so many possibilities for the end-game. But the truth is, the continual consolidation of these massive businesses is going to continue until we get down to just a smattering of them. At that point is where it gets hazy.

      Maybe I'll luck out and die before this all goes sideways, but chances are I'll be around to witness some of it. May we live in interesting times indeed.

    19. Re: Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your last paragraph is a bold face fucking lie.

      The reason Obama did those things was because the republicans tried to block everything he did. EO was the only way for him to get shit done. And he isn't the first.

      Also what regulations has trump gotten rid of? Why don't you rattle off a copy that matter to the AMERICAN people. Go ahead, list a couple.

    20. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > on his own dime

      HAHAHAHAHA, good one! Oh, you're serious? Nah mate, he provided 66 of the 339 million dollars his campaign cost; 12 million of that went back into his own companies. The republican party and other "allies" contributed another 300 million or so on top to the presidential race.

      All of these figures came from the Trump campaign's own finance disclosures after the election; if you don't believe them I don't blame you given Trump's record of factual inaccuracy.

    21. Re: Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your last paragraph is a bold face fucking lie.

      The phrase is bald-faced lie.

    22. Re:Up Next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he launched his campaign on his own dime and got pretty far by just saying outrageous things that caused the press to freak out, but pretty quickly had to start relying on donations and contributions like most other politicians.

      Sure, he's not adding to the regulatory burden, but the stuff he's removing is actually the stuff that actually makes sense and whose removal only benefits big corporations. In other words he's just as corrupt as they come.

      own dime? the fool got all his money from his dad... have you researched ANYTHING on trumps financial background??? The guys is riddled with bankruptcy, fraud, and tons of other charges including the civil charges from the multiple women. 1 brought down Clinton, i wonder if 6 will bring trump down.

      republicans talked massive shit on Bill Clinton when his scandal went down but now when this scandal goes down with trump, aka the republican party, they dont give a flying crap. republicans can all lay at shoe level for all i care.

  11. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, this is why net-neutrality was repealed?

  12. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If corporations are people how can they merge?

    Do they then become one person?

    1. Re: Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonky dance + join fingers, of course.

    2. Re:Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are like people, except with magical powers, and they are legally prevented from acting even remotely morally, as it has been found in court that they have an obligation to shareholders. It's like, out of all the possible bodies to craft with our laws, we have chosen just, like, the MOST demonic ones possible.

  13. So much by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    winning. I hear they at least tried to block it, but this is what you get with the best people. Well, that and 30-40 years of the judiciary being staffed by right wingers. Hell, Obama himself was pretty right wing in most respects. He'd be a Republican if Clinton hadn't shifted the Overton window so far to the right.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Obama was too right-wing

      Please put that at the front of your post next time so I'll know in advance that your opinions are irrelevant and not worth reading.

    2. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was in a way. He gave a HUGE corporate handout to the insurance industry named ObamaCare. Forcing every american to pay a private or publicly traded corporation for health insurance under penalty of fines for not doing so. If he were more left leaning, he would have just made it single payer and been done with it. There's nothing else like this on the books at the federal or state level. The closest thing at the state level is mandated car insurance, but guess what you have a choice not to own a car and drive. You don't have a choice to exist. Well you do, but it is frowned upon in society.

    3. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For us here in Europe America is a right-wing state.
      People can only choose between right-wing or extreme-right-wing.

    4. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama is not a tyrant. He didn't wave his magic wand and create "ObamaCare". There is this thing called the legislative branch. You should read about it.

    5. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore this moron.

    6. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad part is a lot of Americans (especially Trump) probably thought that is all Obama did (said "make it so", and his orders were carried out). Going into the election, and even into office, Trump thought the American President had the same power as a king (absolute monarchy not a constitutional monarchy).

      But the really sad part is the 3 branches of the US government are suppose to be *separate* and provide a system of checks and balances to make sure no one branch abuses their power. And it seems like with each new election that separation is shrinking. If this pattern continues eventually the President will have absolute power, and once a President experiences absolute power, s/he most likely won't like giving it up, at least willingly.

      I blame this all on party politics (both parties, all parties). There was a reason the first US President wasn't a member of a party and thought the party system was bad. Parties push groupthink (which is bad) , plus the parties expect absolute loyalty to the party.

    7. Re:So much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Obama was too right-wing

      Please put that at the front of your post next time so I'll know in advance that your opinions are irrelevant and not worth reading.

      Well, normally I don't like to sound harsh ... but your statement makes you seem like an idiot.

      The U.S. Democrats are viewed as a Center-Right party on a worldwide basis. They are only considered "left" when compared to the extreme right of the Republicans. You really need to travel or otherwise broaden your mind.

      Furthermore, recall that "Obamacare" is a corporate reach-around modeled on "RomneyCare", so as to try to be bi-partisan .... but the Republicans had gone off the deep end too much to acknowledge or go along with that.

      Now, if Obama had gone for a single payer system, then he could legitimately have been called "left". And if your mind isn't too closed to realize it, "left" is not a dirty word. After all, presumably you want other "left" programs; Medicare, the VA & ... well, even the armed forces (used to lift people into the middle class).

      Of course, if you want to grow your own food, make your own clothes, marry your neighbor's daughter (aka cousin Susie, or 2nd cousin Susie, depending), stay on your farm & cling to your weapons in case any pesky strangers show up, then I'd agree that you have no use for anything "left". (You need a time machine, or lots of John Wayne DVDs, plus other perks of civilization which no doubt will magically appear. Oh, and modern medicine unless you want to die young.)

      For the rest of us, life requires balance.

      Disclaimer: I happen to be a big fan of John Wayne movies.

    8. Re:So much by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Obama:

      Went from 2 to 7 wars.

      Ran out of bombs.

      Made Bush tax cuts permanent.

      Pushed for the TPP.

      Yeah that's pretty right wing.

  14. Price tag is nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I like the most is the steep upward trend in Acquisitions costs.
    I have a feeling that within last 20 years, acquisitions skyrocketed from dozens and hundreds of millions to dozens of billions.
    So I believe that it is major indication of real cost of US dollar.

  15. Choice, Wwweeeeeee! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Now I get 1,000 channels I don't want for $109.95 instead of 500 I don't want for $99.95. WhattaBaghin!

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  16. And we're back again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a decision a couple decades ago that breaking up content creation and distribution was a *good* thing? Something about making the Hollywood studios sell off all their movie theaters.

  17. Internet is going to turn into TV by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    in the US anyway.

    Net neutrality gone. Check.
    Pipe companies being TV megachannels. Check.
    Only thing that's left is to squeeze the upstart internet content providers (Youtube, Netflix) out.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Internet is going to turn into TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily, just the shit-internet of streaming. Even with major speed throttling, you should still be able to have small web pages with blink tags, optimized for acoustic modem speeds, so there is hope that the real internet gets some revival. Remember, most of the bandwidth is sucked up by advertising and streaming bullshit, strip that away and we might be fine. It might even remain possible to run slow p2p protocols as long as they're properly disguised. Embrace the 90s!

  18. Cable seems to be dying by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    With high-speed internet, who needs a cable box? Just stream everything.

    Seems to me everybody is cutting the cable. I did so myself years ago. $150 a month *and* watch commercials? No thanks. Roku, Plex, and a digital antenna, and that's all I need.

    How is Time-Warner a bargain at $85 billion when nobody wants to watch commercials, or pay for cable?

    1. Re:Cable seems to be dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the cable companies also control high speed internet access in most places. They could simply choose to require you to have a cable TV subscription to get internet access at all, especially if there is no competition and zero actual regulation.

    2. Re:Cable seems to be dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starlink is coming - Cable can kiss my ass once its operational.

    3. Re:Cable seems to be dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Time-Warner a bargain at $85 billion when nobody wants to watch commercials, or pay for cable?

      Because the company that AT&T bought, Time Warner, is a content company which makes all that stuff you watch like Games of Thrones and Barry.

      They did not buy Time Warner Cable, which is a former cable company that was bought by Charter and is now called Spectrum.

  19. DTVNow better start authenticating Turner again. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I have DirecTV Now. It used to authenticate for the various Turner channel websites, apps and Roku channel. Not long ago it stopped being an option to login to them with my DTVN credentials.

    I had better be f-ing able to login to Adult Swim now that AT&T owns it.

    Also, I think it's a bad idea to let service providers also be the content providers.

  20. Re:DTVNow better start authenticating Turner again by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Not working yet. I'll give them a little more time before I complain.

  21. A couple of years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This merger was being worked on for a couple of years (it was started in the Obama years back in 2016 - maybe even quietly 2015: these things take a while to negotiate) and the only thing stopping it was regulatory approval. And over the past year, AT&T was fighting the US Justice Department over the merger.

    When they got approval from the George W. Bush appointed Federal Judge, it was just a matter of finalizing everything.

    Actually as far as mergers goes, this was a long one.

  22. *vomit* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *vomit*