Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Promised Lower Prices After Time Warner Merger -- It's Raising Them Instead (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the liar-liar-pants-on-fire dept.

Less than a month after AT&T completed its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner, the company is raising the base price of its DirecTV Now streaming service by $5 per month. This comes after promising in court that its acquisition would lover TV prices. Ars Technica reports: AT&T confirmed the price increase to Ars and said it began informing customers of the increase this past weekend. "The $5 increase will go into effect July 26 for new customers and varies for existing customers based on their billing date," an AT&T spokesperson said. The $5 increase will affect all DirecTV Now tiers except for a Spanish-language TV package, AT&T told Ars. That means the DirecTV Now packages that currently cost $35, $50, $60, and $70 a month will go up to $40, $55, $65, and $75. "To continue delivering the best possible streaming experience for both new and existing customers, we're bringing the cost of this service in line with the market -- which starts at a $40 price point," AT&T said.

In a court filing, trying to convince the Justice Department that its acquisition would be good for consumers, AT&T had this to say: "The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products, and compete more effectively against the increasingly powerful, vertically integrated 'FAANG' [Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google] companies," AT&T told U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in the brief.

192 comments

  1. It can't be by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm in total shock. Who could have possibly seen this coming?

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
    1. Re: It can't be by irving47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, I own stock/get AT&T dividends, and not even I'm buying that crap.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a conservative who voted for Trump all I have to say is, youâ(TM)re full of utter and total shit.

    3. Re: It can't be by alongley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this. No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.

      --
      How do I edit my sig.
    4. Re: It can't be by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Oh, stupid AC troll. Internet access needs to be 100% regulated, just like our electrical utilities. It'll be cheap, and it'll work.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:It can't be by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Trump tried to stop it

    6. Re: It can't be by alongley · · Score: 1

      So here's an article on it. It doesn't seem to be regulation that's the issue, it seems to be the sheer expense of building out the infrastructure for your customers. https://arstechnica.com/inform...

      --
      How do I edit my sig.
    7. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bull.fucking.shit.

      we got where we are because of lax (with poor enforcement and peanuts for penalties) and/or no regulation.

    8. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump went bankrupt MULTIPLE TIMES from owning casinos, so your "business expertise" as an internet whiner is in question based on your chosen retard ideology.

    9. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wrong. Free markets evolve towards consolidation and the only thing that prevents that is government regulation.

      Do you think it is a coincidence that all mature markets are highly consolidated? The oligopolies you speak of are the (crappy) compromises of the free market desire for monopolies and the people's desires for perfect competition.

      Another topic herein is the concept of 'cartel forming'. It's a dirty term, even for libertarians, yet it is utterly rational behavior from the perspective of the companies involved. In fact, in other areas of life, we would use words like 'alliance' and 'cooperation' to characterize the behavior. Buying up competing companies or trampling them is equally rational from the perspective of the companies and thus that is exactly what they will do, given the opportunity.

      The takeaway here is that the concept of an unrestricted free market fundamentally stabilizes on a highly undesirable state of affairs from a societal point of view.

      Now, having established that, finding a good way to deal with it is hard. Asking companies to 'take their responsibility', semirandomly blasting them with huge antitrust fines or breaking up companies above a certain size seem like terrible workarounds to me. One of the more creative ideas I've come across is taxing companies progressively based on their dominance in their respective market(s), but that too seems far from flawless.

    10. Re: It can't be by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      The government let this merger happen. That is the opposite of regulation. Of course, in the bizarro world of libertarians, government not stopping a merger is somehow another government regulation. "Left wingers" would be against mergers and the creation of monopolies.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    11. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So here's an article on it. It doesn't seem to be regulation that's the issue,

      There used to be another way. It went by names like "naked DSL" - telco plant owners (the guys who operate the actual physical cabling) used to be required to lease access to 3rd party ISPs. You might remember companies like Mindspring and Earthlink, for the most part their businesses depended on naked DSL.

      But that all changed in 2005 when the SCOTUS ruled in NCTA v Brand X that plant owners did not have to provide access to 3rd party ISPs anymore. You might remember the Brand X case as the one that also killed net neutrality - both principles were part of being regulated as a "telecommunications provider" and the SCOTUS ruled that telcos could be categorized as "data providers" which were not subject to those requirements. Scalia actually dissented on that ruling. Turns out that prick was pretty smart when he didn't have an ideological dog in the fight.

    12. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how it's done. Classic public utility regulation allows the company to have a high cost structure because they're guaranteed a specific return no matter how much it costs. The customers tend to pay fairly high rates. But with total DEregulation, rates go all over the place (some down, most up), profit goes through the roof, employee count and treatment goes through the floor, etc. There has to be something in between. But whatever it is, California hasn't found it yet and CERTAINLY the FCC hasn't.

      Municipal utilities are more like the old regulated model, but since they don't have to make a profit (just enough to keep operating and updating) the rates are lower to start with and don't go up as fast. Customer service also tends to be a tad better.

    13. Re: It can't be by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think right of way is hard now, try doing it without government, that is, by negotiating individually with each and every property owner in the area you intend to serve.

    14. Re: It can't be by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re It'll be cheap, and it'll work.

      Make all US internet into one big utility cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?
      Connect all the cooperatives and span the USA?
      That would be some neat deregulation and removal of all federal rules and no more NN rules.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:It can't be by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      AT&T lied, and that's news? I knew they'd raise prices, but I figured they'd wait a little bit longer to do it just to keep from being so damned obvious about their lying.

    16. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can you point out a few ISP \ company that was blocked by the regulations you speak of, and NOT by lawsuits by the incumbents?

      I want to believe, but most of the stories I hear are of the incumbents abusing their position.

    17. Re: It can't be by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Probably so. I would imagine it'd work. Again, it works for electric utilities in the US. What we have now, in terms of ISP's in the US, are truly awful.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    18. Re: It can't be by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why we can't elect rich leaders, and especially old money rich leaders. Would Reagan have broken up the Bell monopoly if he'd been a billionaire?

    19. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The parent makes a good point, and one I was going to make. Simply put one of the reasons AT&T didn't want to upgrade their lines was they didn't like others providing DSL. Now the lines are on public easements and AT&T probably even got subsidies and such to put a lot of them in.

      Even now countless AT&T customers are without any form of hard wired broadband and this is well after the court case you mentioned. Simply put companies like AT&T only do what is profitable, and then only in the short term. Now I think the theory goes, that AT&T has absolute ability to do what the hell they want, they will suddenly find more places profitable and run lines. I'm not sure that theory is sound, but even if it is, it probably isn't ethical.

      I'm of the opinion that government has an absolute duty to provide internet at a fair price, if the local players don't play, or are screwing over their customers. Now they can contract it out, but they need to keep control and not just do all the work and let AT&T make all the profits. Beyond that, you need al la carte pricing for everything. This bundling everything crap has to die. A data provider provides bits, including some with quality of service guarantees such as for phones. If the customer wants to add filters, then by all means, but that is the end of it.

      Companies like AT&T that work pretty much against the public interest and don't meet their previous commitments to the public should be given the corporate death sentence and be run through the shredder again.

    20. Re: It can't be by youngone · · Score: 1

      Not that I think you're wrong, but it will never happen, because AT&T won't let it happen.
      Guess who owns all the people who make the regulations? AT&T.

    21. Re:It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No he didn't, he's a retard who blathered something once.

    22. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is not actually true.

      Yes, it is.

      > You are blaming free-market for something that greed

      You mean human behavior? Because it doesn't seem to matter what economic system has been enforced, even if it's only behind the scenes, the vertical forms the same oligopolies. Trying to pretend there will never be greedy people in charge of an organization is willfully ignorant and misleading.

      > Additionally, the FCC is defacto on record

      Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself with the frothing response. Your terminology starts losing coherence as you dance to try to show how whatever exists is wrong, so your viewpoint must be better. Stop talking and focus on some task where your incompetence won't be set center stage.

    23. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must be jocking, you are comparing orange and apples. The legal and government fees to obtain right of way and permissions to deploy 2 miles of fiber or 2000 miles are exactly the same. So this kind of cost does not scale up with the complexity of your network or how many customers you will serve.

    24. Re: It can't be by Torvac · · Score: 1

      sure, lol

    25. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psychpaths blame someone else

    26. Re: It can't be by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Stop masturbating to your picture of Ajit Pai and listen up, you right wing tool. Since Ronald Reagan the Republican Party has been successfully trying to eliminate all Federal regulation on big business and this is the inevitable result. We live in a country run by and for the Telco cartel, the pharmaceutical cartel (currently killing Americans by pushing legal opioids), the agribusiness cartel (just gone international now that Bayer purchased Monsanto), the bank cartel (Wells Fargo is the bank equivalent of a child molester who keeps on hurting kids because his uncle is the judge), Wall Street in general (who almost wrecked the word economy in 2008, was bailed out at the expense of everyone else, including you, and is now making even larger profits, and now has lower taxes and even less regulation.)

      The Democrats, feckless as they may be, are the opposition against the slide into plutocracy and oligarchy. To call them out shows that you are a committed fascist.

      Why don't you get the hell out of my country and live in Russia under Putin? He embodies the corrupt centralization of power that you endorse. Your would fit right in.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    27. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oligopoly isnâ(TM)t required naturally. Itâ(TM)s just a tendency some declining society held too dearly.

    28. Re: It can't be by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Breaking up the Bell monopoly was a pointless exercise, because the way it was done simply created a bunch of regional monopolies with no competition between them. Nobody movies to another state to get a lower price on their telephone / TV / internet. We got all the disadvantages of Ma Bell, with additional inefficiencies added.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    29. Re: It can't be by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Telecom is not one of the markets being held down by regulation, though. I see a constant flow of innovation. The problem is a dearth of competition in the last mile.

    30. Re: It can't be by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most countries solve this with "local loop unbundling". Basically the company that owns the phone lines and telephone exchanges has to offer access to other companies for the same price it charges itself. Other companies can install their own hardware at the local exchange (an ADSL DSLAM box) and offer internet service to anyone who wants it.

      It's not perfect because the company that owns the lines tends to be really really shit at maintaining them, but at least you have a choice of ISPs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re: It can't be by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      I lived through it and I remember lower prices and better options. Are you arguing that we should leave monopolies alone? Because who the fuck exactly are you?

    32. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one. People are too dumb to believe in any large corporation

    33. Re: It can't be by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I'm a liberal. I believe that monopolies need to be broken in a way that creates real competition, or if that's not practical with some natural monopolies then the business should become a non-profit state utility. Forcing them to lease lines to competitors at cost is one strategy that's been used. But simply breaking a national monopoly into regional monopolies does nothing in itself.

      The breakup of Ma Bell was good for long distance call competition, but did nothing for local service which remained under monopolies. In fact, wikipedia says it caused local rates to rise: "One consequence of the breakup was that local residential service rates, which were formerly subsidized by long distance revenues, began to rise faster than the rate of inflation. Long-distance rates, meanwhile, fell both due to the end of this subsidy and increased competition."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    34. Re: It can't be by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Grasshopper, you miss the important details: that regulation was written by AT&T. All that regulation was penned by AT&T lawyers. Then they bought politicians who passed it into law. The affect is that unless you're a big established company, you cannot enter the market, much less compete.

      This is not a left-right thing. The is a corporations writing laws thing. It happens all the time, in all industries. The laws protect the people with established revenue streams in ways you don't see because you're not in the industry. From telecom to hair braiding, there are laws to make sure competition is lessened. The politicians passing them (left, right, and center) have no idea how destructive they are, because they are just doing what they are told by their donors.

      Meanwhile, AT&T experiences the opposite of "hardship." They exist in a complex world only they can navigate. One THEY designed. And they have no competition and can charge whatever they like.

    35. Re: It can't be by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      So it sounds like you're for more regulation and not less. That's my position. You're on my side. Don't fight me, motherfucker, because that's how we get into bad situations like the one we're in now.

      Yes I understand the urge to argue over trivial details, but when the big import stuff happens we need some god-damn solidarity.

    36. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The percentage of people gullible enough to believe this nonsense is about 0.

    37. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... so you already know about Natural Monopoly and for some reason are choosing to ignore that extremely applicable market force... interesting.

    38. Re:It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I don't like Trump, in this particular case he actually did say he didn't want the merger to happen.

      I agree he's a retard, but why don't we restrict our attacks on him to things he's actually fucked up himself. Believe me, the list of egregious actions is plenty long. No need to go on the offensive every time his name is mentioned.

    39. Re: It can't be by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You're such a NN hater.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    40. Re:It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By hiring Ajit "deregulate everything big business asks of me no matter how unpopular" Pai? Are you kidding me? Every single person relevant to this who he has hired is a prime example of successful regulatory capture

    41. Re: It can't be by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Is anyone a fan of paper insulated wireline as a network for everyone under federal NN rules?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    42. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BT's great at doing that, when I say great I mean great at hiding it's dirty tricks

      Nice example is local company quoted for FTTP by 3rd party telcom (using openreach to do the actual work) wierdly after openreach surveyed, the quoted price jumped by £30,000.

      Weirdly BT suddenly then offered them the same fucking thing for the original price as long as they signed up with BT..

    43. Re:It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in total shock. Who could have possibly seen this coming?

      AT&T: "SUCKERS!!!" (evil laugh)

    44. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that the regulatory changes that allowed for competition and lower prices did not in any way require breaking AT&T up into all the Baby Bells because the Baby Bells all had non-overlapping customer bases.

      You didn't have lower prices because your RBOC was competing with another RBOC -- it was because your RBOC was competing with CLECs. The new independent carriers that were now allowed on the netwrok were what gave you lower prices.

      dom

    45. Re:It can't be by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      AT&T lied, and that's news? I knew they'd raise prices, but I figured they'd wait a little bit longer to do it just to keep from being so damned obvious about their lying.

      Actually on the other hand, AT&T may try to advertise it a different way. If the base price is now $5 higher for new customer, it is then become the current base price. Existing customers now have the "lower" price because of the base price is higher than what they are paying; thus, it is a discount for existing customers. Not that I agree with the lie, but this is how corporations could spin their way through. I wish that the court could reverse the approval.

    46. Re: It can't be by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      I know it's difficult for left-wingers like yourself who have never even tried to run a sustainable, nevermind a profitable, business to understand this, but the lack of competition within the telecom industry is solely due to the extensive regulation that effectively makes it impossible for new entrants to participate in the market. Before you start with the 'natural monopoly' nonsense regarding infrastructure, you should realize that the only monopoly involved and causing problems is that of the government and its oppressive regulation. Technological difficulties can be overcome, even by relatively small players. Regulatory difficulties, on the other hand, are far worse to deal with, and in the telecom sector are nearly impossible to overcome except by the very largest players, and even they often experience extreme hardship. We see the problems we have today because left-wing regulatory schemes have paralyzed the market, resulting in the formation of an oligopolistic environment where the consumer ultimately suffers.

      Completely and utterly wrong. Why don't you have a look at some other markets. How is it you think that having only one company is competition? I know you'll shit yourself but why don't you look at the models in european countries where infrastructure is largely separated from the ISP and there are actually lots of ISPs in competition with each other which does result in lower prices, uncapped lines and half decent customer service.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    47. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a conservative who voted for Trump all I have to say is, you're full of utter and total shit.

      The irony! It burns!

    48. Re: It can't be by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      My recollection is that there used to be hundreds of little ISPs that served the Internet up over dial-up phone lines. Over time of course the state of the art became DSL, coax cable and fiber. The broadband infrastructure is and was always owned by a variety of big companies. But the bottom line is that for one reason or the other all the small ISPs have been bought up by the big players, the Bells have been remerged into AT&T due to deregulation, and there has been considerable consolidation in the cable space, leaving most consumers without a lot of choice. AT&T in the summary essentially parrots this. No one is doubting that there is regulation, but I would need to see something more than your post to draw any conclusions about whether lots of regulation keeps little guys from starting ISP businesses or if it's really just the big companies being anti-competitive. Certainly there used to be lots of little ISPs but perhaps the landscape has shifted to much more regulation in the last 15 years? By all means, back up your post with some substance.

      Dude, come on, you're totally fucking up his narrative!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    49. Re: It can't be by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Not that I think you're wrong, but it will never happen, because AT&T won't let it happen. Guess who owns all the people who make the regulations? AT&T.

      But, I thought it was the "Left"!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    50. Re: It can't be by ai4px · · Score: 1

      Free markets end up with one or two big players who try for monopoly. When they can't buy out each other, they for a cartel. The cartel breaks down because one of the players will invariably offer a discount and violate the gentlemen's agreement. It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product. The trick is to accept that prices will rise and fall in a cyclic manner as cartels form and fall apart. Government regulations are no good for the consumer (because they condone keeping prices high with the law used to punish cartel members who break rank).

    51. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To call them out shows that you are a committed fascist.

      It is obvious that you have no understanding of what that word means. Go look up Giovani Gentile.

    52. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you get the hell out of my country and live in Russia under Putin? He embodies the corrupt centralization of power that you endorse. Your would fit right in.

      Yup. This. I just don't see why if the US is so horrible why SO many people are not leaving it. All I hear is how much better Canada is (in everything) yet their population is still only the size of California.

    53. Re: It can't be by Bryansix · · Score: 2

      I'm a Republican/Libertarian and I wanted the companies to be allowed to fail. The bailouts were the problem. Failure needs to hurt otherwise people just keep doing the same things over and over again.

    54. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you get the hell out of my country and live in 'murika under Drumpf? He embodies the corrupt centralization of power that you endorse. You would fit right in.

      FTFY.

    55. Re: It can't be by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You should probably educate yourself on the concept of a natural monopoly. Regulation is the response, not the cause.

    56. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Way to show your open mindedness.

      I'm sure you'll just cuss at me about how some things (which in reality is probably a ton of things for you) don't need someone to be open minded.

    57. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The government let this merger happen. That is the opposite of regulation. Of course, in the bizarro world of libertarians, government not stopping a merger is somehow another government regulation.

      Yes the government needing to approve something in order for it to get done would be considered regulation. I guess in your bizarro world, it's only a regulation if the government says no to a request.

    58. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Other ISPs can't even reach the last mile due to local regulations/deals

    59. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Which is why the government needs to get out of the way.

      Of course businesses will use legislation to help itself. Giving more power to the government when it is already as entrenched with big corporations is not the answer

    60. Re: It can't be by alongley · · Score: 1

      I did. The only mention in there of regulation or legislation was a whole section on big guys suing little guys as a delaying tactic and legislation that tries to stifle competition promulgated by the big players' lobbyists. Again not denying regulation. But I'd love to see some sort of evidence that gov't regulatory costs (not costs involved with combatting frivolous lawsuits or combatting anti-competitive legislation) are really a significant part of a ISPs start-up costs as you suggest. No one would debate that legal services are expensive but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison and surely you have something more concrete. And as another poster has already said, we need to balance out regulatory costs vs the cost of negotiating with property owners individually in a world without the allegedly costly regulation.

      --
      How do I edit my sig.
    61. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that here in Texas there are still a few communities with munincipal services. And they had 1 DVR serving the whole house back in 2007. Not only were they cheap but modern too.

    62. Re: It can't be by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      but the lack of competition within the telecom industry is solely due to the extensive regulation that effectively makes it impossible for new entrants to participate in the market.

      So Google can't make any money with their fiber business. That's because even after they sort through all the legal bullshit about who is allowed to touch what telephone poles (which is a completely and legitimate aspect of your argument), the telecoms simply drop the price in the area and subsidize those operations with heavier fees elsewhere. Classic under-cutting. Hey! Competition drops prices! WOOOO! Good times for the customer. In the few handful of places where Google as tried to come to town. Because they can't make money. Because once you own a (near) monopoly, it's easy to shut out even Mr. money-bag Google.

      Now, the fundemental aspect of running multiple utilities to all the houses in a city IS INDEED a natural monopoly. Not an impossible one to overcome. Way better than... sewar or water, and better than rules of right of way on a river. If you want to really blame government though, it's the local municipalities that build the telephone infrastructure. They paid for it, they want to charge the telecoms to access it right? Makes sense. Seems fair. BUT the telecoms was exclusive rights to the poles. And they'll pay for it. THAT is fucking bullshit. On the flip-side, having different utility teams repeatedly snipping competitors cables would suck. I'm not sure how to fix that if it became a problem. Hell, why not mandate body cameras for the linemen. But oh noes! ebil gov'mint interference!

      You right-wingers need to stop assuming that government is to blame for everything. What next, did it curdle your milk? Did it make your kid autistic?

    63. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump went bankrupt MULTIPLE TIMES from owning casinos, so your "business expertise" as an internet whiner is in question based on your chosen retard ideology.

      This. It takes a special kind of incompetence to bankrupt a casino. Either that, or a special kind of sleaziness to plan to fail and escape, and then leave someone else holding the bag.

    64. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court was idiotic to believe them. Even though it would enable price reductions through greater efficiency, reduced profits are not how corporations work. At no time did they intend to reduce prices, and in fact having one less competitor means there are fewer options for consumers. Meaning they can now raise prices without chance of getting prosecuted for price collusion.

    65. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [current year]
      > believing in 'left vs right' mind control trap.
      I seriously hope you guys don't do that.

      Government = Govern Mental = "Mind Control"

      You're both nutcases. L/R is two shoes of the same beast stomping on you both. I snark your snarkshake!

    66. Re:It can't be by cj9er · · Score: 1

      Every single merger says something to this effect. It's like how the cops can lie to bust you, companies can lie to get what they want. Not like they don't own the whole of Congress anyways.

    67. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swearing is the language of the working class, the common people. Bitch.

    68. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's quite a fantastic tale! To bad it doesn't actually happen. Cartel members apply social pressure on each other, not just the rational financial pressure that exists only in Ayn Rand novels.

    69. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, exactly did approving it help anyone who isn't profiting off the merged behemoth?

    70. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, chill out bro. Obama had the chance to fix it and he blew it. I'm sick of hearing these excuses about filibusters. Trump seems to be working around them just fine. The Democrats don't actually oppose any of that stuff, otherwise they would have fixed it in the 111th congress.

    71. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Did you read the response I replied to or did you someone skip directly to my reply?

    72. Re: It can't be by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      This shows how little you think of the working class.

    73. Re: It can't be by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that gives me a fragment of an idea. maybe claim that the Internet is the 21st century equivalent of Postal roads (something that is a constitutional duty of the federal government) put the physical connection under the domain of the USPS, they've had a history of delivering content without looking at it.

    74. Re: It can't be by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I’m distinguishing between regulations affecting communications as a whole and municipal permits, which are the impediments often controlled by existing providers and used to keep new providers from getting in. The best way to prevent these arrangements from occurring is...high-level regulation.

    75. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The Democrats, feckless as they may be, are the opposition against the slide into plutocracy and oligarchy. To call them out shows that you are a committed fascist.

      the dems aren't feckless. they're plenty bold in empowering the extreme elements of their party.

      everyone knows both sides sides suck and every election is either picking which sucks less or which third party you want to see lose.

    76. Re: It can't be by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Is anyone a fan of paper insulated wireline as a network for everyone under federal NN rules?

      Well instead of an esoteric statement in a cryptic response, you could provide a link to the legislation/bill and explain what you are talking about. Or you could simply not respond and maintain your air of inaccessible knowledge.

      Is explaining your point of view beneath you or are you incapable of doing so?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    77. Re: It can't be by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      Without a government, the merge would have happened anyway, which gives the same end result as a government approving the merger. THE MERGER HAPPENS AS THE END RESULT.

      If they approve something, it's regulation. If they don't approve something, it's also regulation. If one action is EXACTLY the same as taking no action, then how is it a regulation?

      Are libertarians as severely as cognitive dissonant as you?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    78. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I'm a Republican/Libertarian and I wanted the companies to be allowed to fail

      You do realize that the consequences of that would have been much, much worse? The combination of essential bank services and gambling with complex financial products in the same companies ensured that. Guess what is required to prevent that combination from existing? Government regulation.

      Also, screw your undertone of the entire thing not being libertarian enough. Think about having utterly consolidated utility markets and 'allowing the companies to fail'. No drinking water until some other private company buys up the business of the failed company (if at all)? Great idea. Who cares about the people who rely on that service? The important thing is that the free market can do its thing.

      Failure needs to hurt otherwise people just keep doing the same things over and over again.

      So you agree that the abject failure of Wall Street to self-regulate and the immense financial crisis that ensued due to that failure is unmistakable proof that we should heavily regulate them or at the very least not give them the same amount of free rein they had.

    79. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet that doesn't make his point any less viable.

    80. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everyone knows both sides sides suck and every election is either picking which sucks less or which third party you want to see lose.

      Life is about making decisions.

      1. You may hate the choices you have to choose between, but not choosing at all means you are pretty much useless and contribute nothing to the debate.
      2. If you want to fix things better, pick a side that is the smallest amount better then pick candidates on that side that need help that are better than the alternatives and support them. Hell you don't even have to pick a side. Just support good people. They do exist.
      3. If you still don't think that is enough, be the candidates that improve things.

      Whining is not a solution. Saying you can do nothing is not truth, it is simply being lazy and pathetic.

    81. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      When they can't buy out each other, they for a cartel.

      Sometimes, maybe. Intel and AMD do not seem to be in a cartel, nor do Nvidia and AMD.

      The cartel breaks down because one of the players will invariably offer a discount and violate the gentlemen's agreement.

      Nonsense. That may happen sometimes, but usually the cartels exist for years and years until they slip up or one of the cartel partners rats out the entire deal in hopes of getting out of it ahead. In any case, the punishment is administered through government regulations -- i.e. antitrust fines.
      It's the only deterrent, really. Without antitrust laws we'd see cartels everywhere. Just look at the OPEC, which is effectively a cartel out in the open but is just too powerful to do anything about.

      It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product.

      What the fuck are you talking about? When has the latter ever happened?

      Government regulations are no good for the consumer (because they condone keeping prices high with the law used to punish cartel members who break rank).

      So your logic is this: we should not have antitrust regulations because they discourage cartels from spontaneously breaking apart and their market temporarily reverting to an oligopoly. Those are some impressive fucking mental gymnastics, my friend.

    82. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product.

      What the fuck are you talking about? When has the latter ever happened?

      It's happened many times. Businesses usually try to claim their continued existence is in the public interest, and ask the government to help to implement regulation to prop them up - it's always ends up being regulation which prevents competition.

      For the best known example, it happened in the USA under FDR, who was a very cunning politician, but a complete idiot with respect to understanding business and the economy.

      Under his leadership, for a time, the government not only blessed cartels, they encouraged them and backed up policy with the full force of law. In theory, the goal was to help the country recover from the Great Depression. Prices were fixed and regulated across industries - and some poor guy went to jail for giving a customer a discount on a shoe shine (because he wasn't charging the price required by the regulations).

      It didn't last long.

      See:
      FDR's Folly - Powell
      New Deal or Raw Deal - Folsom

    83. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You're giving the New Deal, an extreme set of measures in an extreme financial crisis, as an example of 'cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product' and implying that this is the normal order of business? Really?

      Also, don't forget that the whole bit was:
      Cartels form -> one cartel member breaks rank -> cartel breaks down -> cartel members ask for government regulation to control prices.
      The latter is not the same as 'company in some industry lobbies for price controls'.

    84. Re:It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, AT&T bribed US District Judge Richard Leon.

    85. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is at this point the cartel breaks down (and prices fall) or the cartel members ask for government regulation to control the price of their collective product.

      What the fuck are you talking about? When has the latter ever happened?

      I have no doubt there are lots of examples of cartel failure overseas, or in earlier US history, that lead to lobbying for price fixing. You'll have to do the research yourself. However, I can help you with more recent history a bit.

      There's been several examples of this over the years involving agricultural cartels, in a number of countries such as the USA, Israel, and Canada. You might try looking up "Big Milk" for a starting point on your research.

      Typically there is consolidation of the companies that make purchases from the farms into a few companies, which then lower their asking prices in collusion to raise their profits (forming one cartel, usually well hidden, protected by legions of lawyers, and officially denying any wrong-doing: they almost always are smart enough and slick enough to not get caught even though everybody knows what's really going on).

      The farmers try to form an opposing cartel to fix dairy prices at a higher level, and it fails. It's difficult for small farmers to keep a cartel going for the long term in this situation. There are just too many people trying to sell to a limited number of corporations, too many opportunities for people to jump ship. After the failure, the farmers in turn lobby for government support to control the price of their collective product.

      The government in turn creates a government backed cartel to fix the dairy prices.

      This sometimes works much better than the original cartel did (though it runs the risk of being nullified by counter-lobbying).

      There are some exceptions to the US anti-trust laws for agriculture under the Capper-Volstead Act and related Supreme Court decisions (there's a good article on this law "The Capper-Volstead Act: Opportunity Today and Tomorrow" by Donald M. Barnes and Christopher E. Ondeck). In principle this allows agricultural groups to form cartels, as an exception to the Sherman Act.

      For example, the Regional Cooperative Marketing Agency cartel was formed by dairy farmers in 1973 (look up the article by Robert Jacobson and Walter Wasserman "REGIONAL MILK BARGAINING AGENCIES AND COOPERATIVE MILK PRICE BARGAINING", which gives some background), challenged in 1987 (Fairdale Farms, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Yankee Milk, Inc. and Regional Cooperative Marketing Agency - the cartel actually won), eventually collapsed in 1988, and was then followed by extensive lobbying that created the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact to fix prices, which in turn failed in 2001 due to counter-lobbying.

      You might look at "The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Public Hearings Report" for more background.

      Another reference is "Farmer Cooperatives: The Story of the Capper-
      Volstead Act" by the USDA.

      In short, cartel failure can and does lead to lobbying for government price fixing, even in today's world in countries that have moderately strong anti-trust laws.

    86. Re: It can't be by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The amazing thing is that this insight (that free markets get overrun by monopolies) is literally as old as Adam Smith - yet we're still arguing about this shit.

    87. Re: It can't be by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Are you done? I didn't say any of those things. I actually support regulation of monopolies. I just want transparent regulation that isn't just tilted to a few special interests.

    88. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You said: "The bailouts were the problem."
      That is putting blame on government intervention, even though (we apparently agree that) not bailing out the banks at that point would have been much, much worse. Calling the very necessary bailouts 'the problem' is misleading at best.

      If you had said 'The fact that bailouts were necessary was the problem', I could have agreed with you.

    89. Re: It can't be by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The bailout were not necessary and I never agreed with you. In fact they were pure evil. The government picked winners and losers and didn't apply the conditions of the bailouts fairly. Did you know for instance that Washington Mutual was NOT bailed out and instead a backroom deal was brokered with Chase Bank to buy the assets of pennies for the dollar even though the market was ready to pay more? If the government saw that solution in one instance, why not apply it to all instances?

    90. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      So what should have been done, exactly?

    91. Re: It can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm so collective bargaining is a cartel now? That's pretty extreme right wing :/

    92. Re: It can't be by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      See above. Find a buyer. Sell the company to the highest bidder. Somebody will buy it if the price is right.

    93. Re: It can't be by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      You are a financial genius.

  2. I'm shocked by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:I'm shocked by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Well, time to use your Illudium Q36 Space Modulator and create a big boom on AT&T!
          Oh wait, that was Marvin. ..nevermind..

      But yeah, the headline might was well read, "Duh". Of course they did. Monopolies are bad, pure and simple. And they have a lousy history of ethics.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not that shocked.

  3. Dear Sherlock, by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2
    No shit.

    AT&T Promised Lower Prices After Time Warner Merger -- It's Raising Them Instead

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:Dear Sherlock, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was a negative price decrease. See, Justice Department, a perfectly cromulent price adjustment.

    2. Re:Dear Sherlock, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine they are going to say that it IS a price cut, because they were SUPPOSED to raise prices by $10 per customer.. So that's a 50% price cut! Woohoo!!

      *(The US government "cuts" taxes this way all the time)

    3. Re:Dear Sherlock, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T's answer... "Dig deeper Watson".

    4. Re:Dear Sherlock, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T actually lowered everyone else's prices.

    5. Re:Dear Sherlock, by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      I like this way of spinning it; on average, when compared to AT&T pricing, AT&T caused the price to all Americans to decrease.

  4. AT&T has this history... by thedarb · · Score: 1

    'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:AT&T has this history... by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And those who do learn from history are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.

    2. Re:AT&T has this history... by thedarb · · Score: 1

      Sad, but true.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
  5. I don't think it's related to the merger... by Espectr0 · · Score: 2

    I think it's more like "Youtube did it, Playstation Vue did it, so can we".

    Everybody's doing it and it will be going up if they are going to keep putting their money into developing their own tv shows.

    --
    Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
  6. lover TV prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    acquisition would lover TV prices

    Himm... lover TV Prices... seems someone was too quick on this news!!

  7. Words Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'enable to reduce' does not mean 'will reduce'. Stop reading what you want to see and instead read what's actually there.

    1. Re: Words Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You who? Who are you? Why not you? You who?

    2. Re:Words Matter by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

      A lie by weaseling is still a lie.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    3. Re:Words Matter by novakyu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly at this point, anybody who expected a good-faith action from AT&T deserves what they got. AT&T will not keep any of its implied promises unless they are contractually bound to perform it—and even then, it will probably get its lawyers working on a way to find a loophole.

    4. Re:Words Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge didn't. What remains to see is if the judge will itself demand AT&T in contempt of court.

    5. Re:Words Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court could have ordered an antitrust consent decree. Such a decree could have ordered that the average consumer price for AT&T streaming services or cable services must remain the same or be reduced for 7 years after the merger. I am not sure why this is not a more common practice.

    6. Re:Words Matter by jdharm · · Score: 1

      Judge: You said you would lower prices and you're raising them.

      Counsel: No we didn't.

      J: Didn't what?

      C: Say we'd lower prices.

      J: You did! Right here: "The evidence overwhelmingly showed...it will enable the merged company to reduce prices..." See? "Lower prices."

      C: Oh, yes, Your Honor. That totally happened. The merger has indeed enabled us to lower prices.

      J: But...you...what? But you raised them.

      C: Yes, Your Honor, we did. Of course we did. We're a business, we like making money. Why would we lower prices? That's just stupid. If that'll be all, Your Honor, I've got a massage and a handy I don't want to be late for. Toodles.

    7. Re:Words Matter by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      AT&T breaches contract all the time. They know that small businesses can't retain lawyers and they will not be sued.

  8. Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blame L by corezz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every liberal economic pundit predicted this would happen. Simple economics.

    Most conservatives eagerly yearned for this merger and a conservative judge allowed it to proceed. Now they are blaming Liberals for letting the merger happen. The only question this time around is, will conservatives blame Mexico or a non-white group of people for the rise in prices. That's always what it comes down to.

  9. Wah wah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/corey-lewandowski-fox-news-trump-down-syndrome-border-family-separation-a8407371.html

  10. You mean they lied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have to recoup all the money they paid the lobbyist and politicians.

  11. Consequences by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    This clear case of lying in court can have 1 of 4 results: 1-Arrest the board of directors of AT&T for perjery. Five years in prison sounds about right. 2-The Judge issues an order to undo the merger. 3-The Judge orders AT&T to drop prices by twice the increase, and keep them there for 5 years. 4-The party of the 0.01%ers can cheer small government, where small government means eliminating rules and laws that limit the ability of the rich to fleece the sheeple.

    1. Re:Consequences by fafalone · · Score: 2

      As a non-violent crime that only has a small impact on some peoples finances, a custodial sentence is absolutely not appropriate. We need to be locking up less people for non-violent offenses, not more, instead states let out violent offenders to make room.
      What should happen is extremely steep fines for them, to be paid from their personal holdings, with a absolute bar on continuing to work in the industry for at least 10 years. The fine should be based on their wealth; e.g. if their total net worth (and not just liquid assets) is $100m, fine them $30m (increase the percent sharply with wealth; less if poorer, more if richer), with a penalty of triple that if they get caught trying to hide assets for the assessment.
      Just as effective as a few years in jail.

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

      Or they could all the non-violent drug offenders out and lock these bastards up with the rapists?

  12. Of course . . . by hduff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who did not see this coming . . .

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  13. remove monopoly and allow gov to put in fiber by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, some of the best set ups is local gov running and owning the fiber, and then allowing a limited time monopoly managing it, ideally, allowing multiple providers over the fiber.
    BUT, at the least, it is time to destroy the monopolies.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:remove monopoly and allow gov to put in fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just regulate all utilities like utilities and be done with it.

  14. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Trump administration (republican) predicted it and sued to stop the merger. Your Fake News didn't mention that.

  15. Dumb Americans getting what they deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gigantic merger will enhance competition and lower prices. Climate change is a hoax. The Earth is flat. Vaccines cause autism. What's new?

  16. Media + telco = same profits by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Why would adding a big media comply to a big telco company change the costs of networks around the USA? Lower TV prices?
    The media company has to make media.
    The telco connects networks and makes a profit.
    Same costs to network, same need for profit.
    That best possible streaming will be HD going to 4K.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Media + telco = same profits by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Why would adding a big media comply to a big telco company change the costs of networks around the USA? Lower TV prices? .

      Because things aren't as simple as you imply. One overly simple answer is that by controlling both they have more leverage to use during price negotiations.

    2. Re:Media + telco = same profits by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Why would any results of "leverage to use during price negotiations" need to be passed onto the consumers?

      Why drop the price when the population is paying that price now and will accept paying more for HD and new 4K?
      New networks to ensure 4K is great and new media to entertain costs money.
      The consumers pay what they pay now and can be told to pay more for new updates.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Media + telco = same profits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would adding a big media comply to a big telco company change the costs of networks around the USA? Lower TV prices? .

      Because things aren't as simple as you imply. One overly simple answer is that by controlling both they have more leverage to use during price negotiations.

      Paid shill or Depersonalization disorder?

    4. Re:Media + telco = same profits by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Why would any results of "leverage to use during price negotiations" need to be passed onto the consumers? Why drop the price when the population is paying that price now and will accept paying more for HD and new 4K? New networks to ensure 4K is great and new media to entertain costs money. The consumers pay what they pay now and can be told to pay more for new updates.

      Businesses at this level are more than willing to pass savings on to customers. The first would be due to direct competition. Not as relevant to the ISP, but is to the media side. The other is whether the increase of customers and/or public opinion due to the price cut will off set the profits lost by offering a savings. By cutting the prices after a major merge like this, they would be showing the customers the benefits of the merge. The customers would, potentially, start thinking better of the whole situation. If done well, it's cheap marketing with improved public opinion.

    5. Re:Media + telco = same profits by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Consumer might start to expect that the "pass savings" on becomes a norm after every merge.. Not an expected precedent anyone wants to be the first to set.
      Re "cheap marketing with improved public opinion"
      Its a media company selling to the USA and a telco thats networked in parts of the USA not a start up.
      Businesses at that level just want more profits every year and the consumers to understand that prices have to go up for 4K, new media, better networks.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Media + telco = same profits by Xenx · · Score: 1

      A lot of what you're saying is true in most cases. However, companies already lower prices when it suits them so there isn't a concern about setting expectations. In the end, profit IS what drives them. Sometimes that means smaller margins off of more customers.

    7. Re:Media + telco = same profits by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Low prices are to enter a new market, to stop emerging and unexpected new brands.
      The internet is not a new market.
      Media sells on feeling and quality. That can bring in good profit.
      The fun of new 4K is a great way to pass on new prices.
      No one will accept smaller margins when they are not needed. A merger is not a new market, no something new to worry about.
      Keep extracting new profits and use them to expand while the consumers still want to pay full price.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Media + telco = same profits by Xenx · · Score: 1

      You realize, you keep just spouting the same trash each time. You have no actual argument aside from your initial post. It's just the same thing over and over. As I have said, your assumptions aren't necessarily wrong in a lot of cases. They are, however, the only way to do business. What I countered with is a widely used business practice. Repeating yourself does nothing to bolster your position. I'm done trying.

  17. Methinks the cause of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is payback for all the cord cutting. Companies like AT&T are buying more competitive players because they have the customers. I cut the cord and went Internet only with SlingTV. I couldn't be happier. No contacts with either SuddenLink or SlingTV. I went from paying $150 a month for Internet/TV/VoIP bundle to less than $100 for both. I get 400mbit down/50mbit up and 45 channels with SlingTV plus online 50hr DVR. I will never sign a contract again and get locked in. Neither SuddenLink or SlingTV require contracts.

  18. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by SirAstral · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but your entire post is a bunch of divisive know nothing.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/0...

    Both sides share more than enough blame here. No matter which party is in power more and more mergers like this are becoming possible.

    Did you go and watch any of the Marvel Movies? Intellectual Properties that Disney purchased? Disney is silently becoming a mega merged movie and entertainment powerhouse. I bet your money is not where your mouth is and you give Disney your money. ATT is a bit different, some people only have ATT for their provider and can't do anything about it or just get no connectivity, but reading that link should tell you that your turds smell too.

  19. The service is pretty annoying to use also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Example, you can not fast forward. It makes you watch all the commercials and prevents you from skipping slow parts of shows. This isn't only when watching "live tv," but also streaming "pre recorded" programs. They also have a "cloud dvr" that can "record" programs for you to watch, but it doesn't work at all. It's worse than beta. I tries it, then cancelled my service. Even if they had lowered the cost by $5.00/month, i'd have still cancelled. Thanks DirecTV for the discounted AppleTV and the incentive to never use your services ever again... Unless there's another extremely discounted AppleTV in it.. Then I just won't install the App.

    1. Re:The service is pretty annoying to use also by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I had uverse and it was the same thing with on-demand programming, your not skipping anything or fast forwarding. DVR missed the end of a show so you grab the on-demand version.. TFB no fast forwarding for you.

      Now I'm on xfinity X1, :`(, and they let me skip anything. Even if it has the no-skip message and won't let me fast forward, it lets me skip with the "hacked" 30 second skip button. Honestly, it's so much better then Uverse I turned down symmetrical gigabit from AT&T to keep the wife happy.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  20. False Statements by PPH · · Score: 0

    In a court filing, trying to convince the Justice Department that its acquisition would be good for consumers

    Martha Stewart went to prison for this.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:False Statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite dumbfuck. You cherry picked a few words correctly though. You'll make an excellent politician or salesperson someday.

  21. I promise to fuck harder! by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Consumers.

    I understand lately you have had multiple choices from different providers, so we couldn't fuck you as hard as we wanted to because you would just switch. We're tired of this game where only one company gets to fuck you a little bit, then you switch and they get to fuck you a little bit.

    Well, we're increasing the value of our offer and the quality of it. We're making sure that you don't have to worry about strange partners fucking you, or unknown STDs.

    This way you're certain to be fucked by only us, and you'll know what kind of fucking you'll get, no surprises.

    Even though those other companies we listed as threats actually have no control of your internet access, just in case, we made sure we fucked you first. We all know you don't forget your first fucking, and we're there all the way.

    Sincerely,
    AT&T.

    P.S We said you would be the only one we would love. We lied, we were fucking other people while fucking you. You consumers always fall for that.

  22. Suspicious timing by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Not ten minutes after seeing this story posted I get an email from Sony telling me PlayStation VUE is going up by $5. Perhaps one of the media providers is in renegotiation.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  23. Stop voting republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't like shit like this happening. It's pretty simple.

    1. Re:Stop voting republican by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Because TWC/Comcast WASN'T approved by Obama himself right?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Stop voting republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because how much someone pays for TV should be the single issue they use to decide their vote.

  24. Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'm not even anything but a wireless customer of theirs and this pisses me off.
    I don't like them as a company to start with and had been half-heartedly looking to dump them for something cheaper. Anyone have any suggestions? All I need is wireless, nothing else, don't have or want a smartphone, just need basic cellular service and texting. Anyone have any opinions about Consumer Cellular? I know they market to senior citizens, but if they can cut my $55 a month bill in half when I barely use even 100 minutes of calling a month, then I don't care, I'd just as soon do whatever I can to dump AT&T.

    1. Re:Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I know you said you'd like to move from AT&T, but that "$55 / mo" bill seems a bit high. I use their pre-paid service ( https://www.paygonline.com/ ). At $30 / mo, I get unlimited texts and calls, and can use any phone that uses a SIM. I don't know if they cap either of those in any real fashion since I don't push the limits of texts or calls. Coverage seems pretty good wherever I go - western NY to Long Island to Boston, MA, and all points in between. In case you can't really leave AT&T but want to give them less money...

    2. Re:Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Should've added it to my other reply, but there's also Ting ( https://ting.com/ ). I have an account with them, and they're pretty reasonable, but the drawback is coverage. Driving between western NY and Boston, MA, for example, is hit and miss. When they spiff up their coverage, I'll probably switch from pre-paid AT&T.

  25. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a right-wing and oppose anything that helps the Hollywood media establishment, including the NBC-Universal/Comcast merger.

    On the other hand, liberals seemed convinced that mass illegal immigration doesn't lower wages or raise housing prices.

    Unfortunately, the cuckservatives are convinced that the free market is the absolute way to go, to the point they support open borders and amnesty.

    It would be great if we could have a party/group that wanted both closed borders and regulation of industry.

    I guess that makes be a right-wing anti-conservative?

  26. /. headline is misleading by Jayfar · · Score: 0, Troll

    /. headline sez: "AT&T Promised Lower Prices After Time Warner Merger -- It's Raising Them Instead"

    Yet I am unable to find the word "promise" in the quote from AT&T's filing. Someone tell me, which word in the passage below is a synonym for promise?

    "The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products,"

    1. Re:/. headline is misleading by scottragen · · Score: 2

      Since when did a promise need to contain the word promise? Saying "it will enable the merged company to reduce prices" sounds like a promise to me. When I say "I will take you to the park after lunch" to my kids, they rightly take that as a promise.

    2. Re:/. headline is misleading by scottragen · · Score: 1
      Also, definition of "will":

      expressing inevitable events.

      Being inevitable should be viewed as an undertaking to the court right? So equal to a promise.

    3. Re:/. headline is misleading by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      LOL! is the Jayfar account run by Trump or something?

    4. Re: /. headline is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It did enable them to lower prices. They just chose not to.

    5. Re:/. headline is misleading by Jayfar · · Score: 1

      LOL! is the Jayfar account run by Trump or something?

      Hardly. Just stating True Facts® and kind of a stickler for words having well-defined meanings. There simply is no promise offered or implied in the wording provided. People who think they see a "promise" where the word itself doesn't actually occur are bound to be disappointed regularly.

      "enable the merged company to reduce prices" != "the merged company promises to reduce prices"

      That doesn't mean I don't think AT&T is being shady, but they promised nothing.

    6. Re: /. headline is misleading by Jayfar · · Score: 1

      It did enable them to lower prices. They just chose not to.

      Bingo!!!

    7. Re:/. headline is misleading by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      "because it WILL enable the merged company to reduce prices"
      will, verb:
              1. expressing the future tense.
              2. expressing INEVITABLE events.

      promise, noun:
              1. a declaration or assurance that one WILL do something or that a particular thing WILL happen.

      But thank you Trump, for opening your mouth to remove all doubt.

  27. Heard What They Wanted To Hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This comes after promising in court that its acquisition would lover TV prices."

    The oversight body heard what they wanted to hear, which was "lower prices", when AT&T said "lover prices". And that's what happened! AT&T loved them some higher prices, so they made that happen.

    Really, it's anybody's but AT&T's fault. They warned us about lovering some prices...

  28. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got a source for that?

  29. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Search engine broken?

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/trump-lawsuit-att-time-warner-merger-250956

  30. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood media establishment

    Nope, it still makes you racist. You could have saved everyone some time and just typed "dirty moneygrubbing Jews".

  31. ATT thinks the world is full of sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I'm shocked. Raise prices after a merger when there's now less competition. Utter shock and dismay.

    I'm sure Ajit Pai will make us a rap video singing the praises of paying higher prices.

    It's time these mega corps burn in hell.

  32. AT & T sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have for years and they still suck.

  33. um, that's the entire POINT of M&A activity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When competitors merger, there is only one point: MAKE MORE MONEY BY ELIMINATING COMPETITION.

    Everybody knows this, but management who tend to make out like bandits with special bonus/buyout/stock option packages lie about it. Politicians (in BOTH parties) who get bought off by the corporate lobbyists, lie about it. The employees, who are usually powerless in these deals know it. The consumers, who can smell the rate hikes coming but have fewer choices after the mergers know it.

    Pointing out that prices eventually rise after EVERY merger is about like saying "things fall down when you drop them". It's a real "dog bites man" story. If the 2008 Wall Street meltdown did not re-awaken the anti-trust agencies in the government, then NOTHING will. Certainly the Wall Street and auto company bailouts done by the bi-partisan actions of George W Bush and Barack H Obama taught corporate America that the establishment elements of BOTH parties would wink at ANY level of corporate crime/corruption/abuse.

  34. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't though.

    Is it racist now to dislike cartels full of narcissistic assholes wanting to control the narrative and force shit onto us?

  35. hmm, Perjury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they said the merger would lead to lower prices in a court filing, can they now be prosecuted for perjury?

    1. Re:hmm, Perjury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These prices ARE lower, because they COULD have increased them by $10, but as we all know from Congress, any reduction in a desired increase is a cut, so really they just cut prices by $5!

      It's Congressional math, and because Congress does it, so can the rest of us.

    2. Re:hmm, Perjury? by Jayfar · · Score: 1

      They stated that the merger would *enable* them to reduce prices. They did not say they *would* reduce prices.

      Yes, they're weasels. No, that's not perjury.

  36. AT&T are liars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their veracity should always be called into question. This dishonest company does not deserve your business.

  37. Straight forward - demerge them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the courts decision to let this happen was influenced by an outright lie, then it's back to square one and those companies should now be split and everything gets undone.

    No matter what the cost to those companies, and the individuals involved.

    Otherwise, what deterrent is there? A fine? Oh please, that'll do fuck all. Cause them grief, plain and simple. Demerge.

  38. It's contempt of court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU like to a judge and find out if YOU stay out of prison.

  39. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ajit Pai ring a Ma bell? Remember that this only lasted until they stopped bitching about Trump?

  40. Re: um, that's the entire POINT of M&A activit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a merge a telco / television service provider and a media company. They were not competitors. If you were thinking if Time Warner Cable, the ISP, that company was split from Time Warner Media years ago and is now called Spectrum.

  41. And I still can't login to Turner with DTVN! by sabbede · · Score: 1

    AT&T now owns Turner Broadcasting, but I still can't authenticate to TBS, TNT or Adult Swim with my DTVN credentials. But I'm going to be charged an extra $5/month anyhow?

  42. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather a shame your regulators didn't say "okay then, we'll approve the merger if you reduce all your customer's bills by 10%". You might have seen a reduction for a couple of weeks that way, at least.

  43. Direct TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hardly watch it but my mother does. Once she's gone I'm cutting the cord for good. I'll stick to Movies/TV shows from DVD's ripped to a hard drive and played over a media player. This monopoly crap is getting old.

  44. So much shock by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    So much so, that we could power the entire planet for a day just from the shock factor found in this thread.

    --
    I tend to rant.
  45. Story Is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They did lower prices.

    They just lowered them by a negative amount.

  46. not even misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The judge should have asked what compete more effectively means. (Able to raise prices.)

  47. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not

  48. Womp Womp by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    https://sadtrombone.com/

  49. Really... by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 1

    I am jack's complete lack of surprise...

  50. You might call it a lie... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    You might want to refer to what they did as lying, but it's such a blatant lie in this case that they're really just Trumping the truth.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  51. You mean monopolies are bad for consumers? by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

    Wow. Who would have thought?

  52. Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Trump administration (republican) predicted it and sued to stop the merger. Your Fake News didn't mention that.

    Bzzzt! Wrong.

    The Trump administration opposed the AT&T -- Time Warner merger because Time Warner owns CNN. Trump hates CNN because they aren't sympathetic to him, like Fox News is.

    Fake news is a deliberate fabrication, written to deceive, confuse, or enrage (e.g., Pizzagate.) It is not the same as news with errors. It is not even the same as news written with a bias. Fake news is written by fake reporters.

    Trump, on the other hand, defines fake news as anything he doesn't agree with.

  53. um... you fell for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time Warner WAS both a media company and a service provider (and thus a competitor of AT&T)
    First, they split-off the Time Warner ISP from the content.
    Then they wait.
    Then they merge with AT&T claiming they NEED to merge to be both a content provider and transporter in order to be viable.

    The public and the government are not supposed to remember that they actually did previously compete. Had AT&T not merged with Time Warner, Time Warner could have re-merged with its own ISP but that would not have achieved the uniting of Time Warner with AT&T.

    One of the tricks to merger&acquisition activities that are big and might stir government antitrust activity is to split up the steps and inject some time between the steps. Corruption works best when the corrupt have more patience than the watchdogs.