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

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.

Comments

It can't be

[narcc]

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

Re: It can't be

[irving47]

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

Re: It can't be

[alongley]

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.

Re: It can't be

[DogDude]

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

Re:It can't be

[Kohath]

Trump tried to stop it

Re: It can't be

[alongley]

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...

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

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.

Re: It can't be

[The Evil Atheist]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: It can't be

[sjames]

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.

Re: It can't be

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:It can't be

[reboot246]

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.

Re: It can't be

[DogDude]

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.

Re: It can't be

[h33t l4x0r]

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?

Re: It can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: It can't be

[youngone]

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.

Re:It can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: It can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Torvac]

sure, lol

Re: It can't be

[Required Snark]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Gavagai80]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re: It can't be

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re: It can't be

[h33t l4x0r]

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?

Re: It can't be

[Gavagai80]

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."

Re: It can't be

[wonkavader]

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.

Re: It can't be

[MrKaos]

You're such a NN hater.

Re: It can't be

[AHuxley]

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

Re:It can't be

[parkinglot777]

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.

Re: It can't be

[stealth_finger]

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.

Re: It can't be

[kilfarsnar]

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!

Re: It can't be

[kilfarsnar]

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"!

Re: It can't be

[ai4px]

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).

Re: It can't be

[Bryansix]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Green Mountain Bot]

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

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

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.

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

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.

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

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

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

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

Re: It can't be

[alongley]

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.

Re: It can't be

[HeckRuler]

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?

Re:It can't be

[cj9er]

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.

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

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

Re: It can't be

[JackieBrown]

This shows how little you think of the working class.

Re: It can't be

[desdinova 216]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re: It can't be

[MrKaos]

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?

Re: It can't be

[The Evil Atheist]

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?

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

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.

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

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.

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

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'.

Re: It can't be

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Bryansix]

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.

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

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.

Re: It can't be

[Bryansix]

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?

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

So what should have been done, exactly?

Re: It can't be

[Bryansix]

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

Re: It can't be

[dinfinity]

You are a financial genius.

I'm shocked

[MightyMartian]

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Re:I'm shocked

[cyberchondriac]

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.

Dear Sherlock,

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

No shit.

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

Re:Dear Sherlock,

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Dear Sherlock,

[bane2571]

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.

AT&T has this history...

[thedarb]

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

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:AT&T has this history...

[ilsaloving]

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

Re:AT&T has this history...

[thedarb]

Sad, but true.

I don't think it's related to the merger...

[Espectr0]

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.

Words Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Words Matter

[Iamthecheese]

A lie by weaseling is still a lie.

Re:Words Matter

[novakyu]

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.

Re:Words Matter

[jdharm]

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.

Re:Words Matter

[Bryansix]

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

Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blame L

[corezz]

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.

Consequences

[currently_awake]

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.

Re:Consequences

[fafalone]

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.

Of course . . .

[hduff]

Who did not see this coming . . .

remove monopoly and allow gov to put in fiber

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Media + telco = same profits

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[Xenx]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[Xenx]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[Xenx]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Media + telco = same profits

[Xenx]

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.

Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam

[SirAstral]

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.

I promise to fuck harder!

[Tyr07]

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.

Suspicious timing

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw

[evil_aaronm]

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...

Re:Fuck AT&T sideways with a rusty chainsaw

[evil_aaronm]

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.

Re:/. headline is misleading

[scottragen]

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.

Re:/. headline is misleading

[scottragen]

Also, definition of "will":

expressing inevitable events.

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

Re:Stop voting republican

[guruevi]

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

Re:/. headline is misleading

[baker_tony]

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

Re: /. headline is misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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

And I still can't login to Turner with DTVN!

[sabbede]

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?

Re:The service is pretty annoying to use also

[pnutjam]

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.

So much shock

[SCVonSteroids]

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

Story Is BS

[Anonymous Coward]

They did lower prices.

They just lowered them by a negative amount.

Womp Womp

[ilsaloving]

https://sadtrombone.com/

Really...

[sizzlinkitty]

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

You might call it a lie...

[Daetrin]

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.

You mean monopolies are bad for consumers?

[darth_borehd]

Wow. Who would have thought?

Re:Libz Predicted it & Conservatives will blam

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:/. headline is misleading

[Jayfar]

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.

Re: /. headline is misleading

[Jayfar]

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

Bingo!!!

Re:hmm, Perjury?

[Jayfar]

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.

Re:/. headline is misleading

[baker_tony]

"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.