Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Wins Fight With US Over Purchase of Time Warner (reuters.com)

An appeals court has approved AT&T's purchase of Time Warner, despite the Trump administration's drawn-out attempts to block the $85.4 billion acquisition. The U.S. Justice Department said it would not fight the decision. Reuters reports: The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously in favor of the deal earlier on Tuesday, saying that the government's case that the merger would result in higher consumer prices was "unpersuasive." The decision ended a 15-month effort by the Justice Department to block it. It was AT&T's second major court victory against the Justice Department, setting the stage for the No. 2 wireless carrier to integrate its WarnerMedia business as well as its new Xandr advertising unit.

The deal has been seen as a turning point for a media industry that has been upended by companies like Netflix and Alphabet's Google which put content online with no need for a cable subscription. The merger, which was announced in October 2016, closed on June 14 shortly after Judge Richard Leon ruled the deal was legal under antitrust law. AT&T agreed it would have no role in setting Turner's prices to distributors and the number of Turner employees would remain largely unchanged.

55 comments

  1. I am confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump hates it and so do I. Now what do we do. Love it?

    1. Re:I am confused by Tablizer · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Orange Guy is accidentally right on occasion. It happens.

    2. Re:I am confused by Livius · · Score: 1

      Like a stopped clock twice a day.

      Sadly not that much different from regular politicians.

    3. Re:I am confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. Being right for the wrong reason is worse than being wrong.

      ATT argued that under current anti-trust law and DOJ guidelines that the merger should not be blocked, and was vindicated several times. The DOJ's arguments were less convincing. (Nobody watching this case thought ATT would lose)

      It's fairly obvious that Trump wanted to block this for.. Whatever reason. Vendetta, corruption, general stupidity. The usual.

      You can argue all day that this merger should not happen, and many people should agree with you. That, though, would require action on the part of Congress so you'll have to look there first.

  2. And their evidence was Trump's Twitter account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He literally called them an enemy of the people.

    They ain't paying for the wall neither.

  3. America the oligarchy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America really is in decline.

    Larger and larger corporations are coalescing into big, giant. anti-consumer piles of shit.

    The government can't control them because the regulatory agencies are all suffering the worst possible for of regulatory capture ... the people in charge ultimately work for the industries they are supposed to regulate.

    And yet, people continue to stupidly believe that whatever is good for corporations is good for the country, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    America is fast becoming the dystopian future, only now there is no sign of a moral compass and any form of leadership towards progress ... just some shrieking, orange, yeti-pubed douchebag at the helm.

    1. Re:America the oligarchy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America really is in decline.

      Larger and larger corporations are coalescing into big, giant. anti-consumer piles of shit.

      The government can't control them because the regulatory agencies are all suffering the worst possible for of regulatory capture ... the people in charge ultimately work for the industries they are supposed to regulate.

      And yet, people continue to stupidly believe that whatever is good for corporations is good for the country, when nothing could be further from the truth.

      America is fast becoming the dystopian future, only now there is no sign of a moral compass and any form of leadership towards progress ... just some shrieking, orange, yeti-pubed douchebag at the helm.

      The president is against it. The people are against it. It's going to happen anyway.
      Yeah, I guess you're right about the decline and oligarchy claim. Even though it sounds like you'd have voted for Clinton, I still have to agree with you on the rest of it.

    2. Re:America the oligarchy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the president isn't against it.

      He's offering token resistance to show how he's a man of the people, but he literally installs lobbyists in every possible point of decision making, and looked for the most corporate friendly supreme court judge who is also against abortions and publicly stated that the (unanimous) supreme court decision in the case of Nixon's corruption was wrong. He hasn't said he is against it. He hasn't acted against it. On the contrary, the repeal of net neutrality makes this hugely anti-consumer. Suddenly, every media company will have to pay 200% more in order to not be slowed to sub-720p bitrates (which has in the past happened to netflix), to which the ruling says "including time warner", only for that case the profit will also go to time warner.

      A few people in the DC bureacracy (aka "deep state" in presidential speak) haven't been bought off already, and they're the ones that are made this feeble, doomed-to-fail, unable to hinder anything legal protest which can be seen as "doing their jobs to the public". At the moment, the regulatory capture has become so extreme that whoever believes in the good of the public will inevitably fail when it doesn't coincide with the good of the big donators (read: companies).

    3. Re:America the oligarchy ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Larger and larger corporations are coalescing into big, giant. anti-consumer piles of shit.

      This is the natural end state of the free market. What people think is endless competition is called the perfect market and is an unstable state in any free market system. The free market when left completely unchecked will ultimately converge to a few mega corporations that own everything.

      People heap shit on the EU for not "innovating" mega corporations into existence forgetting that no good comes of it.

    4. Re:America the oligarchy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America really is in decline.

      Larger and larger corporations are coalescing into big, giant. anti-consumer piles

      Anti-citizenry. "Consumer" is the word the mega corps apply to citizens. It should not be so.

    5. Re:America the oligarchy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repairing America is simple.
      1.No lobbyists can have offices in Washington DC.
      2. No one who passes legislation for Corp.s cannot work for them for 10 years.
      3. No lobbyist can ever run for office.
      4. Anybody caught illegally making more than $10,000 is banned for life from politics.
      5. Reverse Citizens United decision - make all political donations transparent.

  4. this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    u need 2 vote 4 bernie in 2020 he would block the sale

  5. Persuasion by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the government's case that the merger would result in higher consumer prices was "unpersuasive."

    Strictly speaking "blatantly obvious" and "persuasive" aren't the same thing. It's not technically not persuasion if you already know it.

    1. Re:Persuasion by sconeu · · Score: 1

      [shakes fist]

      Curse you, good sir! You have posted my sentiments before I had the opportunity to do so!

      Mod parent up.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re: Persuasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I thought the same thing. Apparently the courts don't understand the basic economics of monopolies. Probably because the government is one.

    3. Re:Persuasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, lets make bigger and bigger monopolies to pay for executive bunkers while the world perishes! This court case helps to show a failure of anti-trust laws and a failure of the US government, but don't worry, it will resolve itself.

    4. Re: Persuasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is a monopoly? Not really, you're free to flee and seek asylum anywhere you want to go. In fact we insist, Libertarian nutbars.

    5. Re:Persuasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one other means of persuasion.
      Cancel service if you use AT&T or any of its subsidiaries.
      If 80% of the customer base would cancel, alternative services would grow strong.

      At some point, that means launching licensed wireless networks and laying a fiber network.

    6. Re:Persuasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the government's case that the merger would result in higher consumer prices was "unpersuasive."

      Strictly speaking "blatantly obvious" and "persuasive" aren't the same thing. It's not technically not persuasion if you already know it.

      I wonder if the court would have decided differently with a different president. The presidents obvious attempts to corruptly influence the decision might have had the opposite effect. Still anti trust law and similar would seem to be congresses domain. I want to see fewer monopolies or worse multi headed mega corporations that are doing so many things competition doesn't have a chance.

    7. Re:Persuasion by halivar · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the court would have decided differently with a different president.

      If so, our judicial system is as fucked as the other branches.

    8. Re:Persuasion by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The government didn't actually try very hard in court. Government lawyers failed to make what should have been obvious arguments to support denying permission for the merger.

      It's almost like they want the merger to go ahead, but have people think that they don't.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Persuasion by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure they really did throw this case, though I'll admit that this was my initial reaction. Given that this is just Time Warner (the group of TV channels) and not Time Warner Cable (the competitor), the antitrust issues involve only indirect competition, so proving that these are real antitrust problems is harder than you might think.

      The merger agreement includes an agreement to permanently run Time Warner as a separate company and not interfere with their pricing negotiations with cable companies (the indirect competition issue). Assuming that agreement holds, there aren't any other obvious antitrust issues with this merger that I can see. And if it doesn't hold, then government can step in and break up the company faster than you can say, "See, I told you they couldn't resist the temptation," because the antitrust law violations would be pretty obvious.

      So as much as I don't like the idea of AT&T getting any bigger, I'm struggling to see a legal reason for blocking the merger.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Persuasion by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      You have to look at this along with the death of net neutrality.

      The endgame here is for the cable companies to control (and hence have pricing leverage over) both content and content distribution. They will make it more expensive for other content providers to reach AT&T's customers, while protecting Time Warner. AT&T doesn't have to get directly involved in negotiations between Time Warner and cable companies to achieve this.

      Simple question to ask in cases like this: why do a merger if you are going to keep the two merged companies separate?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:Persuasion by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The endgame here is for the cable companies to control (and hence have pricing leverage over) both content and content distribution. They will make it more expensive for other content providers to reach AT&T's customers, while protecting Time Warner. AT&T doesn't have to get directly involved in negotiations between Time Warner and cable companies to achieve this.

      I don't buy that, because that wouldn't be in AT&T's best interests financially. Most of those providers already provide content to cable companies, and AT&T, in addition to being an Internet provider, is also a glorified cable company. Besides owning DirecTV, it also provides cable-TV-equivalent service in FiOS markets. If AT&T decided to reduce other content providers' access to their Internet-based customers, that decision would come back to bite them badly at contract negotiation time when those content providers decide how much to charge AT&T's cable subscribers for their content (and, for that matter, whether to provide it at all).

      This, of course, ignores the small number of content providers whose content isn't available as part of AT&T cable (Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Hulu), but AT&T's existing streaming service is already competing with them, so they already have a pretty strong motive to be evil to them. I don't think having a second motive changes the equation much, if at all.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  6. Can't everyone do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'm still confused as to any reason anyone would choose a living symbol of greed and cruelty as their leader.

    But if that person is in control, could everyone involve just conclude after a few rounds of insanity that they just shouldn't bother pursuing anything that he requests?

    He's basically the crown prince of idiocy - demanding a constant string of senseless things in order to 'negotiate' something he's been told would be really clever and sneaky by a series other idiots on a cable news channel.

    It's like taking orders from Twitch Plays Pokemon - ignoring those orders is the most responsible, rational thing you can do.

    1. Re:Can't everyone do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm still confused as to any reason anyone would choose a living symbol of greed and cruelty as their leader."

      In case you have been living under a rock these last two years, Hillary lost...

    2. Re:Can't everyone do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying it was greed that led him to try and block the merger??

    3. Re:Can't everyone do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you have been living under a rock these last two years, Hillary lost...

      No, she didn't. She just didn't get to be President.

  7. Let the people vote by Snotnose · · Score: 0, Troll

    90% of consumers won't understand what's at stake. But tell them:

    1: More competition == lower prices
    2: A boatload of people will lose their jobs if this happens. People like you
    3: 2-5 of the 1 percenters will make millions off this, while your prices go up and service goes down

    and hopefully even the most MAGA'centric drunken dipshit will get a clue.

    This is bad for America, this is bad for consumers, it can be argued this is bad for freedums!

    1. Re:Let the people vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time 'the people' voted, Taco Bell was voted as Best Mexican Restaurant.

      Thanks, but we'll keep our system; riddled with problems as it is, we have a President who disagreed with this acquisition, even if we have a judiciary stacked with whores from the last administration.

    2. Re:Let the people vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, you called them whores; you must be very clever.

      Wait, you're not, because the people you insinuated are too stupid to vote for their favorite restaurant also voted for the guy you apparently believe will fix everything. Cognitive dissonance much?

      As for the president's disagreement with this aquisition, that was entirely based on his desire to punish a media outlet which frequently reports facts he doesn't like. Surely you're not so blindingly stupid that you'd support multi-billion dollar deals being torpedoed because a single third-party individual's feelings are hurt?

      Yes, of course you are. Your post is all the evidence we need to see it.

  8. Does anyone know what by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    the taxes are when you buy something for $85.4 Billion.

    I've never had the opportunity to buy something for that much.

    1. Re:Does anyone know what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guessing it's 0 for this one. . . .

    2. Re:Does anyone know what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sales tax? There's no sales tax on stock purchases.

  9. Another obvious objection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, WTF? Who thinks this kind of merger is in the best interests of the American people?

    What drunk, idiotic, evil, covetous, rapacious bastards are on this court? Why let this happen? How long do we have until UniCorp controls all of our mobile phone and Internet service?

  10. How about Pelosi do something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Dems control Congress. They can push anti-trust actions.

    1. Re:How about Pelosi do something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dems are paid off by the lobbyists as well.

    2. Re:How about Pelosi do something about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear!!

  11. Why are prices the metric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reduced competition should be reason to block a merger. After a company reaches a certain size, it should not be able to merge.

  12. I'm guessing the administrations argument by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    went something like this.

    Thought it was a bit odd that an anti-regulation, pro business admin staffed mostly by same revolving door of ex-Goldman sachs folks we've had around since Reagan would stand in the way of a merger. Dammit, I wish we could get somebody like Liz Warren or Bernie in office along with a matching Congress. They'd put a stop to this crap right quick.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm guessing the administrations argument by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Dammit, I wish we could get somebody like Liz Warren or Bernie in office along with a matching Congress. They'd put a stop to this crap right quick.

      Not sure what they would be able to do about a federal appeals court ruling, most of whom were appointed by Obama or Clinton.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re:I'm guessing the administrations argument by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      "They'd put a stop to this crap right quick."

      Yeah, and most other economic activity as well...

  13. AOL by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

    Let's hope this works out better than the last time an ISP bought Time Warner.

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

      Let's hope it doesn't.

      I predict the imminent failure and break-apart of AT&T (for real, this time) within 15 years.

  14. I think he's just telling us by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    what we want to hear. Then when it matters he'll fall in line behind the mega corps. He did that with phrama prices. He told everyone in rallies he got prices down and it was just a lie. It's literally the 1984 chocolate rations. For some reason absolutely nothing sticks to Trump.

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

      For some reason calling him names doesn't have an impact. Shocking.

  15. Trump Tries to Do Something Slashdot Agrees With by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    =opportunity to bash and moan about Trump

  16. Good for capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... deal was legal under antitrust law.

    Once, upon a time, people had the idea that businesses had to be good for capitalism: That included economic infrastructure like markets and tax revenue and job creation. Then the US courts decided that 'people' with billions of spare dollars were honorable and trustworthy, so they only had to obey the letter of the law.

  17. Big tech monopolies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If google, facebook et al can be monopolies, why cant at&t?

    1. Re: Big tech monopolies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/26/18241491/ftc-task-force-tech-monopolies-bureau-competition-online-platforms

  18. More bad news by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Read The Curse Of Bigness -

  19. Re:Trump Tries to Do Something Slashdot Agrees Wit by nwaack · · Score: 1

    Well yeah, ORANGE MAN BAD...no matter what!!! Didn't you get the memo from the NPC's? We are all to fall in line with the Progressive agenda lest we be labeled racist and *insert -phobic word of the day here*.

  20. scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T 1 Consumers 0

  21. Re: Trump Tries to Do Something Slashdot Agrees Wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mahhhh rights are being taken away! Wahhhhhhhhhhh I can't beat people up for being gay anymore, wahhhhhh