Department of Justice Considers Blocking AT&T Deal For Time Warner

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: AT&T and the U.S. Department of Justice are discussing conditions the No. 2 wireless carrier needs to meet in order for its acquisition of Time Warner Inc to win government approval. The $85.4 billion deal, hatched last October, is opposed by some consumer groups and TV companies on the grounds that it would give the wireless company too much power over the media it would carry on its own network. Donald Trump, who has accused media companies like Time Warner's CNN of being unfair to him, criticized the deal on the campaign trail last year and vowed that as president his Justice Department would block it. The proposed deal represents an early challenge for the Justice Department's new antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, a Trump appointee who was confirmed by Congress in late September. Delrahim may be looking to ramp up pressure on AT&T. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department was laying the groundwork for a potential lawsuit aimed at stopping the deal if settlement talks did not work out.

Re:Political trustbusting

[HornWumpus]

Insane that these kinds of deals (this one and T-mobile/Sprint) are even starters.

WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge? Thank dog for clueful Japanese bankers.

#2 cable broadband company wants to buy #2 wireless data company? Shouldn't that draw laughter from regulators? Don't care why, any no is good.

Re:

[mysidia]

WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge?

The regulators are ultimately not empowered to ban a merger unless it violates the law; their duties are quite the opposite -- they are working for the telecoms they regulate. The regulators' primary role in these proceedings is to settle up issues with the proposed transactions so that the applicants can complete their transactions without causing violations.

Re: Political trustbusting

[hunter44102]

Either way, corporations that own the internet pipes (which have all the last mile connections to homes) should not be in the business of owning content. This further entrenches their monopoly on connections.

Re:

[MoarSauce123]

That is what the Republicans sell us as "free market with consumer choice". It all reminds me of the day I dined in a government run Hungarian restaurant in the 80s. They had about a hundred tables all prepped, a 7 member combo playing, a huge menu...and after we ordered the waiter told us that the stove is broken and all we can eat is either rice with sauce or sauce with rice. In other words, this is not free market or consumer choice, this is nothing else than pseudocommunist government control with the a

Re:

[HornWumpus]

Put down the crack pipe. Both parties are all for this.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the paid shill.

When large companies like AT&T and Time Warner merge, there are always redundant positions that get eliminated. Mergers like this never create more jobs.

Re:

[MoarSauce123]

Give me one, just ONE, example where corporate tax breaks generated jobs long term. All that tax breaks do is keep a few jobs around a bit longer that eventually get eliminated or sent overseas while big investors and the C-level-managers line their pockets with cash.

Re:

[Green Mountain Bot]

If anything, corporate tax cuts reduce incentives to "create" jobs or otherwise invest in the company. Salaries, benefits, and capital expeditures are all above the line, which means that they reduce total income and therefore total tax owed. Lowering taxes gives more incentive to keep above the line costs lower because there's less cost to allowing revenue through as profit.

Re:

[OneHundredAndTen]

Can you really be so ignorant about the lessons of history? The alternative is that you are just trolling; I sincerely hope that this is the case.

That's Crazy

[rmdingler]

The administration would be foolish to punish the parent company of CNN,

especially after all CNN has done to advance the notion of biased news reporting,

allowing the administration to deflect all negative reporting as fake news® .

Re:That's Crazy

[sl3xd]

especially after all CNN has done to advance the notion of biased news reporting

Partisans and pundits have always labeled those who don't support their own views as biased or liars. They did it in the Roman Republic; they continue to do so today.

And, as in the past, these partisans and pundits don't like it when anybody calls out their gaslighting.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Fun fact: Only 33% of CNN's own viewers trust CNN. [rasmussenreports.com] (as of january anyway)

That's an interesting number, since it's several points higher than the percentage of the population that trusts Donald Trump.

considers...

[zlives]

yes citizen, we care about you that is why we consider with great deliberation... then meh, you get escrewed

This is scary

[JoshuaZ]

There are very good arguments in favor of more vigorous anti-trust enforcement and this wouldn't be an unreasonable place to start. But this really, really looks like the President trying to use his office to retaliate against media that criticizes him. That should concern everyone. The natural chilling effect should be obvious.

Waiting for all the rabid left wingers...

[guruevi]

...to tell us how blocking this deal is a bad thing.