Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AT&T The Courts Businesses Government United States

AT&T Wins Fight With US Over Purchase of Time Warner (reuters.com) 55

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Wins Fight With US Over Purchase of Time Warner

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

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

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

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

      • by Livius ( 318358 )

        Like a stopped clock twice a day.

        Sadly not that much different from regular politicians.

      • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @07:01PM (#58185852)

    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.

    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

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

  • Persuasion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Livius ( 318358 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @07:14PM (#58185912)

    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.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 )

      [shakes fist]

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

      Mod parent up.

    • 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.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        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 compani

        • 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 goin

          • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            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 c

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

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

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @09:34PM (#58186504)
    went something like this [youtube.com].

    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.
    • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      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.

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

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

  • Let's hope this works out better than the last time an ISP bought Time Warner.
  • =opportunity to bash and moan about Trump
    • by nwaack ( 3482871 )
      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*.
  • Read The Curse Of Bigness -

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...