Justice Department sues to block AT&T takeover of Time Warner, report says

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,778member
    Let me be blunt. These mega mergers or buyout are hardly in favor of consumers. Spectrum took over Time Warner in my area and soon after before I know such buyout, my internet price went up. So, not sympathetic to AT&T's cry.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 22 of 27
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,036member
    maestro64 said:
    This is just stupid. A vertical merger, with very few antitrust issues, in an industry (entertainment content) that is now hyper-comeptitive (i.e., if ATT tries and screw customers on price, they'll go elsewhere).

    If it was Time Warner Cable, I could understand, but this is just, plain stupid.

    I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that there were a couple of well-placed phone calls involved...

    You do not understand this market. there are many place in US where people do not have choice. I am lucky, I have Comcast for all 3 services, I have Verizon, I have DirecTV and Dish, I can play them against each other for Video, but internet I have Comcast and VZ. Phone I have Comcast and VZ plus all the other third parties out there. Most places people only have one service along with Satellite if you have clear line of sight to the southwest. The issue is unless you get all three from VX or Comcast they really do not cut you a deal.

    Content cost drive the cost of your triple play services, the cost are being driven by content owners, and when the cable operators own the content they get to set the price to you and to their competitors. You can bet that Comcast does not charge as much to themselves for their content as they charge Directv.

    So many customer do not go elsewhere, you can cut of video content from Comcast, but they just up your internet costs to make up for the lost as you got to online services, but after to piece it all together, you bill is not much better than if you stayed where you were.

    Perhaps the justice department is just as confused as you.  Time Warner Cable isn't part of Time Warner.  Time Warner doesn't do Internet.  

    I know the difference here and it is about content ownership and who is controlling the content. Those who control the content also control the majority of the cost consumers pay. As contend ownership is consolidated so does the power and competition. No one really wants to own and operate the infrastructure, it is all about content ownership at this point. In 10 yrs it would not surprise me to see companies like Comcast, VZ and AT&T selling off the infrastructure and lets others operate it and maintain it. It like cell towers these days, VZ and AT&T hardly own most of the towers, today they lease time on the towers and others own the equipment and maintenance.
  • Reply 23 of 27
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    I get a feeling the 'Elephant in the Room' is rather easily spotted and as being the company owned by one of these two conglomerates that tends not to supportive of 'he who shall not be named' who probably personally threw a preverbal spanner (UK expression?) in the works out of spite.

    Hopefully that was not considered worthy of a ban.  :)
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 24 of 27
    MacPro said:
    I get a feeling the 'Elephant in the Room' is rather easily spotted and as being the company owned by one of these two conglomerates that tends not to supportive of 'he who shall not be named' who probably personally threw a preverbal spanner (UK expression?) in the works out of spite.
    Where’s your evidence of the claim?
  • Reply 25 of 27
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    MacPro said:
    I get a feeling the 'Elephant in the Room' is rather easily spotted and as being the company owned by one of these two conglomerates that tends not to supportive of 'he who shall not be named' who probably personally threw a preverbal spanner (UK expression?) in the works out of spite.

    Hopefully that was not considered worthy of a ban.  :)
    It is rather hard to take the Trump Administration seriously when out of one side of their mouth they condemn a media merger as harmful to the consumer, while simultaneously out of the other they scrap net neutrality despite the harm to the consumer. Never mind subjugating the rules governing local media ownership allowing conservative Sinclair Media to merge with Tribune, a true anti-competive effectively move. Of all these things, only ATT/Time Warner poses the least threat to consumers and competition. And yet, only the one with a target painted on it by the TA gets hauled to the mat ... 
  • Reply 26 of 27
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    mac_128 said:
    MacPro said:
    I get a feeling the 'Elephant in the Room' is rather easily spotted and as being the company owned by one of these two conglomerates that tends not to supportive of 'he who shall not be named' who probably personally threw a preverbal spanner (UK expression?) in the works out of spite.

    Hopefully that was not considered worthy of a ban.  :)
    It is rather hard to take the Trump Administration seriously when out of one side of their mouth they condemn a media merger as harmful to the consumer, while simultaneously out of the other they scrap net neutrality despite the harm to the consumer. Never mind subjugating the rules governing local media ownership allowing conservative Sinclair Media to merge with Tribune, a true anti-competive effectively move. Of all these things, only ATT/Time Warner poses the least threat to consumers and competition. And yet, only the one with a target painted on it by the TA gets hauled to the mat ... 
    Agreed.
  • Reply 27 of 27
    xamaxxamax Posts: 135member

    iPad TV


    I had big hopes  would buy TWI, so much synergy it's almost unbelievable. They would sell what they didn't want.

    But  is renitent in going outside what they feel is their core business. Given their great relationship with AT&T and Disney, I imagined  could have one of them do the deal - I thought of Disney first - of buying TWI then liberating the media in better terms than today's, you know, a management buy out type thing of all the cronies who still hang around in that dinosaur?!

    I mean, who better than  to restructure the media business to the digital age?

    Maybe they decided to do a two fold strategy, investing in going from scratch creating their own media and eventually getting a nice deal with AT&T once they get TWI...

    It's crazy the way the media is still in this day and age, should  just push media affordably 's iPads could just thrive as media outlets, majorly decreasing the need for big screen TVs - whose prices are always bottoming out anyway... - you know, I mean something like iPad TV
    edited February 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.