Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 284 posts

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#91

Post by unclebucknasty »

rayiner wrote: post #79
JAFTEM wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also have bad internet in LA. I grew up in North Dakota though, and back there my family is getting 1 gigabit internet for $100/mo from Midcontinent. Absolutely bizarre and ridiculous that North Dakota, a state that has far less developed infrastructure than either coast, has better internet than Los Angeles.

Is it? I’ve got two fiber lines into my house in a Maryland county where most people are on septic and well. Unsurprisingly, Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment.

>Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment.

What have they done, relative to other cities, to impede broadband deployment?

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#92

Post by dv_dt »

So is anyone actually trying to write legislation to bar ISPs from co-owning content creation companies? Is there a basis for this? Or is there some other type of anti-media/connectivity consolidation on the horizon even as a thought experiment?

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#93

Post by AboutTheWhisles »

rayiner wrote: post #79
JAFTEM wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also have bad internet in LA. I grew up in North Dakota though, and back there my family is getting 1 gigabit internet for $100/mo from Midcontinent. Absolutely bizarre and ridiculous that North Dakota, a state that has far less developed infrastructure than either coast, has better internet than Los Angeles.

Is it? I’ve got two fiber lines into my house in a Maryland county where most people are on septic and well. Unsurprisingly, Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment.

> Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment

What is that exactly?

"First released in October 2013, and updated several times since, the DOCSIS 3.1 suite of specifications support capacities of up to 10 Gbit/s downstream and 1 Gbit/s upstream"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#94

Post by casefields »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #12

this is from 2016, when the terms of the merger were agreed upon but still required government approval.

“AT&T’s Time Warner Takeover Wins Judge’s Approval in Defeat for Justice Dept.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/business/dealbook/att-tim...

What does that sound like to you bud?

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#96

Post by droopybuns »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #32

In the context of net neutrality ending, this looks like AT&T acquiring the means to exploit discriminatory traffic routing. It seems like there will be a gold rush of sorts, towards building walled gardens, segmenting the Internet into fiefs. Does ending NN allow an ISP to completely block a website? I.e. to what extent does this also open up the door to overt political censorship?

There are two examples of websites being blocked that I can point to, none involving ISPs:

1) Google blocking Microsoft and Amazon devices from accessing YouTube content.

2) FBI takeovers of DNS entries to web servers or TOR nodes.

And if political censorship is your biggest concern, should youtube be held accountable for blocking firearms content on their site?

Where are the examples of ISPs blocking web pages? Throttling != blocking. Bandwidth is not infinite.

Edit: If facts are inconvenient, that downvote button provides a nutritional burst of serotonin.

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#98

Post by xenihn »

aurailious wrote: post #55
gzu wrote: post #21

It’s crazy to me how one judge gets to decide the fate of a 100 billion dollar merger. Humans are fallible.

Well, the judge has to base the decision on a whole bunch of laws. It's not like judges get to decide this on their own.

>Well, the judge has to base the decision on a whole bunch of laws. It's not like judges get to decide this on their own.

This is a weird opinion to hold when you take the fact that two judges can come to two completely separate conclusions on a single issue, while drawing from the same laws.

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#99

Post by windows_tips »

rosser wrote: post #81
EpicEng wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters when ~50% of the comments are talking about net neutrality and Time Warner Cable hasn't existed for more than two years.

It also seems to matter as a diversionary tactic, employed to curtail discussion of the dearth of meaningful competition in broadband. And it ignores that TWC was acquired by another ISP , meaning that sale, whenever it happened, also curtailed broadband competition . On top of all that, with the end of NN, AT&T can preferentially shove TWX content in your face, and force you to pay extra to consume someone else's. T…

Is there actually a market for things like CNN? It seems that CNN being shoved in your face is kind of its thing.

Re: AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner

#100

Post by paul7986 »

rayiner wrote: post #79
JAFTEM wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also have bad internet in LA. I grew up in North Dakota though, and back there my family is getting 1 gigabit internet for $100/mo from Midcontinent. Absolutely bizarre and ridiculous that North Dakota, a state that has far less developed infrastructure than either coast, has better internet than Los Angeles.

Is it? I’ve got two fiber lines into my house in a Maryland county where most people are on septic and well. Unsurprisingly, Big California cities have Big California impediments to broadband deployment.

You in Westminister, MD or Howard county?
Post reply on HN