AT&T Cleared by Judge to Buy Time Warner • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by droopybuns » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

dschuler wrote: post #114

It's interesting that the Trump administration was eager to block this deal (Trump has made statements in favor of preventing this merger), while enthusiastically repealing net neutrality. Maybe expecting consistency here is reading too much into the tea leaves. At the same time, AT&T stock is down in after hours trading. Does this mean that investors believe this merger will be bad for AT&T, or at least for short-te…

This move makes AT&T the largest private debt holder in the United States.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/att/2017/06/30/can-att-k...

It’s tough to be nimble with financial responsibility this large. It is not obvious to me that this is a good thing for the shareholders.

It’s for this reason that I’d rather see us focus on incentives for local ISP competition rather than regulatory burdens designed to keep elephants this large in check. Net neutrality has to be powerful enough to curb AT&T’s legal teams. Scrappy local ISPs aren’t going to have the same resources for responding to regulatory requests. It entrenches the big players.

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

#202

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:30 AM UTC

droopybuns wrote: post #96

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? Thro…

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by monochromatic » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:51 AM UTC

AlexCoventry wrote: post #191

ajonnav wrote: post #89

> The judge indicated during the trial that he wasn’t buying Shapiro’s projection. After his testimony, Leon said he was "confused." Further explanation from Shapiro didn’t help. "I’m not sure I got it, but it’s too late and too hot to belabor the point any further," the judge said. Amazing on so many different levels. (Shapiro is the economist whose model the DOJ based their case off of).

How is it that the executive branch is acting in a more principled and competent manner than the judicial, in this case? I suppose it could be good for the economy and general welfare of the nation that the price of good TV will go up, if it means people will be watching less of it.

Which parts of the 200-page opinion did you find unprincipled or incompetent?

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

#204

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:54 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #196

debt wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the timing of this was intentional.

And what are you basing your belief on? And don't forget this is the entertainment time warner, not the internet service. So I'm curious what intentional timing you found, and how it relates to net neutrality.

One of the biggest issues is when companies that should focus on shipping bits for their customers also have incentive to care about what the bits represent. So this being the entertainment Time Warner is what makes this bad. Got slow service with Netflix or worse a tiny player like Mubi? Why not watch magically super fast Time Warner content that doesn't count against your data cap either?

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

#205

Post by vpribish » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:55 AM UTC

Got some sharp legal minds at work in this discussion. Really digging into the relevant parts of vertical vs horizontal anti-trust enforcement in a free market for media and a regulated one for content delivery. I especially love the nuanced extrapolation into healthcare and social media. Super work, just super.

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

#206

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:59 AM UTC

mortdeus wrote: post #168

jaredklewis wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let's not grab our pitchforks just yet. I'm sure if this was a thread discussing Judge Leon's 2013 opinion that NSA metadata collection violated the 4th amendment, HN would be singing his praises. But in this case he's approved a merger we don't like so he must be a total idiot or (as is being suggested further down in the thread) was bribed and has family members that will be getting board AT&T seats pretty soo…

I should point out that this doesn't really change the broadband ISP landscape. Time Warner Cable is not apart of Time Warner anymore. All this does is give AT&T a better chance at entering the "original content" space and to take advantage of the fact that streaming providers like Youtube TV and Netflix would need to now pay AT&T for their content. Honestly I don't think this is all that bad of a move. I'd rather AT…

It's catastrophic. Companies should be allowed to either own the pipe or what flows through the pipe. Any attempts to own both need to be stopped and punished. The pipes must remain neutral so that small competitors can come up and disrupt and slay the big players once they get moribund.

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

#207

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 4:08 AM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #86

walru wrote: post #9

>to lead the next generation in innovation. Meanwhile I have 300k internet in Pasadena, CA. That's the fastest they offer. My roommate doesn't care and won't upgrade to Spectrum. Why is it whenever I read the above it means the opposite?

What does that have to do with AT&T buying HBO, some cable channels and a movie studio? This is to compete with Netflix, not about providing broadband.

AT&T is supposed to provide a conduit between their customers and Netflix not compete with them! It's already catastrophic that ISPs have a monopoly in many markets, using that monopoly to compete with content providers leaves me furious.

Edit: calming myself.

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

#208

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 4:09 AM UTC

s2g wrote: post #162

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.

This is a major net neutrality issue. AT&T can now say all of time warner's content is free for mobile devices. Major blow to their competitors.

They are already doing that with DirecTVNow.

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

#209

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 4:10 AM UTC

paul7986 wrote: post #193

rayiner wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anne Arundel. Comcast offers gigabit pro here.

Ah sure that and FIOS which is true fiber ...though for me 50Mbps is fine for streaming video.. not a gamer, running a business or mining BT.

Both are fiber (gigabit pro is a 10-gig metro-e connection rate-limited to 2-gig at the switch). It's ironically easier to get it out here than in many places, because the county is easy-going about permitting and all the utilities are overhead.

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

#210

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

BigChiefSmokem wrote: post #76

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.

I'm in LA and I pay Spectrum $54 a month for 100mb and saw that their gigabit service is $104 a month for new subscribers.

What's the upstream? Comcast offers 1 gigabit down but only 35Mbps up.

AT&T offers gigabit up and down for $70 a month. I usually get at least 900Mbps up and down.