231–240 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is, their monopoly power and the conflicts of interest could be much less worrisome if net neutrality were in place.
Wrong Time Warner. This is the entertainment part, not the internet service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. What would they have to lose?
That is a good question. Anyone with knowledge on the topic care to pitch in and elaborate? It seems to me it is within the rights (and "obligation") of DOJ to appeal and pursue this further. The burden to prove impact on competition is on the plaintiff. The article does not elaborate on the judge's argument about how they failed. I am curious about the other side's argument also. Two statements to ponder: >>"The bul…
It's a sad day for the modern age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. Not producing content doesn't magically make an ISP a neutral provider and I don't see how vertical integration (owning the pipe and some of what's going through it) gives ISPs more leverage than they already have. For example, take an ISP that is just the p…
The DOJ had tried to stop the deal[1] but it appears that the court ruled it could carry on [2]. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a statement the DOJ was "disappointed with the Court's decision today. We continue to believe that the pay-TV market will be less competitive and less innovative as a result of the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. We will closely review the Court's opinion and…
>Judge Leon limited how DOJ lawyers questioned certain witnesses and expressed visible skepticism of testimony by the government’s chief economic witness, who presented an empirical model that predicted the deal would lead to small but significant price increases in monthly cable bills. AT&T countered with its own academic economist who said it wouldn’t. Yeah, I’m sure this won’t lead to _small_ price increases for c…
His rationale on this particular is over 30 pages long. It starts at page 57-ish.
"we want the cca deal stopped now! we want the cca deal stopped now!" meanwhile, didn't trump make a campaign promise to prevent this exact merger? interesting timing.
Yet more media consolidation. And this one has the inherent conflicts of interest you get when a distributor buys out a producer. And of course the idea of protecting the public interest isn't a thing anymore in DC.
> And this one has the inherent conflicts of interest you get when a distributor buys out a producer. I'm not sure I understand the conflicts. Isn't Netflix essentially doing the same thing? Consolidating production and distribution?
Netflix can't just decide that they don't want to compete with Hulu and therefore throttle or block Hulu from their customers.
We know that controlling the means of production and the means of distribution is highly anti-competitive. All you have to do is look at rockefeller and standard oil in the 1800s. Rockefeller bought or threatened his way into controlling the railroads which allowed him to put most of his competitors out of business or forced them to sell to Standard Oil. Controlling the means of delivery allowed rockefeller to monopolize the oil industry in the US.
With the repeal of net neutrality, we are getting to the point where verizon, comcast, at&t, etc can be their own little "internet". And this really hampers future entrepreneurs. If you wanted to start a netflix, youtube or twitch today, but you can't rely on verizon, comcast, at&t, etc to give you fair access to their network, then why bother and who will invest in your company?
But this is the overall direction of the internet and social media the past few years. Less freedom, less openness and a move towards more of a corporate tv/news format.
The DOJ had tried to stop the deal[1] but it appears that the court ruled it could carry on [2]. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a statement the DOJ was "disappointed with the Court's decision today. We continue to believe that the pay-TV market will be less competitive and less innovative as a result of the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. We will closely review the Court's opinion and…
This pull quote is pretty convincing evidence that the DOJ doesn’t comprehend the stakes at all. “Pay TV” is way too small a lens to be thinking about this through. Internet access has a much much bigger impact on people’s lives than mere TV (or the streaming equivalent).
That's why analysts are talking about this as a vertical merger, AT&T doesn't have the massive presence in content production that they have in various communication businesses.