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

241–250 of 284 posts

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

#241

Post by murph-almighty »

noobermin wrote: post #230
TimTheTinker wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to hear the executive branch did something in favor of the people instead of corporations.

Do you not know about the context? The admin threatened to block the deal because Trump didn't like CNN's coverage of himself. Neither side is all that great here. Even if the DOJ lawyers wanted to pursue it for the right reasons, Trump and by extension Sessions let it go through because of his animosity towards CNN.

This was probably the most frustrating part of this entire process- they had so many other arguments they could have pulled out of a bag and instead CNN was the one issue that the executive branch had?

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

jaredklewis wrote: post #137
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).

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…

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by jimmy1 »

murph-almighty wrote: post #241
noobermin wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not know about the context? The admin threatened to block the deal because Trump didn't like CNN's coverage of himself. Neither side is all that great here. Even if the DOJ lawyers wanted to pursue it for the right reasons, Trump and by extension Sessions let it go through because of his animosity towards CNN.

This was probably the most frustrating part of this entire process- they had so many other arguments they could have pulled out of a bag and instead CNN was the one issue that the executive branch had?

That's the one issue that would most likely rally his base.

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

#244

Post by jimmy1 »

paidleaf wrote: post #239
paulcole wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 isn't your ISP. Netflix doesn't control the means of delivery/distribution. They rely on Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc to deliver their data. 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 rockefel…

> 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.

So when are we nerds getting together to make a new internet?

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

#246

Post by lotsofpulp »

vel0city wrote: post #215
seanp2k2 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2016 this is a diagram showing what went where and how it's back together now: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner...

>f you thought music streaming exclusives were bad, just wait until Comcast starts windowing SNL sketches to keep people on its pipes while AT&T only streams CNN to AT&T phones, while Verizon keeps wielding mobile access to NFL games like a club against the American consumer. Such an anti-consumer dystopia :( It is truly sad to see these markets devolve into such terribleness when there is so much possibility to be h…

I'm optimistic about it. The more onerous and costly it becomes, hopefully the more people will become disinterested with the mass produced garbage and start unplugging themselves.

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

#247

Post by sjs382 »

fomopop wrote: post #90

For those who cut the cord, some things that may come out of this: 1. AT&T announced they were launching an entertainment only live streaming service for $15 (or free to AT&T subscribers) which will compete with Philo. 2. They will continue to give away free or cheap HBO to AT&T or DIRECTV NOW customers 3. Comcast will more aggressively bid for FOX which means either Disney or Comcast will become the majority stakeho…

HBO is currently $5/mo for DirecTV Now customers, which is well below the regular price. Also FWIW, it was free for the first year to early subscribers of DirecTV Now.

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

#248

Post by asr »

mehrdadn wrote: post #115
jld wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The merger is set to close next Monday. DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. I think the DOJ will just take it as a loss.

> DOJ can file for a stay, but the judge warned them that would be unwise. What would they have to lose?

Well, this judge would decide that motion, so it seems like he's told them they would be wasting their time. The realistic options are (1) file for a say ASAP with an eye toward asking the court of appeals to grant the stay after this judge denies it, (2) keep litigating after the deal goes through, or (3) admit defeat. I'm no expert in #1 but I assume it is also very unlikely to work in time to stop the merger (otherwise I think the DOJ would have gone that route).

That leaves litigating after the merger goes through, or just giving up. Often the FTC or DOJ will chose not to keep litigating mergers if they lose in district court because even if they win later, they don't think they will be able to get a very effective remedy--the deal will have gone through and it won't be possible to put everything back to the way it was. (If you are an antitrust lawyer, you for some reason have to talk about this using the phrase "you can't unscramble the eggs.") But it does happen sometimes--Whole Foods/Wild Oats was a good example where, if I remember correctly, Whole Foods had to sell of some of the stores they purchased from Wild Oats years later after winning their merger case in district court but losing the appeal.

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

#249

Post by ReverseCold »

chopin wrote: post #227
ReverseCold wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: An $X m merger should never go through. (I haven't thought about the downsides, but I can't see anything obvious?)

It could be split up into several mergers below $X.

I'd assume there would be a rule to prevent structuring

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

#250

Post by grasshopperpurp »

bmelton wrote: post #109
komali2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of it in an engineery sense - if the edge case is possible, it will happen. Maybe that works for software engineering, where it's a good idea to pause a release in case someone uses scripts to send a shitload of bad requests to our API and crashes a server because of our bug or whatever, but I understand that that doesn't work 1:1 with the real world, where it doesn't make sense to not have the aviation indus…

> if the edge case is possible, it will happen By that argument, you will: * beat your wife * murder an enemy * shoot up a school full of children * commit arson * jump bail * evade arrest * die in a hail of bullets So, assuming all those eventualities, why shouldn't we just put you to death now? To spare you the rhetorical exercise, the answer is because we don't punish you for the things you might do, but only puni…

No, not at all. This is closer to what the parent was saying

By that argument, someone will:

* beat his wife - true

* murder an enemy - true

* shoot up a school full of children - true

* commit arson - true

* jump bail - true

* evade arrest - true

* die in a hail of bullets - true

You see, all these things do happen. The parent is not arguing that because something is possible any one individual will do it. You're arguing a very different thing.

Post reply on HN