Embarrassingly dumbed-down program content interrupted incessantly by annoying advertising got me to totally cut the cord 15 years ago, without the slightest regret.
Netflix, both streaming and dvds, a good book and subscriptions to several decent online newspapers keep me relatively informed and entertained.
I can't imagine ever going back to cable.
5
I haven't had cable in 30 years. I get over the air broadcast channels with an HD antenna. I get DVDs from Netflix. I read books, listen to music, and take walks. I subscribe to the NY times! My life is good.
If full service cable were a reasonable price, I would consider it.
7
It used to be said that what was good for American businesses was good for Americans/America. That was decades ago. Now what's good for American businesses is often not good for American workers, consumers, patients, communities, or America. It's time that our elected officials woke up to that huge fact. Businesses like AT&T whose sole interests are focussed on making a profit every quarter but not on long term planning, who have no new products in their pipelines, who are not spending money on research to improve their services or products use mergers to hide that fact.
As far as television goes we could decide that cable, dish, and other services aren't worth the money. We don't need all those channels since paying attention to more than one at a time is impossible. What we do need is better reception, a better cellphone network, better service from tech companies, and less of the lying that large corporations are prone to indulge in.
14
OK, students, let's figure out what Congress will do about this. Remember, always follow the money. Congress is clearly paid off by the AT&T's of the world. The probably don't get nearly as much from Netflix or even Amazon.
Then, there's the other element to the equation - What will this do to an individual congressman's reelection chances? Would this be anything that moves the needle at all and if so would the beneficiaries of any decision pay enough to make certain the public anger is suppressed? (See anything involving NRA as a precedent)
I think we know where this is likely to end up. Let's hope there are still more than a few integrated entertainment companies at the end, and that their service may cost less than $1,000 per month.
Class dismissed.
4
Sorry, but Google and Apple are more dangerous than AT&T. So, AT&T makes more money than Facebook? OK. But it's not more influential.
2
Pay TV and bundled cable is so "over". These mergers are a sign of weakness for the providers. Let them happen, as monthly cable bills are on a steady march downward.
I can't live without internet. I tried to cancel tv/cable, and just have internet and was told that to get the discounted internet service I needed to take TV, too. Without TV, my internet bill would be higher than the bundle of Internet with TV. So, as long as TV is free, I will take it. TV is not worth paying for.
2
AT&T needs to be broken up, AGAIN. They have ruined everything they've acquired, DirecTV being the latest. They "redid" the on-screen software, so whenever you change a channel, 2/3 of the screen go BLACK, and that's just a "who cares about customers" example of what happens when all this M&A monopoly gamesmanship is allowed to be perpetrated on the citizens of this country. I didn't mention the already rising monthly bills, but this is what they do. The Sherman Anti-Trust bill needs to be enacted NOW.
8
Stop watching television and live a life. Cable TV + fast food = obesity.
And we wonder why American adult obesity continues to rise (as another article in the Times describes today).
2
We gave up on cable or satellite TV about 10 years ago. On the rare occasion we want to watch a movie or TV show, we use Amazon Prime streaming on our 'smart' TV or rent a free DVD from our wonderful local library.
It's amazing that people pay over $100 a month to watch zombie Apocalypse garbage. And I don't mean Fox TV, which is actually worse that zombie Apocalypse.
News? There's this thing called a radio and a network called NPR. Also a newspaper called the NY Times - for inquiring minds.
12
So I guess the fact that Netflix whose market cap is already 75% or AT&T's after less than a decade is free to create its own content and has multiple options to "own pipes" to distribute that to its customers is just fine and irrelevant to AT&T's defense? The fact is that any major platform provider - Amazon, Google, Youtube, etc has a myriad of options to deliver their content direct over the top to consumers and already marry pipes and content. So why can't TW and AT&T do it? Their combination is nowhere near the behemoth threat of Facebook and Amazon today but hey why not just poke CNN one more time...
1
This raises questions but is one among bigger ones. The cord cutters all think that they are going to pay for what they want to watch, but what they don't realize is what is going on. We have gone from the cable model (where users pay for premium channels, standard cable channels like CNN are paid for by access fees each subscriber pays+advertising. Then came along streaming, where services like Amazon and Netflix and Hulu allowed you to watch content that had been on cable, usually once it had its first run, so if you didn't want to subscribe to cable you could watch it.
The real problem with this is the content providers are moving to a model where they stream it themselves, for a fee. Disney, ESPN, CBS (CBS all access) are offering or going to offer their content on their own streaming sites, for like 10 bucks a month, and likely once contracts end you won't be able to watch these on hulu or amazon without paying extra fees( for example, HBO is streamed on Amazon as a channel for extra fees). At 10 bucks a month, even if you limit how many of these you watch, if you are paying 10 a month for Netflix, 10 a month for Amazon Prime, 10 for HBO, 10 for ESPN, etc, etc, pretty soon you are talking close to 100/month....
Not to mention that if cord cutting continues internet service price is going to go up. Right now a high speed internet access alone is 60 bucks, but that is subsidized by cable subscribers. Once enough people cut the cord, you will see that go to 100 or more
2
Please. I cut the cord a year ago, bringing everything to around $60/mo. just for Internet. Within 3 months, there was a new "modem fee," a new "broadcast sports fee" (I have not watched a sporting event since I stopped playing basketball in high school, some 30 years ago). My bill was back up to almost $100. It's a scam. The infrastructure is already in place WITH TAX BREAKS/AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, so I get really annoyed that I'm being charged "twice."
8
If our cable bills had only increased .45 cents annually, cord cutting wouldn't be so common place today.
2
Do you want a real fix to this mess? The only way out is to have the governments in this nation (the feds along with every state) bring the electric grid into the new world. What has this got to do with this merger? Well, if the governments were to install a wiring system or a 5g system everywhere then the delivery of these services would be covered, and these corporations would only be able to sell you their products without delivery control and then have to really compete. Their prices would definitely go down while at the same time our delivery system for electricity, phone connections, the internet and cable tv channels would become far more reliable and much faster where applicable than those above ground wire systems currently in place. Unfortunately, this would be relatively expensive and would certainly not make the military supporters happy as it would take the same kind of approach that fixing our roads properly would have to take. Is there anyone in Congress who would like to learn about this focus and its payback, one where the average American taxpayer benefits?
We dropped cable and now watch TV with an antenna. Shows not available over the air are purchased ala carte from Amazon video or rented on Netflix DVD. Our TV bill dropped from $1344/year to $300. We may add some streaming services in the future, but that $1000 savings gives us a lot of leeway.
7
Here is the solution - forget about satellite and cable TV. I live in a rural area where is no cable. Before I moved back to the farm 6 years ago, I had basic cable mainly to get the local news. I have not watched any series that wasn't on PBS for over 20 years. Just the advertising of these shows is enough to tell me it's a waste of time. We have a Roku, which allows my mother to watch her British mysteries. Otherwise, we get the local news from my antenna. Cable and satellite is a gigantic waste of time and money. The answer for consumers is to wean yourself from these time wasters, read a book, get outside or engage in community activities instead of sitting around glued to the TV.
2
With every merger jobs are lost ad the consumer pays more money for goods and services.
As far as cable companies go, I don't know of any area in the country that has more than one. The prices have become so outrageous I have questioned myself lately about why I spend so much money for primarily crap that I would never watch.
Several people I know have cancelled cable and now use antennas. They are very happy with them and find that they get a number of channels. I am going that same route.
I think we would all benefit from less TV before all our brains turn to mush. I read about 100 books a year, so TV is just a pleasant diversion for me when I am doing something that would otherwise be boring, like ironing or other household chores.
We can't expect our moribund government to protect consumers, since the money from big corporations keeps them in office. We have a greedy and corrupt government that is more than happy to let corporations run amok.
5
How will excluding CNN from the deal resolve the problems mentioned?
1
The merging of telecom and content within single companies is already the main factor in giving the US the worst and most expensive broadband in the developed world. This merger would make it profoundly worse. In my area, there are basically 2 providers of wired internet. Both of them want desperately to remain in the content business so they both bundle TV with their broadband at almost the same price as broadband alone. Sometimes the bundle is even cheaper than broadband alone. As a result, anyone who just wants a connection is forced to subsidize those companies' attempts to be content providers. It's the classic monopoly ploy of forcing you to buy something you don't want, in order to get what you need, except in this case it's a duopoly. I know it's not going to happen, but really, content providers and broadband providers should be completely separate, by law.
6
There's absolutely no question this fight will bleed into wireless markets. That's already where cord-cutting trends are heading and 5G is likely to accelerate the shift. A smart phone or tablet connected to a TV-size monitor is essentially an HTPC with the added bonus that you can take your media anywhere. Traditional cable subscription companies are desperate to enforce their pay model on this form of consumption. Vertical integration is a big step towards accomplishing this goal.
Imagine your cell phone company only offering Time Warner media because you happen to subscribe to AT&T. You have to buy the entire bundle too. That's essentially what AT&T and others are trying to accomplish with Ajit Pai patting them on the back at every opportunity. This is why network providers shouldn't own content. Imagine your electric company trying to sell you one type of energy over another because they own profit incentive in that form of energy production. That's essentially what's happening here.
This shouldn't even be a legal debate. We need a pro-neutrality Congress to step in and end these practices once and for all. It's the only way to be sure.
3
Recently asked my provider, Comcast to remove my cable TV. I just wanted internet. They said ok, your bill will be one dollar less.
How is it congress, justice, the FCC, and others are ok with the hijacking of the American people? I pay $90.00 a month for internet, the channels I can get for free, plus HBO and Showtime.
I could watch HBO and showtime via the internet but Comcast denies me choice. what kind of market is this? No market at all.
8
Who still watches cable?
3
The invisible hand (*ahem*) of the free market will make any foolish move like that fall to pieces - sell your AT&T stock.
Kids hate cable, and that is not good for you TV companies. I see the decentralization into smaller studios doing better work. TV used to be the only thing, now it is the worst thing.
4
How much does Google pay you to write this drivel? You'd think you might be outraged by Facebook and Google privacy issues. I notice you, Free Press and Public Knowledge are noticeably silent on the latest Facebook and Google scandal. Maybe you are all smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds.
The Trump “administration” opposes the Time Warner and AT&T merger for one reason only: the Dotard in Chief hates CNN (which Time Warner owns) and seeks to suppress it. There is no real substantive reason for the government opposing the merger. It’s all window dressing.
4
Directv now gave me a free 30 day subscription. Verdict, nothing on. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, NBC News app and a good antenna have spoiled me. Plus wherever I am, my TV follows me at no extra charge, even Stockholm.
2
The biggest merger since AOL bought Time Warner? We all know how that went down.
I "cut the cord" with Dish. I have this funny little disc, now, which picks up a few local HD transmissions. I think I paid twenty dollars for it, ONCE.
I don't have to wade through all the stations I never watch which are trying to sell me something, and scroll up and down the menu without finding anything I actually want to watch.
I'd be happy with either of the satellite providers, If I could just get and pay for, what I actually want to watch. As it is, I'm reading a lot, and watching very little TV. I don't really miss it. As things stand, I don't think I'll ever have the massive amount of junk TV again.
2
Could all the anti-consumer greed of megamedia companies lead to a resurgence of newspapers and book reading? Yes, most, if not all, are owned by these same monopolists, but it'd be a whole lot less expensive per month than cable, etc.
1
Cut the cord. It's easy.
3
Americans are commercial targets to be exploited more than they are citizens.
3
When I got rid of my last cable company, I mentioned to the worker that I was going to cut the cord. He then stated, rather threateningly, that the companies intended to raise their internet rates so that you would be basically paying the same and getting internet only. It became crystal clear to me that the order of the day was to gouge me as much as possible. And our government is allowing this.
9
Considering how Trump and the Republicans stuffed the FCC at the federal level and Republican legislatures stuffed public service commissions at the state level, the cost to the consumer is getting ready to climb and climb fast. I recall the original breakup of ATT back in the day. Now, we are not going directly to monopolies, but oligopolies determined to wring every last cent out of the consumer's pocket and no competition at the local level where there will be at most two providers who will collude on prices and get away with it at the state level.
2
I'm one of the twenty-seven million people who subscribe to nothing at all, and instead get my TV over the air with an antenna. A twenty-dollar amplified antenna from a big-box store gets me three different PBS feeds, all in glorious, uncompressed, unencrypted hi-def. That gets me the News Hour, the Nightly Business Report and as much BBC costume drama as I can stand. It also gets me local broadcasters showing endless reruns of TV westerns and sitcoms. What more does a sane person need? Guests at my house are often amazed ("You mean it's free?")and I'd guess that the majority of Americans don't know that free antenna TV still exists, and is mandated by the FCC - always has been.
Cable providers are also required to have some free channels, available without subscription, so-called QAM. Your smart TV will find them in the tuning set-up menu. In the meantime my neighbors pay $115/month for subscription TV - for what? Read a book. Visit people. Go for a walk.
9
I think you assume too much.
For example, I subscribe to Verizon's internet service, Netflix, HBO, and Amazon Prime, but not cable. AT&T is not offered in my building - the 'last mile' issue.
Will AT&T raise the price of HBO to punish me even though I cannot get my internet from AT&T? I suspect not. The AT&T HBO division's prices will be motivated to maximize its revenue and profit, not benefit parent AT&T by directing traffic.
We would be better served by a government that reinstates net neutrality and takes foreign interference in our elections as a serious matter; there is enough competition in the wireless industry and this relatively little bit of vertical integration is not of substantial concern to me.
4
They are going to keep losing customers. Around my area, almost every friend and family has dumped cable TV. One issue the companies are going to slowly realize is that the next generations don't use cable TV. When we moved, (I live with my sister and her family), her 13 year old shrugged when asked about it. We had no use or interest, so we ended it. I asked the kid about why the shrug and he said he and his friends stopped using/caring about it a long time ago. Our bills dropped by 50%. I don't think he'll ever use it. We sure won't. As the younger generations take over, they won't be interested in a cable. Then, what? I don't know. But, what I do know is that my generation, (boomer) grew up without and lived without it for decades. With cost so high and as we go on SS/retirement, a lot more will end it. And if they think "customizing ads" will bring in more customers, they got another think coming. They already have way too much personal data to begin with. That alone infuriates tens of millions, again including the younger generations. And, they're already enraged about an awful lot of things.
6
Of course the court that reviews this case will be stacked with Republicans, who are always and forever pro-big-business and anti-consumer, so can we guess what's likely to happen?
2
AT&T promises more customized advertising?!
I cannot conceive that some marketing 'professional' actually believes that this is what consumers want.
3
TV only comes in package deals that force you to subsidize programs you never watch. Say you hate sports-try getting a package with no sports. They should have a pick x channels package, where you can pick the channels you want, and are charged on the basis of whatever number x is.
1
Why don’t all these monopolies just merge with Congress and get it over with??
5
Where oh where is TR when we need him! It appears that we as a culture and nation have lost our aversion to monopolies. Despite the fact that all entry level macroeconomics courses lay out how destructive they are to a capitalist economy. We need a more activist government to reign in the greed and power of corporations.
1
If AT&T isn’t allowed to buy Time Warner, the government will also need to force Comcast to spin off NBC/Universal. Amazon, Apple and Google/YouTube will also need to be banned from producing content. AT&T, it’s employees and stockholders are entitled to a level playing field.
1
As a former DirectTV user, I'd say run as fast as you can in any direction possible, Time Warner. This is a sure path to destruction for your subscribers.
at&t took DirectTV into a rabbit hole of tragic support and horrible policies in less than a year.
Today, Hulu is just fine for me. Combined with several other services its cheaper and works better than anything at&t supplies.
1
Thanks, Tim Wu. This is way late for me. After ATT raised its Cable TV rates on me to "regular" rates after their 2-year "agreement, and later when Comcast did the same idiocy, I gave up for Over The Air TV and a couple of web-oriented subscriptions like Amazon Prime and Netflix.
You forgot to emphasize that these companies also control the "Pipes." If they limit the size of my streaming access, which they surely will after our new "genius" Chairman of the FCC threw away his responsibilities to consumers and gave in to ATT/Verizon, I'll give that up also and take up more reading or go back to the days of DVD based subscriptions. I am not giving into this unconscionable control of information flowing into my home. We need more robust competition, not monopolies, duopolies or oligopolies.
52
Living in Britain I have 88 free TV channels mostly commercial. On these I suffer from several minutes of advertising three or four times per hour except on the four BBC channels which are the ones I view most. I do pay for some TV as British Telecoms bought the exclusive rights to MotoGP motor cycle racing which my son and I follow at a cost of £65 about $90 per year.
1
Did you forget to include your mandatory licensing fee in that calculation? You're actually paying for those "free" channels through your licensing fee, right?
1
I started subscribing to satellite TV in the days when USSB and DirecTV where separate companies and you had to subscribe to both to get premium HBO and movie channels on USSB and "cable" TV on DirecTV. Local programming wasn't included then so you still needed an antenna or cable for that. I did so because I Babylon 5 moved from broadcast to TNT and I hated the local cable provider and so satellite it was with a Radio Shack set up. Ironically that show only lasted one more year but by then I was hooked on the expanded universe of programming on satellite.
I became an advocate for satellite TV and loved the interface and quality over that of cable. I still prefer the DirecTV interface and DVR over that of any cable system I've seen.
But while DirecTV was originally small and customer oriented, because, I suspect they were customers too, over time it grew to become much more like cable where customer service was replaced with arrogance and prices escalated. All that wasn't good, but still better than cable. And then came insult to injury. DirecTV was bought by AT&T and became the cable company.
AT&T has done nothing good for DIrecTV that I can see. They make "improvements" that degrade the experience. They raise their prices. Customer service? What's that?
Thus I believe that the merger of AT&T and Time Warner bodes well for no one but those who will profit by it. And, of course, that's all that matters.
6
As you condemn cable, please don't forget that the vastness of rural America still primarily depends on cable for TV and in many cases, the Internet. On top of that, most of us have absolutely no choice in a cable provider. Until the Internet becomes classified as a utility, we will be left with high priced, non-choice cable services.
74
Most of TV is a wasteland unworthy of time to watch it. Use Netflix DVD's; the library for DVD's for a catalogue of older series; books; etc.
6
Yet the rurals continue to vote for the same people who continue to make their Internet expensive, their health care expensive, etc. No sympathy whatsoever. This what "y'all" voted for.
2
You raise an important point, and I forgot that even though I live in a rural location I'm fortunate to get free internet services at home from my employer. This now makes me appreciate just how bad monopolies actually are for people who are "stuck between a wall and a hard place." It also makes me think I better work long past normal retirement age!
2
Got rid of cable TV years ago because of Comcast's huge expense and poor service.
Got rid of Netflix months ago, after having to spend half an hour a day trying to find something decent to watch that I had not already seen
I'm happily using my Kindle and reading bestsellers from the local library for free.
27
Cable was $4.95 w 0 commercials at the beginning, and has grown to the equivalent of a small car payment, yet still runs nothing but B or C movies, endless mindless sports, shopping, and religious shows. Antenna tv is free so why pay for what is intrinsically worthless? I haven't watched tv in years and could care less. When I rented Breaking Bad or the Sopranos from the library, it was good, yes, but simply prolonged soap operas. Step away from the screen: it's a big world out there.
1
Actually my car payment is lower than my direct tv bill. Something is very wrong here.
Perhaps, why not just get rid of the TV and other forms of video entertainment? You may find that you really do not "need" them at all. I stopped watching TV in the 1990s. And I do not miss it. It was not the price, it was the never-ending commercials and the inane evening comedies and dramas that got to me. I realized how much of my time was being taken up by watching shows that were fiction, about people and events that were not real, but just something from some screewriters' imagination passed off as entertainment or news. I never had cable so there was no cord-cutting to do. I don't stream either. There are plenty of other things to do besides sitting in front of a screen all day, including smartphone screens and computer screens.
37
IN order to reduce your monthly bill, ask to speak to the "Retention" Dept. I am with Spectrum (formerly TWC), and after several tries, I finally got someone who reduced my bill after dropping my phone. All other agents said my bill would go up. Also, I mentioned I was thinking to switch to AT&T (not sure if that mattered because I had tried that previously). Now I will have to watch to make sure my bill does not slowly increase each month (as it tends to do) . I am considering dropping my WiFi and using my public library's, which is close to me. But I think it is a good point to just drop cable, period. I was up to almost $200 per month, now down to $153. Outrageous still!
7
The combination of monopoly and automation is highly destructive of working family purchasing power and is at the root of the global loss of democracy and human rights.
Whenever management replaces people with a machine they do so because the cost of the labor to design, manufacture, operate and maintain that machine is substantially less than the cost of the labor replaced. This means that there are less total payroll dollars to spend on goods and services.
Normally the reduced cost of production would through competition result in a matching lower price for the goods produced, thus restoring working family purchasing power (i.e. total wages/GDP). However monopolies have no competitor and the prices they set are whatever they can get away with.
Since 1970 we have allowed the oil, communications, agriculture, transportation, delivery and healthcare insurance monopolies to form which when combined with the labor savings of automation has resulted in a slippage in working family purchasing power of over $1,000/month for every full time worker.
The results of this deterioration can be seen in the increased radicalization of working families and the rise of demagogues.
22
Let’s be clear here. The Justice Department is not interested in protecting consumers. This is a vertical merger that would not create a monopoly, and it is similar to Comcast/NBC that was easily approved. This merger is being challenged because Trump hates CNN, period. It’s just the same as his attempt to cancel the Hudson River railroad tunnel project because he hates Chuck Schumer (and also NY/NJ because they didn’t vote for him).
40
I almost hope this merger goes through. If the monopolists try to strangle access to content like Game of Thrones, they'll face the same underground insurgency that brought the major record labels to their knees when they had a lock on what music people listened to - i.e., piracy. Ask the record industry how that worked for them.
And it doesn't even have to happen over the internet. With hard drive storage now costing about a nickel a gigabyte, hundreds of hours of video could be transferred person to person via 2, 3, or 4 terabyte hard drive. As Grateful Dead fans have long known, the US Postal Service has the fastest bandwidth in the nation.
5
Mr. Wu mentions, but understates, the impact of net neutrality. Over 50% of U.S. households now have at least 1 streaming service, and the trend will accelerate as content providers offer their own internet streaming services, quite independent from the traditional pay-TV pipes. Consolidation of pipe owners, e.g. AT&T, with content owners, e.g. Time Warner, will lessen competition in the burgeoning streaming market, not just the shrinking pay-TV market. This merger puts AT&T in the driver's seat in the new market, not just the old.
23
The proliferation of streaming services is not an unalloyed benefit for consumers. Having to subscribe to multiple providers for individual streams can easily be more expensive then buying a consolidated package of services.
2
This merger would appear to strengthen AT & T's monopoly power more than a trifle.
2
The big problem here for Trump's (self-so-called) Justice Department is that it doesn't add to FOX News revenues.
20
Kill your television !
18
Proudly no-cord sinde 2010. Just say no shoddy service @ high price.
5
Having been with Sling TV for 1 1/2 years for $20/month, NOTHING would induce me to go back to cable. I spend most of my free time reading. Sling gives me access to some sports, just enough, and The Walking Dead. I feel sorry for all you folks who are devoted to all of your "shows." That's why I don't go to lunch with you, that's all you can talk about. Yawn.
14
Is $100 a year a high TV bill? That's all I pay. Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Kill your television and use the money for something more useful. ATT already rips me off with abusive telephone service. I enjoy telling their sales people who persistently call me about their new TV service," No, I'm not interested." You have to say it three times because they have been instructed to ask three times before they leave you alone, until the next call.
It's like watching an ant farm. TV land is a completely different world that I have nothing to do with. I'm sure the ants think it's important.
10
Oh, so THAT's why they kept trying to sell me their cable service (we have YouTube TV for $35, no extra charges for addition sets) when I spoke with them about my Internet the other day...Thanks. I thought the rep was just dense.
Who wouldn't love higher TV bills?
8
Just like wireline telephones have gone the way of the dodo, so will pay tv.
1
There is nothing on pay-TV that's worth watching. Period. Local channels are broadcast and can be accessed via an HD antenna (sorry about you folks beyond the range of the towers). But broadcasts are free. Amazingly, it costs about $20 per month to get this via cable.
If you want movies, there's Netflix and Amazon Prime etal.
If you want sports, don't. It's not worth $100's per month.
Otherwise, what you get is hundreds of channels of reruns.
The nutzo "premium" channels - more stuff you don't want to watch, or shouldn't let your kids see. More drugs, violence, sex, crime ... garbage.
Take a walk.
Read a book.
Talk to someone in your family.
Just say "no" to TV. It's a health "best practice".
PS. PBS is usually available as a broadcast channel - the only one(s) worth watching.
89
PBS is awesome! I watched the news last night on IT, rather than the Cable Channels. What a wonderful change!
8
Try Hulus streaming service. It's 40.00 a month. It lets you record and it has a bunch of sports channels. It may not work for everyone, but for me, along with Netflix and Amazon Prime it's more TV than I can reasonably handle.
That said, I have never bundled. So this may increase the cost for bundlers.
In your opinion.
Other than "more drugs, violence, sex, crime ... garbage" there is science on pay TV channels. Not that that that was mentioned. And books aren't going to convey the majesty of the world as seen on Smithsonian or BBC Planet Earth or Blue Planet.
1
AT&T acquisition of Time Warner is a vertical integration of markets, not horizontal like acquiring T-Mobile or Sprint. So why is this a case of anti-trust?
Acquisition of like competitors would create a monopoly and stifle competition. AT&T is in the business of providing digital transport. Time Warner is in the business to provide digital content. The combination of the two has great potential to deliver new, tailored entertainment based on the combined resources of the two companies. The government already has allowed NBC to merge with Comcast - a very similar vertical integration, why not AT&T and Time Warner?
7
AT&T already owns DirectTV.
Don't forget that "tiny" piece.
1
If you like higher AT&T dividends than this merger is for you!
5
Indeed, I do, but soon the whole stock market is gonna tank, so better get your duck in a row, again.
If you want to keep my dividends coming in, keep cabling, silly viewers! Streamlining my viewing profile. I won't buy another until I exhaust Netflix. And we all know that's not gonna happen. Not with me watching old TV on YouTube for free. Have you seen the AU version of Who Do You?
I'm no fan of silos, but Lew said, you will never break down his coop. I just skip the whole chicken feed outfit and go digital broadcast or stream it.
Simple solution: turn the whole mess off.
12
I’m no fan of this merger BUT there is a big political problem here also. What is becoming the FOX administration undermining his and their enemy. I don’t know the answer but something stinks.
6
And Fox wants to merge with Disney. Talk about your behemoths!
1
What I have not seen mentioned enough in discussions of this proposed merger is the Supreme Court ruling in 1948 that barred movie studios from owning theater chains. In other words, producers of content could not control the means of distributing content.
37
And that was a disaster because the Government enforced it just when TV was getting started and theaters and studios took a big hit. Before the Consent Decree, the studios kept up the theaters even if they lost money because they needed decent venues to present their product.
In 1946, before TV, there were 86 million weekly theatrical admissions. By 1950, it dropped to 50 million. By 1964, it dropped to 20 million. With those losses in admissions combined with the decline of old city neighborhoods, thousands of movie theaters were abandoned which helped destroy many commercial streets. Loews gave away many of their theaters to churches for $1. If it wasn't for the Consent Decree, the studios might have kept many of those theaters operating.
The Feds have gone back and forth over the years as to whether producers could own distribution and vice versa. That's why CBS had to originally dump Viacom, but later merged it back, then split it out in 2005 and now there's talk of merging them again.
Having said all that, I don't think AT&T should be allowed to buy WB, although in fairness, aren't Netflix, Apple and Amazon now both producers and distributors?
1
I agree. Distribution systems such as roads, sewers, water lines, power lines and communication lines are natural monopolies utilizing easements and should be owned and operated by the government to avoid gouging.
Now, for example, your power company owns both generation and distribution and discourages roof top solar. Far better for power generation producers to compete on a level playing field. Same with cable.
1
The Justice Department stopped paying attention to content/channel mergers when they let Comcast buy NBC Universal. Most places in America had only a few movie theaters in 1948 so vertical consolidation would have substantially threatened competition in the movie industry. The movie industry in 1948 does not resemble the modern television landscape where people have access to dozens of programs from competing providers.
I would have liked to see some analysis of the Comcast/Universal merger. Has it restricted competition? If so, how? If not, what does that tell us about an ATT/TW merger? It's not like we have to rely entirely on theoretical arguments here. We can examine the results of the Comcast merger empirically. What are those results? Perhaps Professor Wu can enlighten us.
1
"Its first promise to consumers is that they will “make the advertising in Time Warner’s programming more customized,” based on the data AT&T holds."
Isn't this related to the issue with Facebook? Our data should never be used without explicit permission.
18
The “don’t use our data” ship has sailed; too late!
Yes, red light alert on that one!
I live in a remote area where the only way to watch TV is with cable or satellite. I got rid of cable and stopped watching TV 10 years ago because I found most television shows to be depressingly inane and boring. Once during that time, about 4 years ago I tried cable again for a few months, and despite having like 180 channels there as just nothing worth watching, so I got rid of cable for good. I'm so much happier without TV, I think primarily because I no longer get a regular dose of depressing messages about how I should buy some pointless product to fix how insufficient I am.
128
I left the TV in the dump in 1971. Occasionally life puts me in front of a set and I am struck by the advertising that no one else around me seems to notice. It is so BAD. How do people stand it? Now I hear that the world is hooked into "social media" which apparently is just another vehicle for propaganda and advertising. We're still the same suckers. Everyone who is mad at FB, just don't go there. Pay for a newspaper and get a hobby instead. The Mercers do not have good intentions. Beware. Disconnect.
It's never going to happen though. The people who are most easily fooled are the most addicted. We are toast.
2
There is a Comcast monopoly where I live. If I cut my cable tv cord, my internet rate increases. What the what? SOOOO tired of all these mega mergers.
We will soon be under only ONE giant consolidated media conglomerate.
No more newspapers either. I miss the rabbit ear days. I really do.
39
I tried to downsize to basic cable--tired of humungous bills for junk shows. I was told I could shift to basic, but that my bill would be even MORE per month--all this while I was still planning to keep internet AND the landline via cable. Honestly, I thought was losing my mind--how could they get away with this--pay more for much less product.
65
Your options to connect to the internet should not ever be limited to one provider. Your example, that your only option is Comcast, is an example of what should be a pressing concern of competition law, rules, and regulation. With the loss of net neutrality my competition concern moves from cost of internet access towards freedom of speech. When the internet was young, back in the days of dial up internet, long before Netflix or Spotify, I ran my own mail and web servers from a shelf at in the back of our small TV station. To concentrate control to speak, even for one citizen, into the hands of one company, should set off loud, klanging 1st amendment alarms at places like the New York Times.
10
@Akemwave, I've contacted the Attorney General, Maura Healy, in regards to this monopoly. I don't what else to do.
But then again I also complained before the recent 38% increase of our electrical rates, provided by Eversource, again a monopoly.
5
The current "AT&T" is the name chosen by Southwestern Bell after it took over Singular Wireless. It is not the same company as was forcefully split asunder in the 1980s by the Justice Department, a split that was necessitated, in part, because the telephone monopoly had suppressed the development of national fiber optic transmission lines, a development, once freed of the old AT&T's control, that gave us the Internet and the digital communication revolution we have been living through for the last 25+ years. This one is the new AT&T, which, perhaps unwisely, adopted the name of the only monopoly.
Given the chance, those with market power and the money to buy out competitors, corporations will always go in for the kill. If the communications giants had their way, we'd be stuck in about 1962 with most cities having only three or four television outlets and no one but the largest businesses had any interconnectivity. So, there is ample reason to be very wary of this and other mergers.
What is surprising is that so many mega-mergers have been allowed to happen previously. The customers of cable/satellite distributors have very little ability to push back.
The goal of corporations moving forward is to take over and dominate the OTT services, the "over the top" distribution of video through the internet, and to monetize the data, the throughput, of the link to the home. This is the area that should be watched most closely in terms of whether to turndown the merger.
6
The company doing business at AT&T today is not the Ma Bell of old- it is Baby Bell Southwestern Bell. The company morphed into SBC communications and later took on the AT&T name after buying the long distance company remnant of the old AT&T. In between it bought up various regional Bell operating companies like PacTel, AmeriTech and Bell South- essentially undoing much of the anti-trust breakup not many years earlier. In between it scooped up a variety of Cellular companies that became Cingular and now AT&T Wireless.
Now this carnivore wants to buy up Time-Warner. The answer should be no just as it should have been to NBC-Universal being bought by Comcast and the pending Disney takeover of much of the Murdoch TV/Motion Picture empire. These companies are too big already and should be broken up as they exist today- not allowed to get bigger.
There is a name for uncontrolled growth- Cancer.
70
Ah, DugTerry.us. I love wallowing in nostalgia. Remember Carterphone? When I hooked up to the telephone network so as to be able to put telephone calls on the air (FM radio station), the local Bell company sent it's top executives to argue with me. I explained that the best quality required I connect directly. They explained I had no choice but to pay a monthly fee for a "network protection" box and all calls had to go through the box without regard to any quality loss. They installed the box, I promptly bypassed the box. But the fee remained. Anyone interested should search for not only Carterphone, but MCI, the beginning of Sprint. I was closer to all that than I knew.
1
The problem here is the inconsistent application of anti-trust law; if at&t can convince the judge that the Comcast merger is virtually identical (with a few minor changes) the deal should go through.
And let's not leave out the elephant in the room...if Trump hates CNN for telling the truth and Sessions doesn't do anything about it, he's toast. This deal was in trouble the moment Trump won the election.
1
I am opposed to this merger for all the obvious reasons: increased costs to consumers and more consolidated control of what we see and hear. But I don't know how the Justice will be able to stop this one when they allowed the Comcast NBC merger, which is essentially the same combination of pipes and content, minus the mobile. Will we have to wait decades for the digital equivalent of the 1948 Paramount decree which forced studios to divest the movie theaters that they owned (the pipes of their day)? Once again, history is repeating itself in front of our very eyes. We Americans never learn from experience, only catastrophe...
63
Um, we don't learn from catastrophe either.
1
Excellent Article, but missed some of the points.
1. What did AT&T did when the NBC merger with Comcast was announced?
2.AT&T can't even compete with Verizon in market place for the last 10 years why this merger? ( look at the revenue and stock price of AT&T and Verizon in last 10 years and AT&T ALWAYS falls behind by 1/3rd of performance, even with the best dividend payer in market place.
I can add further points about this FAILED MERGER because Randall is NOT good in making business decisions.
3
These are the issues the Federalist Society were contemplating, when they started packing the Federal Courts. Regulation and anti-trust are anathema to them. It's surprising the Trump Justice Department, is taking on this case.
7
He hates successful CEOs and relishes bringing them down to his size. Taking down a dumb pipe trying to smoke the best dope is Trump's idea of showing business who rules. He can't even roll his own.
1
Regarding the projected 45 cent monthly increase per subscriber, AT&T says the number is "'insubstantial' and 'negligible' relative to what Americans pay for television." That is precisely the point. The increase is "negligible" because we are already paying too much per month.
28
As a customer of AT&T's DIRECTVNOW, if the fee goes up one cent I will cancel and there is no contract on streaming services. Same for Wireless.
6
I had an AT&T two year internet contract, where the price was, "locked in."
Within a few months they started charging me $2.00 more a month. They said it was a fee, and therefore not subject to the original "locked in" price. Thieves!
9
I don't mind paying top dollar.
Why?
Because the service is so good!
As my kids would say: "it's opposite day."
12