Why Blocking the AT&T-Time Warner Merger Might Be Right

There's so much confusion in this essay that's it's hard to tell what planet My Wu is on. First. he can't help himself but dump on Trump. Then he alludes to the fact that a company called AT&T used to be a large monopoly - however, that's not at all the same company that we now know. Then Mr Wu complains that AT&T is acting competitively against T-Mobile (and I thought Mr Wu was trying improve competition for the benefit of the consumer - but apparently not). Finally, Mr WU turns to his favorite bogey-man, Net Neutrality. In fact, most supporters of Net Neutrality favor tiers of service and no discrimination of data within those tiers of service. That arrangement would allow better service (i.e., more consumer friendly) that the current internet structure. However, Mr Wu seems to be to busy playing politics to actually being seriously interested in consumers.

of course this merger should be blocked, even if for the "wrong" reason--ie, trump's tweets attacking cnn. increased concentration in media markets would be and has been extremely damaging to the public, a reality that, unfortunately, prior administrations didn't adequately realize. as a result the public has received increasingly biased "news", especially in local communities where radio and chain newspapers are major "sources of information".

Much as I loathe any benefit to 45 by the possibility blocking this merger, it makes sense. I would like some level of protection against the choices these mega conglomerates make in order to rake in more cash. I also understand wanting to live in a world of fairness and justice, where those who do the right things are rewarded, and visa versa. But when you take into account that upwards of 25% of humankind suffers from personality disorders, and that this doesn't preclude them from working and rising into positions of power. And that the vast majority of the rest of us are ignorant in these matters, and have little or no boundaries with these sorts, helps create the recipe for injustice, unfairness, and the victimization in large numbers. Trump abuses everyone and everything around him. And like any pathological abuser he is instictively adept at benefitting from his twisted machinations. But since he has truly risen to his highest level of incompetence we may actually benefit from his otherwise self-serving influence.

Absolutely forbid this deal. We are already suffering with many locations in Austin having but two options: TWC (now called Spectrum) or Dish. And, as a result, my Spectrum bill has gone skyward in the last 5 years. With both Dish and TWC being owned by the same company: I, personally, and many numbers of thousand here having a single cable choice through our pre-wired residences, will have none. I now resort to threats to cancel Spectrum and move to Dish to combat Spectrum's arrogance, at least once a year. That would be gone -- for me, for millions.

Utility rednecks in grey suits and blue ties want to class themselves up overnight by overpaying for HBO. Go figure? No, scratch head (again). Doesn’t work that way fellas. Your momma doesn’t think you have a boring job. Case closed. Now go back and build more of those cell towers. Reverse U-verse or fast forward it beyond “Select Markets” so it gets to mean something. Etc. etc. etc. Lots of pending honest work on the plate fellas. Get to it.

AT&T is a bloated, out of touch, bureaucratic company that provides terrible customer service. Cable TV is essentially irrelevant at this point, and I doubt that buying a content company is going to make AT&T much better or worse. The real problem is that scale has allowed it and a handful of other terrible companies to gain control over the last mile and stifle both competition and innovation by controlling the gate. Keeping the ISPs regulated as a public utility and enforcing net neutrality is far more important than whether or not AT&T buys a content provider. People will vote with their feet. When the bureaucratic white guys who run AT&T screw up TW, there are a lot of good online choices that can replace it as long as there is no choke hold on the gateway.

Rupert Murdoch wants CNN. You know that, right? Trump met with Sessions right after "seething" over CNN's coverage of Russiagate and guess what happened? All of a sudden DOJ wants to put the kibbosh on the deal and make ATT sell CNN. Lo and behold, Murdoch has been calling ATT so he can buy CNN. Coincidence? Really? REALLY? We think NOT. Trump, Jared Kushner and Ivanka are all good friends with Murdoch. Looks like Trump sees an end to this meddlesome network (CNN) and Murdoch sees more ways to become the oligarch of the English speaking news world. And it sure looks like Jeff Sessions is helping. Sky in the U.K. is threatening to shut down in order to facilitate Murdoch's takeover of Sky News. This is an outrage. What do we want the 21st century to be like? My father fought fascism in the 20th century and I will fight it in the 21st. I hope others do the same.

This merger could exacerbate the problem of the same channels not being available on competing systems.

I am an at&t wireless customer for 18 years continuously. They are okay. However I am totally against they expanding. The current customer base suffer under the inept workforce and management they have. They should not be merging with anything. They can't handle themselves. They should not be buying or merging with anything. They treat customers like dirt. With this merger, customer choices will be even less. This is what he told the venerable NYTimes an year ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/technology/gearing-up-for-the-cloud-a... I have news. His workforce has not changed at all. Now they want to screw up CNN too?

AT&T cannot take care of the operations it already has. As a customer, why didn't you spend the money you had for DIRECTV and Time-Warner on extending AT&T Fiber to more communities where you only offer DSL? I already know the answers: you are not regulated as a utility anymore, and cable and Telephone Companies tend to not compete in each other's back yard- just like an illegal cartel. Then there is the whole fighting competition thing, where AT&T fought Google/Alphabet from gaining fair access to AT&T utility poles (a common practice) in Nashville and other places. In nearby Memphis, Public Utility Memphis Light, Gas and Water has given you access to rights of way in order to extend your AT&T Fiber service, so why can't you do the same for Google Fiber in Nashville? Then there is the whole lobbying thing, where AT&T has bought politicians that have prevented communities from building out community broadband networks in places where you refuse to go with preemptive state laws. Again, Tennessee is a prime example. And while we are at it, we should make note of your wholly owned Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (AT&T- Tennessee) d.b.a a Republican who fancies herself a Senator very soon. Should you gain control of CNN, do you think we will hear much about Net Neutrality, Community Broadband and Preemptive Laws to limit competition in Telecommunication? Since NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC are owned by Comcast, we do not hear about it there. Hmm...

News Corp and the Fox group seem the most threatened by a merger.

Give me a break! The only reason for the Justice Department's actions is because Trump hates CNN. He has spoken out repeatedly about his hatred. He oversees the Justice Department. He acts on his hatreds.

I'm afraid to say that in this day and age of Trump, given a choice between what Trump wants and what a giant greedy, soulless corporation wants, its probably a safer bet to go with the giant greedy soulless corporation. It may be a choice between the lesser of evils but in this case there is no question which is more evil. Anything Trump wants has got to be bad; very, very bad.

I've had these same reservations and love that someone put in print my concerns. Thank you Mr. Wu.

So what do we have to say about far-right-wing Sinclair Media gobbling up local news stations all around the country?

I think Trump is a nitwit and I didn't vote for him, but I do like the way that his lack of book lernin' has forced status quo institutions and practices to justify themselves in a way they haven't had to do in decades. Sacred received wisdom ain't worth much when the boss hasn't got any wisdom at all. One practice that needs serious reexamination is the Justice Department's out to lunch approach to corporate mergers up until the past (very) few years. We've suffered under a big money, low competition corporatocracy for decades now. It has hurt consumers and slowed economic growth as a whole, all to line the pockets of Wall Street monopolistic rent seekers. It's not worth it. If Trump is going to do some more trustbusting, good. That he does it for the wrong reasons is inevitable. I'll take it.

It is factually inaccurate the justice department blocked a merger between Time Warner and Comcast. It blocked a merger between Comast and Time Warner Cable.

This column makes complete sense except in the context of the current administration and his sycophants. I don't know, but all of the well reasoned arguments mentioned here I suspect very strongly are not on the mind of the people at the DOJ who have to answer to Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions. I think it's because Trump hates "fake news!"

The problem isn't blocking the sale. The problem is forcing a sale of CNN. Nice try.

Blocking the AT&T merger means Trump wins in his threats to shut down or squelch CNN. Let the merger happen with no conditions.

Blocking the ATT merger is not right after all the Sinclair Tribune was blessed. They have a political agenda, ATT does not.

Bad deal all around. How well did the general public fare with gasoline prices under the Exxon/Mobil deal? Who benefited from the multiple airline mergers? How about the publc benefits never derived from cable and television mergers? Who really likes all the bank mergers? Did the public ever benefit? To suggest that the ATT/TIME WARNER deal will have any public benefit with or without CNN is nonsense. It is nothing but a pathway to further corporate greed at the cunsumers expense.

What might be worse then Att owning CNN? Left out on its own and easy pickings, try imagining CNN owned by Sinclair Broadcasting or Murdoch or some arm of the Koch Bros. Now that is really scary.

Monopolies are the death of free markets. They stifle competition and innovation. Our economy would be healthier if we ended all of them. Ask Adam Smith.

I have to admit that I am so skeptical of Trump & Co. that I immediately think whatever they say has to be wrong - this AT&T-Time Warner block included. But I kept thinking that these mergers that create such monopolies are wrong, and what do you know? Absent other ulterior motives (like punishing CNN) the Department is right to question this merger! We have enough monopolies in media now.

Yes, and perhaps Trump really did fire Comey because he wasn't happy with the FBI Director's handling of Clinton's e-mail server. Mr. Wu should not use the excuse of an academic discussion of antitrust policy to provide cover for yet another Trump attack on our democracy.

Someone please explain to me how this proposed merger would benefit anyone other than the corporations involved. It sure as heck won't benefit the consumer, corporate spin and propaganda notwithstanding.

"But should we so quickly conclude that the Justice Department is doing something wrong?" Agree the merger should not be permitted; however, I cannot so easily assume that trump's Justice Dept. is acting in good faith because it certainly appears, already, that they are not: "Justice Department officials later said that the companies themselves offered to sell CNN but that DOJ's antitrust division rejected that option. DOJ told the companies that divesting CNN wouldn't necessarily solve the harm to the public caused by the mega-merger, the officials said. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson pushed back against that narrative. "Throughout this process, I have never offered to sell CNN and have no intention of doing so," he said in a statement." Who ya gonna believe?!

So long as a vague, arbitrary, unknowable set of laws - which can declare you guilty ex post facto - exists, there is no law. Anti-Trust is that set of laws. In that respect, the Department of Justice, and every administration that has ever prosecuted anyone based on that set of laws, is acting in violation of the Constitution.

Unless and until Trump discloses his personal and family income tax returns and business records there is no way to begin to determine if this proposed deal is "right". Whatever that means. The objective of anti-trust law is protecting competition, innovation, consumers and small business.

The amount of misinformation regarding the pending Time Warner / AT&T merger is troubling and is based on emotion rather than logic and the application of common sense. It should be noted that the DOJ blocked the proposed combination of Time Warner Cable and Comcast, not Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc., the subject of this article does not have any transmission assets and does not compete with AT&T. The combination of content and transmission is a natural fit that will allow AT&T to better compete with Comcast, Netflix, Amazon, Google, and likely Facebook. It is a new era where sources of entertainment content and its distribution have increased dramatically. Suing to challenge this merger would be a capricious waste of taxpayer money and would only serve to benefit the emerging giants of media, Amazon, Google, etc.

"AT&T’s 2016 deal with Taylor Swift offers a preview of the strategy. AT&T made an “only on AT&T” deal with Ms. Swift to release her future music videos to devoted fans, contingent on their signing up with AT&T." I suggest you re-research this statement, because it's not true. Her exclusive content for AT&T is a Making Of video blog about the creation of her new album (not music videos, which are still released on Vevo), and it's only hosted by AT&T on their social platforms. Anyone can watch it.

If it was right then the Trump administration would be vigorously protesting the expansion of local Trump TV, Sinclair broadcasting.

Let’s see, if it’s being done for all the wrong reasons, including threatening the 1st Amendment, that’s ok if it’s still the “right” result? Sounds like a great way to run government. Here’s a similar justifiable example. Health care costs are way too high in America. Let’s cut health care for the weakest and the poor. Lots of people will die, but the end result is we will have a healthier population left, so healthcare costs will decrease. The end result is what we want, right?

These are all arguments that could have been used to scuttle Comcast's acquisition of NBC/Universal - but DOJ looked the other way. Why should we expect something different here?

One only has to look at Sinclair to see what happens when the owner of the station starts creating the content.

The combination is perfectly timed to take advantage of the death of net neutrality. Removing CNN from the deal is a drop in the bucket, compared to the other Time-Warner content. Either deny the deal outright, or let it go full strength. Removing CNN just looks suspicious.

Fair point, but how are content providers going to compete with Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Alphabet capitalized at over $500 billion vs. Time Warner at $68 billion. Unless the Justice Department is planning on prying YouTube from Alphabet, while breaking Apple, Amazon and Facebook into smaller capitalized sizes, it seems clear that Time Warner needs AT&T's heft. Indeed this is why Disney and Fox are talking.

What about customer service. AT&T has the worst customer service of any major company. To think they would add millions of additional customers, when they can’t take care of their existing customers is unthinkable. This is a culture of putting customers last while chasing profits. They go out of their way to make things difficult when the customer has an issue. A company like Amazon, while chasing profits goes out of their way to service their customers and make buying from them a great experience. This is what we need, not AT&T who can care less about the customer. For the sake of the public, this merger should not be allowed. The government should place the buying public ahead of corporate greed. AT&T blew it, fell behind the times and is now making a desperate attempt to remain viable.

For all the good points the writer makes, he can't explain why the ownership or sale of CNN is being raised/used in this context. If the condition to the merger were explicitly to keep "Game of Thrones" available to all Americans equally, that would be one (silly) thing. But the allegation is that as political payback CNN would be forced onto the block to be purchased by whatever suitor. The suitor might need to demonstrate willingness to fire Jake Tapper and others. If the revelations are true, this is use of an arm of the Executive Branch to punish and silence the media. It is not anti-trust. It is payback.

That's the problem with Trump interjecting his media feuds on political grudges into the functions of the DOJ and administrative agencies. It creates the appearance of impropriety. It muddies the waters and damages public trust that government agencies are doing their jobs as opposed to acting as personal hatchetmen for their boss.

What about Sinclair buying Tribune and controlling most of the news content on local stations that are outside of big cities? Their seems to be favoritism going on. Maybe AT&T did not contribute enough to Trump's war chest during the elections. It may not be the right marriage of companies. It does raise questions but the administration needs to act fairly in these situations. And also provide information to the public about why decisions are made. This administration has caused too much distrust in the public through Trumps abrasive comments about fake news at CNN and other rants to trust any decisions that they make.

A superb article. On conventional antitrust grounds, this merger should be blocked. The few remaining competitors of AT-T/Time Warner will find themselves obliged both to produce entertainment (movies, songs, news shows, etc.) and operate distribution networks (wireless, broadband internet, satellite tv, cable tv). The dominant providers in the ensuing brave new world will be behemoths that control what we watch and hear and how we do so. This is worrisome and also contrary to conventional antitrust analysis: a vertical merger, by which a company merges with an existing or potential supplier or customer, should be blocked when one of its consequences is that any competitor must thereafter integrate with its own supplier or customer in order to compete against the merged company. Such a merger imposes dual-entry barriers and should be prohibited on this ground. Trump has appointed as head of the Antitrust Division at the DOJ an apparent apologist for blatantly anticompetitive mergers, but he has assured Congress and the public that he will apply antitrust law faithfully and in accordance with its long-established precepts. This is his first big test. The FTC, before receiving its new Commissioner, failed its first big test by failing to block the Amazon-Whole Foods merger, which threatens similar effects in markets for the sale of retail groceries and markets for their delivery to customers.

How is AT&T creating content only for their customers any different then Netflix creating content for only their customers?

AA&T’s Randall Stephenson’s comments suggest strongly a view of a company that sees itself as a vehicle for advertising. He sights competition such as Facebook. This is concerning in two ways. First, CNN and news sources are vital components supporting democracy that should have higher ambitions than “advertising inventory”. Second, Facebook is not a treat to AA&T as a network conduit. Controlling the pipes through which we get media is a significant advantage.

Yes, it’s all about net neutrality and common carrier provisions. The big monopolies must be broken up to prevent the pipes from owning too much of the content. I am sure this will happen because we have the best congress money can buy.

The right thing for the wrong reason. But at its core a very good thing. Cable content and the provider of cable services should not be joined.

Monopolies stifle competition and prevent new technology that comes from competition. Shortly after ma bell was broken up cell phones were introduced to the market. This may not have happened if the land line phones were still operating as a monopoly because ma bell could have kept landline prices artificially low to discourage consumer interest in cell phones until the cell phone market collapsed. The justice department is doing due diligence by scrutinizing this merger. Just because Trump is petty and spiteful and Sessions leaves much to be desired doesn't mean that the career employees of the DOJ aren't still looking out for our best interests.

This merger creates a monopoly in our market for TV, internet, and phone. I am adamantly opposed.

Mergers, generally speaking, tend to monopolize things by virtue of unopposed power, and it's abuse, and usually become more expensive for us consumers. So, unless there is a compelling reason (economies of scale?), they ought to be looked at with suspicion, and perhaps blocked outright.

I'm surprised that such a seasoned commentator as Mr Wu is not asking the question: cui bono? Yes, there is a benefit to Mr Trump if CNN is weakened, but think who stands to benefit most from the disruption of this deal. Who would pick up the pieces if it collapses? Who benefits commercially from a weaker CNN? Who was the rival suitor to AT&T for TW's hand? And who has recently put an enticing "open to offers" sign over their own door? Oh, and who has the ear of President Trump and the power to turn his leading mainstream media support down, off or against him? It isn't the President who has most to gain from this intervention.

Why can't we have the speed and accessibility to the internet as it exists in Europe? There it is totally free and extremely fast -- much faster than the standard access we have here in the States. In contrast, here in the USA we have greedy corporations who have somehow managed to usurp complete control of the internet in such a way as to dictate pricing levels based on desired speed. It's outrageous. The internet was not the brainchild of U.S. corporations and yet they've somehow managed to claim it as their own. It should be free and open access to all Americans at the fastest speeds as the American taxpayer helped to finance its original creation.

One great proof that Democrats and Republicans neither offer the average American much to hold on to is the disappearance of anti-trust enforcement. We won anti-trust protections after great struggle in the 19th century, for very good reason. I agree that Trump is probably enforcing the law selectively, but I prefer to imagine this is only the first in a long list of cutting down on monopolies.

United States v. Paramount Pictures... We've been here before. When a content supplier also owns distribution a potential monopoly exists and the government can step in. God help us - Trump is right, of course not for any logical or even sensible reason.

Of course this deal should be blocked. AT&T and Time Warner are both major internet providers. And the internet basically provides everything these days, including TV and shopping. When's the last time you had an abundance of choice in picking you internet provider for your home. You are lucky to get to choose between two, a duopoly. Very often it is a monopoly. Satellite is still slow and with latency and not a realistic option. So of course we should block this. In fact, we should be actively encouraging more players.

Movie studios do not own theater chains. Content and content distribution are separate. Should the same clean division apply to Time-Warner (content) and AT&T (distribution by satellite TV and mobile phones)? I am not sure of the answer but the question is worth exploring.

Might be the right thing? Oh my. This should be a no-brainer, and represent the first step in breaking up monopolies we all suffer under. You know, stop any more from being formed, and then follow that up with breaking up the ones that now exist? Hello? Anyone home?

In the 1984 breakup of AT&T, Owners of conduits, such as Telephone and Cable companies were not allowed to own content. What happened?

It's probably a little bit of both: concern over the possible lopsidedness of this new mega company, and the President's well-known disdain for one of the merger's subsidiaries.