There is NO way ATT + TW is a good deal for consumers. It maybe breathes life into TW. ATT has shown nothing but willful neglect of their customers.
Kara Swisher said it best yesterday that this is a new era of content and transmission getting back together, to take a bit off that old auto ad "this isn't your father's Oldsmobile" - aka ATT.
At the end of the day though, Comcast took over NBC, Disney has a mega company. It is the way our media works. Long gone are the days of Washington with 200 newspapers.
I'll be waiting for a rebuttal op-ed from a more reputable source - not from some Koch-head from George Mason U...
1
In terms of both high price and bad service, these telecom companies behave exactly as predicted by my economics professors when describing monopoly behavior. Leave it to a thinkbucket like the heritage foundation to defend this greed and stupidity.
Mr Moore is delusional if he believes this will benefit consumers. When Time-Warner sold off its cable division to Spectrum, prices almost immediately went up.
The only beneficiaries to this will be stockholders and corporate executives.
I fire up the unlimited T-mobile tethering on my phone, find it on the Mac which uses a big screen TV for a monitor and watch what I feel like. I am a 66 year old with the tech skills of a sixties era Bulgarian peasant. Evolve, people, and you can be for this just because the Donnie was on the other side.
1
I'm sorry, what? Having recently moved back to the US from the UK, I am appalled at the lack of choices for cell phones and broadband, and the prices are astronomical in comparison - and not because the service is better. (Indeed, it is categorically worse.) Moderate regulation, which allows consumers to easily compare apples to apples, coupled with ease of switching whenever there's a problem, leads to competition. Total deregulation leading to unchecked monopolization does not. And your lying about the way economics work is not helping the situation. We see right through it and will not be hoodwinked.
1
From the article, "These two companies don’t even directly compete with each other."
Really? I can't get programming from ATT through U-Verse/Directv as well as getting it from Time Warner Cable? They absolutely directly compete with one another.
It's interesting that for most of our country's history we were pro-competition and court rulings operated to enhance competition which, when needed, limited industry consolidation. How is it that someone like Moore can look at this and see something that enhances competition?
While I understand that the NY Times wants to publish a variety of op-ed pieces with different points of view, this article by Stephen Moore is just horrible. Honestly, I learned more about the topic of the AT&T - Time Warner merger by reading the best comments, regarding economics, vertical integration and monopolies. Stephen Moore is just a Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity lap dog, who is not even a real economist. I guess Paul Krugman was right when he said that there aren't many conservative scientists and economists out there (paraphrasing) because hard science requires a belief in true facts and theories that can be closely examined and proven. I also have to say the tone of Moore's writing style is very immature and unprofessional. He states: "Today, any hotshot with a camera and a Facebook page can be a media company. Is that enough competition for the Justice Department?" Come on NY Times, we can do better than this snarky sarcasm.
2
It's pretty obvious that this will be a bad deal for most Americans. Only a Heritage Foundation economist would be so detached from reality to say otherwise.
But all the attacks on Trump in the comments-- sure he may be pro-oligarchy (amid a massive pile of other failings) but name me a president in a generation who hasn't been?
This merger deepens the pockets for content investments that accelerate the arms race for consumer programming. Sure, consumers win when they have more entertainment choices during limited leisure time. That same content investment also moves the fulcrum closer to the consumer (and business) giving more leverage to the provider to access a higher share of wallet (also a limited resource) for all of the services they provide (Land-line, Cellular, CATV, Satellite and Internet).
What is not discussed here are the products and markets that are yet fully formed or still on a drawing board. The content play is also a play for data - consumer and business - that is pieced together based on inferred interests, measured behaviors, and known demographics. Time Warner helps AT&T close the loop on a full definition of the consumer that they can then leverage throughout their distribution network. This will be leveraged to bid for a greater share of the ad pie right now based on current technology and in the future as artificial intelligence further defines consumer choice. And we all know who pays for advertising.
1
There is no choice in broadband.
1
Without articles like these, the NY Times would not have such well-informed and useful comments. But somehow I think that the balance is not quite right on this one.
1
Show me ONE example in merger history where the consumer came out ahead. Go ahead................communications:?..................airlines?.......media?............didn't think so.
Note to "Conservatives." Either competition is good, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, you are having it both ways with the merger friendly administrations we've been having.
1
It's always good to get a look at another perspective.......Okay, got it.
Now: reality please!
1
The headline for the article immediately aroused curiosity as to which water boy for the right was opining today. Only a complete pro business ideologue could imagine this can result in consumer friendly outcomes. Saw Moore's name- of course- Moore is just that nattering, feckless fool.
So his teenagers watch you tube more than CNN or PBS. Very likely they will grow up like him, a narrow minded single vision mouthpiece for the oligarchs. Sad!
3
This decision simply underlines the public perception of the U.S. Deprartment of Justice as a playground of polkitical activism and personal corruption.
We respected the DoJ until a Chicago political hack got elected president, and then two of the most partisan political soldiers in American history, Eric Holder of Marc Rich-case fame and Loretta Lynch, famous for her cozy relationship with the Clinton grifters, took over the DoJ and with it, the FBI.
Quite possibly, neither organization may never recover from that eight years of rank particsanship. By comparison, L. Patrick Gray and J. Edgar Hoover line up as Eagle Scouts.
1
"Mr. Moore is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation."
Kind of tells you everything you need to know before reading the article. Mergers are almost inevitably HORRIBLE for consumers. But since these businesses own the government through unregulated political contributions, that's the world we live in now, and apologists from "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation run their slick apologetics to explain to us why we should be grateful that we are getting hosed.
4
The FCC's abandonment of net neutrality is a stake pointed at the heart (or wallet) of the American consumer.
Mergers like this are the hammer that will drive it home.
Also, not a big surprise that an economist from the Heritage Foundation would have no problem at all with any kind of merger, and declare that it would be good for consumers.
Verizon and AT&T together control 75% of the American cell phone market. Verizon alone has double the subscribers of T-mobile and triple the number that Sprint has. Perhaps Mr. Moore would like to explain how that level of concentration has been good for American cellular consumers as compared to those in almost all other advanced economies.
1
"Cutting costs" has become a euphemism for "cutting jobs". How much longer can America run when all occupations, aside from CEO possibly, are horribly understaffed? You see it everywhere, from the grocery store to the IRS. Theses wealthy folks are wealthy enough. Down with the takers.
2
I'm convinced that the only "heritage" the Heritage Foundation wants to protect is that of the robber barons.
2
Vertical mergers and integration should be welcomed. AT&T has, theoretically, another pipeline to deliver content to end users further reducing consumers' reliance on cable boxes, modems and satellite dishes.
Thus spoke a conservative. I don't know yet how all this will turn out...but generally speaking, mega-mergers, alleging beneficial economies of scale, are bad for the consumer, as it ends costing us more and with lower quality...once the opposition (competing industries) are bought up or eliminated. This, as monopolies stop being competitive; they don't need to, especially as we consumers crave their product and services; no other choices; It's a win-win for them. And a loss for us. Look at Amazon, an ever larger behemoth, highly efficient and ruthless in controlling prices, beneficial for now...but no promises it will stay that way, especially in a capitalistic system where capital always trumps labor, and where deregulation may drag for ever, in perpetuity (so to speak), and maintaining the odious societal inequality untouched.
2
if stephen moore and the heritage foundation "like" this merger, it must be really bad for most of the country.
increasing control of supplies and outlets will reduce competition and harm most of us. among other things, wage and profit disparities will continue to increase.
unfortunately, we can't "trust" the trump justice department to appeal this republican decision intelligently. all we can hope for, perhaps, is that several states intervene for purposes of filing an appeal.
2
Mergers, and especially mega-mergers, are never good for the consumer. Competition among companies keeps everyone on their game. Companies in competition with others must keep improving their products & services to stay competitive; this benefits the consumer. If Mr Moore would take a brief survey of U.S. broadband customers, he'd find pervasive dissatisfaction and resentment toward monopolistic utilities. The best alternative to megalithic corporate transmogrification is the establishment of local and neighborhood wifi. Banks too
1
It would be hard to find a better example of what ails our land than this article.
To date, there have been no modern democracies that have not been joined at the hip with growth-based market capitalism- and there are intuitive, historical reasons why.
However - that economic model, and the normative thinking it engenders, is becoming profoundly destructive to both democracy and the environment.
Something is going to have to give, but I'm fairly certain it will be way, way too late before it does.
2
"A federal judge’s ruling on Tuesday to greenlight the merger between AT&T and Time Warner is a big boost to the competitiveness of the American economy and an even bigger win for consumers and shareholders."
I am done reading the rest of this article. It will take me all of today to adjust to the bizarre idea of a world where a merger between giant corporations boosts competitiveness and benefits consumers. Thanks for leading off with that sentence, though. Saves me the trouble of the unfolding horror of reading the entire article.
From the Heritage Foundation's official website:
"As the nation’s largest, most broadly-supported conservative research and educational institution—a think tank—The Heritage Foundation has been the bastion of the American conservative movement since our founding in 1973. More than 500,000 dues-paying members support our vision to build an America where freedom, prosperity, opportunity and civil society flourish.
We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles."
"Opportunity." "Civil society." The "principles & ideas of the American Founding." Where does blind support of Donald Trump fit into this "vision"?
2
Seriously, The Heritage Foundation?
3
I appreciate the attempt to be ‘fair and balanced’, NYT, but this is just absurd. This sort of conglomeration, a big boost to American competitiveness? Please. You can’t give space to these statements/bald face lies without a disclaimer.
1
As a liberal Democrat, remind me once again why I bother to read the New York Times, a so-called "liberal" newspaper? Today's op-ed page puts to bed any notion that the Times is liberal.
Why is the NYT reprinting a Heritage Foundation handout, when I can simply watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal or tune into my local Sinclair Broadcasting station and get the same conservative opinions?
Liberals and Democrats are also scolded and lambasted on the op-ed page today by Frank Bruni and Thomas Edsall. Save for Paul Krugman (who is scathing of the pundit group-think by the dominant brand of "Professional Centrists", as he calls them), virtually every op-ed scolds Democrats for being snobby, elitist and out of touch, the same criticism you can get by watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh.
From Dowd to Brooks to Douthat to Stephens to Bruni, Democrats (Hillary, especially) are routinely mocked and patronized on these editorial pages.
As I am sure Trump and the GOP look at it, who needs Fox News, when the NYT is just as harsh and critical toward Democrats?
Finally, this ruling shows how dangerously close we are to becoming a corporate oligarchy. Virtually every sector of the economy, from airplanes to computers to drugs, is now run by cartel, with monopoly rents replacing legitimate competitive profits. Comcast and Disney are now fighting over Fox.
So, it is only natural all the media companies, including the NYT, will be in support of these mergers.
2
I'm disappointed that the NYTimes would be giving space to the Heritage Foundation. Do we have any reason to believe this isn't a direct result of donations by AT&T and Time Warner to the Heritage Foundation. Isn't that how the Heritage Foundation works? It's a media organization for it's donors.
1
"The very notion of “watching TV” is becoming as obsolete as listening to music on a turntable." Rega, the world's largest manufacturer of turntables, sold more tables in the past 3 years than the prior 10. Vinyl and turntable sales are booming. If you're this out of touch with consumer reality, please return to your gated community where Antitrust regulations are surely laughed at daily. Your line of thought is the problem, not the solution.
I saw the monopolist title of the article and the author, "a fellow at the Heritage Foundation," skipped reading it, and went straight to the comments attacking the article.
3
As usual, Stephen Moore is wrong.
Television delivery in the United States & broadband internet connectivity to the home are both mostly cartels or monopolies. So-called Free Market advocates like Mr Moore will tell you that mobile internet is a competitor to wired internet when it is not because of data caps.
I pay $79.95 to Comcast every month for my wired broadband and get a 1TB data cap past which I am charged extra. They give customers a couple of mulligans a year, so the occasional overage will not raise your bill. Overages are charged at $10 for an extra 50GB.
I pay AT&T $165.38 for supposedly unlimited internet on an iPad Pro & iPhone 7. They reserve the right to throttle (slow) service past 20GB per device despite having charged me a King's Ransom for wireless broadband.
Compare the two. This is where the problem exists- 20 GB is insufficient for anyone who streams music, TV or other data intensive content. The movie Dunkirk in HD is 4.46 GB. Watch 4 HD movies a month and you are getting your internet speed throttled.
Most TV production is done by a handful of studios & distribution by a small number of players. AT&T owns DIRECTV, DIRECTVNOW, U-Verse & now a share of Hulu via the Time-Warner purchase. Comcast- the largest ISP in America also owns a share of Hulu.
When I can get channels a la carte on competitively priced broadband I will not object to these mergers. Right now Americans pay some of the highest prices in the world for content and connectivity.
6
When I saw the headline, I thought I'd mistakenly picked up the Onion.
When I saw the byline, it made more sense.
Then I gaped with the realization that the New York Times had really run this piece without a countervailing point of view from, say, a serious economist: one whose interests are perhaps more academic in nature and whose arguments, as a previous poster mentioned, are less likely to be constructed entirely of wholecloth.
Rational individuals howl when big corporations are cossetted by the courts. Citizens United was bad enough. Must you abet these wrongdoers by giving space to a gloat-piece?
I thought the New York Times was "the newspaper of record."
2
I have to say, this is breathtakingly a dumb argument.
Your kids watch the content by way of AT&T, not the other way around.
The bottleneck to everything we watch is distribution.
Everyone in the country HATES cable companies because they are still monopolies - we can flip between Comcast and Fios, but duopolies are just monopolies-lite. the barriers to entry are huge. So we have ZERO choice.
If content is put with distribution then distortions will occur.
Search engines are also new monopolistic distribution channels.
What if google hated the NYTimes and The Heritage Foundstion and said, hey idiots, we have our own news and your articles are not going show up in search without paying us a ransom- then do you think about your argument?
2
Good heavens, is anybody left believing this? Who's stuck in the 1980s?
2
So American internet will sink even further down the tubes. It already is an embarrassment compared to Europe. Capitalism is so nakedly about greed and money over people.
5
Two thoughts
1. I would agree with the article as long as net neutrality is preserved.
2. This merger will be like aol time warner. The synergies are muted at best. Time warner divested it’s cable division long ago.
Ro
There's a simple solution to economic terrorism: turn the junk off.
Don't be pawns in their game, unless you enjoy being laughed at behind your back.
1
How ironic. I comment on Frank bruni's piece, about how he and Stephen Moore are wrong time and again, and here he is spreading his weak tea. Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow KO'd this snake oil salesman on Bill's program years ago when he was pitching a book predicting the future, and Bill pulled out his last book claiming the Bush Administration was going to grow the economy like never before. We saw the results of that. I understand being fair and showing the so-called both sides but, printing Bruni and Moore is wasting valuable space that could be given to intelligent journalist.
2
It’s ironic that Stephen Moore, a Trump sycophant, now praises the AT&T and Time Warner Merger. I’ll bet he opposed it earlier to curry favor with Dear Leader.
He’s a hypocrite.
1
'just to survive'? Don't make me laugh. This is not about surviving it is about maximizing shareholder profits.
2
I promise to donate all the post-merger savings on my AT&T/Directv bill to the Heritage Foundation.
3
Heck, the minute I found out the Trump administration was against the merger I knew then for sure it was a win for consumers.
This has been a paid political announcement.
3
Mr. Moore, do you think most people are stupid? I don't believe for one second that this merger will help consumers and I am so mad about it I plan to boycott AT & T because, for the moment at least, I have other options.
4
Big win for consumers? Hmmm, raise your hand if your cable/internet/phone bill has EVER gone down? I don't see any hands. What the heck does he even mean by a win for consumers because my bill has always gone up, not down. We've been getting fleeced by the cable industry for decades. Forcing consumers to buy "packages" instead of being able to just pay for channels individually has been the main scheme to rip us off. Then there's the pricing scheme were if you bundle services like getting phone-internet-cable you get them cheaper. Want any of those separately? You get gouged. And where is all this competition to lower prices? Why aren't there 5 or 6 options for internet/cable service in every city? Sorry, but reality is what counts, not the opinion from some media conglomerate cabana boy.
2
In the 2014 Kansas City Star opinion piece "What's the matter with Paul Krugman? Moore responded to Krugman's opinion piece "Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas."[14][15] Moore claimed that job creation had been superior in low-taxation states during the five years ending June 2009 following the recession. After substantial factual errors were uncovered in Moore's opinion piece, the Kansas City Star indicated that it would no longer print Moore's work without "thorough factchecking." [16][17][18] Miriam Pepper, editor of the Kansas City Star, decided to stop publishing Moore's work for its inaccurate statements.[19] Jonathan Chait, in his New York magazine column, in response to Moore's February 15, 2015 Washington Times column on Obamacare, stated, "Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore's column is the fact that, five years after its [Obamacare's] passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States [the Heritage Foundation] lacks even a passing familiarity with its [Obamacare's] fiscal objectives."[20]
2
Mergers always mean job losses for employees and higher prices for consumers. This column is total bunk, so I'm glad to see it printed in the NYT where most readers know better. In fact, I think most people know better. Every day our government betrays us just a little more. That's the part that too many people don't realize. Money talks and the rest of us can go take a flying leap.
2
How does this drivel get space in the NY Times? The obvious result of this merger, combined with the elimination of net neutrality, is that it's now open season on consumers. Rate hikes and reduced choice are coming soon to an oligopoly near you.
3
Nice to see conservative perspectives in the Times.
But could the paper please offer one that is argued honestly from facts, or above a 6th grade level?
5
Mr. Moore. I live on a street with only two broadband suppliers. ATT and TimeWarner Spectrum. With merger, I will have one choice. That is NOT competition.
5
"The days when companies [] could accumulate the market power to dominate an industry and gouge consumers with higher prices are long gone." Thanks! I needed a good morning laugh.
2
I don't have the expertise to judge the merits of his argument, but I do know that the Heritage Foundation is a pro-business, anti-consumer think tank that cannot be trusted on issues such as this.
6
The Heritage Foundation is a pro-personal freedom organization that has some of the clearest thinking regarding Constitutional issues available today.
You could say that Heritage is the complete opposite of the never-printed progressive e-zines and blogs funded by Leftist oligarchs. Heritage is about as far from being emotion-based as you can get.
As consumers flee the shackles of the cable TV monopolies that exist in many parts to the US and find alternatives, streaming media, regular TV and other giants keep finding ways to limit consumer choice and/or force consumers to pay for more and more services for the privilege of watching ad sponsored shows.
Explains all this to my 85 year old mother who pays for cable and watches as her favorite TV shows move to a different streaming source and she has to get another paying subscription for the privilege of watching.
This will be better for shareholders and the corporate giants but not for the average folks.
4
The threat to the consumer issued bundling. Will the merged entity require purchase of AT&T's declining landline or long-distance service before providing access the
o HBO? This is the type of longitudinal Monopoly that ran Hollywood until the 1950's. Longitudinal monopolies have the power to crush new competition. by increasing the cost to even enter the market and by decreasing the income of content providers.
Too Big to Merge
As broadband internet, for which AT&T likely controls 50% of the market, increasingly provides the main conduit for distribution of content to people and businesses, if any of that content is produced or owned by AT&T itself, a conflict could clearly arise.
With the size of the merger and the risks to welfare, posed by the conflict of interest it creates, becomes almost systemic. It is not clear if such risks can be commensurately adjudicated on the basis of ex post predictions as under current law, given the information and likely resource asymmetry between the parties. Just as a stop sign is adequate when the traffic is light but a stop light is needed when the traffic is too heavy. Some thing more ex-ante might be needed. The current body of anti-trust laws, even with amendments, do not seem to adequately provide for this. In the age of hundreds of billions, the perspective of the laws is still in the hundreds of millions.
Until there is more legislative clarity on this issue, the Justice department needs to continue to ensure that the foxes are not purporting to guard the chickens and file the appeal in time.
2
This article has a clear, inherent aspect of deceit. One thing that is certain is that this merger will NOT be good for consumers. Aiding consumers was not its intent, nor will it be its results.
It is interesting that people who shout the most loudly for the supremacy of the free market are also those whose policies result in a reduction of competition.
This author is from the Heritage Foundation. When has the Heritage Foundation EVER had the consumers' interests at heart?
8
And even the question of whether it is good for consumers is, in my opinion, off the mark: The question to ask is whether it is good for Democracy or not. I think it is not.
7
The pretend game that we are playing that ATT and TW don't compete is completely puzzling to me. They do. Directly. In Austin and other markets. On internet and cable delivery.
Moore seems to be a business shill, but he is definitely NOT a proponent of capitalism. Destroy competition, and it oftentimes does not come back.
3
Remember that time the editor of the Kanasas City Star said he wouldn't run any more op-eds from Stephen Moore because of how error-prone his economics responses were to Paul Krugman? For how Moore seemed to make even really simple mathematical mistakes that undergraduate economics majors wouldn't make?
That was funny...
So yes, let's hear his opinion on how media consolidation, combined with the rollback of net neutrality, is good for consumers. I'm sure we can trust him. When has he ever been wrong before?
4
These mega mergers are not in the best interest of the population. How could they be?
I understand that the NYT features OpEds from both sides of the political divide and the Heritage Foundation is right leaning. Now publish a counter argument which I am sure will be better thought out and much more compelling.
The Trump attack upon the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, with the assistance of the Justice Department, is a perfect example of Trump working to further his hidden agenda once again.
It is always wise to study Trump's behavior with a question in mind as to what his true motive might happen to be.
Once again it can be easily said:
Enough is enough.
The answer to what to do about Trump can be found within the entirety of Republican voters - or at least to those who are paying attention.
What is needed is a STRONG MESSAGE conveyed to the GOP that enough is enough.
A simple and meaningful solution is for all Republicans of good conscience to change their political registration as Republican to Democrat.
Or register as an Independent, depending on strength of conviction.
(Independents should consider becoming Democrats.)
Later on (post Trump) register again to whatever is preferred.
Or become an Independent.
It is all a matter of choice based on prevailing circumstances.
But this time around .......... Trump must go.
Perform this simple but meaningful maneuver and do it now before the elections in November of 2018.
Put the threat of your vote where your good sense, your conscience, and your heart happen to be.
Patriotism can take many forms and can be effective through simple acts of protest.
Send the GOP and the Trump Administration a message that even they can understand.
Enough is enough.
Dump Trump.
2
Trump has said he believes the Time Warner / AT&T deal will reduce competition and is bad for consumers.
That is why we have this opinion article. It disagrees with Trump.
So transparent it hurts.
Better for Consumers?
My guess is that the Judge in the AT&T case has never had the experience of dealing with what Directv calls "Customer Service".
On the day of the Preakness, their customer care representative, who claimed not to have access to the information needed to resolve my issues, said that her "Supervisor" did have access and would call me within "an hour or two".
Well, Belmont ran on schedule, but the "supervisor" has not yet called. (For folks who don't follow horse races--the Preakness was May 19th and the Belmont was June 8th).
I don't know how the Judge or Mr. Moore "justify" their opinions that the new merger is a "Win for Consumers".
Another guess--Mr. Moore has never tried to deal with Directv's "Customer Service"
You can't trust anyone from the Heritage Foundation. This is one of the mouthpieces of the 0.01% who are out to steal everything from the 99% and ensure only they have power.
The AT&T / Time Warner merger is one of the last steps needed for the corporate overlords to control all media they don't already control.
AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Fox, Disney, etc should be broken up, not allowed to gather more power.
8
Paragraph 1: "A federal judge’s ruling on Tuesday to greenlight the merger between AT&T and Time Warner is a big boost to the competitiveness of the American economy and an even bigger win for consumers and shareholders."
Paragraph 11: "It is too early to know whether this mega-deal will turn out well for shareholders and consumers."
Mr. Moore needs to decide on a consistent message.
2
Excellent comment. Mr. Moore needs not only an economics coach but also a good editor.
1
First, the author (falsely) points out that "the antitrust laws are antiquated, given that globalized competition and the speed of technological change continually knock down industry leaders". However, he contradicts (or corrects?) himself just four paragraphs later, when pointing out how "[t]his merger could bring welcome competition to Google and Facebook, which have captured about two-thirds of the online advertising market". So two companies control two thirds of online advertising, but we should believe "global competition" self-regulates effectively, while "antiquated" antitrust laws are unnecessary?
Revealing to see how Mr. Moore destroys his own main argument within the short space of his own (!) op-ed, and portrays this little piece of PR for what it is: a sham.
3
Moore, longtime "laffer curve" trickle down we must destroy the village to save the village huckster to /for whoever opens their wallet is kind of like trump,i.e., if he says it, it is either a lie or just propaganda for whomever is employing him at that moment. Ignore them both.
2
I get that this is one opinion, but why does the NYT continually run op-eds by people who are wrong about everything? For example, Amazon is not lowering prices; do a search of the price it charges for its Prime service. When they do lower prices, it's not out of the goodness of their heart...it's to drive out competition (frequently small businesses) to control the market. I thought the GOP was the friend of small business?
1
The intellectual vapidity of this apologia for would be monopolists can most easily seen from comparing 2 sections:
Para 1: "... (the ruling) ... is an even bigger win for consumers and shareholders."
Penultimate Para: "It's too early to know whether this mega deal will turn out well for "shareholders and consumers."
How many words were spent justifying a certainty by reaching a conclusion of uncertainty? How much evidence do we need to justify the conclusion that the prevailing economic thinking of this administration is that cronyism is king and consumer welfare has no place in the hierarchy of values? That expertise and knowledge are devalued and mindless worship of mean spirited ideals is the current idol? And, how unfortunate that we consumers get a display of this shoddy nature by someone so clearly out of his depth yet so frequently a spokesperson for the administration!
The Heritage Foundation never met a monopoly it didn't love. "Too Big To Fail"?...no problem...economy of scale and all that...besides, the government (meaning us) will bail them out. When companies of any sort become the only game in town, consumers are at their mercy. Whatever happened to the idea that capitalism meant competition and a level playing field? Right, it never was. The first Gilded Age has nothing on this one.
4
Based on personal experience, I will NEVER ever pay for AT&T services again. I will do without instead of giving in to their consumer policies, horrible customer service and one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. I haven't had cable TV in probably 12 years and probably wouldn't watch it if it were free. I can downstream enough media to keep me busy and save hundreds, having the choice and a lot less ads. Sorry but what is on cable TV is what I consider mindless junk, a lot of violence in the programs, silly programs. I in fact witnessed the trash on Fox News some ten years ago and determined it was all propaganda, belligerent attitudes toward everybody and everything, and half truths. Watching people like Hannity, O'Riley etc was not useful, rudeness. This was a deciding factor that I will do without. Merger or not, you can have cable TV. Similar to having a landline and paying high prices when there are better wireless options that counter the pricing and options and most of all choices.
This particular merger is not only a win for consumers but a massive slap in the face for Trump who opposed it for selfish, vindictive purposes.
However, the domino effect may mean more mergers down the line and will make corporations even more powerful than they already are. Future mergers is where consumers will lose, now that the floodgates have been opened.
I thought Time Warner was now Spectrum. Is that just for cable services?
1
Come now, Mr. Moore. Your argument is absurd.
This merger is just one more building block to monopoly and I have no doubt that you know it.
It won't encourage innovation and competition that benefits consumers with lower prices and better products; it will just see to it that entire industries are controlled by a very few mega-corporations with no checks on their power.
Of course, that's the goal, isn't it?
What Donald Trump got wrong, Congress can get right. It can pass anti-trust laws with teeth in order to break up and prevent both horizontal *and* vertical monopolies.
If it actually *wants* to encourage small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers and not just mega-corporations, that is.
You entire argument seems to be based on the premise that because of the internet we have unlimited choice. Who controls access to the internet? Oh wait, there will only be one choice...AT&T/Time Warner
1
Shareholders will definitely win. Consumers......probably not. Mr. Moore's analysis is sorely lacking. When Comcast wins it's bid for 20th Century Fox, (and it will) there will be 2 mega providers of content and 2 mega owner of "pipes".
When a small ISP wants to service small, local, rural communities how are their customers going to benefit? Cause the mega companies are going to offer the little guy the same pricing it offers the big players???? Yea, right.
9
You are living in never, never land Stephen.
Even before this merger, telecom was ripping off the American consumer with outrageous prices and lousy service.
Airlines were deregulated and although their service is right up their with cattle cars, their prices did go down.
With telecom deregulation, we got the worst of both, outrageous prices and lousy service.
Consumers don't need airplane travel but they do need a basic way to communicate.
Re-regulate the telecom industry at least re basic service. If they want to rip off the public with the ability to talk to people on Mars or be global competitors let them do it after they guarantee a basic affordable communication package to Americans.
1
CNN under Time Warner isn't likely to disappear (as Trump wants). So this vindictive lawsuit was short-sighted: even if successful it would not have achieved his ultimate goal. But CNN directly owned by ATT can be throttled if Trump's FCC can exert enough leverage on ATT (and on Comcast).
Sounds like you must be a strong proponent of net neutrality to ensure that these new grassroots media companies are treated fairly by the mega ISPs who also happen to be mega content creators. Otherwise your argument wouldn't possibly make sense.
What a disappointment it would be to learn that you oppose net neutrality. Why, that would make you a hypocrite and someone who builds arguments based on preconceived conclusions, not evidence. The Heritage Foundation wouldn't possibly be engaged in such behavior, would it?
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/net-neutrality-rul...
Stephen Moore had zero credibility even before he joined the Heritage Foundation. Since then it’s gone into negative numbers.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/send-in-the-clowns/
More propaganda from the conservative "think tank" the Heritage Foundation. Because we all know huge, mega-corporations with no competitors that are "too big to fail" are "a win for consumers."
1
The following statement is a warning sign about the quality of information and logic in this article: "The very notion of 'watching TV' is becoming as obsolete as listening to music on a turntable." If I want to enjoy watching something like a sport event or a panoramic movie like "Out of Africa" on a screen larger than a tablet or a smart phone, I watch it on a television set or go to a theater. This writer should not be trusted to classify what is obsolete, nor are all mergers the same.
3
I thought when I saw the headline, that it was someone from the Heritage Foundation or some other such "think tank", and--voila!--it was. These seem to be the only people who believe that monopolies are a good thing.
1
Gee willikers. We should just let companies do whatever they want, no questions asked because we all know corporations are good people that never do anything wrong and the only people that think different are un-American.
6
I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that either ATT or Time-Warner are "struggling to sirvive." Oh, yeah, I forgot, alternative facts.
6
How much money will Moore be making from the merger?
6
Harsh capitalism for the little guy, monopolies for the huge corporations.
So oligopolies are now efficient free markets and Kim Jong Un is a great leader because he is still in charge. Another piece of timeless wisdom from the baby boomers.
"The days when companies like U.S. Steel or General Motors or Microsoft could accumulate the market power to dominate an industry and gouge consumers with higher prices are long gone." You're kidding yourself if you believe that drivel. The Comcasts and AT&Ts are constantly gouging their custormers raising their charges at will, and since many people live in areas where there is only one provider they end up paying way to much.
4
Mr. Moore is either an outrageously obvious corporate shill, or he’s over-dosed on his medical marijuana prescription.
I get it - when there are four corporations that control the world, we won’t be bothered by those pesky choices or competition.
The Heritage Foundation pledge:
“I pledge allegiance to the monopolies, from which contributions to our Foundation flow...”
8
Oh yes, they are spending BILLIONS so they can give every Joe Shmo money in their pocket. Riiiiiight.
2
I've divested myself of all contracts with AT&T. Their customer service is abhorrent. They took over my home security system company and ruined it. Their most horrible service is land line service where they up monthly charges without notice. Now, one can complain and they will apologize and promise (the last time in writing) to lower the charge, but do not. This has happened to me three times. It's not just the duplicity, but the time consumed protesting--to no avail, evidently. They are a poison company.
I live in a rural area that has a single source for high speed internet and cable (Comast). My bill for for mid-level options is over $200/month. in France, it would be $40. Spare me your high falutin economic theory. I am being robbed.
Not only is the Time Warner merger a win for consumers, but court's decision is a win for the American people. President Trump tried to use his position to interfere in something for purely personal reasons - he doesn't like CNN. Regardless of what the merger meant to the consumer, if Trump had been successful in this effort, we all lose. The rule of law would have been replaced by the rule of a de facto dictator. That didn't happen - yet.
If the justice department appeals that ruling in an attempt to stop the merger through fiat, America and all who seek justice will still lose.
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
TheRogueRevolutionist.com
1
Another win for investors with little concern for consumers. Let's take a look at the scorecard:
Media: Net neutrality gone; a few monopolistic companies can now control both the pipes and content. Review any cable/ internet billing statement for an upclose look at how consumers are legally robbed for "fake" no-value services and fees.
Banking: Mergers have led to "too big to fail" banks that have the power and audacity to roll back the Volcker Rule after consumers bailed them out after the financial collapse. And, what about those high fees to get your own money at ATM machines..."Fake" no-value services that increase profits.
Health Insurance: Mergers have led to a few monopolistic providers with rising premiums, higher deductibles and bureaucratic, "process-to-death" poor service; and, they have consistently stopped legislation from allowing insurance across state lines.
Airlines: I don't have enough space; everyone already knows this story.
I could keep going...
The problem is MONEY, which has corrupted big business, our Federal government representatives and our state and local representatives. As the old saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt and abslute power corrupts absolutely." What is sad about today's America is that too many big businesses and politicians have used money to manipulate our treasured democratic institutions and processes to "legally" corrupt for greed. What our country is missing today is education, civility and ethics, plain and simple.
1
Lots of bold claims; No evidence
3
Before reading Op-Eds, I usually check out the credentials of the author, as they are a reliable indicator of bias. Mr. Moore is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and so his unconvincing cheerleading for the unfettered invisible hand of the free market comes as no surprise.
Kudos to the Times for providing this information directly below the byline rather than at the end of the essay. It saves your readers a lot of time.
6
Heritage Foundation writer. AT&T is conservative, meaning they will join the rans of the Sinclair Group, FoxNews, and all.
Control the message-control the country. That's power in 208
1
"Mr. Moore is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation." That means that what is good for Americans is the opposite of everything stated in this article. The end.
1
Nice try, Mr. Moore-
AT&T has some of the highest cell phone rates of any mobile company, even though they're one of the biggest players. Just hope they don't mess up HBO with their new gigantic Mega-corp
1
"Normally, antitrust cases are brought to block so-called “horizontal” mergers, in which companies in the same line of business — two airlines, for example — want to combine forces."
That is not true. Many have been against "vertical integration," as for example the original Standard Oil case from which this law arises.
The monopoly concern is about "market power." That can be built up in both ways.
"Victory" of monopoly forces over the Trump Justice Dept is not a very convincing proof there was no monopolistic market power at work.
3
I agree. But I’d go further: where in the Constitution or our statutes is it written that combinations of this size must be prohibited unless the consumer patently “wins” from them? The purpose of the antitrust division isn’t to assert an independent interest but to protect Americans generally from demonstrable DAMAGE to their legitimate interests by a combination. Otherwise, the division is playing favorites, and that is imposing ideological diktats on the individual rights of Americans and corporations that have almost always been left pretty much to their own best judgments ABSENT evidence of likely resulting damage. One may as well assert the authority of government to dictate “suitable” religious practices that it can’t prove are injurious to the material well-being of people generally.
It’s enough that the boards of AT&T and Time-Warner are convinced that this merger is in the interests of their shareholders and its merged strategic viability, unless potential and material damage can be demonstrated if it goes ahead.
I don’t want government determining how an entire industry MUST evolve.
That written, I can understand one possible TRUE motivation for the official fear, which is that all the trends point to these massive multi-national corporate entities forming by accretion that by their very size, wealth and power, begin to assume the attributes of independent sovereignty. But there are right ways and wrong ways to protect against this outcome.
1
One or two gas stations in town with displayed price of gas - increased prices. Five gas stations - lowered prices. Econ 101.
Doesn’t work for healthcare because prices are hidden and who wants the cheapest healthcare available anyway - your employer actually does. Econ ???
1
Its not and never will be a win for me and the 50million homes like mine.
There is already monopoly power (enabled by the government) for internet access to many homes in America. This merger just makes that worse.
I don't care about TV access, but Mr Moore misses the point. Its about internet access and control.
We pay among the highest prices in the world for internet access (be it cell or cable) and its only getting worse. Speed and performance for the dollars I spend are horrible and I have no alternatives. Thank you Mr Moore for only making it worse.
5
I never believe anything promoted by Heritage Foundation "fellows." Even when they seem to have a good idea (the individual mandate for health care reform), if it's adopted or modified to work by a "liberal" (Obama) they deny it was their idea.
Basically, they think they're smarter than we are. So sorry Mr. Moore, but I'm not buying your pro-monopoly argument, and many other readers here aren't either.
8
Amazon and Walmart keep lowering their prices because they are competing with each other!
And, as other commentators here have pointed out, lowering prices comes from lowering costs, and lowering costs has been a race to the bottom on wages. Lowering wages to the point that people working at Walmart can qualify for public assistance -- that is, tax-payer-funded help -- to make ends meet. That 1) supports higher profits at Walmart, and 2) makes the rest of us pay a price even if we don't shop there.
10
"...do what it takes to become global competitors, not global dinosaurs..."
This statement more or less encapsulates America's race to the bottom. By emulating economies and structures with no historical regard for their own working citizens and a nearly feudal regard for the fruit of their labor, our nation has turned from being one in which all citizens who work hard, play by the rules can grow with the country to one that has seen the destruction of the national fabric, permitting half the national income to go to only ten percent of our households. It's even more shocking when looked at in real numbers. For America in 2018, that would mean $360K/yr to 12.5 million households. That leaves only $40K/yr for the other 90%.
Permitting these sorts of mergers without a requirement for re-tooling and re-training makes our distribution of income worse, not better.
10
Conservatives like Moore claim to believe that businesses maximize their profits, until they come to a monopoly, when they think that businesses lowers their prices just to please consumers. These people claim to be about consumer sovereignty and efficiency, but they are not. They are all about empowering the super-rich class, and establishing a feudal political-economic system in our country. It is dangerous and insidious.
13
After every giant merger one can always count on an article or two trying to convince us how great this is going to be for the average consumer. I'm waiting for the day when the world is run by one giant corporation. Heaven help the person who wants to start a small business. The sharks will come for him soon enough.
9
Part of the problem in small town America is the rise of Walmart and demise of small local businesses. When all the competition is priced out, we all lose the opportunity to choose.
5
Moore's piece misses the point, and although his unpleasant rhetoric is far from Trump's malign standard, it is still deeply misleading. Moore implies that vertical mergers are ok from an antitrust standpoint. Actually, antitrust agencies have stopped numerous vertical mergers for the very reasons the Justice Dept. advanced. More important than Moore's misleading rhetoric, however, is his missing the whole point of the merger, and the opposition to it.
At stake here is control of the pipes (wires, cables, wireless infrastructure) that bring the internet and entertainment to consumers. ATT is not concerned about existing competitors like Comcast or Verizon: they are few, and they have long since cooperated on charges. It is precisely the internet and the content providers using the internet that spooks them, because they have been taking business away from the old TV hierarchy. So by merging, ATT removes a powerful player that might side with Netflix, Google and Amazon, and strengthens its political clout. The end of net neutrality gives ATT a better shot at dominating internet access to entertainment, and I think that's what this is all about.
13
I would like to add that in Judge Leon's decision he quotes a Comcast official's testimony that "The time-and-attention competition now from the likes of Facebook, from the likes of Google, from the likes of Netflix....I started asking myself, what should the business do to respond to the changing environment..., the dawn of these new services coming from the likes [of] Netflix and Google?" (p. 24). THAT's the issue, and mergers are the answer the oligopolists offer.
I do not always understand every aspect of our media market as a dinosaur who still watches TV. I do know however that some of my services come from ATT and others from Time Warner Spectrum. If these two corporations are now joined as one and no longer compete it seems obvious that my bills will go up as the one company has no reason to keep prices low. We depend upon government agencies such as the DOJ to sort this tangled mess out and one judge looking from the outside may not have the resources to know what is happening. Is it any wonder that consumers cringe when large companies so involved in our daily lives merge and threaten to put another burden on us?
10
Before I read an article, I always look who the author is. I look at this writer, and say to myself: "Almost everything this guy has written is mistaken, and is later proven wrong."
Supply side economists don't consider empirical lessons. They are faith based, just like the followers of our current administration.
22
Cost cutting and boon for shareholders...so their profits go up and who gets higher prices and reduced service??? Have you called your local IP or credit card company lately? How long did it take??? Did you get a live person or an automated system? Were they in your country or offshore? Consumers get to wait and put up with degraded service just so they can squeeze profit and have billions sitting offshore like Apple does. And pay minimal (if any) tax to boot.
19
I had an issue with a Dell computer. Wasted 2 hours on the phone with their overseas customer service while they tried to fix the issue remotely. They didn't fix it. I emailed Dell and asked for a number in the US to call. They wouldn't give me one. Another call overseas, another hour wasted trying to "fix" it with software to no avail. Finally, they honored the extended warranty I purchased that provides ON SITE tech support and replaced components that we knew were the problem to begin with.
1
Heritage is all in favor!
And corporations are people.
18
More Heritage Foundation logical gobbledygook. Right out of the gate..."a big boost to the competitiveness of the American economy"...Because consolidation increases competition??? Rriiighht. That followed by "and an even bigger win for consumers and shareholders". An even bigger win than what? what was the first win? And then, for both consumers and shareholders!?! Amazing. That may be about half right. Being Heritage Foundation, the shareholders are the group that matters. The notion of a win for consumers has to be thrown in for votes. I am curious what we consumers won?
As others have pointed out...there is a huge problem when the internet content delivery guy owns the content he's delivering. What does that mean for content he doesn't own? Because "Freedom", he doesn't have to deliver it. Yay "freedom". We're all free to have our internet censored. Conveniently for "freedom", net neutrality had its throat cut.
Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute et al are paid advertisers for Libertarian neo feudalist extremists. They are not honest academics, they are shills. It really is time they are recognized for what they are. They put far too many "opinions" up relative to their poor logic and lack of honesty. To be fair, it really is hard to be logical when your premises are wrong and the pre-ordained conclusions are at odds with reality. Nonetheless, there really has to be a more critical eye in selecting opinion pieces. Something more than rank assertion.
30
It would be nice if the NYT or Frontline would do an exposé on the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute and what havoc their recommendations have wrought on Americans.
1
"This will mean new competition for residential broadband from cable companies such as Comcast." Mr. Moore, have you looked at a map of Internet coverage across the US recently? On a national scale, these businesses rarely compete, though there are a few areas in which you have your pick of two--TWO--ISPs. A majority of people have but ONE option. And as you so astutely point out, cable is on its way out, with more people settling for streaming instead of boxes, meaning fast, reliable, competitive Internet is more important than ever. So the fact that most areas only have one ISP means that the merger of two companies, even a vertical merger, gives way to the high possibility that these providers will manipulate streaming to get consumers to pay more simply because the only other option is for them to not have Internet at all. And despite what some people say, the Internet is at this point necessary for daily life. Maybe if the Open Internet rules had stayed in place, maybe if it weren't so difficult for competition to exist for individual consumers--a difficulty perpetuated by the very companies you're defending (just look at what happened in Chattanooga, TN last year)--then you would have a winning argument. As it stands, I see no way in which this merger is good for consumers.
25
If the FCC weren't trashing Net Neutrality, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But without NN, this type of deal sets the stage for broadband operators (many of which are municipal monopolies) to troll media producers over their last mile infrastructure. This will ultimately result in increased costs and/or fragmented availability, resulting in consumers having to purchase many more media subscriptions (and hence, higher costs).
23
My father worked for Ma Bell from the fifties into the eighties. He was quite upset when the monopoly was broken up. But once it was, innovation exploded: cell phones, computers, the internet. I am skeptical about the argument of this article.
16
That is what consumers are always told. But this reduces competition, resulting in less choice and invariably higher prices. Layoffs are probably in the future as well. CNN is being targeted by Trump as "fake news" and I expect that they will be hit hard by this merger. Nothing good will come of this!
21
"The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States. After the 2016 election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, Heritage board member Rebekah Mercer played a major role in shaping his transition team. "
15
Rebekakh Mercer, the same family that brought us Cambridge Analytica. Why doesn't the NYT help it's readers connect the dots? I see this as a big failing of institutions like the NYT, because most of it's readers do not know who the backroom players are. Instead articles like this are published in the name of balanced reporting. As all wealth is put into the hands of fewer people, connecting the dots becomes even more important.
There are so many problems with this essay that if it was presented to a professor as scholarship it would earn a C at best.
There are many glaring flaws in these arguments but let's just focus on one. The idea that TV is on the decline, which is a matter of definition. Watching video programming on traditional televisions is certainly in decline, but watching video programming streaming across a multitude of devices is growing exponentially. So the definition of what is 'TV' is changing, but owning and distributing content is growing. And now we're supposed to believe that a company with significant leverage in both of those areas is going to lower prices.
Moore seems to think they are merely creating efficiencies. He also argues that they are in different industries so not sure how that works. 2+2 has never equaled 4 for this guy.
9
Extreme competition in entertainment channels might be good for consumers except for one thing. The loss of net neutrality will lead to allowing money to govern who gets a chance to show something on the internet. The AT&T/TW merger is not about entertainment monopoly it is about controlling the "plumbing" and flow on America's internet. Small homegrown producers have lost there showcase.
13
This piece is hilarious. I’m stuck in the past too: I admire tr the trust buster, Wilson’s New freedom Clayton act, and even stand pat Taft (who initiated more antitrust cases than tr). Those measures helped fight income inequality and promote competition. This author though is also stuck in the past— the past of Eisenhower’s defense secretary, Charles Wilson, who is paraphrased as saying: what’s good for General Motors is good for the USA. Not true then, not true now.
13
While it is true that traditional cable packages are in decline the question is: how do your children who don't have cable get their content? The answer most likely is from a monopoly or near monopoly internet service provider -- which is a cable company. Have you priced Comcast's high speed internet service if you decline cable tv? It is already much higher than a competitive market would suggest. Where I live, Comcast is the only practical ISP. That, sir, is a monopoly.
28
One of the three great lies: The merger of two mega corporations is a big boost for competitiveness and an even bigger win for consumers and shareholders.
This brought to us by Stephen Moore, Heritage Foundation fellow and George Mason University economic shill for Koch and Company's campaign to do away with sensible and needed regulations. Check and see where his paycheck comes from.
Might as well be Billionaires for Prosperity.
47
Just look at airline and T-Mobile-Sprint mergers. Get rid of the competition snd monopolize.
5
Is it a win for us? Diversity is a win for us---diversity in what we eat, diversity of what we read, of friends, ideas, citizenry and of course plants and other animals. The author of this piece is from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. It would be a win for the 1%.
20
Forget the highfalutin arguments and look at the empirical evidence. The marriage of internet service with content has given the US by far the worst and most expensive internet in the developed world. If you want a connection, subscribe to our content - that is the message that, along with deceptive sales tactics and abysmal customer service, has made the telecoms the most hated companies on the planet. It is the classic monopoly ploy of forcing you to buy something you don't want, in order to get something you need - a connection. And this merger promises more of the same, or worse.
13
While accusing critics of being stuck in the 1980s, Stephen Moore seems to be stuck in a completely alternate reality. He displays an appalling ignorance of the history of vertical monopolies, while evoking fanciful theories of how this action constitutes a "win" for consumers.
Now that the Trump FCC has shamefully killed net neutrality, vertical integration of content providers and ISPs has the potential to wreak havoc on consumers. An ISP who also provides content has a huge incentive to prioritize its content over its competitors.
Mr. Moore correctly points out that consumers increasingly view entertainment content on mobile devices and through broadband, but this is exactly the problem. Who provides those services? Increasingly monopolized broadband and cellular providers dominated by a few mega-corporations, including none other than AT&T. The horizontal monopolization of these industries makes the vertical integration even more pernicious.
David G. Taylor, Ph.D. (Marketing)
16
What he actually pointed out was that young adolescents get their "content" from UTube and watch it on tiny little screens. Adults prefer to sit in front of giant screens and really watch. This is not the real world scenario.
The merger will benefit the upper management tiers, stockholders, and the lawyers that ironed out the details. The losers will be consumers and the laid off workers. Mergers of this magnitude have rarely, if ever, benefited the consumer. Fewer choices for the consumer is not a win for the consumer.
17
Someone who is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation says that the creation of a monopoly is good for consumers and I'm supposed to buy it? It's not funny, it's sad and scary...
13
Why it is bad: Monopolies and conglomerates are never good for consumers. Literally never.
10
When AT&T ruled the world, it was broken up into several smaller companies by the Justice Department and the Supreme Court under the guise of giving consumers more choices and supposedly lower prices. It was the opposite that happened. Phone bills skyrocketed. AT&T used to be considered a quasi utility and therefore had constraints when it came to raising prices.
The mere fact that all of these tele-communications companies are using public airwaves used to be the reason they were teated as quasi utilities and had to get permission and have good reasons to raise rates.
Every time the government steps into deregulate an industry or approve mergers, it leaves the consumer in the dust.
As do the agencies, both State and Federal, as they always side with utilities when they want to raise rates.
It used to be that when you went into business you had to depend on yourself to be successful or not. Every time I think of the bail out of banks and companies not once, not twice, but several times.
I think of how an ordinary citizen gets criticized if they need Food Stamps or health care, I think of the outrage of the Republicans that mere people need help. But you sure do not hear that from them when they are bailing out banks.
We do not practice Capitalism, we operate on on the basis if you are a huge company you deserve a bail out if you are too big to fail.
Let's call this what it is. A win for Capitalism and a loss for the consumer.
14
Those are some of the worst examples against market consolidation I've ever heard. Amazon and Walmart? Amazon and Walmart intentionally under price competitors in order to gain market share. The entire process undermines traditional retail businesses and eliminates alternative retailers for vendors. If you make a product, you essestially required to be on Amazon. Take it or leave it. If you don't like it, you're out of business. Don't get me started on Microsoft.
The problem with AT&T and Time Warner is different. I'm not worried about an absence of competition in the media industry. The problem is you shouldn't mix utilities with content providers. Under a merger, AT&T has a strong incentive to push Time Warner content over other alternatives. With the end of net neutrality, they also have the legal authority to do so.
What if every time your teenager opened up their smart phone to watch their favorite YouTube channel, they landed on the Time Warner homepage instead. The streaming service is naturally bundled with their data plan. When they finally navigate to YouTube, they may find the streaming throttled due to net neutrality violations. Unless of course YouTube pays AT&T to unthrottle their service.
My concern with Time Warner has nothing to do with price manipulation specifically. My concern is entirely about the manipulation of consumer preferences. This will become the market standard if the AT&T-Time Warner merger is allowed to proceed.
11
Good for consumers? So says someone who is wrong about everything, and has never supported anything that benefits the average american. Att cannot even do high speed internet.
8
Right! Soon we will benefit from layoffs, contract labor and more winning in our wage increases....still waiting after the last telecom merger, buyout, takeover. Sincerely, telecom employee
12
We've experienced just how wrong this view is. Was not long ago when TV was free and telephone service nearly so. These profit mongers took new technologies and made anything but expensive service obsolete and almost as expensive as top of the line service , adding hundreds of dollars to our monthly bills despite notoriously bad customer service. Capitalism without ethics, including reasonable restraints on corporate reach, is predatory plain and simple.
36
You can still get free TV. And you can still get cheap telephone service... There is lots to be worried about here, but your examples are not very good.
1
The arguments set forth in this article are just as wrong and dishonest as the arguments against "net neutrality".
These corporations are not to be trusted. Of course reduced competition will result in higher prices and reduced selection for consumers. And of course internet providers will throttle internet speeds with "pay to play" schemes.
But sure, keep telling us how we are going to benefit – we are getting used to being lied to and sold out.
23
AT&T and Time Warner do not now compete with each other, so their merger will not reduce competition.
4
That is not true. In Raleigh NC, for example, the two internet and tv providers are Time Warner and ATT. Both offer residential internet service. Both off cable/satellite/internet tv. They are, indeed, direct competitors.
1
Chad, I think you are mistaken. Time-Warner Cable (now ‘Spectrum’ after merging with Charter a couple years back) was separated from Time Warner itself many years ago, it’s a different company.
What all of this is leading to is death of the internet. Now that net neutrality is dead, various megacorporations will compete against each other by creating special internet pricing for preferred customers, ie, the wealthy while disadvantaging the less well-off. The result will be a shrinking audience and smaller internet, and the loss of the great sea of viewers that has made the internet what it is: a meeting place for all classes, races, ages and genders.
I've already cancelled by cable connection, relying on "old" technology such as DVD's and CD's for media content just because cable is too expensive. I expect I'll be getting off the internet soon for the same reason. Too bad capitalism keeps shooting itself in the foot. Too bad for capitalism that is.
19
I can afford internet but not cable TV. I miss PBS but there have to be tradeoffs.
1
SF
With Vermont Public Radio & TV, as a member I can access many programs on-line, no TV service required. Maybe something like that is possible with your local PBS station.
Hope that helps.
PBS can be watched and down streamed on your TV through Roku. Roku provides tremendous benefits and streaming has even improved. It is a one time payment, easy set up and provides many options for TV viewing. Still beats the price and choices of cable by miles. Plus I can immediately cancel my agreement if I desire. You might do some research to add PBS and enjoy it once again. I enjoy it as well.
Allowing industry after industry to reduce the number of competitors is bad for consumers, bad for income inequity and bad for innovation.
To use Amazon and Walmart as positive examples boggles the mind. I can't come up with two better examples of companies that need to be broken up! Using lowering price to consumers as the only metric is misleading and misses several key factors.
As major employers, do they pay a living wage? Do they have working conditions that allow an employee to raise a family (or do they hire robots?) Amazon is a more complex business, but has their retail operation ever made a profit? I know other areas of it's business has.
Walmart more than any other single force has been responsible for the hollowing out of American manufacturing. In the '80's and '90's it ruthlessly sourced from China and actively put in place the manufacturing needed to allow them to lower prices to the point of putting other retailers (and many US manufacturing companies) out of business.
The concentration of industries has led to increased income inequality, the most fundamental economic issue of our age. It has a similar chilling impact on innovation. Having fewer companies means having fewer R&D groups which need larger programs to have an impact to be funded.
It isn't just about making American companies profitable, global competitors, it should be about promoting the general welfare.
17
Every time I hear about how the merger of mega-corporations will make my life better and cheaper, I cringe.
47
This author argues that, normally, anti-trust actions are brought to prevent "horizontal" mergers - two companies doing the same sort of business. That's an interesting observation since the anti-trust movement was created to break-up "vertically" dominant actors (e.g., Standard Oil). There may be some merit in this piece but ignoring history is not one of them.
17
"The days when companies like U.S. Steel or General Motors or Microsoft could accumulate the market power to dominate an industry and gouge consumers with higher prices are long gone."
While Microsoft was a dominant player 20 years ago, there is exactly zero evidence that the company ever gouged consumers with higher prices.
10
The Consumers have the rights to be scared of the mergers of AT&T with Time Warner, as they are seeing continue price hike of the cable TVs as well their cell phone bill. The AT&T always find a reason to increse the price and burden the hard working parents. Sometime they say that it's a data charges and sometime they blame the local taxes. It was a time not long ago when our telephone bill used to be hardly $35/ and now it has reached to $250/ a month. Likewise, our TV service was almost free, and now we pay $200/ for cable and internet. The bottom line is that that the big portion of our paycheck evaporates in these two categories. Why not if the AT&T and Time Warner are very kind hearted as well as sympathisers of consumers, they should come out with a significant plan to lower the cost of their products prior to their mergers.
23
I gave up cable last year. Most TV shows are garbage. I miss PBS, but still have internet. Life would be spare and rough without it. With these big mergers they'll price me out of internet as well. I have no doubt.
When has the merger of two huge companies ever been a net benefit to consumers? We know what you want, Mr. Moore, and who pays you and we’re just not listening anymore.
68
There was no legal basis upon which to stop this merger. That said, saying it is actually "good" for consumers is quite a stretch.
17
Stephen Moore never has gotten it right and seemingly never will get it right. The comment that teenagers watch programming on their computers is so misleading. Yes, the do so Stephen when the rest of the family is watching something other than what they are interested in. My 22 year old twins do for sure but would so much rather watch their stuff on our 64 inch set. Crazy. As always listen to Stephen then do the opposite.
20
The right way to understand this kind of merger is as a purely defensive move - telecom companies are just pipes, they have no control over what flows through them - in the current model, they risk becoming redundant, after all, anyone can be the pipe. I doubt AT&T will try to discriminate against other content providers than Time Warner, it doesnt make sense to turn away content..
2
Youre exceedingly mistaken. Of course they have control over their pipes: thats what the demise of Net Neutrality is about! There's already been examples of throttling.
"In short, there is probably no area in today’s economy where there is less threat of monopolistic power than in media and entertainment." Is Stephen Moore aware that Disney bought Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm? I've worked in the film and TV industry for nearly twenty years and believe me, not only is media and entertainment consolidation old news, it is demonstrably deleterious for the workers who fuel this industry.
Moore's assertion that these companies are not competing with each other is incorrect. Both AT&T and TimeWarner are both currently creating content and, therefore, competing horizontally. Strange that Moore is unaware that fact. He correctly points out that TimeWarner has an impressive stable of IP, but he fails to recognize that shows like "Kingdom" are produced by Audience Network (owned by DirectTV and, therefore, owned by AT&T). There are numerous other examples of AT&T produced content.
Moore's other giant blind spot is the economic impact on anyone who works in the film industry, from writers, directors and actors to and middle class, below-the-line film industry workers who are the backbone of these media companies. The wages of these workers has been suppressed by the proliferation of non-union streaming content and the vertical integration of numerous content providers. This is a reality that is already happening.
This trend will now undoubtedly worsen with this merger.
51
If the Heritage Foundation support it, that seems to be enough grounds for deep suspicion and rejection of the merger.
This merger will make two mega media companies into an even much bigger media company. Great for share holders and CEO’s, but not so great for workers or consumers.
88
"The companies hope to lower costs by merging AT&T’s transmission of video content with the entertainment products that Time Warner offers."
This is correct -- and is precisely why we need strong net-neutrality rules. In today's world, "transmission" means delivering data packets through the internet. Without net neutrality, this merger's vertical integration allows a common carrier and a content producer to unfairly manipulate the market. AT&T can prioritize or zero-rate Time Warner's packets while slowing down competing content providers and services. It's difficult to see how this could possibly be a win for consumers while the 2015 Open Internet Order is being reversed.
29
Time Warner is a content producer.
AT&T / DirecTV is a content provider.
They absolutely are competing. Time Warner competes to shop its content to various providers and the best prices.
By purchasing Time Warner, that content Time Warner used to competitively shop to all providers will be exclusively accessible through AT&T. Meaning, if you are a consumer who wants access to that particular content, AT&T now has a monopoly over both its production and distribution, which increases price they can extract from consumers for it. Vertical monopolies are actually much worse for consumers than horizontal monopolies.
I don't know who taught you economics Mr. Moore, but you should be taught again.
71
AT&T, in anticipation of this merger, has been offering free HBO for life on DIRECTVNOW- it's streaming TV service. Over on YouTube TV owned by Google, you cannot find HBO.
Hmmm.
I blanch every time I hear that something is good for consumers and shareholders. More often than not, their interests are at odds, and when big companies consolidate, the winners invariably are shareholders.
46
Mr. Moore, like most journalists covering mergers and acquisitions, is either unaware of, or unable to understand the works of Joe Bain's "Industrial Organization" (1959), and its implications for the structure, conduct, and performance of firms as they come to dominate an industry.
The AT&T-Time Warner merger will be another clear validation of Bain's work: becoming the more dominant firm in the industry, AT&T-Time Warner will limit further competition, raise prices, and produce profits well above what a more competitive market would yield.
Just watch what happens over the next few years to see how this plays out.
75
Exactly, just look at AT&T over the past couple of decades, exorbitant fees, packaged marketing, virtually non-existent services. They will take every advantage their dominance allows them. All the efficiency gains go to their bottom line. They no longer need to serve a consumer without options, they run over our government with equal ease.
14
Of course it's Stephen Moore. Who else but Mr Club-For-Growth with his fantasy economics & miserable track record but in good company with his club buddy, Arthur Laffer.
This excerpt from Wikipedia sums up the mendacious hack:
"In the 2014 Kansas City Star opinion piece "What's the matter with Paul Krugman? Moore responded to Krugman's opinion piece "Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas." Moore claimed that job creation had been superior in low-taxation states during the five years ending June 2009 following the recession. After substantial factual errors were uncovered in Moore's opinion piece, the Kansas City Star indicated that it would no longer print Moore's work without "thorough factchecking." Miriam Pepper, editor of the Kansas City Star, decided to stop publishing Moore's work for its inaccurate statements."
The page and its citations to various statements above can be found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(writer)
The Kansas City Star stopped publishing him, but the NYT does, with no warning label.
206
Agreed Joel, I wonder if Mr. Moore wants to pay my $260 a month bill to Verizon for a basic telephone, cable and internet?
I am waiting Mr. Moore.
5
Thank you Joel
Wait isn't this vertical intergration a loss for consumers? Since now ATT-Directv the cable provider is also controlling a majority of the content; doesn't it contribute to "locking in" consumers by limiting choice?
60
I thought I was hallucinating when I first saw this headline.
Mr. Moore, in speaking of those trying to stop the AT&T merger says, "The absurdity of this argument is that the Justice lawyers seemed to be stuck in the 1980s."
No Mr. Moore, the Heritage Foundations excuses, are stuck in the 80's. We've been told way too many times how these mergers will benefit us, but it never has, and never will.
Unfortunately, as more and more right wing judges are assigned to the Federal courts, the more anti-trust laws will be pushed to the side.
Corporate monopolies are winning, big time!
188
Mr. Moore is clearly unaware of the high cost and poor quality of broad band internet service in the U.S. versus other countries. These companies (and others) are merging precisely to obtain monopoly power along with the higher prices and profits that such power brings. I agree that Google and other large companies have a lot of market power, but the answer is to break them up, not to allow a lot of other mergers that result in very few large companies that function as an oligopoly.
128
The AT&T-Time Warner merger creates a monopoly, which is awful for consumers. When firms have monopolistic power, they charge prices that are higher than can be justified based upon the costs of production, and prices that are higher than they would be if the market was actually competitive. However, monopoly was the entire point of this merger. During the trial, the Justice Department revealed an internal document where an executive from Turner Broadcasting, now part of AT&T, explicitly stated that "Time Warner would be a weapon for AT&T because AT&T's competitors need Time Warner programming." However, Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation is trying to convince us it will benefit consumers. Moore, a former economic advisory to Donald Trump, is a hyper-partisan right-wing pundit masquerading as an economist and an expert on economics. It has been repeatedly revealed in the press that Moore is not a real economist in any sense of the term. His only advanced degree in economics is an M.A. from George Mason University and he has never even bothered to do any economic research. Moore is best known for his total ignorance of economic issues. There are too many example to list, but just consider that in 2015 New York Magazine wrote a detailed piece on Moore which was titled: "Guy Who Gets Paid to Say Obamacare Doesn't Work Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case."
81
Well stated. I think it's always wise to get more info on the writer of the article before reading it. In this case, I didn't have to go far...Heritage Foundation reference said it all.
Paul Krugman agrees. He’s called Moore a fraud many times.
The editors of the Times could do better.
One portion of your reply perfectly examplified what I consider to be one of the worst societal changes to have occurred over the past decade, the tendency to give total acceptance and credibility to anything that one reads in print or on the internet, as if that alone made it true. As a result, we see a continuous regurgitation of nonsensical claims on both the right and the left, simply because once in print/online they take on an unwarranted air of authenticity.
You attempt to discredit Moore as an economist by referring to that widely respected source of intellectual and economic journalism, New York Magazine! Really?! The title alone "Guy Who Gets Paid to Say Obamacare Doesn't Work Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case” should have alerted you immediately that it was a political attack piece. Even the most ardent ACA support would admit that there were ways/places that it was failing or grossly underperforming, even if on balance they considered it a success. So saying “Can’t Find a Single True Fact to Support His Case” is obviously nonsense.
Should I reasonably expect that you would consider it equally persuasive if I cited an article in GQ with a headline reading “Moore is the most insightful economist in the world”? No, I didn’t think so. Selectively cherry picking articles from relatively unqualified sources so as to support ones position has become the accepted norm. Truth and opinions backed by substantive facts are no longer considered necessary.
1
Mr. Moore, yur understanding of the entertainment industry today is lacking. AT&T controls the distribution of content to its subscribers. As such, ISP's like Comcast have been "squeezing" the pipe for content providers like Netflix until they can get increased fees. That was the underpinning for the Net Neutrality ruling two years ago. Now that the ruling is being dismantled, AT&T can make their Turner content more appealing by slowing down competitors. This is the monopoly basis for the lawsuit. Uncontrolled, ISP's can determine what content their subscribers can watch.
This can negatively impact the more thna 200M Netflix, Hulu, and other subcribers.
58
In Israel, where they have a competitive market providing cell phone service, unlimited everything costs $10 per month compared to the $50 per month here in the states where we have a cartel. These excess monopoly profits come directly out of working family budgets, reducing their purchasing power.
Recently I found myself in line in the local Comcast service center behind a retired Coast Guard sailor. After unsuccessfully negotiating to reduce the cost of his TV service for several minutes, I heard him say “Look, just give me basic service with no HD, because my medical insurance is going up $10 a month.” He was being financially crushed between two monopolies. No wonder people are turning to an autocrat out of economic insecurity and fear.
107
Oh yes; I've had the same frustrating conversation with Comcast. Then AT&T came along and jacked up my internet rate, so I could get more than basic service (but barely) with Comcast by allowing them to provide my internet service for the same amount of money as before. It's really hard to keep up trying to get "promotional" rates year after year. And there are few providers or only one in our area to threaten to take my dollars to a mostly non-existent competitor. Yet business rates for cable and internet are much lower than residential rates. How is that fair?
3
Yes, and it is an autocrat who is allowing this to happen along with his supporters. AT&T on highway 12 in Sonoma County has provided such bad service, many dropped calls, that there has been massive complaints. They have little competition so are not in a hurry to correct this problem. We are being held hostage.
You have got to be kidding. Many of us have no choice or very limited choice in broadband connection. Maybe not a national monopoly, but certainly a monopoly for many of us.
13