Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday October 23 2016, @11:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the too-big-to-care-about-the-customer dept.

AT&T is expected to announce on Saturday evening that it will purchase Time Warner Inc. for over $80 billion:

AT&T Inc. has reached an agreement to buy Time Warner Inc. for $86 billion, according to a person familiar with the plans, in a deal that would transform the phone company into a media giant. The wireless carrier agreed to pay $107.50 a share, the person said. The deal is half cash and half stock, according to people familiar with the transaction.

[...] For Time Warner, the deal represents a victory for [Chief Executive Mr. Jeff Bewkes], 64, who took some heat from investors for rebuffing a takeover bid two years ago from 21st Century Fox at $85 a share. [...] A merger of the companies would be the most ambitious marriage of content and distribution in the media and telecom industries since Comcast Corp.'s purchase of NBCUniversal and would create a behemoth to rival that cable giant. A rigorous regulatory review is expected and the acquisition of Time Warner likely wouldn't close until late 2017, people close to the process said.

Donald Trump has said that he would block the proposed merger and other media company mergers.

Also at Washington Post, NYT, CNN, and Reuters.

Update: Confirmed by AT&T.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:28PM (#417830)

    Companies should not be able to advocate on legislation/regulations that affect them? Trade organizations should be outlawed?

    You're probably old enough to remember when lobbying consisted of paper bags of cash surreptitiously being push towards politicians, and even for how corrupt things are now, it's an improvement over what we had before.

    The problem is less companies attempting to buy government, but that government is so cheap to buy. AT&T shooting their wad on a mediocre cable company should be the best thing for competition as their imminent demise should pave the way for new players to enter.

    Remember when AOL bought Time Warner? Yeah, that worked out well.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:46PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:46PM (#417835) Homepage Journal

    Companies should not be able to advocate on legislation/regulations that affect them? Trade organizations should be outlawed?

    Yup. Mind you, nothing would be stopping private individuals in said companies from organizing and spending their own money.

    You're probably old enough to remember when lobbying consisted of paper bags of cash surreptitiously being push towards politicians, and even for how corrupt things are now, it's an improvement over what we had before.

    You mean how only 5% of the funds the Clinton Foundation took in went out to Hati and the rest was spent up on paying employees (Chelsea) and dolling out kickbacks? Yeah, that's a real improvement.

    Remember when AOL bought Time Warner? Yeah, that worked out well.

    Apples and Oranges. It's all about removing competition in the data delivery market. Allowing AT&T to own both the phone lines and the coax is exceedingly foolish; the rest of the merger be damned.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @01:53PM (#417836)

      You mean how only 5% of the funds the Clinton Foundation took in went out to Hati and the rest was spent up on paying employees (Chelsea) and dolling out kickbacks? Yeah, that's a real improvement.

      You should see a doctor ASAP. The uncontrollable urge to inject the clintons into any discussion on the internet is the primary symptom of HDS (hillary derangement syndrome). If left untreated, HDS can progress to impotence, uncontrolled fits of rage and social ostracization.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:07PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:07PM (#417840) Homepage Journal

        He brought up paid off politicians and the Clintons are the gold standard in that.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:15PM (#417844)

          Yep, you've got a severe case. It may be too late for you.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:23PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:23PM (#417850) Journal

        Yeah, 5% went to Haiti, but NONE of it went to the people affected. They built a school, among other things, in a section of the country that was completely undamaged.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:25PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 23 2016, @02:25PM (#417852) Journal

        You are the perfect example of the dumbing down of America. Unless you're just acting stupid to help your shill spin along.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:01PM (#417859)

          Another HDS sufferer.
          The fever has swelled your brain is so much that you couldn't remember you had already posted a response just minutes before.
          Seek help immediately.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:12PM (#417860)

        CNN's yellow journalism tried to say this is a 'vertical' merger and not a horizontal one which

        A: Is a total lie

        B: Misses the point.

        It's a lie because AT&T and Time Warner both provide Internet, phone, and television services and they are the only two option I have here. If they merge that will directly impact the competition available in my area and there will be a single monopoly player.

        In fact shortly after Time Warner cable bought Charter my Internet/cable/phone bill increased by $5 a month. It seems like after every merger the prices have only increased.

        Secondly it misses the point because the point is, as you have begun to explain, that the competition on communication is what's being reduced.

        Back in the days if you wanted to communicate long distance you were stuck with the local phone company that had a monopoly in your area and charged a fortune. Then Internet started competing with phone and phone companies were forced to lower their international fees or else face people simply using Skype and VOIP services instead.

        Now if the same company has a monopoly on both fronts they can charge you a fortune to communicate long distance either way. What choice do you have?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Celestial on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:36PM

          by Celestial (4891) on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:36PM (#417884) Journal

          AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner the media conglomerate, NOT Time Warner Cable the television and Internet provider. Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are entirely separate companies, and Time Warner Cable was already bought by Charter. It's easy to get them confused with the same name and all, I know, but it's important to remember that they're distinct companies.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:55PM (#417925)

            Thanks for clarifying.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 24 2016, @03:14PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday October 24 2016, @03:14PM (#418177)

          CNN's yellow journalism tried to say this is a 'vertical' merger and not a horizontal one which

          I don't think "yellow journalism" means what you think it means.

          Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

          Assuming the media is in the pocket of the companies in question, it's against their interest to draw attention to the merger; in fact they would want to sweep it under the rug.

          What's the opposite of yellow journalism? Violet journalism? ;-)

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:10PM

        by Bot (3902) on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:10PM (#417874) Journal

        Why can't he bring up the Clintons? people running for presidency should not only be commented upon, they should be put under a lens all time, their dirty socks should be x-rayed.

        Spoken as one who has different puppets than yours to vote for.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @07:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @07:19PM (#417931)

          Because its random. If every time anyone mentions corruption, someone decides to bring up the clintons, should we also bring up the clintons every time someone mentions charity?

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 23 2016, @08:22PM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday October 23 2016, @08:22PM (#417944) Homepage Journal

            If every time someone brings up corruption the Clinton name is mentioned, it's not random. As soon as the Clintons start doing some actual charity, let me know and I'll consider mentioning them in conjunction with the word.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @09:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @09:11PM (#417958)

              > If every time someone brings up corruption the Clinton name is mentioned, it's not random.

              Correct. It is not random. It means you've got HDS.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @12:50AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @12:50AM (#417997)

        I am a proud victim of HDS.

        Wow, I have already progressed to uncontrolled fits of rage at how corrupt Hillary Clinton is and how much of a criminal she is!!! The social ostracization part must be a later stage, most everyone else seems to have the same syndrome as me.

        The problem is that we must choose between a lunatic and a criminal for president. Which is worse ... hard decisions ....

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:20PM (#417862)

      You mean how only 5% of the funds the Clinton Foundation took in went out to Hati and the rest was spent up on paying employees (Chelsea) and dolling out kickbacks? Yeah, that's a real improvement.

      A facting we will go [factcheck.org], A facting we will go [insidephilanthropy.com], Heigh-Ho the derry-o! [charitywatch.org], A facting we will go! [politifact.com].

      Facts are so damn inconvenient, aren't they, Buzzard?

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:42PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Sunday October 23 2016, @03:42PM (#417868) Homepage Journal

      I think this merger is a big mistake. Combining delivery with content creates perverse incentives to limit access to competing content providers.

      However, Time Warner [wikipedia.org] doesn't own any coax. Not any more. Those assets were sold to [wikipedia.org]Charter Communications [wikipedia.org]. That sale was finalized on 18 May 2016.

      As I've said many times, combining content and delivery is a recipe for limiting competition, artificially keeping prices high, creating/expanding/maintaining barriers to entry for both content and delivery providers, and generally reducing the competitive landscape.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:43PM (#417885)

        > However, Time Warner doesn't own any coax. Not any more. Those assets were sold to Charter Communications. That sale was finalized on 18 May 2016.

        Actually, Time Warner dumped Time Warner Cable in 2008 (completed in 2009). [cbsnews.com]