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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.