November 19, 2017
By Michael Copps
Recent news reports indicate the Justice Department (click here) has threatened to derail AT&T’s attempted purchase of Time Warner. President Trump so dislikes CNN’s coverage of his administration that he apparently wants to compel Time Warner to spin off the cable news network or face legal uncertainty.
To be clear, if true, these reports mark yet another low in Trump’s ongoing war on the freedom of the press. Outrage at Trump’s attacks on the free flow of information are appropriate and timely. But we should not lose track of the fact that AT&T’s takeover of Time Warner, with or without CNN, would be wildly anti-competitive.
For too long, companies have sought vertical combinations because of purported pro-consumer synergies that never materialize....
The facts are clear, the problems with any such merger will cause problems with the USA economy and consumers will pay the price.
November 20, 2017
By Natalie Gagliordi and Stephannie Condon
...The US Department of Justice (DOJ) (click here) is launching an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T in an effort block its proposed $85 billion takeover of Time Warner....
..."The only appropriate action is to seek an injunction from a federal judge to block the merger," a DOJ official said. When pressed, the DOJ said the antitrust action was in no way influenced by the White House or President Donald Trump's ongoing feud with CNN.
In a statement, AT&T said it was "confident that the court will reject the government's claims and permit this merger under longstanding legal precedent."
In a press briefing Monday afternoon, AT&T chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said the company has no intention to settle with the Department of Justice.
"Obviously, we're surprised to be here, and candidly, I'm a bit troubled by it," he said. The lawsuit, he said, "stretches the very reach of antitrust law beyond the breaking point."
Stephenson added that the lawsuit "comes at a time when the communications and media industries are undergoing rather radical change."
He cited major companies such as Netflix and Amazon that are distributing content to huge audiences, as well as the creation and distribution of content from tech giants Google and Facebook. By comparison, the suggestion that the combination of AT&T and and Time Warner would create unlawful media power "defies logic and is unprecedented," Stephenson said....
AT&T control access to communication, Netflex and Amazon does not. Amazon might sell phones, but, it does not provide a communication product in the way AT&T does
If AT&T is allowed to obtain HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT and Cinemax it would be a monopoly of program distribution. A consumer would be hostage to a company that could raise costs and fees in order to obtain access to many programs unique to those networks.
If AT&T wants to conduct the same business as Netflex and Amazon does in producing their own programs they can take their $85 billion and do exactly that. But, to monopolize entire channels with many popular programs and their own unique programs, is another issue entirely.
AT&T had a history reaching back to 1885 (click here) and, as a government-supported monopoly, was a highly profitable company. Colloquially known as Ma Bell, the communications giant lost its government backing in the 1980s when charges were filed against it under the Sherman Antitrust Act. This was the second time that AT&T found itself in an antitrust suit. In 1949, AT&T was excused from antitrust laws because it was believed that a single company providing nationwide service was a vital part of national security and any deregulation might interrupt service. The second time under Sherman's hammer AT&T was not so lucky.
The case began in 1974, was decided against AT&T on January 8, 1982, and the breakup plan was formalized throughout 1983. Ma Bell was ordered to give up local calling services to smaller regional spinoffs dubbed the Baby Bells. The parent company would hold on to its long distance business and be allowed to move into computer and Internet businesses. Brought into existence on January 1, 1984, the Baby Bells were some of the most successful spinoffs in history as AT&T had already paid the infrastructure layouts and their businesses were established and producing cash from day one....
It almost seems as though AT&T CEOs have no imagination to improve profits if at all possible. It is always healthy for any successful company basking in cash flow to consider diversified ventures to expand it's own appeal. But, to seek a monopoly of well-established media channels is not the way to do it.
EPS: 79 cents vs. 73 cents, according to Thomson Reuters (click here)
Revenue: $39.84 billion vs. $39.79 billion, according to Thomson Reuters
Wireless net adds: 2.8 million vs. 1.08 million, according to StreetAccount
It has always been my opinion that FOX was a monopoly on an entire media segment that dictated political dialogue. But, since 2014, FOX has started selling off it's monopoly. I think the Fantastic Four has never been better since FOX let them go.
Oh, by the way, Chris Wallace needs to rethink what constitutes a moral dialogue on his show. I saw about 5 minues of his Sunday show where "Roy Moore" must have been stated 100 times. It was so much propaganda I had no use for the program.
So, if AT&T obtains Time Warner, it is another potential exploitation of the consumer and far too big media/telecommunication company that will be tempted to direct the political discourse of the USA and any other country it sees fit to do so.
The facts are clear, the problems with any such merger will cause problems with the USA economy and consumers will pay the price.
November 20, 2017
By Natalie Gagliordi and Stephannie Condon
...The US Department of Justice (DOJ) (click here) is launching an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T in an effort block its proposed $85 billion takeover of Time Warner....
..."The only appropriate action is to seek an injunction from a federal judge to block the merger," a DOJ official said. When pressed, the DOJ said the antitrust action was in no way influenced by the White House or President Donald Trump's ongoing feud with CNN.
In a statement, AT&T said it was "confident that the court will reject the government's claims and permit this merger under longstanding legal precedent."
In a press briefing Monday afternoon, AT&T chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said the company has no intention to settle with the Department of Justice.
"Obviously, we're surprised to be here, and candidly, I'm a bit troubled by it," he said. The lawsuit, he said, "stretches the very reach of antitrust law beyond the breaking point."
Stephenson added that the lawsuit "comes at a time when the communications and media industries are undergoing rather radical change."
He cited major companies such as Netflix and Amazon that are distributing content to huge audiences, as well as the creation and distribution of content from tech giants Google and Facebook. By comparison, the suggestion that the combination of AT&T and and Time Warner would create unlawful media power "defies logic and is unprecedented," Stephenson said....
AT&T control access to communication, Netflex and Amazon does not. Amazon might sell phones, but, it does not provide a communication product in the way AT&T does
If AT&T is allowed to obtain HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT and Cinemax it would be a monopoly of program distribution. A consumer would be hostage to a company that could raise costs and fees in order to obtain access to many programs unique to those networks.
If AT&T wants to conduct the same business as Netflex and Amazon does in producing their own programs they can take their $85 billion and do exactly that. But, to monopolize entire channels with many popular programs and their own unique programs, is another issue entirely.
AT&T had a history reaching back to 1885 (click here) and, as a government-supported monopoly, was a highly profitable company. Colloquially known as Ma Bell, the communications giant lost its government backing in the 1980s when charges were filed against it under the Sherman Antitrust Act. This was the second time that AT&T found itself in an antitrust suit. In 1949, AT&T was excused from antitrust laws because it was believed that a single company providing nationwide service was a vital part of national security and any deregulation might interrupt service. The second time under Sherman's hammer AT&T was not so lucky.
The case began in 1974, was decided against AT&T on January 8, 1982, and the breakup plan was formalized throughout 1983. Ma Bell was ordered to give up local calling services to smaller regional spinoffs dubbed the Baby Bells. The parent company would hold on to its long distance business and be allowed to move into computer and Internet businesses. Brought into existence on January 1, 1984, the Baby Bells were some of the most successful spinoffs in history as AT&T had already paid the infrastructure layouts and their businesses were established and producing cash from day one....
It almost seems as though AT&T CEOs have no imagination to improve profits if at all possible. It is always healthy for any successful company basking in cash flow to consider diversified ventures to expand it's own appeal. But, to seek a monopoly of well-established media channels is not the way to do it.
EPS: 79 cents vs. 73 cents, according to Thomson Reuters (click here)
Revenue: $39.84 billion vs. $39.79 billion, according to Thomson Reuters
Wireless net adds: 2.8 million vs. 1.08 million, according to StreetAccount
It has always been my opinion that FOX was a monopoly on an entire media segment that dictated political dialogue. But, since 2014, FOX has started selling off it's monopoly. I think the Fantastic Four has never been better since FOX let them go.
Oh, by the way, Chris Wallace needs to rethink what constitutes a moral dialogue on his show. I saw about 5 minues of his Sunday show where "Roy Moore" must have been stated 100 times. It was so much propaganda I had no use for the program.
So, if AT&T obtains Time Warner, it is another potential exploitation of the consumer and far too big media/telecommunication company that will be tempted to direct the political discourse of the USA and any other country it sees fit to do so.
