U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-time-warner-appeal.htm
5 comments
Does anyone have more (even if hypothetical) ramification examples of said merger? I can only assume it's bad for consumers for the most part, right?
Why should it be bad for consumers. Content producers are free to license their material to whomever they choose.
If show X is only available on service Y, and you don't agree, don't watch it. It's mindless entertainment anyway.
If show X is only available on service Y, and you don't agree, don't watch it. It's mindless entertainment anyway.
I agree with the stance that, yes, they are free to do what they want, but only to a degree. The closest historical parallel would probably be the Paramount case that completely changed the cinema landscape from studios owning and operating their own cinemas that only showed the films from their own studio to breaking up these cinemas from the studios and allowing them to show films from whoever they want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
But unfortunately the appetite in this country for anti-trust litigation has almost completely dried up at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
But unfortunately the appetite in this country for anti-trust litigation has almost completely dried up at this point.
How is this any different than Old Navy selling only their branded clothing? Or Tesla dealerships (if they can be called that) selling only Teslas?
IMO, when strictly speaking about content, there should be zero regulation in regards to whom can own and license content to whom.
IMO, when strictly speaking about content, there should be zero regulation in regards to whom can own and license content to whom.
Its probably worth reading about Rockefeller and some of the reasons we began to enforce anti-trust laws in the first place.
What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Huge corporations often find themselves in the position of improving profit not by offering better products, but by snuffing out their competitors. Often nefariously.
Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. He was literally making Standard Oil the only game in town. Anti-competition is not in our best interest as Americans.
And I'm not saying content providers are going to employ the same tactics as Rockefeller did, but its not hard to see how if you controlled a substantial amount of capital in the entertainment industry, maybe you can blacklist actors who decide to go do a show on Netflix. Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO. We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one. Huge corporations often find themselves in the position of improving profit not by offering better products, but by snuffing out their competitors. Often nefariously.
Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company. Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier. He was literally making Standard Oil the only game in town. Anti-competition is not in our best interest as Americans.
And I'm not saying content providers are going to employ the same tactics as Rockefeller did, but its not hard to see how if you controlled a substantial amount of capital in the entertainment industry, maybe you can blacklist actors who decide to go do a show on Netflix. Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO. We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
> What we want in this country is not solely a free market, but a competitive one.
Who's this we business? Turn of the 20th century politicians?
> Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company.
And were those railroads forced to take that deal? Economies of scale. Sounds similar to how Walmart is able to use their buying power to force down prices from their suppliers. "Raise prices for others" is the same as "Lower prices for me."
> Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier.
Similar to how Walmart and now Amazon have their own shipping services as well (Walmart does their own back-haul).
> Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO
I'm pretty sure this is already a thing? You can create all sorts of contracts around non-compete.
> We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
I want exactly this behavior. Hopefully we can cut out more middle people and have more direct-to-consumer purchasing model.
Who's this we business? Turn of the 20th century politicians?
> Rockefeller didn't just establish a great supply chain for his oil refineries, he began making railroad companies charge other refineries more than his company.
And were those railroads forced to take that deal? Economies of scale. Sounds similar to how Walmart is able to use their buying power to force down prices from their suppliers. "Raise prices for others" is the same as "Lower prices for me."
> Then he bought the railroads and made the process even easier.
Similar to how Walmart and now Amazon have their own shipping services as well (Walmart does their own back-haul).
> Or pay a director a few extra million just to stop working with HBO
I'm pretty sure this is already a thing? You can create all sorts of contracts around non-compete.
> We, as both consumers and free marketeers, do not want this behavior.
I want exactly this behavior. Hopefully we can cut out more middle people and have more direct-to-consumer purchasing model.
I think the debate is "you can only watch this if you have ATT 5G or ATT DSL." The latter is a literal government granted monopoly, I dont have the option to buy multiple DSL and multiple Cable subscriptions. The former is just so silly, to have major content be exclusive to a mobile provider. Do they honestly expect me to sign up for ATT and Verizon and Sprint/TMobile?
Should some of the government regulation, protecting ISPs from geographic competitors, include a social contract of sorts agreeing not to own content production? Or do you pass laws forcing them to resell the last mile to competitors at fair market rates?
Should some of the government regulation, protecting ISPs from geographic competitors, include a social contract of sorts agreeing not to own content production? Or do you pass laws forcing them to resell the last mile to competitors at fair market rates?
My vote is to get rid of the 'literal government granted monopoly' which created the problem in the first place.
> Why should it be bad for consumers.
Usually more competition results in higher quality products and service for consumers; and usually, more conglomeration results in less incentive for the service to improve and therefore lowers the quality for the consumer.
> If show X is only available on service Y, and you don't agree, don't watch it.
This is not how society works. When things get big and popular, their existence pervades through society and all people are affected, not just those who purchase the service or product directly.
> It's mindless entertainment anyway.
This is surely a logical fallacy. Not only is it not likely true, you are dismissing the valid concerns of a person by belittling the importance of the topic itself.
Usually more competition results in higher quality products and service for consumers; and usually, more conglomeration results in less incentive for the service to improve and therefore lowers the quality for the consumer.
> If show X is only available on service Y, and you don't agree, don't watch it.
This is not how society works. When things get big and popular, their existence pervades through society and all people are affected, not just those who purchase the service or product directly.
> It's mindless entertainment anyway.
This is surely a logical fallacy. Not only is it not likely true, you are dismissing the valid concerns of a person by belittling the importance of the topic itself.
Indeed! It's rare a merger results in more choice and better service. If you have less competitors, there is less incentive to be competitive, meaning you can step on customers without penalty: they can't go anywhere, and the one "other guy" is probably also playing the same oligopoly game, giving you a choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
Why is the government usually inefficient? Because they have no competition. If a corporation's competitors go away, they become more government-like.
Sometimes they are even worse than gov't because they can get profit by being deceptive, while gov't employees generally have no monetary incentive to earn a profit. The gov't workers may be indifferent to "customers", but have little reason to rip them off. For example, any extra fees collected don't go to a given gov't employee because fee incentive programs are not allowed. But customer sign-on bonuses are common at telecoms. I can tell you personal stories of "ghost fees" appearing on my telecom bill.
Why is the government usually inefficient? Because they have no competition. If a corporation's competitors go away, they become more government-like.
Sometimes they are even worse than gov't because they can get profit by being deceptive, while gov't employees generally have no monetary incentive to earn a profit. The gov't workers may be indifferent to "customers", but have little reason to rip them off. For example, any extra fees collected don't go to a given gov't employee because fee incentive programs are not allowed. But customer sign-on bonuses are common at telecoms. I can tell you personal stories of "ghost fees" appearing on my telecom bill.
"I personally think there is nothing seriously wrong with the current system, so the problem must be you."
[deleted]
Article seems to be missing what the Justice Department's arguments were about how this merger is anticompetitive and/or violates antitrust law?
Does anyone have a version updated for 2019?
Edit: The story got flagged - any idea why?