
AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B - danm07
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-time-warner-m-a-at-t-idUSKCN12L1Y0
======
JumpCrisscross
Note that this is AT&T buying Time Warner the content company [1], not Time
Warner _Cable_ the ISP [2]. It's analogous to Comcast's NBC Universal
acquisition [3].

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable)

[3]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_NBC_Universal...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_NBC_Universal_by_Comcast)

~~~
noobermin
This is a very important distinction. To aid the lazy, the wiki articles
JumpCrisscross link state that Time Warner Cable is a spin off from Time
Warner in 2009 and they are independent of each other today, despite still
sharing part of a name. Therefore, this doesn't really appear to be an actual
consolidation.

EDIT: as drieddust notes, it is vertical integration of sorts.

~~~
drieddust
While its legal vertical integration is equally evil. It ends up creating
Oligopoly. Ones a few player becomes big enough, competition cannot rise.

~~~
pitaj
Why would competition be unable to rise?

~~~
ajmurmann
Because Time Warner's competition needs to rely on AT&T's network to deliver
their content.

~~~
drieddust
A big player with deep pockets can also make it a losing game for new player
even if they can find alternate channels to reach consumer.

------
jasode
Based on the top upvoted comment from _echelon_ in this thread, there seems to
be widespread confusion about Time Warner _the media company_.

Maybe a better way to think of it: AT&T is buying HBO, TBS, and Warner
Bros.[1]

(If you squint a certain way and look at Yahoo as a "media company"... the
AT&T acquisition of HBO+TBS+WB is somewhat a parallel industry move to
Verizon's acquisition of Yahoo.[2])

AT&T _is not_ buying the _other company_ with the similar name Time Warner
Cable. Yes, that other company owns some internet pipes (ISPs) but it is not
involved in this transaction.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner#Divisions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner#Divisions)

[2][https://www.fastcompany.com/3061232/platform-wars/with-
yahoo...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3061232/platform-wars/with-yahoo-
acquisition-verizon-hopes-to-grow-its-new-media-empire)

~~~
shp0ngle
Also, part of Warner Bros is DC comics, owners of Batman and Superman and
other DC intellectual property.

~~~
djsumdog
This just makes me think about AOL/TimeWarner.

So which giant will turn into a failing company? AT&T or Time Warner? I wish
Fucked Company was still around. I want to know who people would bet against.

------
samfisher83
Why not just let AT&T and Verizon get back together and lets get back the
original AT&T. How is this good for the country? They own directv. They own
all these local sports networks. I hope the government regulators take a
strong look at this.

Here is list of assets they own:

New Line Cinema, Home Box Office, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW
Television Network, Warner Bros., CNN, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim,
DC Comics, Warner Bros. Animation, Castle Rock Entertainment, Cartoon Network
Studios, Esporte Interativo, Hanna-Barbera Productions, Warner Bros.
Interactive Entertainment

That is a lot of content.

~~~
eternalban
I am sure our public servants were paid handsomely to take a look at it.
(sorry hn, was that snarky?)

~~~
icebraining
The public servants didn't have a say yet. And last year they did block
Comcast's merger with Time Warner, as well as AT&T's purchase of T-mobile in
2011.

~~~
jonwachob91
T-Mobil is an infrastructure company. Time Warner is a content company. You
can't compare the regulators blocking an infrastructure company (AT&T) from
purchasing another infrastructure company (T-Mobile) to a infrastructure
company (AT&T) acquiring a content company (Time Warner).

~~~
icebraining
I'm not saying they are comparable; I'm pointing out that regulators are
willing to block mergers and purchases, unlike the implied claim that they'll
rubber stamp anything as long as they've been paid off.

~~~
jessedhillon
As if the people who see bribes everywhere won't just claim them that the
right people just weren't bribed, or that the competition's bribes were more
convincing. Once bribery is assumed without evidence, it explains everything.

------
echelon
This is at face value so absolutely insane, I wonder what alternate reality I
woke up in today.

This is horrible for competition! Holy effing fuck. What is going on with our
regulators?

The telecoms are reconsolidating:

[http://online.wsj.com/media/attmap03282011.jpg](http://online.wsj.com/media/attmap03282011.jpg)

The service providers are consolidating

[https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-
BQ192_cablec_G...](https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-
BQ192_cablec_G_20140221130703.jpg)

Biomedical

[http://www.pm360online.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/Histor...](http://www.pm360online.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/History-of-BioPharma-Consolidation_1.jpg)

It goes on and on. At this point I fully expect us all to one day do our
banking at Google, receive our medical care from AT&T, and get all of our
meals and groceries from Taco Bell.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcE4OvnqAY](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcE4OvnqAY)

~~~
profquail
> What is going on with our regulators?

AT&T has reached an agreement to buy TWC. The deal has been neither reviewed
nor approved by regulators (yet).

~~~
echelon
> AT&T has reached an agreement to buy TWC. The deal has been neither reviewed
> nor approved by regulators (yet).

Then let me ask something else.

What is going on with the boards of these two companies? Do they think this
will fly? I believe they certainly must.

I assume that the people in charge of these companies are rational and
experienced, and that they considered the regulatory hurdles before moving
forward with this deal. They must think they can get away with this plan,
otherwise why bother with the trouble and expense of setting it up in the
first place?

~~~
rhino369
They believe it because it almost certainly will fly. Comcast and
NBC/Universal went through and we haven't seen any signs of reduction in
competition. Especially now that the FCC has made net neutrality the law,
there shouldn't be any fear about vertical monopoly over media.

It's absurd to think that media can be constrained into traditional mediums
anymore. Television is dying.

Hell, AOL already did this exact merger without any problems.

------
szx
Slightly OT: The Time Warner Cable (TWC) vs. Time Warner confusion in this
thread and elsewhere will luckily be resolved soon as the TWC brand is being
phased out in favor of Spectrum [1].

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-17/so-
long-t...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-17/so-long-time-
warner-cable-charter-to-retire-much-maligned-brand)

------
dimva
Hmmmm.... looks like there was some insider trading.

[https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...](https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Logarithmic&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1477162642408&chddm=1173&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSE:T&cmptdms=0&q=NYSE:TWX&ntsp=0&ei=Y7YLWLHLNYW8e9WgkrAO)

~~~
twoodfin
What makes you so sure? For one thing, it's perfectly legal for non-insiders
to figure out which way the wind is blowing on a deal and make a bet in that
direction.

------
mathgeek
After allowing Comcast to acquire NBC Universal, is there really any
expectation that this will be blocked?

~~~
walterbell
Comcast has been blocked from other acquisitions, e.g. Time Warner Cable,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9429035#9429514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9429035#9429514)

~~~
jonwachob91
Time Warner Cable / Comcast was an infrastructure acquisition. Comcast already
has infrastructure.

Time Warner (not Time Warner Cable) / AT&T is a content acquisition. AT&T
doesn't really have content.

That is an apples to oranges comparison.

~~~
walterbell
Comcast had content via NBC Universal.

~~~
jonwachob91
Comcast still has content via NBCUniversal.

Comcast didn't try to buy Time Warner, they tried to buy Time Warner Cable.
Two different companies (as has been mentioned in probably 1/3 of the comments
on this thread).

~~~
walterbell
The combination of Comcast and TWC would have been:

    
    
        infrastructure 
      + content 
      + infrastructure 
    

allowing the content portion of Comcast to have _more_ infrastructure leverage
over competing content providers. Those competing content providers lobbied
against the merger. Competing content providers (not already owned by an
infrastructure company) may also lobby against this AT&T merger with Warner
Bros & HBO.

------
o0-0o
Trump said today, in a speech in Gettysburg, PA, that if he becomes president,
he will work to block this transaction because it consolidates too much power.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, no conflict of interest there at all. He's right, but for the the wrong
reasons and motivations.

~~~
sb057
How would a real estate investor have a conflict of interest in regards to a
telecom merger?

If you want to talk about a conflict of interest in presidential candidates,
Hillary Clinton has received at least a combined $1,564,708 in political
contributions from AT&T and Time Warner. Additionally, AT&T's senior executive
Vice President James Cicconi has endorsed Clinton.

~~~
jrockway
Everyone has endorsed Clinton.

~~~
koolba
> Everyone has endorsed Clinton.

Not _everyone_ :D

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728645)

------
dzink
Content is king and now the telcos are likely fighting content rates
renegotiations by acquiring content companies like TW. US cable subscription
business was nearly 92 million households a few years ago. Now that Netflix
has crossed more than half of that and they are competing with original
content, the telcos have something to worry about. Comcast can do the same
with NBCUniversal, the other telcos are left with low negotiation power come
channel distribution deal time. The big BIG aspect of this deal is the number
of top consumer-demanded channels run by Turner. ESPN (non-Turner) is the most
expensive, but then TBS, TNT, and CNN, and Cartoon Network are near the top on
the price list for cable distributors. In some plans they define upper-level
subscription tiers. This acquisition seems good for competition - Comcast and
AT&T would be less inclined to limit access to cable channels to their
subscribers only if the other party has something they want.

------
muninn_
Wow. That's a lot of money. And not good for competition.

~~~
xophishox
When i read yesterday about the merger i was pretty shocked that the FCC was
allowing it to go through.

~~~
envy2
None of the regulators have signed off on this yet. I'd expect heavy
regulatory scrutiny, and the deal may well yet be scuttled as a result.

~~~
op00to
Why would they scuttle it? They'll give a few token concessions and continue
to screw consumers. The only way to win in this game is to invest in these
monopolies.

~~~
icebraining
_" In April 2015, it was reported that the U.S. Department of Justice was
preparing to file an antitrust lawsuit against Comcast and Time Warner in a
bid to halt the merger, arguing that the merger would reduce the level of
competition in the cable television and broadband internet industries. On
April 24, 2015, Comcast officially announced that it had called off the
merger."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_Time_War...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_Time_Warner_Cable_by_Comcast)

~~~
djrogers
Completely different company - TW != TWC.

------
shmerl
This should be simply illegal. A monstrous merger of massive network operator,
and huge media company will create an abusive monopolist of gigantic
proportions. I.e. they'll use their network to disadvantage competing media
(they already do it, violating Net Neutrality with zero rating of their own
video services). So, if they already do it, do you think becoming bigger
they'll improve? It's an antitrust 101, but somehow this isn't banned
outright.

------
danm07
Looks like regulators are on the fence about this transaction: "Regulators
have indicated misgivings about the prior Comcast-NBCU deal—in particular,
whether obligations placed on Comcast were tough enough and enforceable—so it
is unclear if they will be willing to bless another such merger. At the very
least, former regulatory officials say there could be significant conditions
placed on the combination." WSJ

------
prirun
The government spent untold amounts of money breaking up AT&T, then allows
them to continue merging into a bigger company than ever.

AT&T and Time Warner both suck. Their goal isn't to produce great products,
it's to protect and expand their monopolies. One of the reasons most of us
have only 2 choices for Internet service is that AT&T and the former TWC pay
local community governments in exchange for exclusive access to the community.
And if a community tries to "do their own thing", they get sued.

Google is trying or considering coming to Louisville and the first thing AT&T
did was sue them. I know this deal is about the TWC media company, but AT&T's
behavior in other areas is still relevant.

------
voodootrucker
That's $7000 per hostage... I mean customer.

------
scalio
Tell me again how finding 10B to go to Mars is impossible?

This is a satirical comment, trying to make a point: Depending on the context,
the same amount of money can be considered anything from huge to tiny. It
seems ridiculous to me that hundreds of billions routinely get pushed around
in business mergers or military deals, where no one blinks an eye, but
scraping together a tenth of that to do something actually interesting and/or
useful is a major undertaking. Just goes to show how unfairly balanced this
system is (regardless of which way it's balanced; some things have it easier
than others).

------
rosser
Regulatory capture is truly a wonder to behold.

~~~
dkural
Regulators have not approved it.

------
oli5679
Seems to be a negative response to this deal re competitive implications. Can
someone outline their theory of harm? I do some work in competition economics
but am not American and don't know a lot about either company?

------
m0atz
How the fuck do you buy something for $80bn with a plan to make a profit? If
only I knew, I'd have gone to my local NatWest and asked for a loan.

------
zkhalique
Oh great, more Telco consolidation. First the banks are too big to fail after
the Great COnsolidation of the 90s and 2000s, and now this. So we can have
more arguments about Title I and Title II and more arguments about the
illusion of choice when we have only two choices ... DT or HC, Title I or
Title II...

~~~
fred_is_fred
TW is not a Telco. It's a content company.

------
zyngaro
The same thing is happening here in France where a major telco provider became
also a major mass media player through acquisitions. I am not very comfortable
with this trend especially regarding net neutrality, privacy and public
opinion influence power.

------
shadykiller
Time Warner stock price closed at 89$ on Friday. The deal if 109$ per share.

Newbie trader question - If if buy the shares for time warner on monday
morning, would I be able to make profit ?

~~~
TDL
Assuming the price doesn't open at 109, maybe. The deal might still fail for a
variety of reasons and then you are stuck with the stock and may or may not
have to take a loss. If you are new to trading, I would say step away from
event driven trading strategies. Understand trading first before playing this
approach.

------
circa
Ah, wonderful news. Glad to hear this won't have any effect on the wonderful
rollout of Spectrum I keep hearing about.

------
soham
Comcast <==> NBC Universal

Verizon <==> Yahoo

AT&T <==> Time Warner

<<Pipes>> <==> <<Content>>

~~~
shmerl
All of that is bad.

~~~
TDL
Why?

~~~
shmerl
They are huge ISPs. When a crooked huge ISP owns media services, they can
abuse their ownership of the physical network to disadvantage competing
services which are routed through their network. And they are already doing
it!

------
kevin_thibedeau
First AOL now ATT. Why are the TW execs always looking to sell out a perfectly
viable company.

------
neom
This is sorta like Verizon buying yahoo. This is not sorta like centurylink
buying savvis.

------
Spooky23
I guess the wireless service will continue to go to shit.

------
Ericson2314
May they be the second coming of AOL

------
denzil_correa
Dupe :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769641](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12769641)

Edit : The WSJ submission also has more details and some story too. This one
has just one line.

~~~
embiggen
Not a dupe. Denzil is the poster of the competing submission, and its time
stamp is later than this one.

------
jrockway
Trump also said that he can grab people's private parts without retribution.
Unfortunately, that trumps whatever he thinks about ISPs owning content
providers.

Maybe his charity wants to buy Time Warner.

(Edit: people are now going around downvoting my other comments because of
this one. Good work guys, Emperor Trump has noticed your efforts!)

~~~
brink
How does a crass comment from 11 years ago reflect at all about what he said
about a corporate power consolidation at a speech today?

~~~
jrockway
Two possibilities:

1) He lies every time he opens his mouth, so I wouldn't take what he says at a
rally (or a hot mic) at face value.

2) They won't consult him for his opinions on mergers and acquisitions when
he's serving his prison sentence for sexual assault.

Finally, if past elections are any indication, I would not recommend voting
for someone based on one issue. Campaign promises are more difficult to
implement than candidates imagine.

If you like Trump, by all means vote for him, but don't vote for him over AT&T
and Time Warner.

~~~
byuu
> Campaign promises are more difficult to implement than candidates imagine.

Oh, the candidates know it damn well. But they know the electorate doesn't
know it. So they lie their asses off because it's how you win when all the
other candidates are lying their asses off.

Bernie supporters actually believed he could usher in universal healthcare,
free college, etc. Trump supporters think he's going to build a giant wall.
Johnson supporters think they're going to get legalized weed in the entire US.
As if the presidency was a monarchy and the legislative and judicial branches
didn't exist. (Clinton supporters ... well they're just terrified of Trump
winning.)

We don't have the candidates we need, but we sure have the candidates we
deserve.

~~~
chillwaves
So, just to be clear, your cynicism in no way represents some universal truth.
And having your candidate in the White House has real value otherwise people
wouldn't spend $1B+ to get there. The fact is, had Bernie won, it would have
meant significant progress for the issues his supporters care about. I really
don't understand your comment. No one expects it to be easy. Every change has
only come in increments. Your derision for people engaged in the political
process is wholly unjustified and reflects poorly on your thought process.

~~~
byuu
I'm definitely a cynic, but that post was based entirely in fact.

A presidential appointment is very important. They nominate Supreme Court
justices (although the new rule for the senate is apparently refusing to vote
on/approve of nominees if the president doesn't belong to your party.) They
have veto power over laws, and can force a supermajority. They do have some
level of control over military actions (not enough to unilaterally start World
War 3, but still.)

But they do not have absolute control. If Bernie wants universal healthcare,
he'd have to get congress to pass it. The same congress that __barely __passed
the insurance industry 's dream legislation created by the Republican party in
the first place. You think that congress is going to pass single payer? Or
free college education? Keep dreaming. Sure, if we elected 60 senators like
Bernie Sanders, we might be able to do something amazing. But Bernie alone?
Not enough. Obama couldn't even shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have been elated for Bernie to have won the election.
It was obvious in 2008 with Obama's reversal on marriage equality that he was
just another career politician. Clinton is far worse than even Obama. Bernie
was the first candidate I actually believed meant what he was saying. He had
an entire lifetime of advocating for the change he spoke of. But you're
hopelessly naive if you think he could have actually brought about the things
he wanted.

------
justinsingh
Can they afford this acquisition? Seems huge.

~~~
pawnedrabbit
Don't go by the number of $ to the valuations. They are rarely accurate.

------
droithomme
How does AT&T even have $80B. They have been irrelevant for many years.

On the flip side I guess it makes sense that a big media company is on the
rails. For media companies it's hard to make a living in the new economy.
(Virtually) no one buys magazines these days so Time is irrelevant. And most
people are pirates so being a movie studio is likewise a dead end vocation.
They're lucky to find someone that wants to buy them. The price is absolutely
enormous. Again, where on earth does AT&T have this sort of money.

~~~
lagadu
> (Virtually) no one

> And most people are pirates

I'm fairly confident you have a very unrealistic/limited/biased view of
reality: most people are not pirates. The virtually extinct magazines can
still be seen on millions of points of sale every day around the world and if
they're there with new stocks and content every day/week/month then they're
still very widely sold.

AT&T is a $226b corporation and time warner productions is a $73b who just got
bought for 80.

