
U.S. Loses Appeal Seeking to Block AT&T-Time Warner Merger - Bhilai
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-time-warner-appeal.htm
======
deogeo
Relevant: [https://ritholtz.com/2012/07/media-consolidation-the-
illusio...](https://ritholtz.com/2012/07/media-consolidation-the-illusion-of-
choice-2/#more-81574)

Does anyone have a version updated for 2019?

Edit: The story got flagged - any idea why?

~~~
amelius
Perhaps because the link is broken (missing the final "l" of "html" as someone
pointed out)

------
snek
correct link: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-
time-w...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/business/media/att-time-warner-
appeal.html)

------
bluetidepro
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?

~~~
linuxftw
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.

~~~
TheGRS
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc).

But unfortunately the appetite in this country for anti-trust litigation has
almost completely dried up at this point.

~~~
linuxftw
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.

~~~
TheGRS
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.

~~~
linuxftw
> 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.

------
fjp
Article seems to be missing what the Justice Department's arguments were about
how this merger is anticompetitive and/or violates antitrust law?

