
AT&T Is in Advanced Talks to Acquire Time Warner - vermontdevil
http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-t-is-in-advanced-talks-to-acquire-time-warner-1477061850
======
1_2__3
I'm really looking forward to the point in the future where we look back and
say, "Why did we ever think it was a good idea to allow the same company to
provide the pipe, the content, and the backbone?"

~~~
xenobioticants
To be honest, the situation across the pond is flummoxing to Europeans.. ISPs
here are only service providers and nothing more. They're seen as a pipe to
the internet and that's it. They often do offer 3-in-1 packages (television,
phone and internet) but thats because they evolved from telephone or cable
providers to ISPs and/or the copper/cable provides the signal space anyway,
why not offer it. I have cable and pay €49 for 40Mbit/4Mbit. Its €59 for
150/15 and €77 for 300/30, and all these packages include TV. TV-less is the
same speeds but €40, €50 and €58. And you get what you pay for, I consistently
hit 33+/4+ on speedtest.net. Copper prices and speeds are a bit worse: €48 for
20/2 and €63 for 60/6 (although that does include Spotify), both packages with
TV and telephone (can't get a separate TV+Internet deal). Speeds are a bit
more janky since it depends on how many people are active on the block line,
but still generally pretty close to what's advertised.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Europe has much better, cheaper Internet than the US, but the prices you cite
aren't better than what you will find in the US.

In NYC I am paying $69/mo (approximately 61.50 EUR) for 50/50, and that's
fiber. No TV.

I have seen bandwidth prices cited in places like Bulgaria, Estonia etc. that
are much better.

~~~
sb8244
Atlanta 1GB/s 69$

No TV, just net + router included

~~~
EpicEng
You mean Gb, right? Google fiber?

------
chimeracoder
Pre-emptive reminder (especially since not everyone will read the full article
with the paywall):

Time Warner Cable was spun out from Time Warner, Inc. seven years ago, and
they no longer have any relationship with each other. Time Warner Cable was
permitted to continue using the name under license, though they are now trying
to rebrand themselves as "Spectrum" in markets where they already had a
presence (such as New York City).

AT&T is reportedly talking about buying Time Warner, Inc, which is a media
conglomerate that owns either part or all of brands like Warner Bros, CNN, DC
Comics, and Hulu.

~~~
ssharp
> rebrand themselves as "Spectrum" in markets where they already had a
> presence (such as New York City)

Is that a nice way of saying they're rebranding themselves to anyone already
familiar with the brand. The assumption being anyone familiar with the brand
has a negative image of it :)

~~~
lukasbarton
This is generally the goal of any re-branding. It would be illogical to
attempt re-branding against a successful, known property.

~~~
danvasquez29
it could be that the licensing fees on the name are a significant enough drag
on revenue, and/or the agreement has an expiration date and there's an
expectation that the licenser won't renew the agreement.

I've been a part of situations like that. You can try and get ahead of it like
TW is doing now where you create the second name ahead of time and try to
build up the recognition and awareness around it in advance.

~~~
jdmichal
Time Warner Cable was bought by Charter, and the Spectrum "rebranding" is
Charter's existing name for cable services. If there are continuing licensing
fees for using the Time Warner name, I don't see why Charter would continue
using it over its own brand name.

------
modeless
Regulated telecoms should not be allowed to own media. If this goes through,
expect the net neutrality rules to be bent beyond all recognition.

~~~
vermontdevil
This is what scares me. Comcast and now AT&T.

What's next? Verizon to buy Viacom?

~~~
uptown
Verizon Chipotle Exxon

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKoGtgg6Mo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKoGtgg6Mo)

...brought to you by YouTube, a Google company, whose parent company is
Alphabet.

~~~
spyspy
AOLTimeWarnerPepsicoViacomHalliburtonSkynetToyotaTacoBellTraderJoe's

~~~
abakker
FaceTube

------
mortenjorck
"And now, the HBO original series Westworld, exclusively on AT&T."

(Obviously AT&T wouldn't actually do this, but there are many degrees between
it and the current status quo: Timed exclusivity, bumping up pricing for non-
AT&T subscribers, or even a cap-and-zero-rating scheme for AT&T's own
customers.)

~~~
baddox
Westworld, exclusively on BitTorrent.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Time warner owns cable internet, and probably will do whatever to stop this
from happening, which is not at all an improbable outcome

~~~
jdbernard
> Time warner owns cable internet

Not true. Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are different companies. Time
Warner Cable was recently acquired by Spectrum
[[https://www.charter.com/merger-twc](https://www.charter.com/merger-twc)]

------
dforrestwilson1
Give credit to Obama. His FCC head, Wheeler has done a fairly good job of
defending the consumer interest.

Investors are already prepping for a Sprint or TMUS acquisition under a
Clinton or Trump administration. Expect continued centralization of power...

------
pgrote
I'll just leave this here, but it does need a little updating. It shows how
little regulations have had an effect.

[http://i.imgur.com/US2mwgq.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/US2mwgq.jpg)

~~~
denzil_correa
It would be the right time to plug in this as well then.

[http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg)

~~~
Asooka
Knowing how glacially software companies merge with each other and how their
internal processes basically remain as they were originally, I'm wondering
exactly how much actual control the parent companies are exerting on physical
operations as opposed to branding and taking a cut of the profits.

------
x2398dh1
Here's why this is happening...if you look at AT&T's financial statements,
they are really huge on IoT (which they term monitoring devices), meaning that
it has made a huge amount of money for them in terms of growth recently and is
expected to do so in the next few years. They have a lot of enterprise
customers, for example Tesla or other connected cars and are looking to
deliver content to customers by disintermediating real estate. E.g. everyone
hates Comcast because due to the fixed nature of real estate, you have no
choice but to work with them to get broadband. As AT&T is able to bring
wireless and cellular speeds up to the current and better than speed of
broadband, Comcast will become irrelevant and AT&T will become the new
Comcast. This is also likely why you have seen XFinity WiFi roll out in your
local urban area this year, and pop up at the top of your network - they are
trying to capture you before their inevitable downfall to Verizon and AT&T.

Edit: Really, it's an ongoing battle. Nothing is inevitable.

~~~
tekklloneer
But, "wireless and cellular speeds" is increasingly becoming a physics
problem. I'm not so optimistic as to proclaim the downfall of Comcast.

I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast releases an MVNO with devices that are
intended to work primarily on comcast wifi, with secondary cellular.

------
mtgx
You've got to be kidding me. This should absolutely not be allowed.

And after buying DirecTV AT&T already used the excuse that because it paid so
much money on the acquisition already, it can't invest too much in its
services anymore.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160217/10525033624/att-m...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160217/10525033624/att-
makes-it-clear-it-bought-directv-so-it-doesnt-have-to-upgrade-lagging-
networks.shtml)

Bottom line is: these consolidations always make things _worse_ for consumers,
not better.

~~~
cylinder
They let Comcast buy NBC Universal which led to this avalanche. Content is
severely overvalued right now so their loss.

------
RamshackleJ
excellent. my dream of having corporations whose influence and power exceeds
that of state actors is finally materializing.

no one knows how to better treat human beings than faceless corporations with
a fiduciary responsibility to faceless shareholders.

------
bogomipz
Keep in mind the Time Warner and Charter Communications merger only closed the
first week of May, 5 months ago. This is madness. I can only hope this doesn't
pass regulatory scrutiny.

If this does go through you will be getting your internet from either AT&T or
Verizon in the United States.

This is hypothetically one merger away from putting the old Ma Bell back
together.

I'm waiting to hear the obligatory "This will be good for consumers" comment
from these folks.

------
Frogolocalypse
It's funny, you don't even have to make this stuff up.

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

You just have to see the repeat.

------
spinchange
Letting Verizon have Yahoo looks a lot smarter now.

------
catshirt
i don't know shit about stocks- can someone explain why AT&T stock dropped 5%
and Time Warner increased 12.5% off the news?

~~~
charlesdm
The acquirer (AT&T) is going to pay a boatload of $$ to acquire Time Warner.
Time Warner shareholders are getting a payday, whereas AT&T shareholders will
be spending money.

~~~
catshirt
ok but, doesn't it ideally increase AT&T's value over time (else why would
they be acquiring)? meaning, if the acquisition goes as planned, wouldn't you
be better off holding onto AT&T?

~~~
charlesdm
Yes, over time. Not today.

There are a lot of unknowns, because every deal usually starts from an idea,
e.g. we're going to acquire X for $10bn, and that will give us $1bn in extra
profits + $2bn in synergies after integration. But they need to integrate the
company first to achieve those results, meaning it's unknown, meaning it can
fail, meaning there's a risk premium.

Half of what determines the price of a stock on the stock market is
psychology. It's a herd.

~~~
catshirt
thanks! my rudimentary understanding was pretty much correct... it sounds,
then, like shareholders simply don't have faith in the acquisition?

~~~
charlesdm
It depends. If AT&T spends a lot of cash today, the intrinsic value of a
single share goes down, because there is less cash to return to that
shareholder tomorrow. However, if it looks like the integration is going well,
the price will increase, since indeed the company will be more valuable.

In the event of a deal, Time Warner shareholders are getting a cash premium
SOON. So the price goes up.

------
Nrsolis
I'd be really surprised if either of the next administrations allows this kind
of amalgamation to happen under antitrust rules.

~~~
emidln
Each seems open to some combination of outright bribes (I put fundraising in
this category) and/or "quid pro quo" arrangements.

------
sirmike_
Relevant: [https://youtu.be/Z8zNsUTWsOc](https://youtu.be/Z8zNsUTWsOc)

------
IndianAstronaut
This could mean zero broadband competition in many areas of the country.

------
safeandsound
This will really monopolize ISP in many places including my town.

------
kristopolous
So at what point does private companies like this facilitate the role of a
governing body? That should be a driving force, unless you think decree by
capital is ok - in which place we need to draft up a new constitution.

------
sgnelson
Ma Bell is back.

~~~
Frogolocalypse
Bigger and badder.

------
SEJeff
Anti-trust violation anyone?

~~~
gautamdivgi
why? - that's a media company not in the telecom business.

~~~
fny
Time Warner Cable is a telecom company unaffiliated with Time Warner Inc

