AT&T-Time Warner mega-deal is near

[SlyPokerDog]

The boards of AT&T and Time Warner are meeting on Saturday afternoon to vote on an $80 billion deal that would bring the two companies together, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The acquisition of Time Warner could be announced by Saturday night.

Time Warner (TWX) is the parent company of CNN, TNT, HBO, the Warner Bros. studio, and a number of other TV channels and websites.

AT&T (T, Tech30) is one of the country's providers of wireless phone and Internet service. It also recently acquired the DirecTV satellite TV business.

Executives at the two companies have been in talks for several months. Word of the possible deal leaked out on Thursday; AT&T executives were said to be eager to finish the talks before the market opens on Monday morning.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the cash-and-stock deal values Time Warner at "between $105 and $110 a share."

The two companies have declined to comment while talks are underway.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/22/media/att-time-warner/index.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The liberal media is getting bigger.

 

[MARIS61]

Illegal.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not illegal.

The synergy here is huge.

AT&T already owns DirecTV. Owning several networks, including HBO, would save them a lot of money and potentially lower consumer rates.

HBO hasn't done squat with UHD. Maybe after this deal they would.

 

[MARIS61]

Monopoly.

Illegal.

 

[Denny Crane]

Monopoly.

Illegal.

Not a monopoly. They would own nowhere near 100% of production or distribution. Comcast owns cable, phone, internet, and universal's channels/programming.

 

[Further]

According to the FTC

Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

 

[Further]

i don't like these giant-ass conglomerates, however I don't think they are considered a monopoly under strict interpretation of the law.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

lower consumer rates.

LOL! That ain't happenin'!

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL! That ain't happenin'!

That doesn't happen when government tries to regulate it. But... it is happening.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That doesn't happen when government tries to regulate it. But... it is happening.

View attachment 10463

 

[Denny Crane]

"That ain't happening"
-- SlyPokerDog

 

[PtldPlatypus]

i don't like these giant-ass conglomerates, however I don't think they are considered a monopoly under strict interpretation of the law.

Yeah, I don't even see it as monopolistic under a loose interpretation. This isn't a company absorbing a competitor; these are parallel corporations integrating complementary services. It certainly makes them more powerful, and likely internally cost-effective once the inevitable layoffs occur to eliminate redundancies, but I don't see how it stifles competition at all.

 

[blue32]

This morning the two CEO's and Chairmen were on the news talking about how this was going to help with user experience and innovation.

Buzzzzzzzzzzzzwords baby! I use that shit daily at work! Well played sirs.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, I don't even see it as monopolistic under a loose interpretation. This isn't a company absorbing a competitor; these are parallel corporations integrating complementary services. It certainly makes them more powerful, and likely internally cost-effective once the inevitable layoffs occur to eliminate redundancies, but I don't see how it stifles competition at all.

They could deny access to HBO/CNN/etc. to competitors. That's the only worry that I can see.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They could deny access to HBO/CNN/etc. to competitors. That's the only worry that I can see.

You mean like Comcast basically already does with their Comcast sports networks? Well, if the feds haven't stepped in to ensure us access to Blazer basketball, I'm guessing they're not going to do the same for HBO.

 

[Denny Crane]

You mean like Comcast basically already does with their Comcast sports networks? Well, if the feds haven't stepped in to ensure us access to Blazer basketball, I'm guessing they're not going to do the same for HBO.

Comcast sports networks contract with a 3rd party: NBA/Blazers.

HBO is a different animal.