Whenever a corporation says a merger will result in lower prices, they're usually lying, because mergers increase prices.<p><a href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1857&context=californialawreview" rel="nofollow">https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ref...</a>
Brodkin's article takes the relevant "promise" quite out of context: <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191339/gov.uscourts.dcd.191339.121.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191339/...</a> (see page 1).<p>The full quotation is:<p>> As to its price-increase theory, <i>the government</i> itself conceded that the merger would cause prices to go down for millions of AT&T customers nationwide. The <i>government’s own “bargaining model” likewise showed a price decrease</i> for all consumers, once the correct data were employed. And the government’s own economic expert effectively repudiated its other two theories of likely harm. The government, in short, gave the Court no basis for finding that this merger is likely to reduce competition at all, much less substantially. Rather, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products, and compete more effectively against the increasingly powerful, vertically integrated “FAANG” companies.<p>The brief was addressing the predictions of the economic model <i>the DOJ offered</i> in opposing the merger. Nowhere did AT&T, as Brodkin misleadingly suggests, "promise" to "lower prices" (or that no specific rate would never go up). Of course, that all makes sense. AT&T <i>had no reason</i> to make such promises. In blocking a merger, the burden of proof is on the DOJ. They have to show consumer harm; the merger company has no burden to show consumer benefits. Why would AT&T go out on a limb and make promises it has no reason to make?<p>Moreover, the brief addresses the government's arguments for blocking AT&T's merger with Time Warner, which has nothing to do with the price of DirecTV:<p>> The government’s central prediction of harm rests on the premise that AT&T would use Time Warner’s Turner content as a “weapon” against rival distributors by threatening to withhold it during bargaining, thereby forcing them to pay higher prices.<p>The subject of the briefing was prices for <i>content distribution</i>. Prices for <i>DirecTV</i>--what Brodkin points to--have nothing to do with that.
This is a great opportunity to educate our less-technically-minded civilians on the pitfalls of large, unaccountable corporations, and the benefits of anti-trust enforcement... It's easy for the mainstream to understand how this particular monopolization negatively impacts all of our bottomline.
I'm more surprised that such a "promise" is given any credibility in court to begin with. I'm not familiar with the law, but from my naive understanding a company can basically decide to change their pricing however/whenever they want. So how does stating to a judge that they <i>might</i> have an opportunity to lower prices at some point in the unknown future translate into any kind of legal obligation to do so? To me it just sounds like an empty promise that got them through the court proceedings, and in no way affected their behavior afterwards because why would it?
Merging feels like a form of collusion.<p>I have a service. You have a service. Let's combine them to eliminate competition between us and make both of us richer with higher prices.
The three largest OTT providers (Sling, YouTube TV and DirectTV Now) all raised their prices by $5 recently. This seems similar to how airlines all manage to raise their fares at the same time without explicit coordination (one airline does it, and the others quickly match). I don't think it has anything to do with the merger.
AT&T carries directly or peers with basically every other major internet carrier in the country.<p>This makes them defacto critical national security infrastructure and thus completely immune to the kind of recourse and accountability that all corporations should be subject to.<p>The technicality of being an independent and non-governmental entity allows them to collect and in turn share back[to the NSA] information about the traffic that crosses their fabric circumventing those pesky laws which purportedly prohibit the NSA from operating within our borders and inspecting local-only traffic.<p>AT&T is only going to be checked by legislation now as it has always been. The last time they were broken up they magically reassembled themselves because voters allowed it.<p>Until we as a country decide that communication infrastructure, like roads, can't be owned by quasi public/private abominations like AT&T but instead only held by us, the people and our government we will continue to get the worst from this present unholy union.
> Just two months ago, AT&T said in a court filing that buying Time Warner would allow it to lower TV prices. The US Department of Justice tried to stop the merger, arguing that it would raise prices for consumers, but a federal judge sided with AT&T. The merger was completed on June 15.<p>Someone please explain to me why AT&T (or its counsel) isn't in contempt of court or guilty of lying under oath? Did they just use weaselly language in their briefs and testimony that didn't actually say anything of substance?<p>It seems to me like there's a serious flaw in this process if a company like AT&T can make claims like it did without any obligation to follow through.
If pressed to actually provide reasoning, I'd expect something like "This service was drastically underpriced and would not have been viable long-term. The merger has afforded us greater market vision and economies of scale, and consumers are immediately benefiting by the fact that this increase is substantially smaller than it would otherwise have been, saving them millions."
well AT&T is crappy, but this article is poorly sourced. The CEO has said exactly that before, but the court filing is about what the government could prove, not about what will happen.<p><a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-makes-the-case-for-time-warner-megamerger/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-makes-the-case-for-time-w...</a>
The content providers see the clouds and they want more money too.<p>On the digital side, I did noticed that YouTube TV, Sling, and now DirecTV Now are all raising their prices.
Let's be honest the judge was right in that AT&T/Time Warner doesn't offer much against the Facebook/Netflix/Amazon/Apple stack.