AT&T Is in Advanced Talks to Acquire Time Warner(wsj.com)
wsj.com
AT&T Is in Advanced Talks to Acquire Time Warner
http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-t-is-in-advanced-talks-to-acquire-time-warner-1477061850
123 comments
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Russia/Moscow: 50/50, $8/mo, there are better deals available. And compared to many other services, good internet access isn't limited to a handful central cities here. Heavy competition between providers.
Yeah, those prices don't seem that great. I pay $75 for 100/100 fiber and routinely test at 125+ in Portland, OR.
Finland, 100/10, 29,90€/month, no TV. First year was 19,90€/month
Im in ohio, with what was TWC but just bought out by spectrum $70 for 50/4.7
Germany, 34€, 80/40Mbps, no TV.
Ireland: 360/36 €60pm. No tv.
Downtown SF, we pay $98 (€90), and speedtest just showed 89/6. I supposed it gives me TV as well and potentially a landline, but I don't have devices for that.
The annoying part is that I can't get Just Internet.
The annoying part is that I can't get Just Internet.
I'm in the Netherlands, where I pay a similar amount (€54, I believe) for 60/60 fiber with TV (two tuners, actually) and landline phone. I actually measured around 70/70 during speed tests.
I think this is about infrastructure and pipe, not content. Carriers should already know that content isn't going to solve their problems, but they should be forced to divest it by regulators as part of their approval. To compete in the future as a carrier, you need right of ways, infrastructure and access into as many buildings and homes as possible, and massive amounts of capital. Then you automate everything and fire most of the employees. Just an industry hitting maturity...
I honestly think non-technical Joe the Plumber hypothetical U.S. citizen would be against this given that Time Warner is villified & consistently ranked one of the worst companies in customer service annually. However, neither I (nor Joe) have the ear of any trade comission reviewing this, nor any power to do anything about it.
While I don't want to put forth a defeatist attitude, clearly a much more robust strategy than "write your senator/rep" must be devised. Ddos attacks at an unprecedented scale are occurring and probing all internet infrastructure. Not only is this a single point of fail, but is anti competitive, dangerous and bad for essentially everyone in the country. I think something like Calyx networks has a good small strategy, but literally short of raising a SPAC and buying a controlling interest, it seems hard to thwart.
While I don't want to put forth a defeatist attitude, clearly a much more robust strategy than "write your senator/rep" must be devised. Ddos attacks at an unprecedented scale are occurring and probing all internet infrastructure. Not only is this a single point of fail, but is anti competitive, dangerous and bad for essentially everyone in the country. I think something like Calyx networks has a good small strategy, but literally short of raising a SPAC and buying a controlling interest, it seems hard to thwart.
It seems to be a problem in some abstract sense to a certain group of people, but the reality of widely available internet and all the content one chooses for gorging seems to belie the idea that it's bad in a concrete sense
I raise my glass of Brawndo to that
Does anybody think that (besides the lobbyists telling the congresscritters)?
Devil's advocate: the British railways were privatised in the 1990s in such a way that different companies ran the tracks than the trains, and a bunch of different companies ran different trains. I must say that it would probably be better to have some single vertically integrated monopoly running everything, since in reality the government would curb its worst excesses more easily.
The limited term franchises are a far greater limitation than the unusual organisation, as it near guarantees short-termism over improving capacity or rolling stock.
Though I do agree that returning to the earlier regional railways, along with additional mainline and freight train operators, would have been a better way to organise.
Though I do agree that returning to the earlier regional railways, along with additional mainline and freight train operators, would have been a better way to organise.
The french SNCf is a good dxample of a vertical integration not working. Constantly bleeding billions of euros of deficit, trains late, strikes on regular basis, this is just the worst.
It could go either way. In the US, everything tends to favor the business and decisions tend to be more capitalistic. I think government interference would be minimal in the US.
I am curious why you think that the government could curb its worst excesses more easily as a monopoly when it fails to do so now when its basically a duopoly.
I do not know how it is even slightest relevant here.
Here's saying if you own the whole system you can optimize things to be more efficient than if you have a ton of separation between the people who run the different pieces of the system.
So in the this case maybe AT&T having vertical integration is a good thing.
Personally I haven't seen any positives for consumers from Comcast buying NBC Universal so I don't see how this would benefit consumers either.
So in the this case maybe AT&T having vertical integration is a good thing.
Personally I haven't seen any positives for consumers from Comcast buying NBC Universal so I don't see how this would benefit consumers either.
Sorry, but these two systems are incomparable because you just do not run any random train on the railway.
If you would like to find something that is comparable, I'll recommend to look for it related to the roads.
Try to imagine a situation were single private company owns all the roads (of one region), including all the highways and local roads and has also a bus company.
If you would like to find something that is comparable, I'll recommend to look for it related to the roads.
Try to imagine a situation were single private company owns all the roads (of one region), including all the highways and local roads and has also a bus company.
Matt Stone and Trey Parker perhaps.
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.
Edit: Really, it's an ongoing battle. Nothing is inevitable.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast releases an MVNO with devices that are intended to work primarily on comcast wifi, with secondary cellular.
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.
no one knows how to better treat human beings than faceless corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to faceless shareholders.
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.
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.
It's funny, you don't even have to make this stuff up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
You just have to see the repeat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
You just have to see the repeat.
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?
Basically, because AT&T is paying more for Time Warner than the market had valued it at. As an example:
Company A has 50 billion dollars cash on hand, and their core business is valued by the market at 100 billion, so their market cap is 150 billion. Company B's core business is valued by the market at 25 billion and has no cash on hand, so their market cap is 25 billion.
Company A then purchases company B's core business for 50 billion dollars. Company A then has no cash on hand, their original 100 billion core business, and a new business that the market valued at 25 billion, so their new market cap is 125 billion (a 16.6% decrease).
Company B (or their stockholders, strictly speaking) on the other hand has 50 billion dollars in cash, and no core business, so company B now has a "market cap" of 50 billion dollars (100% increase).
More often than not, the market (i.e. those buying and selling the stocks) will assume that the company being acquired was correctly priced before the purchase and that the acquiring company overpaid.
Company A has 50 billion dollars cash on hand, and their core business is valued by the market at 100 billion, so their market cap is 150 billion. Company B's core business is valued by the market at 25 billion and has no cash on hand, so their market cap is 25 billion.
Company A then purchases company B's core business for 50 billion dollars. Company A then has no cash on hand, their original 100 billion core business, and a new business that the market valued at 25 billion, so their new market cap is 125 billion (a 16.6% decrease).
Company B (or their stockholders, strictly speaking) on the other hand has 50 billion dollars in cash, and no core business, so company B now has a "market cap" of 50 billion dollars (100% increase).
More often than not, the market (i.e. those buying and selling the stocks) will assume that the company being acquired was correctly priced before the purchase and that the acquiring company overpaid.
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.
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?
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.
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.
thanks! my rudimentary understanding was pretty much correct... it sounds, then, like shareholders simply don't have faith in the acquisition?
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.
In the event of a deal, Time Warner shareholders are getting a cash premium SOON. So the price goes up.
Relevant: https://youtu.be/Z8zNsUTWsOc
This could mean zero broadband competition in many areas of the country.
This will really monopolize ISP in many places including my town.
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.
Anti-trust violation anyone?
why? - that's a media company not in the telecom business.
[deleted]
Time Warner Cable is a telecom company unaffiliated with Time Warner Inc
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.
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.
> 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 :)
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 :)
This is generally the goal of any re-branding. It would be illogical to attempt re-branding against a successful, known property.
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.
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.
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.
Spectrum is Charter's branding. And with Charter buying out TWC, they seem to simply be unifying the two brands under the name Spectrum.
I agree that "rebranding" is a seriously uncharitable interpretation of the circumstances.
Charter also bought Bright House at the same time as Time Warner Cable. They are all being brought under the Spectrum name, which was and is Charter's pre-existing name for their cable services.
This is not the scenario at all that "rebranding" invokes. Especially not in the context that chimeracoder uses it. See ssharp's post [0] for an example of what the typical interpretation would be.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762492
Charter also bought Bright House at the same time as Time Warner Cable. They are all being brought under the Spectrum name, which was and is Charter's pre-existing name for their cable services.
This is not the scenario at all that "rebranding" invokes. Especially not in the context that chimeracoder uses it. See ssharp's post [0] for an example of what the typical interpretation would be.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762492
And don't forget that Time Warner used to be part of AOL/Time Warner, of which the AOL part is now owned by Verizon.
However, this potential transaction would be more similar to the Comcast purchase of NBC/Universal.
However, this potential transaction would be more similar to the Comcast purchase of NBC/Universal.
At this point in company history/complexity they should combine PR releases about acquisitions with venn or flow charts about their ownerships.
Which gets even wilder once you start to take in how many board members serve on multiple boards... There was a website, I forget the name of right now, that once let you play "six degrees" between any two publicly traded companies by following shared board members. If I recall the average distance was quite low.
And with the growth of index funds, the stockholders are all the same, too.
[deleted]
Hmm, your forgetting that Time Warner Cable was recently purchased by Charter and that the Time Warner Cable brand will be going away for good. (replaced by charter)
> Hmm, your forgetting that Time Warner Cable was recently purchased by Charter and that the Time Warner Cable brand will be going away for good. (replaced by charter)
No, it's being replaced by Spectrum (which is a brand Charter already owned).
I can confirm this firsthand - when my service went out last week, I called the same number I have stored in my contacts[0], and the automated greeting introduced itself with both the old and new name.
[0] The fact that I have TWC's support number in my contacts should tell you exactly what I think of their service
No, it's being replaced by Spectrum (which is a brand Charter already owned).
I can confirm this firsthand - when my service went out last week, I called the same number I have stored in my contacts[0], and the automated greeting introduced itself with both the old and new name.
[0] The fact that I have TWC's support number in my contacts should tell you exactly what I think of their service
Right, so it's not exactly "trying to rebrand itself". It's getting rolled in to an existing brand as the result of a merger.
Copying my post from another subthread: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12763833)
I agree that "rebranding" is a seriously uncharitable interpretation of the circumstances.
Charter also bought Bright House at the same time as Time Warner Cable. They are all being brought under the Spectrum name, which was and is Charter's pre-existing name for their cable services.
This is not the scenario at all that "rebranding" invokes. Especially not in the context that chimeracoder uses it. See ssharp's post [0] for an example of what the typical interpretation would be.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762492
I agree that "rebranding" is a seriously uncharitable interpretation of the circumstances.
Charter also bought Bright House at the same time as Time Warner Cable. They are all being brought under the Spectrum name, which was and is Charter's pre-existing name for their cable services.
This is not the scenario at all that "rebranding" invokes. Especially not in the context that chimeracoder uses it. See ssharp's post [0] for an example of what the typical interpretation would be.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762492
Congratulations then. Charter is by far the best cable company I've ever dealt with.
I was gonna make a snarky comment about how you should move to Central Florida so you could experience Bright House Networks, then I remembered Charter bought them earlier this year...
I've been seriously worried about what will happen to Bright House. I've talked to every tech that's come to my house the past year [0], and they all say that Charter has been very open about how Bright House does things, so I'm keeping hope...
I know techs are not always the most knowledgeable about business direction. But I figure if four people all individually say the same thing, there might be something to it.
[0] I've had quite a few, thanks to cutting through my line while gardening, and a lightning strike through the cable lines.
I know techs are not always the most knowledgeable about business direction. But I figure if four people all individually say the same thing, there might be something to it.
[0] I've had quite a few, thanks to cutting through my line while gardening, and a lightning strike through the cable lines.
"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.)
(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.)
Westworld, exclusively on BitTorrent.
Time warner owns cable internet, and probably will do whatever to stop this from happening, which is not at all an improbable outcome
> 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]
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]
I'd be really surprised if either of the next administrations allows this kind of amalgamation to happen under antitrust rules.
Each seems open to some combination of outright bribes (I put fundraising in this category) and/or "quid pro quo" arrangements.
Yeah, they both seem to be real advocates of the citizenry.
Hillary is like a NASCAR car, fully sponsored by massive corporations, and they will expect her to look the other way on antitrust. It fits in with her right wing platform anyhow
Nothing a speech won't solve.
Regulated telecoms should not be allowed to own media. If this goes through, expect the net neutrality rules to be bent beyond all recognition.
AT&T already owns Direct TV, which it (and it alone) doesn't count against AT&T Datacaps
EDIT: A previous version of this comment mistakenly claimed AT&T owns Dish Network
EDIT: A previous version of this comment mistakenly claimed AT&T owns Dish Network
No. AT&T owns Direct TV, not Dish Network
Dish network owns blockbuster. As I recall through they don't allow you uncapped bandwidth on their network for blockbuster, which I think is by law.
This is what scares me. Comcast and now AT&T.
What's next? Verizon to buy Viacom?
What's next? Verizon to buy Viacom?
National Amusements (Viacom's main shareholder) isn't interested in selling to a 3rd party[1]: "To avoid any doubt, National Amusements is not willing to accept or support (i) any acquisition by a third party of either company or (ii) any transaction that would result in National Amusements surrendering its controlling position in either company or not controlling the combined company."
Everything has a price, though, one can imagine.
[1]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160929005731/en/Viac...
Everything has a price, though, one can imagine.
[1]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160929005731/en/Viac...
Yeah especially when Sumner Redstone dies. Then all bets are off.
Verizon Chipotle Exxon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKoGtgg6Mo
...brought to you by YouTube, a Google company, whose parent company is Alphabet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKoGtgg6Mo
...brought to you by YouTube, a Google company, whose parent company is Alphabet.
It wouldn't be particularly different than Comcast (which owns a lot of media).
I would think they also have other media properties, but AT&T already owns DirectTV, which has a little bit of production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV#Programming
I would think they also have other media properties, but AT&T already owns DirectTV, which has a little bit of production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV#Programming
I am aware. Comcast is just as bad. They're flouting the FCC's net neutrality rules already despite additional restrictions imposed by a consent decree to (supposedly) explicitly address these concerns: https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major...
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...
Bottom line is: these consolidations always make things worse for consumers, not better.
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...
Bottom line is: these consolidations always make things worse for consumers, not better.
Letting Verizon have Yahoo looks a lot smarter now.
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
That was my immediate reaction as well, but as pointed out nearby (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12762415), Time Warner Cable != Time Warner, Inc., so this is not a telecom merger.
The regulations did have an effect in the 1980s, of course. That was back when there was only one company that did long distance service, and (earlier) you rented, not owned, your home telephone. So long-distance calls were very expensive, and a Big Deal, and you had only one or two phones in your house, because they were so expensive.
The regulations did have an effect in the 1980s, of course. That was back when there was only one company that did long distance service, and (earlier) you rented, not owned, your home telephone. So long-distance calls were very expensive, and a Big Deal, and you had only one or two phones in your house, because they were so expensive.
(off topic) WSJ had a hilarious writeup last summer about the confusion [0]. Basically, the CEO of Time Warner continued to get hate mail from Time Warner Cable customers post spin-off. Time Warner Cable has since been acquired by Charter for $60B with a brand phase out.
[0] http://on.wsj.com/2dVLQM5
[0] http://on.wsj.com/2dVLQM5
The regulations were never designed to prevent mergers. That's not unique to telecom--it's true across the economy.
They certainly were. That only changed in 1996, when the Telecom act of that year removed regulations around long-distance and local carrier mergers created by the break-up and also instructed the FCC to remove other similar barriers that were no longer "in the public interest".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...
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
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.
And that doesn't even have the companies operating on national scale each.
For example Dr Oetker owns half if the European food industry
For example Dr Oetker owns half if the European food industry
from all of these nestle is probably the worst.
It shows much regulations have had an effect, and it shows how policy changes in government (from anti-monopoly, to pro-monopoly) can have a major effect on the corporate landscape.
Perhaps the policies in place for governing corporate influence over particular market sectors are fundamentally flawed.
It would seem so since there must be an active body to oversee corporate control.
It would seem so since there must be an active body to oversee corporate control.
[deleted]
The only problem that I see is that our government didn't breakup companies more often.
At&t needs to be broken up by region again. Along with Monsanto, Walmart, Comcast, Verizon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
At&t needs to be broken up by region again. Along with Monsanto, Walmart, Comcast, Verizon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
The only true monopolies are those backed by the government, which the original AT&T was. There has never been a "monopoly" not backed by the government that did not benefit the customer. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, the classic examples always used, both drove down prices and increased supply for the market. By the time the government took action both had lost significant market share already as competition improved.
The only ones on your list that create problems would be Comcast and Verizon (assuming not wireless) as they are granted local monopolies by local municipalities and governments through right of way access to utility poles, etc. Breaking up the others, as you are suggesting, would only harm consumers.
The only ones on your list that create problems would be Comcast and Verizon (assuming not wireless) as they are granted local monopolies by local municipalities and governments through right of way access to utility poles, etc. Breaking up the others, as you are suggesting, would only harm consumers.
This is completely incorrect. Every unregulated monopoly catastrophically chokes an economy over time and those that are regulated are almost as disastrous.
Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century.
And US Steel certainly did _not_ have competition when anti-trust was brought against it. By 1907 there were no longer any competitors and anti-trust attempts only started in 1911.
What you do have today, for adopting pro-monopoly policies for decades is, among other things, the highest bandwidth prices in the developed world. Higher even than the comically inept regulated monopoly Telefonica. Which btw has phone plans and per minute charges a fraction of the US and where the idea for charging for an incoming call is unthinkable. And a food supply monopolies that inflates the price of food to stunning levels. The list is endless but my typing patience is not. So here's a link.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-...
Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century.
And US Steel certainly did _not_ have competition when anti-trust was brought against it. By 1907 there were no longer any competitors and anti-trust attempts only started in 1911.
What you do have today, for adopting pro-monopoly policies for decades is, among other things, the highest bandwidth prices in the developed world. Higher even than the comically inept regulated monopoly Telefonica. Which btw has phone plans and per minute charges a fraction of the US and where the idea for charging for an incoming call is unthinkable. And a food supply monopolies that inflates the price of food to stunning levels. The list is endless but my typing patience is not. So here's a link.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-...
Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century.
Ummmmm, no.
Whatever your economic viewpoint, there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy. This is the same organization that had to be taken to court to allow new devices to be plugged in. Remember these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler They weren't built because it's more efficient for computers to communicate over soundwaves.
Ummmmm, no.
Whatever your economic viewpoint, there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy. This is the same organization that had to be taken to court to allow new devices to be plugged in. Remember these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler They weren't built because it's more efficient for computers to communicate over soundwaves.
there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy.
The Bell monopoly invented the transistor. I think there's a credible claim that could be made that the invention of the transistor was healthy for the economy.
The Bell monopoly invented the transistor. I think there's a credible claim that could be made that the invention of the transistor was healthy for the economy.
Good acts do not excuse bad acts. Hitler invented the Volkswagen.
I did not say Ma Bell was good for the economy. And certainly not that it should have remained intact. I point out that had it been an unregulated monopoly, it have been worse.
I see Apple is missing from your list.
As far as I can tell their market control is limited to just their devices which though still significant isn't enough for a breakup to make sense to me.
That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
Walmart isn't even close to market control, so what's the reasoning there? Just too big for you personally?
Walmart yeilds quite a bit of market control. I'm not sure on the specifics though but they are a powerful retail force that's wrapped around many lives in the U.S.
While I am sympathetic to the issue, I'm concerned about how we can achieve our goals within the limits of the legal framework. Should we break up Kelly services or Robert half staffing? Should we break up GitHub?
Apple's vertical integration could be broken up, so other companies can take advantage of it.
It also shows that trying to dictate the shape of the market from above is folly
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...
Investors are already prepping for a Sprint or TMUS acquisition under a Clinton or Trump administration. Expect continued centralization of power...