Swift Opposition to Resurrection of AT&T Giant
'Over three decades ago, such was AT&s monopoly over the nations communications networks that the government forcefully shattered its empire.
Now, as one of its successors again seeks a formidable business empire by buying Time Warner, lawmakers, analysts and advocacy groups are closely watching to see if the union, or any that follow in its wake, poses harm to consumers.
Reaction to AT&Ts $85.4 billion purchase was swift and, outside of Wall Street, full of skepticism. Much of the concern was rooted in how consumers have fared since Comcast bought NBCUniversal, a deal that provided a template for the consolidation of media and telecommunications.
Acquisitions in general raise warning signs for regulators because of a reduction in competition. But combining a telecommunications company with a media company, in particular, raises questions about whether consumers would have less choice because the conglomerate both creates its own content and provides the pipes that deliver both its own offerings and its competitors. >>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/business/dealbook/swift-opposition-to-resurrection-of-att-giant.html?
PSPS
(13,594 posts)The problem is that Sherman isn't enforced anymore.
This is really no different than previous legal rulings outlawing vertical integration. For example, it used to be that movie companies (Paramount, Warner, MGM, etc.,) not only produced movies but also owned all of the theaters where they were shown. The 1948 case United States v. Paramount Pictures started the process that brought that practice to an end and the studios were forced to divest themselves of all movie theaters.
This AT&T/TW merger amounts to the same thing (as does Comcast/NBCUniversal) in that the same company not only produces content but also controls the means of ultimate broadcast of that content.
elleng
(130,895 posts)Issues clouded due to changes in technology - cable/over the air, definition of 'markets,' so the basic principle has become confused, imo.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)as I recall, this 'AT&T' giant is in reality, Southwestern Bell.
SB bought at&t a few years back and decided to use the at&t name.
With a reputation like SB had, it was a good PR move.
Since my last encounter with them, I can attest they needed to do that.
Also, AT&T is no better.
I hope the gov't stops this crap.
Funny, the Hershey's sale was stopped a few years ago.
Claiming something about an 'American Brand'.
But no one tried stopping the sale of A-B to Inbev.
A-B(I'm not gonna try spelling it) was at the time the largest brewery in the US(maybe the world).
Of course the sale weakened the union...
And, nice for Jefferson City, also took more power from St. Louis.
Making the state a little redder...and poorer.
elleng
(130,895 posts)'Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. It does business as other d/b/a names in its operating region which includes Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and portions of Illinois.
The company is currently headquartered in Dallas, Texas at One AT&T Plaza.
On December 30, 2001, the original Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., incorporated in Missouri, ceased to exist when it was merged into Southwestern Bell Texas, Inc., a separate operating company incorporated in Texas.[5] Southwestern Bell Texas then converted itself into a limited partnership and renamed itself Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., incorporated in Texas.[6] This company ceased to exist on June 29, 2007, when it was merged into SWBT Inc., incorporated in Missouri,[7] which was founded just 8 days prior. At that point, SWBT Inc. took the formerly dormant name Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Southwestern Bell again became a resident company in Missouri.'>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Bell
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)... for those who might be wondering.
=============
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)... they all drank Coors!
================
freebrew
(1,917 posts)though I hear some folks even like Miller.
I was 5 when I had my first taste of beer(grandparents, love 'em).
It was Busch(you have to live here). Must've been the first year or two of production.
It doesn't taste like that anymore.
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)=================
freebrew
(1,917 posts)funny, there's usually a rep at concerts from A-B.
I always chide them, it's actually even funny to them.
No Busch. Bars usually have one in the cooler somewhere.
And liquor stores.
It's cheap and doesn't give me a headache.
I make a few batches every year, but 5 gallons doesn't last long.
Cheap is good.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)grants a competitive advantage to both the parties to the combined company.