Justice Department Appeals Time Warner-AT&T Merger Approval

The Justice Department will appeal the AT&T-Time Warner merger approval, according to a court document filed Thursday. In one of the largest U.S. antitrust cases in decades, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled last month that the merger could go on despite the government's resistance. The feds did not seek a stay that would have prevented the merger from taking place, and AT&T and Time Warner closed the deal directly after Leon's ruling.

Re:

[SeaFox]

AOL is part of Oath now (which is a Verizon company).
So you're expecting Verizon to buy AT&T?

Re:

[youngone]

Verizon might buy AT&T, why not?
Synergies or something.

Re: New we wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

This Ma Bell is not That Ma Bell. AT&T is the renamed company when Soutwestern Bell bought Cingular.

Re:

[Suki I]

Yes, just like back in the old days when Slashdot was warning of the AOL/Time MONOPOLY that would end humanity!

Didn't end. Oh well.

Re:

[ravenshrike]

Interestingly, any appeal will likely bring up the fact that ATT committed perjury.

Re:Too little, too late

[Fly Swatter]

You mean this? AT&T Promised Lower Prices After Time Warner Merger -- It's Raising Them Instead [slashdot.org]. Is not that some sort of breach of agreement?

Re:Too little, too late

[Solandri]

That was the same problem JEDEC ran into with Rambus. According to JEDEC rules, members weren't allowed to patent the technologies being discussed. The members were laying the framework for DDR2, and Rambus simply lifted it and patented it. After a lot of court cases, the courts finally decided that Rambus had violated the terms they'd agreed to when they joined JEDEC. However, since the membership terms didn't lay out any penalties for what would happen if someone violated the rules, the only recourse JEDEC had was to kick Rambus out. Outside of JEDEC, Rambus' patents were still valid.

If there's no guaranteed penalty for breaking a promise, the promise is worthless.

Re:

[parkinglot777]

If there's no guaranteed penalty for breaking a promise, the promise is worthless.

Hmm... Even though the promise is worthless, at least the merge should become invalid. Thus, TW can't be merged with AT&T. I still see that it is worth it.

Re:

[phalse phace]

You mean this? AT&T Promised Lower Prices After Time Warner Merger -- It's Raising Them Instead [slashdot.org]. Is not that some sort of breach of agreement?

Technically, AT&T did lower prices. They now offer a streaming tv service called WatchTV [att.com] that's $15 per month or free if you have an AT&T wireless unlimited plan. They didn't offer this prior to the merger.

This was a result of the merger [prnewswire.com].

Won't happen

[AlanBDee]

The government argued that the deal would make the pay-TV market "less competitive and less innovative."

I would love to see this merger undone but I'm not actually that worried about the competitive market for film and TV. AT&T has Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and Disney/Fox to compete against. Even with the recent changes to HBO I expect that most the talent will switch to one of these other companies. Remember, after the merger, they're charging $5 more for DirectTV so that it now costs $35/mo. That's not exactly a competitive price. This merger may be just as damaging to consumers as the AOL/Time Warner m

Re:

[pnutjam]

Don't forget the spying on consumers.. ooops... I mean more efficiently marketing to consumers.

Re:

[helpfulcorn]

You mean you don't like a History Channel devoid of history, or Discovery channel all about ... whatever the hell they talk about now, I honestly haven't watched it in years, or the similar shift happening on the Science Channel and History Channel 2, or remember when TLC, the Learning Channel, had shit about learning, then started Trading Spaces and now it's all fat people, like looking in a mirror, but that's why I watch TV, or used to, now I just download everything selectively. It takes the fun out of d

Funny thing is this will probably go to the SCOTUS

[rsilvergun]

right as they're about to get another pro-corporate justice who's likely to side with AT&T...

Re:

[ravenshrike]

There's a large difference between anti-trust actions and thinking the FCC has the authority to institute NN.

Re:

[ravenshrike]

Especially since Kavanaugh's NN jursiprudence explicitly doesn't apply in areas where there is only one significant class of cable operator.

No, not Time Warner Cable

[Megane]

inb4 someone complains that AT&T now has a networks monopoly

(This is what's left of Time Warner the media company, not Time Warner the cable company.)

Good Move!

[DaMattster]

This creates a monopoly and needs to be reviewed.