Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

AT&T in advanced talks to buy Time Warner: TCM


MovieMadness
 Share

Recommended Posts

AT&T Inc (T.N) is in advanced discussions to acquire Time Warner Inc (TWX.N), sources said on Friday, a deal which would give the telecom company control of cable channel HBO, the CNN news network, film studio Warner Bros and other media assets.

Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes rejected an $80 billion offer from Twenty-First Century Fox Inc (FOXA.O) in 2014 but sources said Friday that it had no plans to renew its bid.

A deal between AT&T and Time Warner could be announced as early as on Monday, the sources said. The sources asked not to be named because the talks are confidential.

 

*************************************************************

If they expect cost cutting, watch out below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it. I'm are trying get away from AT&T and their intrusiveness.

 

That's why I like how streaming channels are a la carte. That way I can minimize my dependence on one company. I am not a fan of consolidation at all. It eliminates competition and ends up raising prices.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT&T Inc (T.N) is in advanced discussions to acquire Time Warner Inc (TWX.N), sources said on Friday, a deal which would give the telecom company control of cable channel HBO, the CNN news network, film studio Warner Bros and other media assets.

 

A deal between AT&T and Time Warner could be announced as early as on Monday, the sources said. The sources asked not to be named because the talks are confidential.

 

*************************************************************

 

Since CNN is involved, the unnamed source must be Donna Brazile.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since CNN is involved, the unnamed source must be Donna Brazile.

 

Just like her tip off, this one will probably be true as well. We will see on Monday.

 

PS According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AT&T is the second-largest donor to United States political campaigns,[29] and the top American corporate donor,[30] having contributed more than US$47.7 million since 1990, 56% of which went to Republicans and 44% of which went to Democrats.[31] Also, during the period of 1998 to 2010, the company expended US$130 million on lobbying in the United States.[30] A key political issue for AT&T has been the question of which businesses win the right to profit by providing broadband internet access in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I am also skeptical of the value of an ATT - Time Warner merger, I'm not sure I understand the first point that the Forbes article author makes as far as Time Warner's current "13.8% market share."

 

Since I believe Time Warner is now exclusively a content producer (the Time Warner cable company was split off several years ago and was recently acquired by Charter cable) I don't see how a content provider can have a market share.  There are obviously many content providers and dozens of carriers with cable, satellite, and now internet streaming companies, so where is there a fixed market that Time Warner could have a percentage of?  Time Warner includes HBO, CNN, and of course TCM, so they sell/license their programs to all of the major television providers.

 

Similarly, I don't see a direct competition between Time Warner and Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. as the author seems to imply, since a subscriber does not necessarily have to choose one such service over the other.

 

(Thanks again to Jake for posting the link to the article.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this thing is a done deal now. We'll have to wait and see what effect, if any, it has on TCM.

 

By the way, in the hours just before the buyout was officially announced, I read that Time-Warner owns 10 per cent of Hulu. So, they're certainly not in direct competition with Hulu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gggerald said: I don't like it. I'm are trying get away from AT&T and their intrusiveness.

 

You can add Slime Warner to that complaint....

If this "merger" goes through, it's just creating a larger monopoly to set high prices further without competition.

 

It's deplorable how Americans are held hostage by these media companies monopolies. You don't pay those kind of prices for  phone networks/internet access/channel viewing in Europe. My friends in France pay around $25/month for their "bundle" while we pay over $100/month.

 

I've been trying to get low cost internet for years and Slime Warner has a monopoly in my area. Comcast, AT&T Fios, even Verizon offer low cost internet alternatives, but CANNOT do business in my area because Slime Warner has an exclusive hold here.

 

Unbelievable this is still allowed!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting how the pundits tap dance around what the supposed benefits are to both the companies and the consumers for such deals.  I've yet to hear any straightforward, logical statements that provide a compelling justification.

 

Basically to me it sounds like the mobile phone carriers are trying to out-big each other and the only place left to go is to try to become large media conglomerates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gggerald said: I don't like it. I'm are trying get away from AT&T and their intrusiveness.

 

You can add Slime Warner to that complaint....

If this "merger" goes through, it's just creating a larger monopoly to set high prices further without competition.

 

It's deplorable how Americans are held hostage by these media companies monopolies. You don't pay those kind of prices for  phone networks/internet access/channel viewing in Europe. My friends in France pay around $25/month for their "bundle" while we pay over $100/month.

 

I've been trying to get low cost internet for years and Slime Warner has a monopoly in my area. Comcast, AT&T Fios, even Verizon offer low cost internet alternatives, but CANNOT do business in my area because Slime Warner has an exclusive hold here.

 

Unbelievable this is still allowed!

 

 

Well, its not really so dire for the consumer. These conglomerates in many ways are merging for survival. My problem with AT&T is everytime I have to call them for something, I am subjected to the third degree and heavy sales pitch: "Do you have internet ?" , "What service to you have ?", " Well we offer blah blah blah..."

 

I tell them clearly that I am happy with my services and will never bundle. And they just go on and on. One told me his service was better than mine and told him I didn't know what mine was :P

 

Landlines and Cable/Dish are going bye bye. If you notice, the commercials  are for internet access, not cable. I have a Time Warner cable line literally stapled to my home (my neighbor has it). And I am inundated with their mail regularly. Even had a man come to my door pushing it.

 

Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon etc... I won't bother with any of those unless its the only alternative. As a matter of fact, my internet provider has a new technology which will make my internet 4x faster and for $10, a land line. I'll end up dumping AT&T and paying about $5 less. That's why I will never bundle. If a better deal comes along, good luck trying to "unbundle" !  :huh: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading some of the most recent posts, I'm unsure if most or all of my fellow posters are unaware that "Time Warner Cable" is in no way part of this deal. Time Warner Cable already sold that division to Charter. It's now called Spectrum. So AT&T doesn't get Time Warner Cable (cmovieviewer does mention this already nine posts below mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading some of the most recent posts, I'm unsure if most or all of my fellow posters are unaware that "Time Warner Cable" is in no way part of this deal. Time Warner Cable already sold that division to Charter. It's now called Spectrum. So AT&T doesn't get Time Warner Cable (cmovieviewer does mention this already nine posts below mine).

 

Okay, thanks for that.  Typed that out while waiting for someone.  I remembered the proposed Comcast deal, which looks like it didn't go through.  At that time I think Charter was also in the picture. so TWC would have been split regionally, depending on Comcast or Charter.  It looks like Comcast pulled out, so it is just TWC and Charter.  Not sure if that also covers Comcast (non-Charter) territory.  There used to be a map which showed the regional delineations.  Anyhow since 2014 is about as long as I have been away from TWC.  Just passed our 2 year promotional package/contract with Directv and chose to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to NPR this AM and reporter noted two things re: this deal.  First it has to be reviewed by Congress/FTC for violations of anti-trust act and second the proposed merger might violate the 1948 Supreme Court vs. Paramount Pictures which disrupted the mode of production companies owning theatres and controlling movie bookings.  So we will see....at least someone remembered their history. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MovieCollectorOh said: Not sure if that also covers Comcast (non-Charter) territory.  There used to be a map which showed the regional delineations.

 

You know, that just boils my crawfish. I do not understand WHY these media provider companies are ALLOWED monopolies in any "areas". There is no competition - prices set & fixed to whatever cash cow they want.

 

I thought there was a law against.....oh forgot. Big Business rules the law in our land.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, that just boils my crawfish. I do not understand WHY these media provider companies are ALLOWED monopolies in any "areas".

Blame the government for that. They're the ones who arrogated unto themselves the power, going back to the days when companies actually had to add wires to the phone/electric poles to provide cable.

 

Did you read the Virginia Postrel piece I linked to earlier in the thread? It should be of interest. (My favorite part is how the cable companies first tried to use the law to prevent DirecTV from providing local over-the-air channels, since that gave the cable companies content they thought viewers wanted, only to switch on a dime and think that making DirecTV add those channels would eat up their bandwidth. Regulatory capture for the win.)

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who see large businesses, think those businesses have a big pile of money they roll around in bed on like ZaSu Pitts in Greed, and think, "Dammit, that's just not fair!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wired's take on the benefits of the deal (summary: 'Won't do jack for consumers')

 

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/att-time-warner-merger-wont-jack-consumers/

 

I must be getting out of touch, but watching video on my mobile device is not my highest priority.

 

It's really only one of

 

[buffering]

 

the most convoluted ways

 

[buffering]

 

one could

 

[buffering]

 

[buffering]

 

[buffering]

 

go about doing that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone’s thrilled about this, and consumers might have cause to worry, says Matt Wood of the media watchdog group Free Press: “Any time you hear media executives talking about synergies, throwing around the business-babble that always accompanies these rumors, you know it’s time [to] grab your wallet and hang on tight,” Wood said in a statement. “Big mergers like this inevitably mean higher prices for real people, to pay down the money borrowed to finance these deals and their golden parachutes. The deals are driven by Wall Street’s insatiable desire for short-term growth at any cost. And just as AT&T’s recent purchase of DirecTV was quickly followed by price hikes, there’s every reason to expect this potential tie-up would cost internet users and TV viewers dearly too.”

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/morning-reads-media-consolidation-attack-internet-things/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the Supreme Court decision Paramount Pictures versus United States (1948) in which the court said that movie studios owning their own theatres and controlling exclusively who got to display these films to the public violated antitrust law relevant in this situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...