Witness: US consumers will pay $571M more if AT&T-Time Warner merger is OK’d

There is so much potential conflict of interest in that merger as to make even a lawyer's head spin.

 

You know something? What did we get or gain by AT&T buying DIRECTV? Not a darn thing! They are picking it apart. Keeping the good things they like and getting rid of the stuff they don't. Caller ID never hurt anyone nor Auto Tune. But, To AT&T it apparently does. The customer has no say in the matter. I mean watching DTV anywhere or outside the house is so so. The synergies have helped AT&T's bottom line. What did we get? Yearly increases by DIRECTV leading up to this merger. And AT&T continuing with this practice.

 

Gee, I got a bigger discount on my combined DIRECTV/AT&T bill plus streaming on the DIRECTV app doesn’t count against my wireless data usage. Plus since the start of the TIme Warmer merger I’ve been getting HBO for free, so I’d say consumers are getting something.

 

Not all consumers, only DTV customers, which proves the point.

 

Well I think AT&T stock holders would be upset if they gave free HBO to Verizon users. Of course they will give benefits to AT&T wireless customers to drive business, that’s the reason for doing it. As long as they don’t increase pricing to the other carries what’s the problem?

 

Gee, let's see, they acquire content so they can give it free to their own customers and charge everybody else. Nope, no problem there.

 

Are they charging other customers for that contest now, yes. So yes if you are an AT&T/DIRECTV customer you will get a benefit from this, if not you will still be paying for what you've been paying for in the past. It's called having a marketing advantage.

 

BS. It's called an unfair advantage or a monopoly.

 

And that's BS. If AT&T gets Time Warner they do not have a monopoly since there are many more content providers out there then just Time Warner. As for being an unfair advantage, I wouldn't call it unfair, but it is an advantage which is the point behind this. As long as AT&T doesn't block other companies from getting TW content at the same price as before with any annual price increases within historical averages what's the problem?

 

Yea right. They won't block other providers or raise prices for at least a year or two, or if we're lucky maybe three.

 

how many channels does att own now? how many after
compare that to what comcast owns.

then get back to me

 

You're completely missing the point, it's not a "marketing advantage", it's a controlling monopoly. AT&T buys up content then sells the rights to retransmit that content to itself (DTV) for less than what it charges competitors (or provides it for free)-that's the legal definition of an unfair monopoly. AT&T (DTV) provides premium content (HBO) for free (because it owns HBO) while it's competitors have to charge a fee because they had to pay for it-that's the legal definition of an unfair monopoly. You're looking at it from the viewpoint of an AT&T(DTV) customer which is why you're not seeing the big picture. You have to view the whole consumer market, not just one faction or segment.

 

According to that 'logic' then as long as somebody is fleecing you then it's alright for everybody to fleece you.

Anyway, Comcast doesn't have national coverage like DirecTV has so the damage they can do is limited. If it were up to me none of the carriers would be allowed to own content.

 

and that is the only solution that makes sense

 

OK, I see your point about AT&T not paying for HBO. But they why wasn't the same argument used against Comcast when they purchased NBC/Universal, do we know how much Comcast is paying to carry Bravo, CNBC, CNBC World, COZI, E!, Golf Channel, MSNBC, NBCSN, Olympic Channel, Oxygen, SyFy, Telemundo, Universal Kids, USA Network, all those channels could also be free to Comcast using your argument. Only difference is that AT&T has decided to pass along one of the benefits to the consumer which is free HBO.

 

Comcast doesn't have national coverage but they are the largest MSO out there.

 

Like I said, IMHO none of the carriers should be allowed to own content.

 

Where does that logic stop then? Petroleum companies not allowed to own gas stations? Grocery stores not allowed to carry house brands (which limit shelf space for name brands), doctors not allowed to own surgical centers as examples of similar situations.

 

My logic stops with me being against AT&T acquiring Time Warner. Period.