Law AT&T-Time Warner Antitrust case

TLDR: On Tuesday a judge will likely issue a decision regarding AT&T acquiring Time Warner. The deal has been the subject of a Justice Department attempt to block the merger.

"It is one of the most influential antitrust cases in decades, enthralling Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue."
This deal will likely have significant impact on how you use the internet if you live in the US. It'll impact you if you watch movies. It'll impact you if you watch cable TV.

Disney’s offer to buy 21st Century Fox. CVS’s bid for Aetna. T-Mobile’s proposed merger with Sprint.

The path for these blockbuster deals and others could be transformed in an instant on Tuesday, when a federal judge is expected to issue his opinion on the government’s effort to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. It is one of the most influential antitrust cases in decades, enthralling Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue.

If the merger is blocked, some executives are likely to slim down their deal aspirations. If the deal ends up going through, expect a cascade of mergers and acquisitions.

“It could have a collateral effect on every other transaction,” said Blair Levin, an adviser to New Street Research and a former chief of staff at the Federal Communications Commission.

The Justice Department suit to stop AT&T from buying Time Warner, an $85.4 billion deal, surprised investors and antitrust experts when it was filed late last year. The two companies are in related industries but do not produce competing products — one makes media content, and the other distributes it. Deals between such companies, called vertical mergers, typically pass regulatory scrutiny with minimal roadblocks.

During a six-week trial at the United States District Court in Washington, the Justice Department argued that the merger would hurt consumers because the combined company could have the power to raise prices and squash upstart rivals. AT&T and Time Warner said the deal was necessary to compete with fast-growing streaming video giants like Netflix and Amazon.

The case will be decided by Richard J. Leon, a plain-spoken judge appointed by President George W. Bush. He is expected to give a shortened version of his opinion in remarks around 4 p.m. on Tuesday. The full opinion, released around the same time, could be more than 200 pages and will be closely read.

Although Judge Leon has given few clues about his thinking, many analysts expect the companies to prevail because of the history of similar cases that were approved. Some have also said the government struggled in the trial to show that the deal would cause substantial harm.

But the decision may not be clear cut. The judge may allow the merger with several conditions, such as restrictions on how AT&T negotiates with rival cable companies that want to run Time Warner content.

“Anything is possible, and the reality is that any side that loses will be appealing,” said Rich Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG Research.

The appeal process could change the final outcome. But since the companies are faced with a tight deadline later this month to close their merger, shareholders may push Time Warner to bring AT&T back to the negotiating table for more money if they have to wait out a prolonged legal battle, some analysts say.

About $816 billion worth of transactions in the United States were announced this year through May, according to Thomson Reuters, up 71 percent from a year earlier.

The reason: Companies need growth, and buying other companies remains one of the fastest and most effective ways to achieve it. Despite recent interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve, borrowing the vast sums of money needed for deal making remains cheap by historical standards.

But there is little doubt that Judge Leon’s decision will reverberate widely. The vertical deals already reached could be at greater risk, for example.

Here are potential implications of the three general outcomes.

If the Deal Is Allowed, No Conditions
If Judge Leon clears the way for the merger without any restrictions, expect other companies to see it as a green light for more consolidation.

Companies pursuing vertical deals, like CVS and its $69 billion acquisition of Aetna, will point to the court decision to support their case with regulators. The same goes for another health care deal, Cigna’s $52 billion offer for the drug benefits manager Express Scripts.

More upheaval in the media industry is also likely. Comcast has signaledthat if the deal goes through, it will make a bid for the 21st Century Fox parts that the Walt Disney Company is in the process of acquiring for $52.4 billion in stock. Comcast, which was rebuffed by the Fox board in the fall, largely because of regulatory concerns, said on May 23 that it was preparing a “superior all-cash offer” for the Fox assets.

Comcast needs to move quickly because Fox shareholders are scheduled to vote on the Disney deal on July 10. Fox could be forced to delay the vote Comcast bids for it.

“We expect a Comcast bid for Fox under almost any circumstance, unless there is problematic language in the AT&T-Time Warner court decision that makes the prospect of vertical media mergers untenable going forward,” Mr. Greenfield of BTIG Research wrote on Wednesday.

The outcome of the AT&T case could also prompt a range of smaller entertainment companies to join forces as a competitive maneuver. Speculation surrounds Lionsgate, which owns Starz; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which controls the rights to the James Bond franchise; Sony Pictures Entertainment, which has rebounded at the box office; and Discovery Communications, the TV powerhouse.

Media and telecom companies will also look for any signs that the judge agrees with AT&T and Time Warner’s assertion that Silicon Valley is a competitive threat and should also be defined as part of the media ecosystem — adding new competitors for regulators to consider.

If so, companies like Verizon and Dish could view the court decision as a sign that they could buy media companies. T-Mobile and Sprint could also point to the court decision to support their pending wireless merger, which they say would bring better mobile service as companies like Comcast enter the wireless market.

“You will see a rush to consolidate major media and transmission assets,” said Gene Kimmelman, an antitrust official during the Barack Obama administration.

If the Deal Is Blocked
A victory for the Justice Department could encourage the department to act more aggressively on similar deals.

Makan Delrahim, the antitrust chief at the Justice Department, has been adamant that competitive concerns in mergers cannot be resolved through promises to hold back on certain anticompetitive practices. Those requirements, called behavioral remedies, are common in vertical mergers. Comcast’s merger with NBCUniversal in 2011, for example, was granted with more than 100 conditions, such as a requirement that the combined company give competitors access to its programming.

Instead, Mr. Delrahim has said the best way to resolve antitrust problems is to sell off assets. The department offered AT&T and Time Warner a settlement that would allow them to merge as long as they sold Turner Broadcasting or DirecTV. The companies rejected the proposal, leading to the suit to block the deal.

Establishing his standard as the new norm would send a chill through markets, which had become accustomed to government approval of mergers with restrictions. The investment bankers, public relations operatives and media executives working on deals could go back to their corners.

It would mean the Justice Department could be tougher on mergers and demand companies sell off assets to resolve antitrust concerns.

“Makan Delrahim strongly believes that behavioral remedies are regulations of sorts, and he doesn’t want to turn the D.O.J. into a regulatory agency,” said Paul Glenchur, a senior policy analyst at Hedgeye Potomac Research.

If Conditions Are Placed on a Deal
Judge Leon could also allow the deal but insist that the parties agree to certain conditions, a middle ground that could go in multiple directions.

For example, during the trial, Judge Leon asked about promises by AT&T and Time Warner to appoint a third party to oversee disagreements between AT&T and rival cable companies over the fees to license Time Warner content. The companies have argued that arbitration would resolve concerns that AT&T could use Time Warner content like CNN, TNT and TBS as a weapon to increase costs for rivals.

The Justice Department has argued that the promises of arbitration aren’t strong enough. Analysts viewed the judge’s questions on arbitration as an area where he could find compromise and may use them to resolve competitive problems with the deal.

He may also demand divestitures like those proposed by the Justice Department. But AT&T and Time Warner would almost certainly fight such a decision in an appeal. They have been adamant that they would not sell parts in order to get the deal approved.

Such a decision on divestitures would be a rare move by a judge in a vertical merger and, like a decision to block the deal entirely, could have a chilling effect on other vertical mergers.

Judge Leon, experts say, is keenly aware of the ramifications of his opinion. And he will most likely make his findings narrow, which would limit the scope of an appeal.

“Conventional wisdom is that AT&T and Time Warner will win,” Mr. Glenchur said. “But even we who are in the business of trying to predict what will happen can only really say that we really can’t know at this point.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/10/technology/att-time-warner-ruling.html
 
You honestly didn't read my post did you? If you don't have the honesty of decency of reading what I said, I don't see a reason to show you any more respect in this.

The problem is the government allowed these companies to become monopolies against the market, and no one cared, and now the same problem you are asking to solve what started the snow ball.

I don't want to see it become a utility, I didn't say I'm paying for poor people online, you put words in my mouth, I just said I don't want to.

See what I mean, you literally ignored my post and put words in my mouth, so stop being a nigger. If you want to try to win people over more flies with honey approach , and something I managed to crash catch up on in a few hours I'm ahead of people in understanding and being a lot nicer than the pros.

That's worrying and as I said, I'll bathe in the tears either way.

>Calls me "nigger"
>"WHY AREN'T YOU BEING NICER?!?"

Okay, let me try this again. Reading your post, you stated that you are fine cutting the cord, and do not want the net to become a utility "because so many people use Facebook". This is implying you ultimately think the Internet is a luxury, and something we could ultimately live without in this day and age.

I am calling you a retard for that because many, many people nowadays need the internet for many, many important things besides shitposting about autists. You seem to believe that Net Neutrality would have eventually lead to the Internet becoming a utility, and you wouldn't like that because in your eyes it would lead to you paying taxes so that idiots could watch Worldstar or something.

I'm very glad you have a stable job that would be able to afford a huge price hike in net bills, and therefore could safely set your personal router on fire and keep living your life. But a lot of people DON'T have that, and ultimately if things go sufficiently south they will be up a creek without a damn paddle, because there is nothing stopping places like Frontier from doing whatever they want without consequences.

You are sitting there going "Fuck you, got mine" over an issue that will very quickly TAKE yours if things get bad enough, and you don't seem to realize that.
 
>Calls me "nigger"
>"WHY AREN'T YOU BEING NICER?‽"

Okay, let me try this again. Reading your post, you stated that you are fine cutting the cord, and do not want the net to become a utility "because so many people use Facebook". This is implying you ultimately think the Internet is a luxury, and something we could ultimately live without in this day and age.

I am calling you an exceptional individual for that because many, many people nowadays need the internet for many, many important things besides shitposting about autists. You seem to believe that Net Neutrality would have eventually lead to the Internet becoming a utility, and you wouldn't like that because in your eyes it would lead to you paying taxes so that idiots could watch Worldstar or something.

I'm very glad you have a stable job that would be able to afford a huge price hike in net bills, and therefore could safely set your personal router on fire and keep living your life. But a lot of people DON'T have that, and ultimately if things go sufficiently south they will be up a creek without a damn paddle, because there is nothing stopping places like Frontier from doing whatever they want without consequences.

You are sitting there going "Fuck you, got mine" over an issue that will very quickly TAKE yours if things get bad enough, and you don't seem to realize that.
You literally ignored my post, and put words in my mouth, I told you I stopped giving a shit, so stop acting like a victim when you are shocked after acting like a nigger you get treated like one.

Yes I do have a stable life and pay my bills, if you don't have that and are focused more on your god damn netflix, that's literally the defining term of addiction. You again used that term not me cupcake. But again, I will agree, if you can't pay your bills and your net is more an issue than you know a career? Those people need to resort their lives less they get a thread opened.

Lastly you end saying you're right it won't effect me, but uh.,.. yeah it will. Somehow, I'll wait for you to explain on this. Because I strangely don't doubt IF my ISP gets shitty towards me I'll some how have my house taken away or something.
 
You literally ignored my post, and put words in my mouth, I told you I stopped giving a shit, so stop acting like a victim when you are shocked after acting like a nigger you get treated like one.

Yes I do have a stable life and pay my bills, if you don't have that and are focused more on your god damn netflix, that's literally the defining term of addiction. You again used that term not me cupcake. But again, I will agree, if you can't pay your bills and your net is more an issue than you know a career? Those people need to resort their lives less they get a thread opened.

Lastly you end saying you're right it won't effect me, but uh.,.. yeah it will. Somehow, I'll wait for you to explain on this. Because I strangely don't doubt IF my ISP gets shitty towards me I'll some how have my house taken away or something.

Well I mean, if you wanna play the "YOU'RE IGNORING MY POSTS" card you sure did just ignore the bits I said about jobs requiring emails/IM clients, a good chunk of businesses shredding paper applications entirely and forcing you to apply online, and even employee schedules getting posted exclusively to things like facebook. Some people literally need the internet for their jobs, which they need to live.

And it may well affect you because maybe, just maybe, the place you work for will have to pay for these hiked internet costs. And maybe to do so, they'll have to downsize! Maybe get rid of a few employees who they could potentially live without. And maybe when they're going down the ledgers they'll go "Yknow, I feel like Bassomatic's position may be a bit redundant..." That was the first example that came to mind, and I could probably come up with a few others.
 

I agree with most of what Computery. Many, many people nowadays use the internet for more than just shitposting and frequenting kiwifarms — there are businesses big and small that rely on the internet to sell their goods and keep up a good profit. People use the internet for jobs, education, and any other needs that they need to fulfill in order to get by. By removing Net Neutrality rules, this basically means those kinds of people will run the huge risk of losing their livelihoods because AT&T or Cuckcast thinks that their site isn't worth their time and blocks it because they now have the legal right to do so. Fuck, some people even need to use the internet because their lives depend on it. What will happen if big ISPs decide that they aren't worth their time? I hope I don't sound like i'm being overdramatic, but it's clear that their lives will be greatly affected by the repeal.

This is why the repeal of NN is frightening. The internet has grown from being a luxury like the 80s to becoming a growing necessity for a nice chunk of Americans. Ashit Pai doesn't care about that, nor to any of the big ISPs that think nothing but gaining even more of a profit. The merger being approved will only be more of an incentive for these ISPs to be more aggressive.

Even if there weren't any people that didn't rely on the internet for their livelihoods, the fact that we have these huge companies controlling what sites we can view oppresses our rights as Americans. We paid for our computers, our routers, cords, and everything in-between — and you're saying I can't view certain sites because my ISP decided it wasn't fit for my eyes? Fuck that man. I'm gonna fuck off from this discussion, but I do feel like the repeal of NN is gonna be real fuckin shitty assuming nothing else can be done about this.
 
Well I mean, if you wanna play the "YOU'RE IGNORING MY POSTS" card you sure did just ignore the bits I said about jobs requiring emails/IM clients, a good chunk of businesses shredding paper applications entirely and forcing you to apply online, and even employee schedules getting posted exclusively to things like facebook. Some people literally need the internet for their jobs, which they need to live.

And it may well affect you because maybe, just maybe, the place you work for will have to pay for these hiked internet costs. And maybe to do so, they'll have to downsize! Maybe get rid of a few employees who they could potentially live without. And maybe when they're going down the ledgers they'll go "Yknow, I feel like Bassomatic's position may be a bit redundant..." That was the first example that came to mind, and I could probably come up with a few others.
You stupid fuck I made your point for you and here you are bouncing and squeaking I ignored it. I did your work for you. God damn, see why I've lost being cordial with you? You are being beyond rude, dishonest and I just don't see a reason to show you any respect anymore.

You clearly can't make a point, or show respect to other people who tried to give you some, and again, acting like a victim.

That's quite a strech, but i'll entertain it as it's fair enough to work with. Being someone who's worked in small companies, cost of operations go up, letting people go isn't the first thing on the table, I assure you. If indeed they can't pass the cost on to the consumer, you'd see a pay freeze etc well before being fired. It's comical as hell if you think me or anyone is gonna lose their job over this, but I respectfully entertained the thought and expanded on why you're wrong.

Stop being a man child, you're better than that.
 
I agree with most of what Computery. Many, many people nowadays use the internet for more than just shitposting and frequenting kiwifarms — there are businesses big and small that rely on the internet to sell their goods and keep up a good profit. People use the internet for jobs, education, and any other needs that they need to fulfill in order to get by. By removing Net Neutrality rules, this basically means those kinds of people will run the huge risk of losing their livelihoods because AT&T or Cuckcast thinks that their site isn't worth their time and blocks it because they now have the legal right to do so. Fuck, some people even need to use the internet because their lives depend on it. What will happen if big ISPs decide that they aren't worth their time? I hope I don't sound like i'm being overdramatic, but it's clear that their lives will be greatly affected by the repeal.

This is why the repeal of NN is frightening. The internet has grown from being a luxury like the 80s to becoming a growing necessity for a nice chunk of Americans. Ashit Pai doesn't care about that, nor to any of the big ISPs that think nothing but gaining even more of a profit. The merger being approved will only be more of an incentive for these ISPs to be more aggressive.

Even if there weren't any people that didn't rely on the internet for their livelihoods, the fact that we have these huge companies controlling what sites we can view oppresses our rights as Americans. We paid for our computers, our routers, cords, and everything in-between — and you're saying I can't view certain sites because my ISP decided it wasn't fit for my eyes? Fuck that man. I'm gonna fuck off from this discussion, but I do feel like the repeal of NN is gonna be real fuckin shitty assuming nothing else can be done about this.
You can't check email at the library I pay taxes for?

Is the fact you can't google child porn also a violation?

If you want to make a point and bounce that's fine, but it's comical to think you are losing legal rights and if indeed you were this would be quickly overturned, or maybe the gov isn't worth trusting, until it benefits you.

People are saying sites like KF 4chan porn etc are at risk, how are you going to lose your job if you CANT get on 4chan? No one's said walmart's online applications is gonna be banned. No one's said Monster.com will be banned etc. Fuck me, if indeed KF is banned at my job and or home, I'm probably safer, I sure wouldn't want my boss to read the stuff I post here.

We've all heard of someone mistakenly opening a pornhub tab and being let go or scolded so if ATT bans it youre safer right? Yes I'm playing devils advocate but because everyone is going full chicken little and because very few people are showing an ounce of understanding or respect to people who are either in disagreement or simply asking questions you can see why there's a growing gloat in some of my posts.
 
You stupid fuck I made your point for you and here you are bouncing and squeaking I ignored it. I did your work for you. God damn, see why I've lost being cordial with you? You are being beyond rude, dishonest and I just don't see a reason to show you any respect anymore.

You clearly can't make a point, or show respect to other people who tried to give you some, and again, acting like a victim.

That's quite a strech, but i'll entertain it as it's fair enough to work with. Being someone who's worked in small companies, cost of operations go up, letting people go isn't the first thing on the table, I assure you. If indeed they can't pass the cost on to the consumer, you'd see a pay freeze etc well before being fired. It's comical as hell if you think me or anyone is gonna lose their job over this, but I respectfully entertained the thought and expanded on why you're wrong.

Stop being a man child, you're better than that.

You actually just ignored the major crux of my post to continue insisting I'm not being very nice to you and that somehow means you win.

You talk about consumers getting costs from increased internet passed onto them like it somehow isn't a bad thing, then call me a man child instead of maybe refuting any of my points regarding the growing vitality of the internet when it comes to careers. I'm going to harp on that. What about all the people who use the internet for things like sending emails between departments at their job, or use it to apply for workplaces that have switched entirely to online applications? What happens when they're having to choose between their net and making rent, when being without internet outright cripples their chances at gainful employment?

Edit: And it's not JUST about sites being blocked you willfully ignorant motherfucker. There is also the fact that this opens the door to things like MASSIVE PRICE HIKES that people will be forced to take on the chin because there are no other alternatives, or the alternatives available are literally worse than nothing at all. People will be WITHOUT INTERNET ENTIRELY and if you seriously think "just going to the library" means that's okay, you are, again, a willfully ignorant motherfucker.

I'm done with this conversation. It'd be one thing if you were making salient points, but you're obviously stuck in the mid 2000s or something because I've seen you talking about people being upset over Facebook and calling us niggers more than actually refuting points.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Bassomatic
You actually just ignored the major crux of my post to continue insisting I'm not being very nice to you and that somehow means you win.

You talk about consumers getting costs from increased internet passed onto them like it somehow isn't a bad thing, then call me a man child instead of maybe refuting any of my points regarding the growing vitality of the internet when it comes to careers. I'm going to harp on that. What about all the people who use the internet for things like sending emails between departments at their job, or use it to apply for workplaces that have switched entirely to online applications? What happens when they're having to choose between their net and making rent, when being without internet outright cripples their chances at gainful employment?
What I said and I'll say again, I made this case for you, but since you don't deem me enough respect since I disagreed with you to read my posts you'd have seen I did a better job making your statements for you.

I didn't say passing costs is good, I'm saying that in my personal and professional life is what happens. Same way if your water bill goes up, power bill etc. Why again are you acting like the internet is the only way this happens?

I know fuck all about computers, but sending internally can happen with out the net on some levels, I'm sure someone can explain how LANs don't need net better so I won't try to get into the tech of it.

Look at the post above I mentioned, there are places with free wifi, that I as a tax payer am covering. I don't remember seeing want ads being targeted as much as sites like porn for what the evil internet owners are going to take away. Adults in the real world know bills come and prices change, if you knew how bad my AC costs were you'd much more grab a pitch fork towards my power company than my ISP.
 
The madmen. They're rebuilding Ma Bell.
Its easier to look at this slapfight via layers (some of these companies are owned by companies in different layers)
  1. Media conglomerates: Disney / 21st Century Fox / Time Warner / Fox
  2. ISPs / Cable Internet providers: AT&T / Comcast / Verizon / Sprint
  3. Cable TV (Old media): HBO / Dish / Comcast Cable TV / Turner Broadcasting
  4. Streaming services (New media): Netflix / Amazon / Google
Remember, Comcast already owns Universal studios. AT&T now owns Time Warner, which also owns Turner. How soon until Disney owns Verizon or Amazon / Google buys ones of the ISPs up?

Not fully exhaustive, but Should Look like:
  • Walt Disney Company
    • Walt Disney Studios
      • Lucasfilms
      • Marvel
      • Pixar
      • 21st Century Fox (possibly; fighting with Comcast over them)
      • Touchstone Pictures (distribution company)
    • Disney–ABC Television Group
      • American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
      • ESPN (owns 80%)
    • Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
  • Comcast
    • Xfinity (aka Comcast Cable)
    • Universal (The record label with the same name used to be own by them. now part of Vivendi. Vivendi also used to have connections to NBC as well)
      • Illumination (those guys who make Minions)
    • 21st Century Fox (possibly; fighting with Disney over them)
    • National Broadcasting Company (NBC, aka NBCUniversal)
      • CNBC
      • MSNBC (fully owned by NBC, used to be a co-op by Microsoft and NBC)
      • Dreamworks Animation (Film & TV)
      • Syfy
      • USA Network
    • Telemundo
    • Movieclips (YouTube channel)
    • Fandango
  • AT&T (owns several of the baby bells. Formerly Southwestern Bell Corporation)
    • Warner Bros (The record label with the same name used to be own by them. now a separate company)
      • DC Comics
      • New Line Cinema
      • MGM (older film rights)
    • Time Warner (Time Inc. used to be owned by them, bought out by someone else in 2018.)
    • Turner Broadcasting System
      • CNN
      • TBS
      • Cartoon Network
    • HBO (Home Box Office)
    • The CW (Co-Owned by CBS; co-joining of The WB (owned by Warner) and UPN (owned by Paramount, aka CBS))
    • DirecTV
      • DirecTV Now
    • Otter Media (joint venture between ATT and Chernin Group)
      • Crunchyroll
      • Fullscreen Media
        • ScrewAttack
        • Rooster Teeth
  • Hulu (When fox is bought, 60% will be owned by either Disney or Comcast. They might cause the service to shutter if so)
    • Disney (30%)
    • 21st Century Fox (30%)
    • Comcast (30%)
    • Time Warner (10%)
  • Verizon (they don't own anything other than themselves, but owns several of the baby bells)
  • Time Warner Cable (Used to owned by Time Warner, but now absorbed into Spectrum (aka Charter Spectrum). Almost bought out by Comcast)
  • Netflix (see Verizon)
  • Alphabet (holding company)
    • Google
      • Youtube
      • Android
  • Amazon
    • Amazon Video
    • IMDB
    • Twitch
    • Whole Foods Market
What the owner of Fox gets when the merger happens:
  • 21st Century Fox
    • Fox Entertainment Group
      • 20th Century Fox
      • Fox Searchlight Pictures
      • Blue Sky Studios
      • Fox Star Studios
      • Fox Networks Group
      • Fox Sports Networks
    • FX Networks
    • National Geographic Partners (73%)
    • Star TV
    • Hulu (United States) (30%)
    • Sky plc (39.14%) (aka that British Satellite company)
    • Endemol Shine Group (50%)
The main reason Disney (and probably Comcast as well) wants fox is for content. Rumor has it Disney is trying to make their own Netflix killer and needs more content. This would give them access to a metric fuck ton of content. Also allows them to gain some film right to properties they partially own (Star Wars Ep. IV, X-Men, Deadpool, Fantastic 4).
 
Last edited:
So why even have anti-trust laws if they aren't going to be used? The judiciary in the nation is a fucking joke
From what I gather in the last few threads, the government doesn't have that many competent people in its offices. So I'm willing to bet money was probably what helped "influence" the judge's decision, and he never questioned it for a second.
 
The madmen. They're rebuilding Ma Bell.
Remember, Comcast already owns Universal studios. AT&T now owns Time Warner, which also owns Turner. How soon until Disney owns Verizon or Amazon / Google buys ones of the ISPs up?

Not fully exhaustive, but Should Look like:
  • Walt Disney Company
    • Walt Disney Studios
      • Lucasfilms
      • Marvel
      • Pixar
      • 21st Century Fox (possibly; fighting with Comcast over them)
      • Touchstone Pictures (distribution company)
    • Disney–ABC Television Group
      • American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
      • ESPN (owns 80%)
    • Walt Disney Parks and Resorts
  • Comcast
    • Xfinity (aka Comcast Cable)
    • Universal (The record label with the same name used to be own by them. now part of Vivendi. Vivendi also used to have connections to NBC as well)
      • Illumination (those guys who make Minions)
    • 21st Century Fox (possibly; fighting with Disney over them)
    • National Broadcasting Company (NBC, aka NBCUniversal)
      • CNBC
      • MSNBC (fully owned by NBC, used to be a co-op by Microsoft and NBC)
      • Dreamworks Animation (Film & TV)
      • Syfy
      • USA Network
    • Telemundo
    • Movieclips (YouTube channel)
    • Fandango
  • Time Warner (Time Inc. used to be owned by them, bought out by someone else in 2018.)
    • Warner Bros (The record label with the same name used to be own by them. now a separate company)
      • DC Comics
      • New Line Cinema
      • MGM (older film rights)
    • AT&T (owns several of the baby bells. Formerly Southwestern Bell Corporation)
    • Turner Broadcasting System
      • CNN
      • TBS
      • Cartoon Network
    • HBO (Home Box Office)
    • The CW (Co-Owned by CBS; co-joining of The WB (owned by Warner) and UPN (owned by Paramount, aka CBS))
  • Hulu (When fox is bought, 60% will be owned by either Disney or Comcast. They might cause the service to shutter if so)
    • Disney (30%)
    • 21st Century Fox (30%)
    • Comcast (30%)
    • Time Warner (10%)
  • Verizon (they don't own anything other than themselves, but owns several of the baby bells)
  • Time Warner Cable (Used to owned by Time Warner, but now absorbed into Spectrum (aka Charter Spectrum). Almost bought out by Comcast)
  • Netflix (see Verizon)
  • Alphabet (holding company)
    • Google
      • Youtube
      • Android
  • Amazon
    • Amazon Video
    • IMDB
    • Twitch
    • Whole Foods Market
What the owner of Fox gets when the merger happens:
  • 21st Century Fox
    • Fox Entertainment Group
      • 20th Century Fox
      • Fox Searchlight Pictures
      • Blue Sky Studios
      • Fox Star Studios
      • Fox Networks Group
      • Fox Sports Networks
    • FX Networks
    • National Geographic Partners (73%)
    • Star TV
    • Hulu (United States) (30%)
    • Sky plc (39.14%) (aka that British Satellite company)
    • Endemol Shine Group (50%)
The main reason Disney (and probably Comcast as well) wants fox is for content. Rumor has it Disney is trying to make their own Netflix killer and needs more content. This would give them access to a metric fuck ton of content. Also allows them to gain some film right to properties they partially own (Star Wars Ep. IV, X-Men, Deadpool, Fantastic 4).


That's a much better breakdown of it all than I gave. I was just aiming for something simple so people could comprehend the idea of what was happening.

Many of the relationships in shitheaps like these are deliberately obfuscated and extremely complicated for a number of reasons (mainly to pay less tax)

One thing that needs to be said it court decision or no court decision this was still going to cause a number of mergers in its wake. There was another bid ready to go for Time Warner and its possible that deal may go ahead because they're bidding more. Plus there are plenty of rumors that either Disney or Apple want to buy up Netflix.
 
@Bassomatic You've gotta be pretty fucking exceptional if you think media monopolies of this degree are harmless. People form opinions based on the media they consume. Monopolies in general are cancer as well, they kill competition and result in corporations that are "too big to fail" and need to be bailed out by the government when they eventually sail down shit creek.
 
Last edited:
@Computery Guy You've gotta be pretty fucking exceptional if you think media monopolies of this degree are harmless. People form opinions based on the media they consume. Monopolies in general are cancer as well, they kill competition and result in corporations that are "too big to fail" and need to be bailed out by the government when they eventually sail down shit creek.

I actually agree entirely, and I hope my posts weren't giving that impression. I just think killing NN without taking any steps to break up those monopolies first was an utterly awful idea.
 
Plus there are plenty of rumors that either Disney or Apple want to buy up Netflix.
I've heard rumors of Disney or Apple buying one another for a while. Also, Steve Jobs used to have a major stake in Pixar after George Lucas sold it.
 
I'm pretty sure Bassomatic agrees with that he just disagrees over the source of the monopoly and the way to deal with it. And the immediate severity of this merger. But I probably shouldn't speak for him.
 
Monopolies in general are cancer as well, they kill competition and result in corporations that are "too big to fail" and need to be bailed out by the government when they eventually sail down shit creek.

Which they invariably do, because if you're given a free chance to gamble with billions of dollars of other people's money, and if you win, you get to keep it all, but if you lose, you get bailed out, who wouldn't? It's called moral hazard.
 
Back