(10-23-2016 09:26 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  And by the way Kronke (a bit off topic but have to mention it), are you already off the UH football bandwagon??

Running joke on the AAC board. A lot of Cincy and Memphis fans have already changed their sigs to something basketball related. I joined them last night.

(10-23-2016 09:26 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  And don't get me started on the sexual subliminal advertising in that basketball poster.

Huh?

BTW, AT&T is #2 in the cell phone provider market share (Verizon is #1, followed closely by AT&T, and then a bit back is Sprint and T-Mobile is #4). I think that is a healthy competition that won't change much in the future. I'd be much more concerned if one of them held an overwhelming majority in that statistic.

I hate AT&T.

I'm in a rural area and my only option for internet is AT&T DSL(1.5mbps). DSL is now considered a dead technology for AT&T and will not upgrade nor provide new service. New neighbors moved in two years ago and is not allowed to get DSL, while I'm across the street and have DSL. Last year AT&T accidentally canceled my DSL when I asked them to disconnect my phone service, initially they said that would not open a new account for me when I told them to get it back. Eventually they realized I never canceled it, then they sent a guy out establish my connection. They are purposefully letting their DSL accounts die off and trying to move everyone into the awfully expensive hot-spot garbage.

This is effecting my ability to sell my house right now and the next owner will not be able to internet from AT&T. I've gone as far as checking for service for any house I go to see... I've crossed off some nice houses because they fall into the same category as my house.

Thanks AT&T.

GFY

This seems to be the time for a lot mega-mergers...

At&T/TWC
Bayer/Monsato
TD America/ScottTrade..
British Tobacco / RJR

(10-24-2016 08:55 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  I hate AT&T.

I'm in a rural area and my only option for internet is AT&T DSL(1.5mbps). DSL is now considered a dead technology for AT&T and will not upgrade nor provide new service. New neighbors moved in two years ago and is not allowed to get DSL, while I'm across the street and have DSL. Last year AT&T accidentally canceled my DSL when I asked them to disconnect my phone service, initially they said that would not open a new account for me when I told them to get it back. Eventually they realized I never canceled it, then they sent a guy out establish my connection. They are purposefully letting their DSL accounts die off and trying to move everyone into the awfully expensive hot-spot garbage.

This is effecting my ability to sell my house right now and the next owner will not be able to internet from AT&T. I've gone as far as checking for service for any house I go to see... I've crossed off some nice houses because they fall into the same category as my house.

Thanks AT&T.

GFY

"Accidentally."

Riiiiiiiiight.

I'm glad that the government broke up Ma Bell in '82 to prevent a monopoly.... oh.. wait...

solo #14,

There's really nothing baffling about the situation. Basically, all the studios (content creators) have realized that the new competition (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO) have a serious advantage being vertically integrated from content creation to content distribution.

It'd be one thing if we were talking about a merger that would seriously limit consumer options. But that clearly isn't the case.


The one thing that I'll be watching with interest, in this merger, is what will happen to HBO NOW. Depends on what kind of model they want to try emphasizing going forward. But I could definitely see HBO NOW getting killed, if they want to drive people into using streaming where you have to provide credentials through a subscription to a payTV service.

Break them up.

Break what up, HoD?

You have no idea what you're saying. Just blindly shouting.

(10-24-2016 12:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Break what up, HoD?

You have no idea what you're saying. Just blindly shouting.

K

Ok, glad you agree. Now you can step to the side, or asking questions to become more informed.

(10-24-2016 12:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Break what up, HoD?

You have no idea what you're saying. Just blindly shouting.

Remember when the AT&T merger with Direct TV was going to be a big boon for consumers? How'd that one go?

(10-24-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ok, glad you agree. Now you can step to the side, or asking questions to become more informed.

You write poorly.

What are you trying to get across this time?

Take your time.

Eigen,

Indeed it is. DirecTV is going to be the next Sling. It's already being set-up that way. Pay attention to DirecTV commercials. Notice how the emphasis is on the streaming app "take your TV with you" ....


HoD,

It's just when you blindly pronounce "Break them up.", with no context, you come off like the old blind guy in the wheelchair at the back of the room, yelling out during the moment of silence.

Add something to your posts, if you want them taken seriously.

Interesting article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...me-warner/

Lot of interesting points, some of which I'll point out and respond to:

Quote:First, it wants to make AT&T's wireless network the best place to find all of Time Warner's content — and lure in customers that way. Americans are shifting a huge amount of their entertainment consumption to mobile screens. If AT&T can get its tablet users to stream HBO Now as opposed to content it doesn't own, AT&T effectively gets paid twice: Once for the use of cellular data, and once for the subscription revenue from HBO. Extend that across all of AT&T's 133 million cellular connections and numerous content sources it'll own through Time Warner, and that's a lot of new potential revenue.

This is glib and wrongheaded on multiple fronts.

- wireless data is too expensive, for this to be anywhere near true. No one is going to spend their precious 10GB on streaming like four episodes of TV. People certainly may watch TV on their mobile screens, but it won't be using mobile data. It'll be on wifi data.

- there real place where ATT can get double paid is thus not in mobile data, but in wired data. Yes, ATT is a huge wireless provider. But people for some reason seem to be forgetting that they have U-Verse networks in place.

- and so on the contrary, ATT is going to have to offer its customers something like "you can stream HBO GO without costing any of your ATT mobile data!" That'd be a huge win for consumers


(so of course, it heads that off at the pass by saying ...)

Quote:Hard to say; they're usually specific to the deal. But they could, for example, ban AT&T from saying to consumers, "Look, come to our wireless service and we'll let you stream as much HBO as you want at no charge." Or it could try to disadvantage its competitors' own content on AT&T's platform. Regulators may conclude that these kinds of arrangement could disproportionately hurt AT&T's rivals.

Yes, let's not offer a huge win to consumers -- and something that wouldn't limit choices for any other consumers. Yeah, obviously that would make it harder for Verizon to sell. They'll need their own partnerships. That's called competition.

Quote:There is a twist to this, though: Some antitrust experts say that in order to impose the most effective conditions, the FCC has to be involved in the review. It's not entirely clear, however, whether that will be the case here. That's because the FCC only reviews acquisitions in which there are assets at stake that it regulates. In this case, Time Warner owns just one TV station in Atlanta that it could easily spin off, excluding it from the deal and effectively cutting off the FCC's jurisdiction over the acquisition.

Because the FCC is better equipped to create limits and continue to monitor anticompetitive business practices from AT&T — as opposed to the Justice Department, which generally looks at the makeup or structure of a deal — losing the FCC from the process could weaken the government's ability to ensure that adequate competition is preserved.

Here I'll agree.

FCC definitely needs to be involved with this, front and center. It's important that the FCC be a large, powerful agency with power to regulate the industry to the advantage of consumers.

(10-24-2016 01:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Interesting article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...me-warner/

Lot of interesting points, some of which I'll point out and respond to:

Quote:First, it wants to make AT&T's wireless network the best place to find all of Time Warner's content — and lure in customers that way. Americans are shifting a huge amount of their entertainment consumption to mobile screens. If AT&T can get its tablet users to stream HBO Now as opposed to content it doesn't own, AT&T effectively gets paid twice: Once for the use of cellular data, and once for the subscription revenue from HBO. Extend that across all of AT&T's 133 million cellular connections and numerous content sources it'll own through Time Warner, and that's a lot of new potential revenue.

This is glib and wrongheaded on multiple fronts.

- wireless data is too expensive, for this to be anywhere near true. No one is going to spend their precious 10GB on streaming like four episodes of TV. People certainly may watch TV on their mobile screens, but it won't be using mobile data. It'll be on wifi data.

- there real place where ATT can get double paid is thus not in mobile data, but in wired data. Yes, ATT is a huge wireless provider. But people for some reason seem to be forgetting that they have U-Verse networks in place.

- and so on the contrary, ATT is going to have to offer its customers something like "you can stream HBO GO without costing any of your ATT mobile data!" That'd be a huge win for consumers


(so of course, it heads that off at the pass by saying ...)

Quote:Hard to say; they're usually specific to the deal. But they could, for example, ban AT&T from saying to consumers, "Look, come to our wireless service and we'll let you stream as much HBO as you want at no charge." Or it could try to disadvantage its competitors' own content on AT&T's platform. Regulators may conclude that these kinds of arrangement could disproportionately hurt AT&T's rivals.

Yes, let's not offer a huge win to consumers -- and something that wouldn't limit choices for any other consumers. Yeah, obviously that would make it harder for Verizon to sell. They'll need their own partnerships. That's called competition.

Quote:There is a twist to this, though: Some antitrust experts say that in order to impose the most effective conditions, the FCC has to be involved in the review. It's not entirely clear, however, whether that will be the case here. That's because the FCC only reviews acquisitions in which there are assets at stake that it regulates. In this case, Time Warner owns just one TV station in Atlanta that it could easily spin off, excluding it from the deal and effectively cutting off the FCC's jurisdiction over the acquisition.

Because the FCC is better equipped to create limits and continue to monitor anticompetitive business practices from AT&T — as opposed to the Justice Department, which generally looks at the makeup or structure of a deal — losing the FCC from the process could weaken the government's ability to ensure that adequate competition is preserved.

Here I'll agree.

FCC definitely needs to be involved with this, front and center. It's important that the FCC be a large, powerful agency with power to regulate the industry to the advantage of consumers.

Has the comcast NBC merger been a win for customers?

This is the same thing as one of the largest service providers is buying one of the largest content providers.

That sucks for customers.

Like I have been saying for a while ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-timewa...SKCN12P2Y0

Quote:The DirecTV Now service coming to the market next month will offer the kind of live programming on multiple channels now available primarily through traditional cable providers. The package will be aimed at younger, mobile-loving consumers and others looking for cheaper options.

Competition for those viewers, however, will be intense. Dish Network Corp's Sling TV is already on the market, offering about two dozen channels for $20 a month, while Sony Corp's PlayStation Vue sells packages as big as 100-plus channels for $55 a month.

DirecTV's price will be in the middle, at $35 a month for more than 100 channels, AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson said on Tuesday.

By early next year, Hulu and Alphabet Inc's YouTube and are expected to be offering similar options. Hulu is owned by Walt Disney Co, 21st Century Fox, Comcast Corp and Time Warner.

Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc also are considering those types of offerings, according to media reports.

"All of these services ultimately want to get to the same place," said Peter Csathy, CEO of Creatv Media, an investment and advisory firm. "They want to be your destination for all things video, and it's an absolute war."

solo,

Propose an actual hypothetical for how consumers could be hurt by the ATT-TWI merger. Then I'll be able to respond to it.

(10-25-2016 05:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  solo,

Propose an actual hypothetical for how consumers could be hurt by the ATT-TWI merger. Then I'll be able to respond to it.

ATT makes time warner sports content exclusive to Direct tv and uverse similar to how Comcast has done that with Comcast Philly and Comcast cable. You still cannot get Comcast Sports Philly on satellite thus competition in the Philly area cable satellite market is way out of balance

(10-25-2016 06:50 PM)solohawks Wrote:  ATT makes time warner sports content exclusive to Direct tv and uverse

What sports content does Time Warner Inc have exclusive rights to?? Keep in mind that TWI is not the same thing as what was formerly TWC (which is now Charter).

This isn't a deflection. Because I'm trying to understand if they actually have anything worth much value whereby what you propose might be significant.