AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by jrockway on Saturday October 22, 2016 @03:28PM (#12770205)

But you wouldn't switch cable companies or buy content you don't want to watch.

There is no technical reason preventing anyone from streaming/recording sporting events. It's easy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by lostlogin on Saturday October 22, 2016 @04:38PM (#12770458)

Unless you don't have cable - which I don't. If people didn't buy content they don't want it would drastically change things in terms of how much money sports content was worth. It would be an interesting scenario to see play out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by jrockway on Saturday October 22, 2016 @05:41PM (#12770697)

At least in my market, you get TV for free with the Internet, or rather, you can't buy Internet access unless you also pay for TV.

And don't say there's no competition, because I could totally in theory get 3Mbps DSL for the same price as 300Mbps cable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by narrowrail on Saturday October 22, 2016 @06:31PM (#12770861)

>don't say there's no competition, because I could ...get 3Mbps DSL for the same price as 300Mbps cable.

1/10th the speed is proof of competition? Poe's Law strikes again!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by jrockway on Saturday October 22, 2016 @07:39PM (#12771120)

That's 1/100th, and the word "totally" in my comment indicates sarcasm.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AT&T reaches deal to buy Time Warner for more than $80B by lostlogin on Saturday October 22, 2016 @10:15PM (#12771528)

You don't get tv with internet in my region and I also can't get fibre. Slow DSL is all I can get.

[ Parent | on HN ]