To be fair, the DOJ actually tried to stop this but was overruled by the courts.

Jeff Sessions, servant of the people?

Jeff Sessions, servant of some of the people?

To be fair, the DOJ's motives were completely tainted by Trump's hostility toward CNN.

I get what you're saying, but that shouldn't matter in a sane world. This merger is bad news for the citizenry.

>This merger is bad news for the citizenry.

It is. And had it been successfully blocked, the message would be clearly understood by media outlet owners far beyond CNN's owner.

It is in fact lose-lose.

Same goes for whatever ends up happening to Amazon/WaPo.

This is the only anti-trust you can expect to see now.

> Same goes for whatever ends up happening to Amazon/WaPo.

Pretty sure Bezos bought it, not Amazon.

You punish Bezos by attacking Amazon.

I don't think the folks who ended net neutrality then go on twitter tirades against Amazon for the public good. Especially since each tweet drives down the value of tech companies.

I certainly can't defend the AT&T-Warner merger nor Amazon's near monopoly. But the enforcement is totally selective and for an insidious reason.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/04/donald-trump-amazon-jeff-bezos...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/07/trump-bezos-...

Obviously, whatever Trump does is bad, whether busting monopolies or not busting monopolies.

That was a good thing, but for wrong reasons.

Has Trump been busting monopolies?

Well, that was the attempt here.

No, the attempt was silencing unfavorable media. The monopoly part was a neglected side effect.

The distributor/producer boat sailed with NBC-Universal-Comcast.

Ma Bell 2.0

As of 2016 this is a diagram showing what went where and how it's back together now: https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner...

>f you thought music streaming exclusives were bad, just wait until Comcast starts windowing SNL sketches to keep people on its pipes while AT&T only streams CNN to AT&T phones, while Verizon keeps wielding mobile access to NFL games like a club against the American consumer.

Such an anti-consumer dystopia :( It is truly sad to see these markets devolve into such terribleness when there is so much possibility to be had with such incredible technology.

I'm optimistic about it. The more onerous and costly it becomes, hopefully the more people will become disinterested with the mass produced garbage and start unplugging themselves.

Wow, with this deal it's even more consolidated than before the breakup.

not exactly the best example when you consider what their research arm bell labs gave us.

Not saying that monopolies are good, it's just not black and white...

Even a steaming pile of shit has one or two good qualities.

A comment like this makes me think you really don't know much about Bell Labs.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/next-generation-communications/2011/0...

A lot of modern computing traces back to them and Xerox.

I know about Bell Labs and their contributions. They were the one positive thing from Ma Bell, but there were a LOT of other bad things in Ma Bell that I'd rather not see come about again. I bet we can have a Bell Labs-like thing exist without all the other crap.

I'd love to see it. Where is this fabled research giant that doesn't need a bunch of funding from a giant corporation?

I mean, I guess you could look at DARPA or other government agencies as some sort of equivalent, but you're not exactly escaping controversy by getting your funding from the DoD...

Lucent. (Ugh... Rode that sucker down to $0)

> And this one has the inherent conflicts of interest you get when a distributor buys out a producer.

I'm not sure I understand the conflicts. Isn't Netflix essentially doing the same thing? Consolidating production and distribution?

Netflix isn't your ISP. Netflix doesn't control the means of delivery/distribution. They rely on Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc to deliver their data.

Netflix can't just decide that they don't want to compete with Hulu and therefore throttle or block Hulu from their customers.

We know that controlling the means of production and the means of distribution is highly anti-competitive. All you have to do is look at rockefeller and standard oil in the 1800s. Rockefeller bought or threatened his way into controlling the railroads which allowed him to put most of his competitors out of business or forced them to sell to Standard Oil. Controlling the means of delivery allowed rockefeller to monopolize the oil industry in the US.

With the repeal of net neutrality, we are getting to the point where verizon, comcast, at&t, etc can be their own little "internet". And this really hampers future entrepreneurs. If you wanted to start a netflix, youtube or twitch today, but you can't rely on verizon, comcast, at&t, etc to give you fair access to their network, then why bother and who will invest in your company?

But this is the overall direction of the internet and social media the past few years. Less freedom, less openness and a move towards more of a corporate tv/news format.

> But this is the overall direction of the internet and social media the past few years. Less freedom, less openness and a move towards more of a corporate tv/news format.

So when are we nerds getting together to make a new internet?

Internet2[1] has been around for years, but it's very restrictive and you aren't invited.

[1] https://www.internet2.edu/

Yes, and there are conflicts of interest, as Netflix will push their own stuff over their competitors'. The major difference is that ISPs have a much stronger control of their distribution market, which they can use to gain an advantage on the production market (what's usually called "abuse of monopoly power").

Netflix is your ISP?

I don’t think time warner is an isp anymore

But AT&T certainly is, as would be the combined company.

Time Warner is definitely still an ISP where I live (NYC)

EDIT: Never mind, I was unaware of the split between the cable and internet businesses. (I still agree with the sibling comments that this isn't hugely important given that AT&T is still an ISP)

AT&T is a major telecom and provider of mobile internet access.

The difference is that I have one choice of ISP and many choices of over-the-top content, none of which can e.g. restrict my ability to access things unrelated to their service as an ISP can. It's apples v oranges.

Under this logic I think so, it would be the same problem.