Re:AT&T promised lower prices after Time Warner merger, but ...
by claytonjy on Monday July 02, 2018 @05:37PM
(#17445532)
IANAL, but "would allow us to" is a far cry from "we will do so"; could be as simple as that? They never _committed_ to lowering prices post-merger, just said they _could_...theoretically.
Re:AT&T promised lower prices after Time Warner merger, but ...
by 394549 on Monday July 02, 2018 @05:44PM
(#17445582)
> IANAL, but "would allow us to" is a far cry from "we will do so"; could be as simple as that? They never _committed_ to lowering prices post-merger, just said they _could_...theoretically.
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines, but I didn't want to rely on Ars Technica's paraphrase.
I would hope such "arguments" could be efficiently shot down by the observation that, by the same logic, buying Time Warner would similarly allow [AT&T] to buy every American a pony. The likelihood of that happening is similar to the likelihood AT&T would lower its prices post-merger.
Someone please explain to me why AT&T (or its counsel) isn't in contempt of court or guilty of lying under oath? Did they just use weaselly language in their briefs and testimony that didn't actually say anything of substance?
It seems to me like there's a serious flaw in this process if a company like AT&T can make claims like it did without any obligation to follow through.