Making sense of AT&T's bid for Time-Warner [telecom]

The proposed $85 billion merger faces tough regulatory scrutiny, but the potential to challenge cable companies may make a compelling case.

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

"You had a lot of people saying you should've combined a donkey with a rabbit and gotten a flying unicorn."

That was how Jeffrey Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner, once described his company's colossal failure of a merger with AOL. He spent the last decade dismantling much of his company in the name of "focus," spinning off his cable business and magazine empire.

formatting link

Reply to
Monty Solomon
Loading thread data ...

What happened to anti-trust laws?

AT&T was broken up for being too big. So, why is it allowed to get big again?

Warner Brothers was ordered to divest threatre chains it owned because it had too much market power. In essence, move studios that created content had to be separate[d] [from] exhibitors. So why is it being allowed to combine (likewise with Comcast/NBC/ Universal)?

***** Moderator's Note *****

That's a very good question. Be sure to vote.

Bill Horne Moderator

Reply to
HAncock4

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.