Brian Fung

The AT&T-Time Warner merger could end up costing consumers less money than what some earlier estimates suggest, the government's star witness admitted in federal court as he clashed repeatedly with company lawyers over key figures in his economic analysis of the deal. Instead of paying a minimum of 27 cents more per month on their bills as a result of the deal, TV subscribers could conceivably pay a smaller premium of at least 13 cents a month more — a downward revision in the projections of Carl Shapiro, an economist at the University of California–Berkeley.

The Justice Department is investigating whether AT&T and Verizon may have colluded to thwart a technology that could allow wireless customers to switch network providers more easily.

Time Warner chief executive Jeff Bewkes denied that AT&T will raise the price of TV channels such as CNN and TBS as a result of the two companies' $85 billion merger, calling the Justice Department's landmark case to block the deal "ridiculous."  "I think it's ridiculous," he said.

With the Justice Department's top antitrust attorney, Makan Delrahim, looking on from the government's table, AT&T's witness claimed that regulators' economic analysis of the Time Warner deal is "theoretically unsound" and riddled with inaccurate assumptions. "The evidence doesn't support the government's claim that this transaction will harm consumers," said Dennis Carlton, an economist from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business.

As Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, defends his company's data practices this week before Congress, one of the nation's largest cable companies is asking federal lawmakers for a bill that would rein in social media platforms, search engines and other tech giants that have access to their users' personal data.

We're now almost four weeks into AT&T's historic court battle with the government over its $85 billion merger with Time Warner. Here's an overview of the major themes emerging in this pivotal case that could shape the future of connectivity, entertainment and corporate consolidation:

Critics say the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for enabling and emboldening the right-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group in ways that could ultimately hurt conservatives and liberals alike.The FCC eliminated the “main studio rule,” a federal requirement that radio and TV stations operate a physical studio in the areas where they were licensed. In voting to repeal the rule, FCC Chairman Pai said technological advances make it no longer necessary for stations to keep the lights on in a physical studio; many broadcasters, including NPR, agreed.

Federal officials sought to lay the groundwork March 29 for a key argument in its historic antitrust case against AT&T and Time Warner, attempting to show how the $85 billion megamerger could lead to sharp subscriber declines among AT&T's rivals in the TV business.

Amid sky-high cable bills, many TV viewers have sought to cut costs by firing their TV providers and switching to a relatively new crop of online alternatives offering fewer channels at a lower price. These “skinny bundles” are often streamed live over the Internet and on mobile devices, creating new experiences for TV fans. But that video revolution could be threatened if the government allows AT&T to buy Time Warner, according to one of America's first providers of live-streaming skinny bundles.

As it became clear in November 2017 that the Department of Justice was heading for a legal  showdown with AT&T over its Time Warner merger, the company offered a proposal that it said would address the government’s concerns about competition. But thus far, only two percent of AT&T's rivals have expressed support for that plan. Of the 1,000 letters sent by AT&T to competing TV providers in November notifying them of the proposal, just 20 received a positive response. The lukewarm interest highlights the enormous stakes facing the entertainment industry.