Ownership

News broke on November 8 that the Department of Justice is seeking to alter, if not block, AT&T’s proposed purchase of Time Warner. What until recently had seemed like a done deal is now up in the air. And different narratives are emerging. Did the DOJ request AT&T sell off Time Warner's CNN in order to approve the deal? Is the DOJ responding to President Donald Trump’s many complaints about CNN, essentially punishing a news organization for unfavorable coverage?

President Donald Trump appeared to stress that he had not intervened in AT&T’s bid to buy Time Warner — nor did he seek to require that the companies sell CNN in order to obtain the US government’s approval of the deal.

As the Justice Department prepares for a legal showdown with AT&T over its $85 billion bid for Time Warner, analysts are debating whether the acquisition has potential harms for consumers and business competition that could sink the deal in court. One central concern at Justice is that AT&T could seek to deny other providers of TV and Internet, such as Comcast and Verizon, access to Time Warner's programming, and that it could prevent the rise of new technologies aimed at delivering content to consumers. Time Warner owns a substantial library of content. Under AT&T's control, th

Even if the Federal Communications Commission relaxes its ownership rules, Sinclair and other broadcasters would still be blocked from owning two network affiliates in many cases by Justice Department antitrust regulators who have a cap of their own. It limits a broadcaster to controlling no more than 40% of the market's broadcast TV revenue. So, Sinclair is waging a campaign to increase that percentage by changing the way regulators define the local market.

The $85 billion merger of AT&T and Time Warner suddenly seems to be in jeopardy. So how will this play out? Here are five possible scenarios.

1. Time Warner Unbundles
2. The Justice Department Blinks
3. Mega-Deal Gets Its Day in Court
4. AT&T Just Moves On
5. Time Warner Becomes the Belle of the Bidding Ball – Again
    

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai claimed in a New York Times Op-Ed that his ill-conceived plans to overhaul media-ownership rules are in fact a long-overdue move to rescue the struggling newspaper industry. The chairman’s piece is rife with lies of omission that render his argument meaningless.

[Commentary] The power of Facebook, Twitter, Google and others, and the democratic threat that they represent, comes not from the content they show but how they show it. The closed algorithms that drive their feeds and streams also shape and bound our associational spaces. These systems know who we meet with, they determine who we hear from and they decide which voices we cannot escape. As a result, these digital companies have become arbiters, managers and record keepers of our associational lives.

A group of Democratic Sens is demanding answers from the Trump administration over news reports that the Department of Justice asked AT&T to sell CNN as a condition for allowing a merger between AT&T and Time Warner. Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and a group of fellow Democrats sent a letter Nov 10 to President Donald Trump and Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim over the possibility of "undue interference" by Trump in the agency's antitrust enforcement.

[Commentary] For over four decades, the Federal Communications Commission has restricted the ability of broadcast media outlets to also own newspapers, and vice versa, in the same market, under what is known as the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. This rule was established in 1975 with the stated purpose of preserving and promoting a diversity of viewpoints. Arguably, it made sense at the time. But with the internet now dominating the news landscape, the rule is no longer needed, and may actually be undermining the diversity of viewpoints it was intended to foster.