RaymondSCF
2021-07-31
Like and comment
Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
2
6
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":802125318,"tweetId":"802125318","gmtCreate":1627737391434,"gmtModify":1631891406888,"author":{"id":3579308487588351,"idStr":"3579308487588351","authorId":3579308487588351,"authorIdStr":"3579308487588351","name":"RaymondSCF","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d225800cc8cdaedb46d9cee9c44af062","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":24,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like and comment </p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like and comment </p></body></html>","text":"Like and comment","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/802125318","repostId":1154216466,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1154216466","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627713678,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1154216466?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-31 14:41","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1154216466","media":"Barron's","summary":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson Unive","content":"<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.” With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed. District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"lsy1610680873436","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Antitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAntitrust Activists Want to Go Full Throttle. Here’s a Lesson They Should Consider First<blockquote>反垄断活动人士希望全力以赴。这是他们应该首先考虑的一个教训</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Barron's</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-07-31 14:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><i>About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book is</i>The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.</p><p><blockquote><i>作者简介：托马斯·W·黑兹利特是H.H。麦考利是克莱姆森大学经济学捐赠教授，此前曾担任联邦通信委员会首席经济学家，其最新著作是</i>政治光谱：从赫伯特·胡佛到智能手机，无线技术的混乱解放。</blockquote></p><p> Big Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.</p><p><blockquote>大型科技公司陷入反垄断困境。但在司法部试图拆分谷歌或苹果等公司之前，它应该回顾一下美国电话电报公司与时代华纳合并的历史和最终结果。</blockquote></p><p> The DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.</p><p><blockquote>DOJ花费了大量时间和资源来阻止美国电话电报公司收购时代华纳，这标志着该部门40多年来首次挑战重大垂直合并。尽管政府尽了最大努力，包括向华盛顿巡回法院上诉，但还是没有成功，《时代》杂志揭示了它的担忧显然一直都是错误的。合并并没有导致更高的价格、项目中断，甚至没有给公司带来任何明显的优势。</blockquote></p><p> In October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.” With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.</p><p><blockquote>2016年10月，美国电话电报公司宣布了收购时代华纳的计划。唐纳德·特朗普的总统竞选团队在一份声明中抨击了此次合并：“美国电话电报公司……现在正试图收购时代华纳，从而收购疯狂反特朗普的CNN。唐纳德·特朗普永远不会批准这样的交易。”随着特朗普的上任，DOJ采取行动阻止了它。</blockquote></p><p> In 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.</p><p><blockquote>2017年，美国司法部向法院投诉称，此次合并将“大大减少视频领域的竞争”，允许美国电话电报公司“使用时代华纳的‘必备’网络，如CNN、TNT、TBS和HBO，提高向竞争对手有线电视收取的费用。康卡斯特或DISH等分销商。收购了国家卫星运营商DirecTV的美国电话电报公司可能会威胁“停电”，剥夺竞争对手分销商的关键节目——他们的订户会退出，涌向DirecTV（美国电话电报公司），以便继续在TNT上观看CNN或NBA季后赛。不仅主要的电视和有线电视系统会受到伤害，新兴的在线流媒体服务也会受到挤压。</blockquote></p><p> The government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed. District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”</p><p><blockquote>政府的案例集中在“垂直杠杆”上，即一家公司使用两种互补的产品，使竞争对手更难在单个市场竞争。在这里，美国电话电报公司将视频内容创作与视频节目分发相结合；指控是，这两个领域的竞争对手都可能受到伤害。然而，正如在对垂直整合公司的研究中广泛发现的那样，联合运营会提高消费者的幸福感，这是显而易见的。如果Costco供应的Kirkland产品提高了价格或质量，Costco的买家就会急切地snap这些产品——零售商用这些产品代替了一些独立生产商的产品。因此，需要的是事实，而不仅仅是一个故事。地区法院法官Richard J.Leon发现，司法部的案件“远远没有证明其……理论的有效性。”</blockquote></p><p> Aside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”</p><p><blockquote>除了此案的政治含义，有充分的历史理由怀疑官方的投诉。一家有线电视节目制作商近年来数次与一家视频分销商合并（或分拆）。垂直整合并没有引起更高的价格，如计量经济学分析所示。正如司法部承认的那样，垂直整合也没有导致“停电”。华盛顿巡回法院的三名法官小组证实了莱昂法官的观点，发现“近年来，随着Netflix和Hulu等公司的出现，该行业变得充满活力。”</blockquote></p><p> Owning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.</p><p><blockquote>事实证明，同时拥有DirecTV和时代华纳并没有多大优势，更不用说垄断了。尽管疫情对视频内容的需求大幅增长，但竞争对手很快就享用了AT&T-时代华纳的午餐。当美国电话电报公司在2015年收购DirecTV时，它支付了670亿美元。2021年2月，随着DirecTV的卫星用户群崩溃，分拆业务的价值为163亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> And AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.</p><p><blockquote>AT&T当时出售了时代华纳的视频资产。一家新企业——华纳兄弟探索频道——正在剥离并与探索频道（探索频道、动物星球、TLC、HGTV、美食网等）合并。这家只提供内容的公司自愿切断了司法部批评为轻松垄断资金的链接。由于反竞争捆绑的指控，它被认为不值得麻烦。AT&T股东获得了430亿美元，不到三年前AT&T为时代华纳花费的1000亿美元（债务和股权）的一半。事实证明，政府反竞争纵向一体化的设想是一种幻想。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.</p><p><blockquote>美国电话电报公司的策略值得数十亿股东损失所能买到的任何蔑视。愤世嫉俗者可能会建议加强反垄断法，以防止此类企业错误，而忽视了经济处罚——比反垄断执法者可能处理的任何事情都更可靠、更严厉——显然已经到位。但是很少有人注意到这个具有讽刺意味的政治传奇。政策制定者正在全力以赴制定法规，加强科技领域的反垄断起诉，这正是美国电话电报公司在视频领域未能做到的。众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔（D-Wash。）和众议员兰斯·古登（R-Texas）提出了“结束垄断平台法案”，例如，该法案将限制在线服务的垂直合并。至少还有五项新的反垄断规则法案已经出台。</blockquote></p><p> Not only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success. </p><p><blockquote>此类政策不仅可能是昂贵的法律转移，还可能阻碍为客户带来令人兴奋的新选择的创新。在推出Roku后，Netflix已从流媒体融入电影制作。Hulu是由新闻集团（Fox）和NBC-Universal（Comcast）创建的。Amazon Prime Video、Sling、YouTube TV、苹果TV、Disney Plus、HBO Max和Paramount Plus——每个都扩展了一个大型媒体或电子商务平台。每一个都是从对更好产品的追求演变而来的。将企业家精神视为嫌疑人只会加剧目前扰乱在线娱乐市场的混乱。美国电话电报公司惨痛地认识到，拥有互补产品并不能保证成功。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3\">Barron's</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.barrons.com/articles/antitrust-activists-want-to-go-full-throttle-heres-a-lesson-they-should-consider-first-51627509048?mod=hp_COMMENTARY_3","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1154216466","content_text":"About the author: Thomas W. Hazlett is H.H. Macaulay endowed professor of economics at Clemson University, and previously served as chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission. His latest book isThe Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone.\nBig Tech is in the antitrust hot seat. But before the Department of Justice tries to break up companies likeGoogleorApple,it should recall the history, and eventual outcome, of theAT&T-Time Warner merger.\nThe DOJ expended extensive time and resources to stop AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, marking the department’s first challenge to a major vertical merger in over 40 years. The government was unsuccessful despite its best efforts, which included an appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and time reveals that its concerns were evidently misplaced all along. The merger did not result in higher prices, program blackouts, or even any appreciable advantage for the companies.\nIn October 2016 AT&Tannouncedits plan to buy Time Warner. Donald Trump’s presidential campaign trashed the merger in a statement: “AT&T … is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.” With Trump in office, the DOJ moved to block it.\nIn 2017, the DOJ went to court tocomplainthat the merger would “substantially lessen competition in video” by allowing AT&T to “use Time Warner’s ‘must have’” networks like CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO to raise fees charged to rival cable TV distributors like Comcast or DISH. AT&T, which had acquired national satellite operator DirecTV, could threaten “blackouts” depriving rival distributors of key programs—their subscribers would then quit and flock to DirecTV (AT&T) so as to keep watching CNN or the NBA Playoffs on TNT. Not only would major TV and cable systems be hurt, but emerging online streaming services would be crushed.\nThe government’s case focused on “vertical leveraging,” where a company uses two complementary products to make it more difficult for rivals to compete in the individual markets. Here, AT&T was combining video content creation with video program distribution; the allegation was that competitors in either segment might be hurt. Yet there are clear efficiencies to be had, as widely found in studies of vertically integrated firms, with joint operations boosting consumer happiness. Buyers at Costco eagerly snap up Costco-supplied Kirkland products—which the retailer stocks in place of those of some independent producers—if they improve price or quality. So facts, not just a story, are needed. District Court Judge Richard J. Leonfoundthat the DOJ case “falls far short of establishing the validity of its… theory.”\nAside from the political overtones of the case, there was good historical reason to doubt the official complaint. A cable TV programmer combined with (or split from) a video distributor several times in recent years. Vertical integration did not cause higher prices, as shown by econometric analysis. Nor did vertical integration lead to “blackouts,” as the DOJ conceded. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit confirmed Judge Leon’s opinion, finding that “the industry had become dynamic in recent years with the emergence, for example, of Netflix and Hulu.”\nOwning DirecTV and Time Warner together turned out to be not much advantage, let alone a monopoly. Despite a huge boost in pandemic demand for video content, rivals soon dined on AT&T-Time Warner’s lunch. When AT&T bought DirecTV in 2015, it paid $67 billion. In February 2021, with DirecTV’s satellite subscriber base collapsing, the spun-off operation wasvaluedat $16.3 billion.\nAnd AT&Tthen unloaded the video assets of Time Warner. A new enterprise—Warner Bros. Discovery—is being spun off and merged with Discovery (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, HGTV, the Food Networkand more). The content-only firm voluntarily severs the link the DOJ critiqued as easy monopoly money. With the allegations of anticompetitive bundling, it has been cast off as not worth the trouble.AT&T shareholders receive $43 billion, less than half the $100 billion AT&T expended (in debt and equity) for Time Warner three years ago. The government’s scenario of anti-competitive vertical integration proved a fantasy.\nAT&T’s maneuvers deserve whatever scorn billions in shareholder losses can buy. A cynic might offer that antitrust laws be beefed up to protect against such corporate errors, ignoring that economic penalties—more reliable and harsher than whatever antitrust enforcers might deal—are visibly in place. But little note has been made of the ironic political saga. Policymakers are moving full throttle to enact statutes to beef up antitrust prosecution in tech for exactly what AT&T so spectacularly failed to do in video. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) introduced the “Ending Monopoly Platforms Act” that would restrict vertical mergers in online services, for example. At least five other bills for new antitrust rules have been introduced.\nNot only can such policies be expensive legal diversions, they can block the innovations igniting exciting new choices for customers. Netflix has integrated from streaming into movie production, after launching Roku. Hulu was created by News Corp. (Fox) and NBC-Universal (Comcast). Amazon Prime Video, Sling, YouTube TV, Apple TV, Disney Plus, HBO Max and Paramount Plus—each has extended a large media or e-commerce platform. Each evolved from a quest for better products. Treating entrepreneurship as suspect puts the screws to just the disruptions now roiling online entertainment markets. AT&T learned the hard way that owning complementary products is no guarantee of success.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":305,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":14,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/802125318"}
精彩评论