[394549]

> Just two months ago, AT&T said in a court filing that buying Time Warner would allow it to lower TV prices. The US Department of Justice tried to stop the merger, arguing that it would raise prices for consumers, but a federal judge sided with AT&T. The merger was completed on June 15.

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.

[claytonjy]

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.

[394549]

> 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.

[cbhl]

I'm guessing they'd come back and say that DirecTV Now is considered an "over-the-top" service, not "retail pay-TV".