tv Risk and Reward With Deidre Bolton FOX Business November 20, 2017 5:00pm-6:00pm EST
are -- drumstick are staying at hotel in washington, d.c. that cost between $2,000 to $6,000 a night. melissa: why a hotel? here is "risk & reward." >> breaking news, justice department getting in between a big $85 billion deal, doj to sue to block at&t's proposed ac act acquisition of time warner. a deal that both white house we'd in on with -- wad wade in h trump critical of convention, welcome to "risk & reward. at&t and time warner to hold a pros conference this hour, we'll bring it to you could. but first we have charlie gasparino with the latest. >> there is two stories, a story of financial part. this deal looks like it will be
sued to be blocked by the justice department's antitrust division, having an affect on corporate america and pending deals. including our own attempts to sell assets, what it would mean in terms of antitrust, all those deals right now are being recalculated and looked at. whether these -- if the justice department is not allowing this one to go through, everyone thought it was a slamdunk from antitrust stand point. would they allow disney to buy fox's studios. they would control's large portion of box office. and comcast to buy content. will thig they allow verizon toy our content, because they have distribution. it looks like the justice
department is taking another view of the antitrust. another aspect. crazy political -- cob, donald trump as candidate one said he wanted a spinoff of cnn if this deal of the going through, he said it was too much construction of power, people thought it was a idle threat, but senior aides were actually discussing this topic. by current senior adviser. and others inside of white house, there are two stories, we know that donald trump does not
like cnn. if you combine that with aspect that people really think that antitrust ground of this are flimsy, this is -- we're in like real unchartered territory in terms of stopping the deal and the ramifications, this is huge story. liz: this is a bombshell, charlie, we're grateful you are on the story, we may need to come back to you in the hour. >> i'll be at the gym, call early. liz: all right, art lapre with me now, if the courts reject this, the ceo of at&t is going to fight this one, this is a battle royal. you have you know senators frank efranken and elizabeth warren saying there is anticonsumer. by the thing about president weighing in looks like number of news outlets will not be reduced
it is just cnn switching ownership. right, it just -- i don't see what that impact would be, art? >> i don't know to be honest, i am always impressed by charlie gasparino, when he gives a story this is serious stuff, ita amazing. i don't understand the antitrust division in this case, this does not make sense to me, it is a lively 1 doctor full story. -- lively wonderful story. i don't know. liz: remember when ibm was going to be huge, then microsoft blew that off, and confident netscape, and. you are right we have a new antitrust sheriff in town, in the doj, i'm not sure this is the way to go. >> do you remember they broke up bell telephone systems and all of the baby bells, antitrust has always gone through swings and
always supported by the left. it does have an affect but not near-term on the u.s. economy, but long-term, more competition is always better. >> a great point, you wonder with this, talking about battle royal, justice department looks to sue to block the at&t and time warner merger, do you think that at&t could try to subpoena documents out of the white house to see how trump administration has been talking about wil the deals? >> i have no idea, i am not a lawyer. and interesting, mueller now, there should be two or three competing investigations, don't you think. liz: yes, thank you, art lapre. >> let's get rid of them all, and get on with business, get tax cut in, let's get growth in this economy and we'll all be happy eating steaks and
hamburgers and enjoying life. liz: listen, we'll talk to congress in a moment, you talk about tax reform, have 5 to 7 senators pos ebb -- possibly on the fence. we need growth what is going on. >> not senior bloomers, don't knock senior bloomers i can one. and why isn't the democrats doing this. the reno one is getting anything -- reason is no one is getting going done is not one democratic vote comes for any of this good stuff, how did they do it? how do they expect to get elected if they don't do anything pro growth, they are just anti-trump. liz: your point is so important, there are 10 blue dog senators,
in states that trump won, nobody is talking about how recalcitrant that democracies have been. >> you are right in 1981, we have a democratic and a republican cosponsor of each of the bills. one was a spending bill the other was a tax cut bill, we got tons of democrats to vote in 1981, what is with these democrats, they need growth, they are part of the process, they are most wonderful party on earth, only when they do this stuff, they are awful, i wish they would be pro american, and pro growth and pro jobs and pro higher income. not one has broken that is ridiculous. liz: ted kennedy was for growth. >> 86 act he voted for. there were 3 senators that voted against it, 97 senators voted
for it, including cran stan and al gore, and bill bradley and teddy kennedy. joe biden, even voted. liz: al gore. >> there you go. >> good to see you art. you are doing a great job, thank you. >> charlie is amazing, tell him, would you? liz: i will, we'll have a press conference about justice department to file suit to block the mega-$85 million deal that at&t wants to acquire time warner, a court battle royal unfolding. we have domestic and geopolitics on market 41 burner. -- front burner. north korea could reacting, with more aggressive missile tests, we bring in chair fox business contributor congressman jason chaffetz, what do you feel about north korea.
>> it is mystifying why they were taken off the list at one point, they have to put them back on. there was always evidence along the way they were engaged in this a state sponsor of terror, this is appropriate to put them back on. they will continue to ratchet up sanctions tomorrow. the deputy of treasure will announce new sanctions, that begs question, why are we still ratcheting it up. it should have been maximum of maximum a long time ago. liz: now germany coalition government in collapse. warning about terror threats from isis. that refugee and my grand surge not helping germany. >> western europe is in trouble, even here in u.s., we have to be vigilant. isis wants death and destruction
to u.s. of america. liz: isis prop pan propaganda. the propaganda of the pope being beheaded. also, 4 women stepping forward describes a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to yes, they said, wet kisses out of nowhere. they played out under influence of alcohol, looking at "new york times" stock today. trump goes after women reporters, if you are a colleague of ashley r parker or mag -- from "new york times," you look at this tweet out it is beyond, what do you make of it? >> i am glad we're elevating the discussion, no person which have to put up with someone making up wanted advances to point of touching, pushing and doing things you should not.
i don't care how famous you are if are a reporter or under the influence of alcohol, this is not a discuss. i am glad to see this sudden awakening that it is not appropriate. it was not appropriate when president clinton was doing it in oval office. liz: monica lewinsky was just 7 years older than his daughter, chelsea. and now -- i think that debate with whether it was brave, it was brave to step forward and do that. >> look, she is comes to right conclusion, but when did this revelation come to her. she has taken their money, what was the sudden point senator when you actually said, oh, the groping of women is not
appropriate. it is the right conclusion, but some of us were there 30 years ago. liz: and mika speaking out about bill clinton as well, and other woman againstal franken. after al fght was elected senatr reportedly in 2010, and saying he inappropriately touched her while posing for the photo, al franken saying he the not resi resign. i feel badly that she came away from this feeling disrespected. senator bernie sanders avoiding saying whether or not colleague frank efrank 7en should resign. >> that is say decision for al
franken and people of state of minnesota, my understanding that al is a popular senator, people in minnesota think he is doing a good job. his political future will rest with the people of minnesota. liz: a lot of other democrats like liz warren going after al franken. it is a broader story. >> he, if you really carefully read what he said, he didn't deny it, he just said, i feel bad, if she was feeling disrespected. but he did not answer the direct question. liz: he did not remember. >> i took pictures with thousands of people at the state fair, did he or did he not? is that common practice? look, if there is a legal question, then go to law enforcement. if there is a political question, i don't know that senate ethics committee can answer questions prior to his engagement in u.s. senate. but this latest one happened while he was a u.s. senator. liz: you think he should resign?
>> if he did it yes. liz: senator bob pack wood he was the pushed out. >> why should we put up with the sexual predators, have some guts step out. liz: thank you, happy thanksgiving. >> thank you. liz: breaking news, justice department getting in between a big $25 billion deal, we'll be on the press conference, it has to do with at&t buying time warner, justice department is expected to block the deal via a lawsuit. at&t stock trading up and time warner down. this story for you, lavar ball father of one of ucla basketball players, he is now attacking president trump. saying that president trump does not deserve any credit for getting his son out of china. we bring in lieutenant colonel allen west, he is here to react, next.
a son to go to a fore uncountry, understandings their rules, i am sure they are -- the laws . liz: opportunities have been released without president's help. >> china is very sphri strict wr laws and enforcing those laws. i don't know if i don't think if they have any influence they would still be sitting there. liz: let's get to topic, connecticut democrat, quick out of the box to attack president trump for months, adding his two
cents saying that president trump is racist, saying that colin cappe kaepernick. and representative wilson, lavar ball, apart from hillary clinton, the intensity of his attack cor correlates with skin color. >> that is fall back position of progressive socialist left, when they can't come up with any issue, they go to racist, i could say the same about rahm emanuel, sitting back allowing thousands of young blacks to be killed in chicago, and we could talk about planned parenthood, a known white supremacist, and a racist, we could talk about how so many democrats including hillary clinton, bill clinton, and barack obama praised robert byrd jr., a grand wizard of clue
kkk . >> thank you, colonel. >> happy thanksgiving. >> back to breaking new, justice department looks like it will get between a big $85 mega-biell between time warner and at&t. we're going to bring you the press conference scheduled live, at&t calling for that press conference, we will hear from the ceo randall stevenson. we'll bring in a market analyst, this has to to with what you watch on television, and what you pay for it. and some you shouldn't have to shoulder alone. like ensuring your family is protected,
today and tomorrow, no matter what the future brings. see how life insurance from lincoln can help start protecting your family's financial future now, at lincolnfinancial.com. searching one topic. that will generate over 600 million results. and if you've been diagnosed with cancer, searching for answers like where to treat, can feel even more overwhelming. so start your search with a specialist at cancer treatment centers of america. start with teams of cancer treatment experts under one roof. start where specialists use advanced genomic testing to guide precision cancer treatment...
...that may lead to targeted therapies and more treatment options. start where there's a commitment to analyzing the latest research and conducting clinical trials-to help each patient get the personalized cancer care they deserve. start at one of the cancer treatment centers of america hospitals near you. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts appointments available now.
momentarily. the ceo randall stevenson will address the latest development. with me now, jason rothman, fox business david asman. jason, i was talking to david at break, elizabeth warren and al franken don't like this deal, but trump administration is suing to block it. two senators don't like it, saying it is antiwhic anticompe, will at&t bring in president trump's tweets, saying that cnn is fake news. >> i think we need to throw at&t a bone, let this go through. at&t has been having a lot of legal trouble trying to grow company via mergers and -- act
acquisitions like this, they have been denied. something needs to change. this is a vertical merger it should go through. liz: not like cutting the number of news outlets, cnn will just change ownership. you are right, this is second time in 6 years that at&t has been blocked. justice department, 2011 blocked the acquisition of t-mobile. david: this is bigger, $108 billion, when democrats and republicans agree on something it scares me, i don't like it. and here is the june 21 letter from bunch of senators includingal -- al franken and liz warren outlining case against merger that is same position that white house justice department is now
taking. you and i are big free market people, we don't like it when government inter fears with activity in private vector, this is -- sector, this is a huge bit of activity, they to have tremendous control over what and how we watch, but still for government to get involved and agree on legislative side and executive side is troublesome. liz: ibm got blown up by microsoft and netscape too after the justice department will weigh in on antitrust actions again ibm and netscape years ago. to david a points, really, would a lawsuit benefit the consumer to block this deal? >> the answer is no. one slightly analogous situation where a huge deal did go through, i thought you would refer to this microsoft and nokia. not the same, but sometimes the
multibillion dollar deals are better for consumers they create a better product, not good for the companies. who is the justice department say they know the future, they don't, let if go through. david: we didn't know what was happening 5 years ago about the way that information and entertainment received from people. how can the government figure out what is going on happen 5 years from now? maybe this deal will strangle at&t in a way. sticking them with old technology, there is so much new technology. for government to assume they know more about the future what is good for the consumer 5 or 6 years from now is nonsense. i think their predictive power are so false in the past. liz: remember they were worried about blockbuster. >> right, and how long did that take them to go underground because of way that technology changed. technology is changes faster than certainly any bureaucrat, whether they are republicans or
democrats. and again, the fact that both democrats and republicans agree, that is a problem for the good thing. liz: the way it has been reported politicized because the president trump saying cnn is fake news. david: again, there is a problem when anyone in government says because i think that way is something is being reported is slanted. it could just as be a democrat in office, saying he does not like fox news, he will block fox news from doing something with their. come on, the main thing is that the government is trying to predict what good for the consumer in field of technology, when the engage has no way of -- whether the government has no way of predicting that. don't put government in charge of our future, put it in hands of private sector. >> silicon valley condition even predict -- can't even predictism bingo. liz: thank you, david. we're waiting a press conference
at 5:30, the deal to be blocked by justice department. a border patrol agent has been killed in texas as president trump doubles down on a push to build a border wall, we bring in supervisor david ward, he said that agents are under attack. and media is not reporting it, they need help now, that story after this, don't go away.
let's get started. show of hands. who wants customizable options chains? ones that make it fast and easy to analyze and take action? how about some of the lowest options fees? are you raising your hand? good then it's time for power e*trade the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. alright one quick game of rock, paper, scissors. 1, 2, 3, go. e*trade. the original place to invest online.
liz: we're awaiting the press conference from at&t that the justice department is going to sue to block at&t's $180 billion takeover of time warner, that is the home of tbs, hbo, "game of thrones," ncaa march madness. we're waiting for at&t ceo randall stevenson is apparently very upset about this. we're going to stay on this story for you. look at that. time warner now into pressure. trading on the downside. at&t on the flat line on the news. again, breaking news moving to sue to stop this merger. get to this story for you. u.s. border patrol agent killed on duty. partner seriously injured on thursday in southwest texas and senator ted cruz calling an attack saying quote this is a stark reminder of the on going threat that an unsecure border poses to the safety of our communities and those charged with defending them. president trump doubling down saying he will bring justice to those responsible for
killing the 36-year-old border agent martinez, and he is renewing his call to build that border wall. watch. >> we lost a border patrol officer just yesterday and another one was brutally beaten and badly, badly hurt. looks like he'll make it, but very, very badly hurt. a lot of things are happening along the border, the southern border, and we're going to straighten it out. liz: joining me now, former patrol agent and ice agent supervisor david ward. we may need to break away. the at&t gentlemen are sitting down for this presser coming up. 39 agents died in the line of duty since late 2003, sir, what is it going to take for congress to approve the funding for the security at the border? >> i don't know. the congress and senate are spending years playing games on enforcement and have done
absolutely nothing about it. martinez is 142. 142 border agents killed in the line of duty. he has brutally beaten to death last night by aliens out in texas and his partner was equally brutally beaten by these aliens that came in through our unsecured barriered. since 2006, over 8,000 border patrol agents have been assaulted and still nothing is done. the politicians ignore what's going on on the border, and they continually blow us off. liz: well, you know what? we're not ignoring it. we've been staying on the story since day one. it is a disgrace. absolutely unacceptable. we've got to get to this story. california really opposes california sanctuary law that they're soon going to have to enforce. it gives states harbors for illegals. watch. >> when you're in law enforcement, my priority is to keep my community safe. now, remember, we're not talking about immigrants that are here that are working hard
that aren't committing crimes that aren't getting booked into the jail. we're talking about people that actually get arrested and booked, and we're prohibited from speaking to ice about them. that just flies in the face of good public safety service. liz: your thoughts, sir. >> that's absolutely correct what she is saying. the sanctuary cities are the draw for these illegal aliens that come across the border that kill agents martinez on sunday morning. it's the sanctuary cities where these aliens feel emboldened, where they feel protected, where they feel law enforcement cannot touch them. and yet, our politicians do nothing but encourage the continuing illegal conduct of these foreign fashions. liz: and you know what? we have sat down with victims' families, and they say no democrat has ever talked to them about what they've endured. now the martinez family has to endure it. we now have to break away to the at&t conference. listen. >> i want to make just a few
points. obviously, we're surprised to be here and candidly, i'm a bit troubled by it. jeff and i entered into this deal with really decades of clear, legal precedent demonstrating how this merger would ultimately be evaluated. when we announced this deal, the best legal minds in the country agreed that this transaction would be approved because our companies don't even compete with each other. but here we are. the government has filed a lawsuit, and it stretches the very reach of antitrust law beyond the breaking point. all of this in an effort to stop this combination. this comes at a time when a communications and media industries are undergoing some rather radical change. massive large-scale internet companies with market caps in the hundreds of billions of dollars are creating tons of original content, and they're distributing it directly to the consumer. this is disrupting both industries, the media as well as communications industry, and it's being done at a level
and a pace that most of us could not even conceived of five years ago. for example, netflix, they distribute their content to over 100 million customers. amazon distributes its content to its prime members, that's estimated to be in excess of 60 million. google and facebook, they reach and distribute content to literally billions of customers. and the government contends that at&t, with 25 million tv customers, and turner, with a single-digit share of all media watched will have unlawful market power. this devise logic, and it is unprecedented. i've done a lot of deals in my career, but i've never done one where we have disagreed with the department of justice so much on even the most basic of facts. but despite our disagreements, we have offered concrete and
substantial solutions. and as we head to court, we will continue to offer solutions that will allow this transaction to close. it cannot be the noise combining these two companies will create significant and tangible consumer benefits and every day we spend litigating this deal is a day we're wasting and bringing those benefits to the customers. we do not intend to settle this matter out of simple expediency because the rule of law is at issue here. consistency and the application of the law is critical in a free market economy. and it's equally important for preserving confidence in our government. confidence that they will fairly adjudicate the matters brought before them. when the government suddenly and without notice or any due process discards decades of legal precedence, businesses large and small are left with no guidepost. every business combination or significant investment becomes
subject to the when i am of a regulator. as we're seeing here, that tends to be a roll of the dice. we have no intention beyond what the rule of law would require. and if there are legitimate concerns, there are plenty of solutions within the precedent as well as within the doj's own guidelines, and we'll continue to propose those types of solutions to the government. so before i hand this over to the legal teams, i do want to address the elephant in the room here. there's been a lot of reporting of speculation whether this is all about cnn. and frankly, i don't know. but nobody should be surprised that the question keeps coming up because we witnessed such an abrupt change in the application of antitrust law here. but the bottom line is that we cannot, and we will not be party to any agreement that would even give the perception of compromising the first
amendment protection of the press. so any agreement that results in us forfeiting control of cnn, whether directly or indirectly, is a nonstarter. we believe quite strongly that any at&t assets or time warner assets is not required by the law. and we have no intention of backing down from the government's lawsuit. we are in this to win. and as in a reasonable compromise, it doesn't violate our principles, we expect to do just that. so i'm going to turn it over to david. >> sure. just to underscore randall's point on the rule of law, i should stress that the last time the department of justice actually tried a vertical merger case was in the carter administration, and it lost that case. before that, you have to go back to the nixon administration to find the last time a court has blocked a vertical merger. in the nearly 50 years since then, mergers like ours have been approved again and again because they benefit consumers
without removing any competitors from the marketplace. that is the legal precedent upon which the parties relied when we entered into this transaction. and under that precedent, we see no reason for this deal to be treated any differently. for more on the doj's lawsuit in particular, i turn it over to dan, our lead counsel. >> thank you, david. today's suit by the department of justice to block this merger represents a serious and very troubling departure from decades of legal precedence and antitrust guidelines. but the good news is that in our system of justice, the doj does not have the final word. it is the court who will settle this issue, and it will do so based on the facts, the law, and the evidence. in a merger case like this, the doj has the burden of proof. it has to prove that this
merger will harm competition. it has to prove that this merger will harm consumers. it's a burden that they have not met in half a century, and it's one that they cannot and will not meet here. now, just to give you some context, i've been representing both at&t and time warner throughout the doj's review of this merger transaction over the past year. i have personally sat through days and days of sworn testimony by senior executives from both companies who have explained to the doj in great detail every aspect of this merger, including how the combined company will be more efficient. how the company will be better able to compete. and most importantly, how the combined company will be able to offer exciting new video content and other benefits to
consumers. the record of evidence before the doj could not be more clear and convincing that there is no harm to competition and there is no harm to consumers. that's exactly what you would expect from a merger like this because this is a classic vertical merger combining of two companies that do not compete with each other. time warner owns content. at&t distributes content. under basic principles of law and economics, combining these two noncompeting complementary companies should pose no antitrust problem. now, before he was nominated to lead the antitrust division, himself publicly
acknowledged the following. would you please play the tape? >> this is more of what we call a vertical merger, the content with distribution, rather than two competitors merging, so i anticipate that the fcc will have little, if any role. it shouldn't be -- just the sheer size of it and the fact that it's -- a major antitrust problem. >> and he was right. there is no major antitrust problem. there is no antitrust problem. and nothing has changed since he gave those remarks. this merger will not eliminate a single competitor.
the they've bill will not go up. and the combined company will not keep cnn, tnt, hbo, or anywhere network to itself. simply put, the theories in the doj's complaint filed about an hour simply have no proof and make no sense in the real business world, and we are confident that the law and the facts will prevail and that many at this merger will be allowed to proceed. >> with that, we'll be glad to take questions. >> andrew fitzgerald of wall street journal. >> hi, gentlemen. two questions really quickly. do you have any that play into your arguments and strategy? >> do you want to take it?
>> yes. look, we know that the president has been critical of some of the coverage by cnn. but we don't know what was said by whom to whom. those are issues that have a way of sorting themselves out in the course of litigation. regardless of any of that, this case is going to be decided on the merits by a federal judge, and the government will have a burden of proof. and as i said, they'll have to prove harm. they won't be able to do it, and we're confident that at the end of the day, this merger is going to go forward. >> follow up. so how much in terms of your defense would you be puttin putting -- about the criticism of the coverage. how much of that isn't the recovery phase. >> well, first of all, to be --
were you getting different kinds of signals from the doj before the rival to the doj? and number two, my question is when you folks were talking about how things have a way of coming out and, of course, a burden of proof on the doj. but will you press for some sort of discovery on communications between the white house and the doj and the assistant attorney general? or is it something -- do you have a plan for that, in other words? but the first question is about when was this an bankrupt change? how -- what type of -- >> i'll take that first question and, dan, i'll take the second -- let you take the second half of it. but, look, this has been going on. this investigation, and we're closing in on 13 months. and this is very unique to have an investigation go this long. until recently with press reports and so forth, you know, it felt like it was headed down a good path. i can't go into details in
terms of the negotiations and so forth. but as david mentioned earlier, the finding of the lawsuit was kind of the first indication that we're at an impasse. hopefully now that the lawsuit is filed, we can continue having those discussions and see if there's a place to come to conclusion to address those concerns and see there are legitimate concerns. but, you know, we are where we are. dan, you want to talk about the evidence? >> yes. to reiterate, we do not have to prove why they decided to pursue this case. but if evidence does emerge that it was pursued for some improper purpose, that's obviously not going to help the doj. so we're going to have to see what develops in the course of the case. >> any other questions in the room? >> that would be charged to a competition comes from and just to get it on the record, if this deal were to go
through, if the case is dropped, could you say 100% that hbo will not cost more for your competition or other streaming services? at&t won't have any kind of preferential treatment of the network. >> this is a key point because what you just alluded to isification. think about what really department is alleging, alleging that somehow the combination of these two companies creates an abundance of illegal market power. where not existed before. think about where you might live, your video options at home. your dominant provider at home is your cable company, and they're still the dominant provider. your wireless choices all highly competitive. at the content layer, time warner operates an extremely highly competitive market. so the concept that somehow
the combination of these two things would cause harm, rather than good strains credibility to us. but to answer your question, what they're essentially arguing is we would create market power where there was no market power before, and that would allow us to charge more to consumers. we believe that's entirely fiction. >> the evidence also just points against this and just rational market thought on this. when you consider hbo is priced at 14.99, netflix 11.99, amazon gives it to prime customers at no additional charge. the idea that somehow hbo is owned by at&t, priced higher is nonsince cal in its service. modern dynamics wouldn't even allow for higher pricing, even if you were to choose to do that. and i think what you've seen by at&t's behavior in the past, we bought directv, the objective was to move the
content to mobile platforms and broad distribution platforms. and within a year literally of directv, we rolled out a product of directv now at $35 a month. the inclination is as you move things to mobile platforms, prices tend to come down. as you innovate, price points tend to come down. our objective with time warner is to broaden that not to refine and limit distribution, those have opposite pricing on what the government is alleging here. >> you want to ask your question? >> thanks. can you talk about what you were willing to offer to the justice department? that they weren't willing -- you kept talking about how you're willing to make concession. >> we don't comment on negotiations. >> we don't comment on negotiations. but the point we want to make is this is an area of law that's very well developed. in fact, there are very few areas of antitrust law that
are as well as this one. and over the years, the past 40 some odd years, different solutions are deployed because the department guidelines require them to consider them. in this case, the point we want to make is we offer those types of solutions. for whatever reason, they were not sufficient here. >> okay. our next question we're going to take from the conference bridge. brian, washington post. >> i'm wondering if you can respond to do j's critique of this, nbc deal is a bad deal for the same concern that they're raising about the d do -- at&t time warner merger. >> let's review what comcast was. this was a deal involving a
major big four broadcast network. strong regional sports networks dominant positions in local platforms, including. dominant positions of broadband, in an era which is much less competitive in 2009, 2010, 2011. all of those factors are wildly different in our case. we have much more competition, over the top video striving, we want to be part of it, and of course time warner's content doesn't have that kind of market power that you saw on comcast. now, as i explain earlier, we don't have that kind of market power in the local markets in terms of distribution. so in every way that i can imagine it, the picture is different today than it was then. it was directv prior to at&t
acquiring it and what we argued for were the precise solutions established by law. no one argued, at least on behalf of directv that that deal should be blocked. no one argued for a lawsuit to be filed as one was filed today. instead what was argued back then, was reasonable conditions consistent with division guidelines, consistent with the law, and consistent with the sort of solutions that we offer throughout this proceeding. >> our next question is also from the call shannon bond with the national times. >> hi, guys. thanks for taking the call. i'm just wondering about sort of the timeline you're seeing. what do you expect? how long is this going to take? what are the next steps and, you know, at one point does it become a situation where you feel you need to cut your losses? >> well, the doj filed the lawsuit today, and they now have the obligation to stand ready for trial.
because we are, and we are going to ask the court for the earliest possible date. this is not a case that's going to drag on for months and months and months. this is case where we're prepared to go to trial as soon as possible and hopefully that will happen as quickly as 60 days. we have our way with it. but the doj would be hard-pressed now that they filed this lawsuit to be telling the court that they're not ready to go to trial on this case. so we expect them to be ready because we are. >> as i said in my opening comments, we're going into this to win. so to think of cutting losses, that's not in our vocabulary. we have a very good case, we're very confident in our case, and we intend to win. >> our final comment will be from terry jeffries from bloomberg. >> thanks for taking our