Opinion: How regulators can block the AT&T-Time Warner merger without killing it outright

To the editor: The ideal world would be one in which pipeline firms owning or controlling access to wireless, cable TV or Internet were prohibited from owning any content. The horses already left that barn in 2011 when Comcast was allowed to purchase NBC Universal. (“What the AT&T-Time Warner merger promises — and what it threatens,” editorial, Oct. 25)

It’s not too late, however, to prohibit the AT&T-Time Warner merger, which if allowed will increase pressure for government regulation, always inferior to good, old-fashioned competition. Requiring the merging firms to unbundle programming, allowing consumers to purchase programs a la carte, is a constructive (but regulatory) approach.

The merging firms might well abandon the merger if forced to unbundle. That’s not a bad result.

Warren Grimes, Glendale

The writer, a professor at Southwestern Law School, is a lawyer specializing in antitrust and trade law.

..

To the editor: On July 2, 1890, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law to outlaw monopolistic business practices. In the last 30 years, the act has essentially been parked on the side of the road like an abandoned car.

While jobs lost overseas is a hot election topic, why has no mention been made of the countless small businesses forced to close as a direct result of unchecked mergers? While there may not be so many true monopolies, there are many oligopolies, where a few players control a market or industry. Ignoring the Sherman Act has let loose great white sharks that wantonly devour any smaller fish in their way.

As a small businessperson myself, I believe in free enterprise. I just don’t believe that it is as free as it once was.

Joel Gossman, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook