While the DOJ's case against AT&T's proposed $86 billion merger with Time Warner finished up this week, the consensus is that it will be another month before we know the outcome to the trial. The DOJ sued AT&T last fall claiming that the deal would dramatically raise prices for consumers, largely because AT&T will likely try its best to make it harder and more expensive for competitors to license the content (like HBO) essential to competing with AT&T.

The death of net neutrality oddly wasn't even breached at the trial, despite the fact that AT&T will likely use the erosion of the rules to further hamstring competitors. It's likely the DOJ didn't breach that subject for fear it would only advertise the anti-consumer harms being done by another arm of government (the FCC), while the DOJ claims to be protecting consumers.

Judge Richard Leon, who presided over the seven-week trial, told the court that he plans to issue his ruling on June 12 (though a final ruling could come earlier). Analysts believe that AT&T has a very good shot at defeating the case, meaning that the question then becomes: what kinds of merger conditions will protect consumers?

AT&T has a long, proud history of volunteering conditions to mergers that either don't do all that much or get ignored by AT&T anyway. And US regulators have a long, proud history of supporting hollow merger conditions to make it look like they're holding giant companies' feet to the fire, but then turning a blind eye as the company in question repeatedly violates the agreement.

You'd like to think we'd learn from history (especially AT&T history), but that's pretty obviously never a sure thing.

»twitter.com/WSJ/status/9 ··· 23773186