Great observation!
Speaking of media ...
I just answered one of those post-service customer surveys from AT&T by informing them that I consider their dropping of OANN an ANTITRUST CRIME, and that I hope after 2024, when we get a Republican A.G., it will be PROSECUTED.
ANTITRUST is one of the few legal threats AT&T cares about. Remember the 1984 Settlement that “Broke up the Bell System?”
The OANN issue is identical in many ways. There is specific language in the Sherman Antitrust Act that states if a company is a uniquely situated SUPPLIER to an entity which is also a direct COMPETITOR, then that company MAY NOT utilize this supplier relationship for competitive advantage. (This is referred to in antitrust jargon as mixing “horizontal” and “vertical” relationships.)
Back in the 1970s AT&T used its ownership of the local phone lines to try and destroy long distance competitors, mainly MCI and SPRINT.
MCI sued them first, in CIVIL ANTITRUST. Then, when MCI got traction the DOJ jumped in with the CRIMINAL ANTITRUST case that was settled in 1984 with Divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies and the Western Electric manufacturing company.
AT&T, until recently, owned CNN, a direct competitor of OANN.
I don’t think the recent divestiture of CNN gets them off the hook at all! After all, the deal to sell CNN parent Time Warner was negotiated within easy range of the knowledge AT&T was going to pull the dastardly deed (ANTITRUST CRIME) against OANN.
AT&T was certainly a unique supplier to OANN. I think it was the only major cable company to carry the rapidly growing, albeit fledgling, network.
NOTE: The U.S. Justice Department originally sued to block an $85 billion takeover of Time Warner by AT&T in November of 2017. The Justice Department cited antitrust concerns.