Slashdot Mirror
FCC Clears Comcast Purchase Of AT&T Broadband
Torgo's Pizza writes "The FCC just granted final approval for Comcast to complete its $30.5 billion purchase of AT&T Broadband. Despite consumer worries of increased rates and clear domination of the market, Chairman Michael Powell stated, "The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible.""
Comcast has this f*cking webpage without an useful abuse report address/form. They do not have postmaster@ or webmaster@ addresses. Obviously they aren't able to administer such services well :-/
And now they get another large chunk of the internet.. that's bad news, even for us guys overseas
Oh yeah, of course the potential downsides are negligible if you can afford to pay $100 for $hitty service. I'm having a hard time paying the 46 those bums are charging now. I mean honestly, is there any end to their greed. How many of you think Powell got a promise of free service AFTER the price jumps to 200 for a line?
I'm glad I've got DSL. I picture the day when I try to go to m-w.com and my AT&T service notes that site has been blocked, care to try our very affordable dictionary service?
Hmmm.... Did not the FCC block the merger of DirecTV and Dish Network? Or was that some other government organization?
:)
Of course, I don't watch TV so that's a moot point for me anyway...
RickTheWizKid
A man needs TV like a fish needs a bicycle
Comcast is paying way too much, sounds familiar? We all know what happened to the dot coms, don't we? But CEOs can fix anything by "cost control" (read "laying off enough people"). Then they increase your dues, since they are now a monopoly. Then 5 year later, they go bankrupt because after all 30 billion was too much and because high speed wireless beat them to a pulp. But by this time the CEOs are gone and are laughing from their golden parachutes. Anyway, by this time, no one remembers that it was done on Bush's guard. This is called win-win for the CEOs and the politicians.
What he's really saying:
The benefits to Comcast are considerable, the potential harms to the users are not a consideration because their political donations aren't as large as Comcast's, now are they.
Chairman Michael Powell stated, "The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible
Allow me to provide a translation:
The benefits of this transaction are considerable: I'm receiving plenty of "benefits" (read: bribes) from the companies involved. All I have to do in return is not throw antitrust laws at them.
the potential harms negligible: Who cares about the consumer? As long as I'm not harmed, all is good.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
It was so much fun going from AT&T @HOME to AT&T, I can't wait to get flipped over to a new network!
I wonder if Comcast can bring the same exciting server name changes and mass outages that came with the last switch. I am all-aflutter with anticipation!
No, really I am.
Chairman Michael Powell stated, "The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible."
I am pretty sure he got that backwards...
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Even now comcast cable is more expensive than DSL in my area - plus they forbid using VPN over the 'residential' package. If you want to work from home you basically have to spring for the $100/month business package. I wish the Bell Atlantic would get thier act together with DSL rollout.
The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible.
The benefits of this transaction are considerable to us, the potential harms that many come to you, we don't give a damn about.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
This is only for the purchase of AT&T Broadband. This includes AT&T Cable, related infrastructure, and associated connectivity-via-cable (cable modem) customers. This has nothing to do with local phone, long distance, leased lines, web hosting, solutions, etc.
I think the laws need to be changes so that when two companies want to merge, or a large company wants to buy another large company, it has to come to a vote by the people. We all know how much fun national elections are and that would be the only way to really do what the people want. Obviously right now money talks and whoever is willing or able to pay off a few key officials (or maybe a lot of key officials), can merge to their hearts content... consumers be damned.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
What? I have Comcast, and it uses DHCP. Maybe you are in an area that uses PPPoE, which also works in Linux.
@Home was with comcast originally. They went down the drain. I wonder how long it will take them to drive ATT's broadband division into the crapper too.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
"Then I realize Comcast is incompatible with Linux."
What are they doing that's proprietary? I don't know how Comcast works, but ATTBI uses a cable modem with an ethernet out port on it. It doesn't care what kind of computer is talking to it as long as it does TCP/IP.
I would understand if they were using a USB device or something, but I'm puzzled as to how it'd be incompatible with Linux. Could you please clarify?
*Note: I'm not challenging your information, I'm genuinely curious because I may end up being a Comcast customer as a result of this merger.*
Actually, this is not true. The comcast system works with any operating system that runs a decent dhcp client. For example, under linux, running `dhcpcd ` provices all the authentication you need to connect to the service. Authentication is provided based on the MAC address of your modem, not based on any windows-proprietary method.
Is the working theory (excuse, apology, whatever) that if the service provider is allowed to become big enough it can improve service through economies of scale and having enough capital to handle build-out?
My visions of the results of telecommunication deregulation remain visions. At every step where small providers have made progress, obstacles are created by the legacy monopolies. Progress toward telecom dereg was made under Clinton, and it is being quickly reversed under Bush. I'd like to know how they justify it.
Frankly, I don't care how it gets done. I want cheap, reliable, wide bandwidth. Whether it gets to me via Joe's KickAss Wires Inc. or COMCASTATTMEGOPOLY doesn't mean a lot, except that in the former case there would be a lot fewer bean counters micro managing my usage, for a time. Eventually it'll all end up in the hands of a small number of large companies anyhow; economies of scale for a commodity product.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Certain service areas of Comcast use PPPoE for authentication rather than the commonplace DHCP for authentication. You can get Linux PPPoE software from Roaring Penguin.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
No more AT&T Broadband commercials being broadcasted to AT&T Broadband subscribers. Maybe better management will end the brilliant advertizing.
.. they left out an important part of that sentence, let me fix it:
"The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harm [to our margins] is negligible."
We need a Tech version of Rage Against the Machine.. with all that angst aimed at the various craptitude that is dumped on us on a daily basis.
I'd add some clever names of songs from RATM but with an added tech influence, but I should be working or something.
> Then I realize Comcast is incompatible with Linux.
What the HELL are you talking about? I've had Comcast cable broadband for going on two years now, and I've never had a PC connected directly to the cable, only an SMC router. What that humble little router box can, Linux can anyday--which amounts to DHCP and nothing more.
The difference is that (in most if not all markets) they dont compete with each other. Most people only have the choice of on cable provider.
On the other hand, you do have the choice of Dish vs. DirectTV no matter where you are.
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?
I'm a Linux user (clean of windows in my apartment for 4 months now), I use a linksys firewall-hub to connect to them. I had to "bless" the cable connection with windows before I took over the connection with the Linksys and have never looked back.
> The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible.
Seems more like the inverse of this is becoming true of the FCC.
Comcast does not support *nix at all, and if you tell them you ahve it they will hang up on you, but at least in indianapolis, comcast@home worked with my various *nix boxes flawlessly
That Comcast gets the AT&T rental cable modem I never returned too?
The FCC should get Comcast to buy out my local library so I and other consumers can benefit from rental/late fee consolidation.
paintball
I also have ATTBI. It was a pain in the arse to get set up with Linux, because its $#@%$#@ registration system assumes you use Internet Explorer. After the cable modem is registered, though, it works flawlessly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Increased competition through consolidation!
Lower costs through higher prices!
Join us in the new world!
"Only if you aren't a consumer about to get arse raped by this government aproved monopoly. I'm willing to bet that if the next president is a republican that this megacorp will get to be as bad or worse than Ma Bell, the ultimate in "please sir may I have another" customer relations."
Ya know, right up until the point were people wanted to do slightly more that just voice with their phones, old Ma Bell did pretty damn well. Everyone (and that is key) had reliable, affordable voice service.
Eventually it became a hindrance to market forces, so we altered the system slightly in the so-called "break-up", but the monopoly served to establish a strong infrastructure.
Right now, I'd kill for broadband if I thought it would help. Nope. No can do. I don't add up on some vestige of the monopolies spreadsheets.
Frankly, at this point, I'm all done being patient. I want an adult in charge, put the fist down and say, "universal broadband access, no excuses." If welding together enough of these separate bean-counter telecoms creates the opportunity at the national level for this to occur, I'm all for it.
What I don't like is that we were making fair progress through deregulation. It would have taken only a little more access by third parties to the "last mile" infrastructure to get it effectively done. Now, we change administrations and go 180 degrees the other way.
Fuck.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Yeah, mod me down, whatever. Michael Powell is a fucking housenigger if ever I've seen one. Show me one instance where he's stood up for the "little guy" and not sold us out to Big Business.
Sorry to use such harsh language.
In case you're wondering, a house nigger is a slave that got to live in the big house with the master, rathen than in the grubby slave quarters. He had a better life because of this but was thoroughly despised by the other slaves.
Come to think of it, my explanation is probably more offensive than my use of the "n-word." If you're modding me down because you're a historian, then that's okay.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comcast is buying the service away from AT&T, so AT&T's business plan and history running common-carrier networks are irrelevant. As far as I can tell, Comcast is doesn't get it. But there's some hope, because (last I heard) some of the AT&T execs will be moving to Comcast as well.
Anyway, so what's up with this? It's like when AT&T got chopped up, but all that did was create a bunch of little baby monopolies that didn't compete with each other, or anyone else.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
Perhaps I'm too young to remember exactly or how accurate this is, but I think back in the 80's everyone had to RENT telephones from AT&T (or bellsouth?). Don't know how much they charged, but considering I can pick one up today for $10, rental seems a PITA
$cat
Of course consolidating DSS services into One is bad, but consolidating cable internet into One is okay.
Makes no sense to me. If the FCC wants to block monopolies, fine, just do it consistenly.
Yeah I know that there is still more than one cable internet service but for how long?
As everyone else has said, it is not true that Comcast's cable modem service is incompatible with Linux. I just figured I'd point out where the confusion lies.
Comcast tells people that their service is not compatible with Linux because their browser branding/half-assed customer service software is only for Windows. Because they do not currently have the capability to turn your Linux PC into an animated Comcast advertisement, they claim that no part of their service is compatible with Linux.
Gee, I'm so glad that this company just got bigger.
What is not being advertised is that those people who are current local phone (over digital cable) customers of AT&T broadband (Comcast does not do phone over cable) are going to be quietly ignored. Comcast does NOT want to support local phone service; local phone service will cease to be advertised, sold, pushed, etc.; they're hoping for slow attrition of existing customers once the merger is done.
As for moving the high speed users between networks - it shouldn't be as much as a clusterfuck as the @Home move was; they have all of the data this time and they control the networks.
One other clarifications:
Michael Armstrong is moving to Comcast. Plus Armstrong is looking a little better (not much, but a little) now that it's been revealed that QWest and WorldCom were fudging their numbers in a big way, while AT&T didn't play that game. (Interesting muse: what would have happened to AT&T if the other companies had not, well, lied? Wall Street forced AT&T's stock price into the toilet because they were comparing the T to companies that were pulling numbers out of their ass)
I think many of us are protesting the wrong crime.
Allowing Comcast to buy AT&T Broadband is not a major crime. This is just replacing one bad monopolist with another -- the two firms weren't explicitly competing against each other so there is no serious concern that the merger will lead to higher prices, lower quality. Ask yourselves: what was preventing AT&T or Comcast from unilaterally offering more expensive, crummy service? It sure wasn't the "threat" of competition from each other. If anything, it was the threat that consumers would get fed up and revolt or the government would actually be forced to respond to consumer outrage. A merger doesn't affect either constraints - if anything, the merger makes the joint firm more vulnerable to such outrage and government scrutiny.
The real crime is the fact that we tolerate and allow these regional monopolies to prosper under government protection.
The worst thing about this merger from the point of view of an AT&T cablemodem user that I've heard about is NO Usenet. Comcast doesn't support it and AT&T has made some gurglings about following their lead (no loss to the customers because of the wonderful comcast community we'll get in its place). Urgh.
A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
Comcast is getting it at a great price, at least compared to what AT&T paid for the individual units.
The truth only happens in a place where there are many publishers of equal weight. A place with one or two heavies is likely to have "news" that's more entertianment, spin and propaganda than information. An old Russian poverb, "There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth," was made fact by the Soviet Union which had only two news services in any media, Tass and Isvestia, meaning Truth and News (order may be incorrect). Both printed up the same nonsense. It can happen elswhere with far less repressive measures.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The only people who should be very concerned about this merger are people who _sell_ to cable operators (i.e. programmers like HBO or equipment vendors like C-Cor, SA, Motorola, etc.).
For end customers, it won't make a damn bit of difference. AFAIK, not a single market in the US are served by both of these providers, so no consumer will see a reduction in the service offerings provided to them.
For folks who complain about only having one cable operator, it's not a regulatory issue. Every local franchise agreement (contract between the cable company and your city or town that says the cable company gets to string wires and provide service, and in exchange the city government gets a % of the revenue plus free cable service for city offices and schools) signed in the last 15 years is non-exclusive, so another cable operator is welcome to come in and set up shop. Problem is, with a few exceptions (quite dense, wealthy neighborhoods), the economics just don't justify building a second network. It's not some global conspiracy, just the fact that you can pay for building a network to pass 100 houses if you get 65 of them as customers, but not if you only get 37 of them.
...it's the money. It isn't that they don't want you using VPNs on their service, they don't want you using them on their home service. If you get the service that costs twice as much, you are free to use VPNs. In fact they list it as a feature!
Dude, what the *&^% is up with all of these mergers?! What ever happened to those precious anti-trust laws? I swear, by this time next year we all going to be paying some sort of bill to Microsoft Comcast Broadband (an SBC AOL Time Warner Company).
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
You're forgetting the other half of the cable biz, which is selling advertising, and bundling and packaging channels. Cable companies are ultimately the brokers between advertisers and viewers. So they have a powerful affect on advertising markets. Plus, how cable channels are packaged, and their content, is also controlled by cable companies. If you're HBO and you only have to satisfy one buyer instead of two, that buyer can pretty much dictate what he wants. Even if it's five buyers instead of six, putting so much influence in the hands of so few is not healthy. Think about all this next time your "national network" station is replaced by infomercials on a Sunday afternoon.
More angry and frustrated.
Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, is the chairman of the FCC, the government agency that is supposed to be regulating this field. supposed to be.
And, considering the large number of endruns around the CFA have already been reported on, I'm quite sure that no politician needs limit him/herself to being bought for only $5K.
Plus, you're missing the real point. Powell isn't an elected official. He is a Republican party member however, who has continued to reward through action and/or inaction large contributors to the party. I'm not suggesting personal greed. I'm stating political loyalty/ethical vacuum.
One bill? Yeah, right. I have AT&T for my cell phone, local telephone, long distance, cable television, and cable internet. You'd think that they'd at the very least get everything on one bill. (or at the very best, offer a discount to subscribers to multiple services) No such luck.
Once the comcast merger is complete, I'll probably drop them anyway, since they don't provide a newsfeed and have download caps.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Nice moderation, you fool. You must not be ATTBI, apparently.
MediaOne was my first address.
Then, with the AT&T buyout, they changed the mailserver format, so the portion after the @ changed, change #1.
Then just 3 months later, they changed forced me to change to an @attbi.com address, change #2.
Now, I'll most likely get a @comcast.com or some shit,for change #3.
Check it out, if you don't believe me, or are thinking of crackmoderating me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They block IP protocols 51 and 52: no more IPSEC for you! Which will most assuradly fuck up IPV6 roll out as IPSEC V4 is a testing protocol intended for widespread use in IPV6. This (along with multiple key exchange protocols) is why transport IPSEC hasn't become ubiquitous like it ought to have. If we (the inet community) had just focused on IPSEC instead of SSL, SSH, Kerberized Telnet, etc, we would have one point to point over the wire encryption standard for all TCP/UDP communication. Telnet, ftp, finger, gopher, web, you name it would be encrypted by default whenever key exchange could take place. Instead we have a mess of encryption standards and ISPs who block the very protocol intended to secure general net communication. Not that money and profits might fuck up the net at the protocol level, right? That would never happen! *cough!* --M
Back in January 2002, Slashdot had a major font page story about Comcast attempting to block customer using NAT. Now that ATTBI is going to become Comcast, how long will I be able to keep my home network? Does anyone know if Comcast has been successful in this effort?
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
I used their sas.r1 server, setting that as my proxy. After putting in my acc#, it always came back saying "the registration server is temporarily busy. Please try again later." I finally had to bring out my dad's Win95 laptop to get it registered. Simply ridiculous!
Crap, if there was another option besides sas, I wish my techies knew about it. I talked to plenty of them on the phone.
I also got a DHCP, but it didn't do me any good because it was restricted to talking only to the sas server.
How does Comcast's acquisition of their broadband provider affect their DirecTV subscription? Does Comcast send their customer list to DirecTV and tell them they can't show certain programming to these people? That doesn't make sense.
grep -ri 'should work'
Yes.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.