Slashdot Mirror
Krugman: Say No To Comcast Acquisition of Time Warner
nbauman writes "In his column, 'Barons of Broadband' New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says: 'Comcast perfectly fits the old notion of monopolists as robber barons, so-called by analogy with medieval warlords who perched in their castles overlooking the Rhine, extracting tolls from all who passed. The Time Warner deal would in effect let Comcast strengthen its fortifications, which has to be a bad idea. Comcast's chief executive says not to worry: "It will not reduce competition in any relevant market because our companies do not overlap or compete with each other. In fact, we do not operate in any of the same ZIP codes." This is, however, transparently disingenuous. The big concern about making Comcast even bigger isn't reduced competition for customers in local markets — for one thing, there's hardly any effective competition at that level anyway. It is that Comcast would have even more power than it already does to dictate terms to the providers of content for its digital pipes — and that its ability to drive tough deals upstream would make it even harder for potential downstream rivals to challenge its local monopolies.'"
Of course they don't compete. Cable companies have government-sanctioned monopolies.
I'd say give them a choice. You can merge if you relinquish your monopoly.
Then we'll see what's most important to them.
Certainly not us. We don't really have a choice. Comcast could merge with freaking Verizon, thus giving us the granddaddy of all broadband monopolies and dooming to forever pay too much money for a crappy connection and no recourse when stuff breaks (which would be often), and our choices would be to suck it up, or just suck it. So I'm not sure what he thinks we should be doing about it...?
Who exactly is rising up to challenge cable monopolies? What downstream challengers is he talking about? Netflix? Aereo?
Did someone forget to pay off Krugman today?
Let them merge and then split into two companies; the one that owns the fiber/hardware and the one that sells services. Force the hardware company to sell bandwidth to anyone that wants to offer services.
-SaNo
I stopped my cable because I couldnt' take being fucked anymore by Comcast.
When I tell others why, they just say, "Good for you. I can't give up my sports."
There you go. People love their bread and circuses. They are sheep. They want their NFL and College (slave) ball (its funny that they ARE mostly African American and getting paid shit!). And yet, NFL, ESPN and whatnot are making millions or billions.
I'm not trying to start trouble here, but the black man is still getting exploited..
Just say'in.
I don't really know how I feel about the acquisition. I think some of the things Krugman talks about -- e.g., no incentive to upgrade networks -- certainly has validity; I also know that we *HATE* network congestion, and just in my unit, alone, spend tens of millions a year to avoid it. Of course, without incentive, that's just 'cause we feel like doing that, not because we have to.
The one that has me really, truly worried, though, is Net Neutrality. I am *STRONGLY* in favor of the FCC saying "F*** you all: it's time," and pushing it out. I think that neutrality, combined with the rise (and eventual commoditization) of cellular networks, as well as good ol' Ma Bell and DSL, will be able to offer competing solutions. Of course, then there's satellite, as well, but the inherent latency makes that a poorer option by definition.
Comcast is, however, essentially right: they don't compete with other cable companies because of the infrastructure; one thing that might be interesting -- though I have a sneaking suspicion Republicans would cry foul about over-regulation all day long -- would be if the gov't enforced a move akin to the telecom and power companies: if cable companies could offer the landline connection, but you were able to get service from anyone. That would go a great way toward leveling the playing field.
Comcast *does* compete with Verizon -- directly. Their FiOS and DSL options are direct competition for both TV and high-speed Internet -- in the *same* geographic region -- that Comcast offers. There's no way in Hell the gov't would approve an acquisition or merger of those two.
Krugman admits to not be a technologist.
Well, that's a start. Let us know when he admits to not being an economist.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> I disagree. The burden of proof is on those who want to interfere with the right of the rightful owners of these companies to dispose of their property as they damn well please.
We already have experience in these areas. We even wrote a body of laws to address this particular problem. There is nothing new or interesting here.
We just have libertardians trying to pretend that history doesn't exist and these kinds of problems haven't happened before.
Your notion of capitalism is about 150 years out of date.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So if the economy is depressed because the government is "printing money", why is inflation so low? (1.64% per year since 2008) Why isn't it 20% or higher as has been the case in other economic crises such as in Brazil or Argentina in the 1980s? Furthermore, the move toward consolidation has more to do with deregulation, than with "government monopolies."--the exact opposite. Companies are sitting on so much money (because of lower tax rates, higher stock prices, etc), that it's easier for them to buy their competitors than to invest in their operations to get new customers. Which leads these companies to have even less of an incentive to invest in higher speed broadband, or offer better prices for their customers. That was the whole point of Krugman's article.
This Sig does not Exist.