Slashdot Mirror
Comcast-Time Warner Deal May Hinge On Low-Cost Internet Plan
techpolicy (3586897) writes "Comcast Corp.'s proposed $45 billion purchase of Time Warner Cable Inc. has brought the issue of the digital divide and the federal government's failing policies to decrease it back onto center stage, according to an article by the Center for Public Integrity. Comcast has told the Federal Communications Commission that it will offer its discounted Internet program for low-income customers to residents living in Time Warner Cable's service areas — if the FCC approves the purchase. Comcast offered FCC the same deal in 2011 when it bought NBCUniversal. But the low-cost program, called Internet Essentials, has signed up only 12 percent of the 2.6 million families eligible for the service since it was launched nearly three years ago. While the FCC and other federal agencies have spent billions of dollars trying to provide broadband access and training programs to the poor to close the divide, so far the policies haven't worked much. The percentage difference between Americans earning below $30,000 who have an Internet connection in their home and those earning $75,000 or more who have an in-home connection has narrowed only 4 percentage points from 2009 to 2013. As the Comcast purchase moves through its regulatory approval process, the center reports that it may be time to revisit the policies that will get more poor Americans connected, especially because to function in society today you have to be online."
People say "six of one, a half dozzen of the other", but I'll still take Google fiber of anything relatd to Comcast. And don't fool yourself, all broadband providers track and profile their users, I might as well get decent high-speed out of the deal.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It's called empty promises. The primary purpose of this merger is not nor will it ever be to take care of the poor. It merely serves to unhook the approval process that would create an internet oligarchy.
Cheap internet for anybody is the last thing that these guys want.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
So they want the only segment of the US they can't monitor (because they can't afford it) to be online! Stroke of genius! Free Snowden!
Tell that to the Amish. See how far you get. I fucking dare you.
They'll probably just raise prices for no improvement in service, making more of us commoners poorer. In the end they win, the public looses.
If Comcast gets to legally extort and shake down sites for profit, the bad is going to worse. I hear they should be classified as a type 2 common carrier. We know Comcast bought off FCC officials back with Meridth Atwell Baker. A lot of people are looking at this Blake Wheeler guy doing whatever Comcast wants even though the public is rallying against him, and going,"Man, the system really isn't in it for the people like they should be. I didn't know corruption was established that they can be this transparent and get away with it." For a while a lot of people would go,"It isn't such a big deal that the politicians can be bought out by wealthy individuals and corporations since corporations need to service us." But they're finding out now that if corporations go unchecked by the government, they can do damages far worse than the old telephone companies which actually had some check against them. But where does this go when our politicians and public servants go to the highest bidder? Do we go the road of Mexico where their politicans are not only bought out by druglords, but they live under the veil of fear? Or what? It is interesting that not even all the money that are buying out politicians even comes from the USA. Foreign wealthy entities should not have the ability to have their say in American Politics. When your government says it is sold to the highest bidder, corruption can bring down any empire.
I love the USA. I love our education system. I love the people you get to meet and make friends with. I just wish we didn't have legalized bribery of politicians.
God spoke to me
You are in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and the CEO of Comcast. You have a gun with two bullets. What do you do?
You shoot the CEO twice.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Racism is not tolerated by class conscious workers. No joke, get the fuck off my Slashdort, you pathetic turd goat. You have toads in your hat, and even the toads don't like you, because you are so lame.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Why does a higher % of the low-income need dedicated, wire-based internet? I can only speak anecdotally, but a significant portion of those 'uncovered' do have access via their pre-paid cellphones.
From the summary: "to function in society today you have to be online." But why exactly do you have to be online at home to function? Why can't you, say, do all your Internet use at the local public library?
With such a huge number of customers (competition aside), the resulting company would become a huge CDN player. Maybe the biggest?
Would Netflix or anyone else need Akamai or others?
How about Comcast has to offer the low cost internet plan to any of their customers that wants it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Comcast / Netflix has proved that extortion works.
And we're about to hand comcast even more bargaining power.
How stupid are we...
If you use the internet you should be against comcast and TWC merging.
It's going to happen tho. It's a done deal. The bribes have been paid. The FCC is a little bitch for the cable industry.
And we're ALL going to be fucked.
Just not quite as fucked as TWC customers. But still. Pretty fucked.
captcha:crystal (ball)
Time Warner Cable already offers 2MBps service for $14.99 across its footprint.
It isn't hard to find, it's right next to all the other speed options on their web site.
Customers can buy their own modem from Best Buy or wherever or they can lease a TWC modem for $6 a month.
I have a feeling that most customers who need a $9.99 or $14.99 internet plan probably aren't going to front $300 for Google Fiber to be installed, or even own the place they would be paying for it to be installed in.
They'll say anything to get the merger to go through doesn't change the fact they were awarded the Worst company in America this year (and 2010). What could possibly go wrong?
Make purchase of Comcast internet a mandatory thing for all americans.
Now the poor have internet, and are only somewhat more poor!
Hey, it worked for the insurance industry and healthcare policies.
Although to be fair the analogy is not really complete unless you also make all americans purchase HBA/Showtime/MLB packages.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, basically, instead of making Comcast, y'know IMPROVE THEIR FUCKING NETWORK AND PEERING, we're going to go for a "cheap internet plan".
Oh boy. A 1mbit/1mbit plan for $20 a month! WOO!
Oh, in the fine print. Going over the 5MByte cap more than twice in a 6 month period gets you upgraded to the more expensive basic plan!
Oh, and at any point did anyone discuss the problem with Comcast's horizontal monopoly being extended to a few million more people? Yes, even if they spin those people off, it's still majority owned by Comcast. All their competitor is doing is getting a revenue share to shut them the fuck up.
No.
No.
NO!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So it's no good for poor seniors living on social security and the unemployed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Do they come to your house to see the child? What are they, pedophiles?
For this actually work, comcast hast offer these rates to third parties using their lines. That is, comcast must offer a discounted rate to third party providers that are offering content to low income or poorly served areas.
If it only goes through comcast directly then comcast has the ability to control costs by limiting service.
And you know that would be fine only they seem to be offering congress this deal to pay for their monopoly rights. Well, I don't want them to be a monopoly and I'd just as soon tell them to screw themselves. However, if they are going to get their monopoly rights then at the very least we should get them to pay for it with what they SAY they're going to pay.
If congress doesn't force this as an open provider policy then they've been suckered.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
How about we stop fooling ourselves with this "oh, we'll distribute the wealth" bullshit? If the poor want internet service, they can pay for it - or use it at the local library.
We're already paying for that library access on all our phone bills, etc... I'm sick of paying more to give away stuff to other people. If they want it, let them work for it like I do.
If they don't like the divide, it's time for them to pick up a shovel and start filling it in on their own. I'm tapped out.
From what I've seen, people on a tight budget get a smart phone with a data plan and use that to get online, not a landline cable or DSL connection. That way they hit two birds with one device: phone service and internet.
Sure it's not as "good" as a landline internet connection with a good computer. But it is far cheaper -- at least at first.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If anyone cares to take the time write up a comment that may assist the FCC in evaluating or deal or possible concessions to be demanded of Comcast, the link to file those comments is here:
http://www.fcc.gov/mergers
Two types of comments can be productive. It can be helpful to file a well-written comment that includes.numbers, citations showing exactly how Comcast's position has been detrimental. It can also be very helpful to file a comment with a suggestion for a compromise that mitigates bad effects from allowing the deal to go through. For example, a comment posted three weeks ago suggesting that they be required to keep TWC's discount program could have been helpful. What doesn't do any good are "fuck Comcast" or "fuck the FCC" comments. Those only make it look like those opposing the acquisition don't have any articulable reason for doing so.
Yes, it's a bit like a homework assignment, to be effective you need to either cite your sources or present a new idea that the FCC hasn't already thought of. That involves more work than writing "fuck Comcast", but such is life in the real world, where grown-ups are making grown-up decisions.
Here's an idea.
Rip up all the local monopoly deals and enforce (via legislation) meaningful competition.
That'll bring prices and service more into line with the rest of the developed world.
That'll get people (even the poor) signing up.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
This "Internet Essentials" program might help some poor people, but it's only available to people with children (eligible for school lunch programs). It's a typical example of how we consider children who live in poverty to be "innocent victims", but adults who can't work due to disability or lack of jobs are treated as if they were unworthy of assistance. In this case, internet access could make a huge difference for them in terms of quality of life and/or additional cost savings (giving access to low-entry-price services, such as VOIP and Netflix instead of POTS and CATV), or the ability to effectively try to re-enter the workforce (incredibly difficult without in-home internet access).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Don't be an idiot: You need to apply, and provide documentation (including the federal ID# (aka SSN)) of your assistance-eligible child.
Do they come to your house to see the child? What are they, pedophiles?
Do they come to your house to see the child? What are they, pedophiles?
No, they would likely do it a much easier way, with tax records.
Kids may be home-schooled, so the school records may not find them, but chances are you're not going to find too many parents hiding them when the taxman comes around.
With the first internet we had waste fraud and abuse.
The government should own it all. We would pay as much and get as much. With a government "service plan" you get bloviating politicians at no extra cost. (Funny is guaranteed)
In a for profit system shareholders demand increasing returns and care nothing about "suitability for purpose" it's a race to divide services and collect revenue. The "Useful" parts are increasingly claimed. fenced and charged for until everyone not in on the scam throws up their hands in disgust.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
One of Comcast's arguments for the merger is that current Comcast and Time Warner customers won't be affected because the two companies compete in very few markets. Consequently, customers will not suffer from reduced competition if the two companies should merge.
But by forcing the Netflix deal, Comcast has turned every Internet site out there into a (potential) customer. Netflix has to pay Comcast = Netflix is a customer. In the market for access deals with web sites, Comcast and Time Warner are competitors (Netflix does not need to make deals with both of them, and can leverage the better service on one ISP to pressure the other into making a cheaper deal). Therefore, a Comcast and Time Warner merger reduces competition.
If I remember right, correct me if I am wrong, if this merger happens Comcast will have 70% of the market. This is just ridiculous since they will obviously have geographic monopolies all over the country with this move.
The weasels at Comcast will promise anything to get the merge and then forget all the promises.
First of all, no you don't. Second of all, what percentage of low-income families without home broadband have at least one smartphone with a data plan? Voila; they're online.
WEP cracking was relevant before GameSpy shut down. For the past several years, the biggest reason to still run WEP was multiplayer in Nintendo DS games. But with GameSpy closed, Nintendo DS games can no longer set up a match. Now if you see WEP, it's someone who set up WEP once, saw the lock, and forgot about it.
It looks like I will be cutting another cable here soon.
Comcast barely provides customer service to people who pay for their expensive offerings. What kind of service can the low cost internet plan customers expect to receive?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Bust their monopolized asses up into multiple overlapping entities and make them compete. We'd get a few more perks, too if they are suddenly given a real incentive to improve their product.
Yes corporate interest x, you can have any power you wish as long as we, the governing class, are unaffected, compensated appropriately, and given political cover. Oh a low income internet service --- perfect! For the people! There's no turning back. The left and the right establishment care nothing save for there own interests and we will live under a soft dictatorship with pretend elections before any real traction will be given to a class of political reformers. The tea party was the best hope. But we the people have no chance. Power consolidated is never willingly relinquished.
has signed up only 12 percent of the 2.6 million families eligible for the service since it was launched
Perhaps only 12% of those 2.6 million want internet service? I know it's unthinkable to be without broadband but there are people that don't want it. Why the crusade to get to 100%? ... Oh yeah, more sheeple for advertisers.
I've been thinking about an alternative structure that might allow a viable alternative to the hegemonic networks we have today. Every time I try to write this out I struggle to explain it, and never submit. I'm going to do my best to write this and hope that some of the folks on slashdot could help flesh this out. I'm trying to do something along the lines of writing a GPL license. Using a contract to turn the business of networking upside down, making people owners of the network they use.
As I see it, the major obstacle to competition in this market is the massive red tape involved in connecting a network to the internet. Pretty much anyone could wire up their neighborhood with ethernet, but they can't cross the public right-of-way without paying the troll under the bridge. Local governments have tried to build publicly owned networks only to have their growth blocked by state legislation. The organization I'm thinking about attempts to bypass these obstructions.
I'm thinking of a non-profit cooperative whose members agree to a contract that requires them to cooperate. For instance, the contract would require members to allow other members to connect to their network. Members would also be required to support some level of throughput. The organization would have an elected board and elected officers, The contract would be updated by vote of the members.
This way, I could wire up my neighborhood with ethernet. If the next neighborhood over does the same we could connect to each other. We can share the cost of connecting to the larger internet, and leverage our network to get reasonable terms. If businesses in the downtown want to build a Wifi network they can cooperate to do so. The city can help organize the effort but wouldn't own the network.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
How about this as prerequisite for merger terms. Comcast can be allowed merge, but it has to show a willingness to support competition and prove that they are not a monopoly by leasing fiber lines for free any start up ISP without restrictions or additional fees,
The way America's poor 20-somethings get on the Internet now is through their smartphones. (In my experience the older poor don't get online at all). The plethora of $30-$40/mo. "unlimited" 3G services and used 1+ year old smartphones means you can do it and have phone service for about $100 upfront and $40/mo thereafter, and not tied to a landline either. However this is a recent development. US prepaid data plans before 2012 were woefully inadequate.
I won't pretend that we don't live in an age of technological wonder, that a person who can barely keep a roof over their head can talk to people globally instantly and everywhere, but there are some caveats:
(1) It is significantly more challenging to use a smartphone for a "creative" (v. consumptive) purpose than a desktop. Smartphone users who never see a PC are much less likely to get into programming or otherwise become tech-savvy. They are much less likely to write, edit photos, etc. other than for what they have to. The mobile document editing applications out there are generously a decade behind even LibreOffice. To some extent the form factor will just never permit this kind of usage.
(2) These users frequently only see hobbled mobile versions of websites.
(3) A lot of data and functionality is still locked away for desktop browsers only, either because the website operator is pigheaded and thinks the mobile user only needs to see very basic info, or the feature is provided through a kludge of technologies that don't play nice with the mobile screen size (or don't support mobile platforms).
As for people saying "well just go to the library" - yes, there are 40,000 odd libraries in the US, but many of them are open 9-5 M-F or even shorter hours, you have to wait in line for a computer, and they're often day centers for the homeless. In all honesty a better option is to borrow a friend's notebook, walk to McDonald's (you're going to eat anyway), and use their wifi until they kick you out.