Slashdot Mirror


Time Warner Cable Customers Beg Regulators To Block Sale To Comcast

An anonymous reader sends this report from Ars Technica: New York is shaping up as a major battleground for Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. While the $45.2 billion merger will be scrutinized by federal officials, it also needs approval at the state level. TWC has 2.2 million cable TV, Internet, and phone customers in 1,150 New York communities, and hundreds of them have called on the New York Public Service Commission to block the sale to Comcast. Comcast doesn't compete against TWC for subscribers, and its territory in New York is limited but includes a VoIP phone service offered to residential and business customers in 10 communities. "Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast already have monopolies in each and every territory in which they do business today, and combining the companies will reinforce those individual territorial monopolies under a single corporate umbrella, with NBC-Universal thrown in to boot," resident Frank Brice argued in a comment to the PSC posted yesterday.

19 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Predictable outcome by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Customers: Please don't!

    FTC: Hmm, the customers seem vocal about this one.

    Time Warner/Comcast to FTC: Don't you dare...

    FTC: We'll need to study the issue.

    (One U.S. election cycle passes)

    New FTC Head: What's good for Time Warner/Comcast is good for America! Full steam ahead, job-producers!

    1. Re:Predictable outcome by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot:
      America! Fuck yeah!

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re: Predictable outcome by soren42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sad, but regrettably accurate if past outcomes predict future behaviours.

      --

      "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
    3. Re:Predictable outcome by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forgot the part where lobbyists give them $10 million

    4. Re:Predictable outcome by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New owners: Competition is a sin.
      NSA: One company would be more easy to deal with.
      Federal law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with.
      State law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with. Can we keep the networks on copper or coaxial cable in use for a few more decades?
      City law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with. Optical networks are too expensive to tap. Offer more very low cost mobile plans.
      Customers: Free mobile with my new internet plan on a 24 month contract.
      The freedom of choice to be online sitting at home or on the move. Every 24 months I get a new free mobile phone.... freedom of choice from a huge selection of approved mobile phones.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Predictable outcome by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You forgot the part where lobbyists give them $10 million

      18 million in 2013 : http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

      3 million so far in 2014: http://www.opensecrets.org/lob...

      so 21 million.

    6. Re:Predictable outcome by davester666 · · Score: 2

      No, it's more like:

      Customers: Please don't!

      FTC: Hmm, the customers seem vocal about this one.

      Time Warner/Comcast to FTC: Don't you dare...

      FTC: OK, you can merge if you meet these tough conditions, and we'll closely monitor that you are doing so.

      (One U.S. election cycle passes)

      New FTC Head: What's good for Time Warner/Comcast is good for America! Full steam ahead, job-producers! You don't need these pesky conditions anymore.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Scrutinized by federal officials by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The deal will indeed be scrutinized by federal officials, to ensure that campaign contributions are large enough.

    1. Re:Scrutinized by federal officials by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but those companies have more speech, so they should be allowed to use more speech. And those companies are people. And the speech is money. And the legislation that eliminates one potential competitor actually doesn't eliminate any competition.

      Is there ANY way this isn't backwards? Wow.

    2. Re:Scrutinized by federal officials by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At no position on planet earth could any customer have asked themselves "Do I want to be a customer of Comcast or Time Warner Cable?"

      That is the "backwards" portion of the proposal, namely the presumed backroom deals going on to ensure that customers would be prevented from having choice, and to ensure that should they dislike the level of service offered, their only option would be to move to a location where you have elected to allow a "competitor" to operate unrestricted by your presence.

      The distinction that corporations should have a voice in the political process is itself asinine considering that a corporation is nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals who already possess said voice and can act independently. The removal of campaign contribution caps is itself a travesty considering that it allows for an extremely unleveled playing field. While we are at it, perhaps we should go back to pre-Jacksonian era voting rights and only extend them to individuals who own in excess of 50 acres of property while we are at it; allowing those who want their voice heard to be required to jump through quite specific hoops to buy their way into the system and making those who are "drains on the system" as stated by a our last Presidential Election's Runner-Up sit back and watch.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    3. Re:Scrutinized by federal officials by AnontheDestroyer · · Score: 2

      Well said. RE corporations: the standard Republican (conservative?) rejoinder is that unions could always contribute money, but I'm in favor of denying them all. Screw them. All only individual contributions up to $45, adjusted for inflation going forward. Make a law that prohibits politicians and staffers from joining lobbying outfits after their term is up to eliminate the opportunity for deferred under the table contributions. Then we'll finally have a government that responds to the true will of the people.

  3. Re:Hundreds? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the whole Janet Jackson issue was due to 1(one) letter, maybe they will

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. Wow by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is like reading the comments section of a Fox news story. So everyone on slashdot wants to believe their own myopic version of reality so badly they're willing to accept something that so obviously biased, so obviously skewed that it's not dis-similar to a lot of the anti-global warming stories I see elsewhere?

    The Comcast/Time-warner merger involves 32,000,000 customers total. The FCC got a total of less than 2000 comments... good or bad. The article only mentions ONE PERSON that stood up and spoke out against the deal at the hearing. ONE.

    Now, I don't dispute that if you asked the majority of customers they'd probably prefer this deal didn't happen. But to portray it as if there is this massive customer revolt? This submission and that article are, at the very least, intentionally misleading.

    1. Re:Wow by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a slight point of clarification, one member of the public was granted time during the hearing to speak, and said person pre-request it and was asked to submit their script for review. It was not a "we will now open the floor" situation.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Wow by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 2

      The article only mentions ONE PERSON that stood up and spoke out against the deal at the hearing. ONE.

      And that's not by accident. Those hearings have limited seating. It has been well known that corporations pay "plants" to grab those seats well in advance, show up and claim their seat, and do nothing at all during the entire proceeding. Some of them are brazen enough to sleep. This effectively shuts out the dissenters and could be a 1st amendment violation.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    3. Re:Wow by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      RTFA: "The PSC merger proceeding has attracted nearly 2,000 comments, the vast majority of which ask the commission to block the sale"

      And your problem with that statement is what now? Also the article used as examples two people and their reasons for opposing the merge.

      Complaining that the article has not listed everyone who oppose this merger is just inane.

  5. Re:Simple economics. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition. .

    When did the free market have anything to do with the telecommunications industry? At least in the United States, it has been a regulated industry for as long as anyone alive can remember. I really wonder why we've let companies with a government created monopoly in one area (local cable monopolies) leverage that monopoly to improve their business position in another area (content creation).

  6. Re:Simple economics. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3

    no, we just need regulatory bodies that have some teeth and backbone enough to say no to lobbyists and bribes. If a company achieves monopoly status, break them up.

    This HAS happened in the past, and all the laws to do it are on still on the books. The only reason it doesn't happen is dick douches like Wheeler get spun around the revolving door of government and corporate America.

  7. Re:Simple economics. by mhollis · · Score: 2

    it has been a regulated industry

    Industry regulation does not constitute a non-free market, just as industry deregulation does not constitute a free market. I think you did not mean to suggest that regulation un-frees markets.

    While the telecommunications industry has always been regulated, there are many very competitive industries that face regulation. The regulation, in effect, creates a more level playing field for all competitors within a market. For example, the contractor I know faces regulation. He has to register as a contractor and keep his registration current for each state in which he works. The money he pays into the state for that registration goes into a fund that will pay homeowners for botched jobs where the contracting firm goes bankrupt. Contractors are regulated by local laws to require a permit for the work that they do (these regulations also cross-regulate homeowners as well). Work must be subjected to inspection so that the work performed meets building codes. But nobody is saying that contractors have a monopoly, that there is no free market for contractors. Indeed, it's a pretty free market.

    To suggest that any regulation makes a market "un-free" is to not understand regulation. Or free markets.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.