Slashdot Mirror


CenturyLink: Comcast Is Trying To Prevent Competition In Its Territories

mpicpp sends word that CenturyLink has accused Comcast of restricting competition in the development of internet infrastructure. CenturyLink asked the FCC to block the acquisition of Time Warner Cable to prevent Comcast from further abusing its size and power. For example, Comcast is urging local authorities to deny CenturyLink permission to build out new infrastructure if they can't reach all of a city's residents during the initial buildout. Of course, a full buildout into a brand new market is much more expensive than installing connections a bit at a time. Comcast argues that CenturyLink shouldn't be able to cherry-pick the wealthy neighborhoods and avoid the poor ones. CenturyLink points out that no other ISP complains about this, and says allowing the merger would let Comcast extend these tactics to regions currently operated by Time Warner Cable.

23 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. what's wrong with cherry picking? by Kohath · · Score: 2

    Why shouldn't companies be able to cherry pick wealthy neighborhoods and offer their services there?

    1. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by medv4380 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it creates competition and drives down the profit margin?

    2. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      "Sorry, Son. You're only allowed to operate your lemonade stand in the 'hood."

    3. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by apraetor · · Score: 2

      They shouldn't be allowed to "red-line", but serving only part of a town definitely is legal. Only the original, incumbent provider is barred from doing that, under Universal Access provisions. That's their obligation in exchange for having the limited monopoly, and the dirty pool Comcast has been playing is nothing more than proof they don't care about the customer as much as profit (as if there was a doubt).

    4. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Port1080 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reasoning is this - if Comcast builds out to the entire city, they're building out to highly profitable areas and to less profitable (or even unprofitable) areas. They do the build into the market with the understanding that they will make money on average, looking at the whole city, even if they lose money in some neighborhoods. Now Centurylink comes in and builds only in the expensive neighborhoods - well, guess what? They can offer cheaper rates in those neighborhoods, because they don't have to offset their losses in the poor neighborhoods. If they snipe away enough Comcast customers, eventually Comcast has to pull out entirely because they're losing money. At that point, who serves the poor neighborhoods? I am not a Comcast fan, but they absolutely have a point here. Competition isn't fair if one provider is being required to serve the whole city, but the other is not.

      The solution, of course, is municipal broadband.

      --
      Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
    5. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by apraetor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To clarify, you mean municipalities building their own, community-owned networks, correct? I think the solution to this is for the towns to take a step back; the people of the community should create a co-op to build and maintain the infrastructure, and the towns should back the bonds.

    6. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      This goes back a hundred years when we built "universal access" into our phone system monopoly. Comcast is using it to beat it's competitor over the head — two government created monopolies squabbling with each other over their regulatory obligations.

      Now... pan around the responses to this story and count how many times this all gets blamed on "capitalists" and "free market," and how by damned we need the government to Do Something!!!!1

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    7. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other solution is to allow partial buildouts, but ensure each phase is balanced between "rich" and "poor" areas. That lowers the cost of entry while ensuring fair competition.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Also, if there are multiple providers that want to offer broadband service in an area, that sounds like a great reason not to have municipal broadband. My town can barely keep the streets paved -- why would I trust them to provide reliable broadband service?

    9. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by ewieling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it took 10 years for Comcast to provide internet service to the *entire* city, then CenturyLink should have 10 years to do the same. Seems fair to me.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    10. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      The solution, of course, is municipal broadband.

      Agree. The problem here is that we want to have socialism, but we don't want to actually fund it via taxes. So we make companies jump through hoops with the same effect, but usually in a less-efficient manner.

      Drug development is the same thing. We have this patent system because we don't want to fund end-to-end drug R&D and make drugs license-free. The problem is that then we end up with poor people not being able to afford medicine. Then we talk about price controls and all kinds of other measures, when the simple solution is to just have the government develop royalty-free drugs end-to-end and make them cheaply-available. But, that involves lots of taxes, so we stick with the current system.

      We need to get rid of all these universal access fees and all the other nonsense. Just charge an income tax and if you want poor people to have phone service, then pay for them to have phone service. Inevitably all these fees distort markets, and often they end up falling on people with low-to-moderate incomes who can least afford to pay them.

    11. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Bradmont · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is research to do regarding what service to choose, how does comcast have a monopoly?

    12. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

      What CenturyLink states in their complaint isn't with regards to "rich" and "poor" neighborhoods, it's about being able to build in one geographic area concurrently without needing to hire exponentially more staff. Building concurrently across a large geographic area requires a large amount of resources in terms of surveying, project management, construction, validation, installation, testing, engineering, laying pipe, road work, pole work (in many cases with cooperation with various other organizations and their respective labor), possible availability of heavy construction equipment, lead time on supplies (copper, fiber, ...) ... And when in certain regions of the country when you only have 6 months of the year to do such work due to frost concerns, it makes things much more difficult when considering very large projects spanning an entire market. Comcast's insistence of concurrency or nothing means "same season for everyone in a market or you don't do it."

      In one case, it's a nice aspect of Universal Access to say that *everyone* must receive access from incumbent carriers for a reasonable cost, in a reasonable timeframe for the same price as other customers in that market. It is also nice that someone is pressing for things like that to take place, however the spirit was always intended for rural areas to receive connectivity that would normally be ignored due to the high costs of doing so relative to major metropolitan areas, not as a way of stifling competition between two incumbents.

      The intent behind these rules has become lost. While electricity or phone lines have remained fungible, additional telecommunications services have been added to "phone lines" with one breath so that said lines could be subsidized by tax dollars, and yet declared "entertainment services" in another breath so that they could be unregulated.

      Through updating the law to remove either of these loopholes, the first of many steps can be taken towards improving the situation. Ultimately, major telecommunications policy reforms must be adopted to reflect the way the world functions today.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    13. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they have been actively trying to block exactly that for some time as well.

    14. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by xeoron · · Score: 2

      I know a family that recently paid Comcast 15k to run a Comcast line down a private road and to their home, and most the the town already had service if they wanted it. So, Comcast does not connect everyone, unless they are willing to pay if you live in a area deemed not profitable enough to run cable to the homes.

    15. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Nyder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, after I did this post, I did some research and we apparently have other DSL providers. It's possible that you can get them in the same area's as Centurylink, i'm not going to bother to ask them If i can get there service.

      So maybe my post is wrong. Sorry.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    16. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Okay, me again. I actually decided to do a search and this is what I came up with.

      I live on the edge of Downtown Seattle and Capital Hill. Not even a mile from the heart of downtown Seattle.

      I have the internet choices of:

      Cable: Comcast
      Satelite: HughesNet
      DSL: Centurylink

      So my middle post doesn't matter. I don't have a choice of providers, I just have a choice of how I get the internet. Sat, DSL or Cable.

      So sure, we might have other DSL providers in Seattle, but they can't overlap with any other providers. Total bullshit system. Time to open it up.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    17. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by ediron2 · · Score: 2

      Thanks, was coming to say something about like this... somewhere along the last few decades, conservatives have managed to trick us into thinking that 'the government' is Them, not Us.

      Yup, what this project needs is a good co-op. Plus an oversight board. And technical staff to maintain it. A consistent, balanced funding mechanism where everyone has to chip in. Oh, and a process for citizens to provide feedback and retain control. In short... town government.

    18. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by ediron2 · · Score: 2

      Ad hominem from an AC. Priceless.

      Incidentally, fuck you. Plenty of grownups are bored with Republican corruption and egoism: Corporate conservatives have had 30 years (1980-present) of steady control during which they've removed more and more regulations. In that time the economic situation has steadily worsened for most of us. IMHO, it's counterpoint to Soviet communism: your little experiment failed because it was undermined by one of two defining human traits: Greed and Laziness. In between, a regulated market mechanism exploits the tension between these to create wider prosperity and enough incentive to get ahead / get rich.

    19. Re:what's wrong with cherry picking? by webnut77 · · Score: 2

      Good point. I would also add that our government doesn't have a good track record at being frugal with our tax money.

  2. CenturyLink by strstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Should be forced to build out to poor areas. Reason is they will do exactly as Comcast says, they will not upgrade the rest of their piss poor infrastructure leaving it like it is now, where many houses even in nice neighborhoods can only get 1.5Mbps shit. Lucky for us Comcast is around because cable is the only viable Internet solution currently available because companies like CenturyLink fell back on promises of delivering proper broadband and deploying fiber ages ago.

    Did you know in the 1990s these phone companies said the definition of broadband was 40Mbps and they would deploy it if given what they wanted? We never saw it and they got what they wanted.

    What we gotta realize is that these companies aren't around to be purely profit driven and they have a mandated duty as a utility company to properly deploy fiber to each and every home which is consistent with keeping their systems modern and capable, which the public has an interest in. If we don't add important requirements for them to follow they shit on people and never do their job, which their job is to do what the communities around them want.

    I am also for making it so whom ever deploys fiber first can do it, even the city, state, federal government, or private company, even if existing franchise agreements disallow it. BECAUSE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD FIBER DEPLOYED 14+ FUCKING YEARS AGO BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THIS NON SENSE AND PRICKS IN POWER THAT LET THE COMPANIES MILK THE SYSTEM.

  3. There is no competition... by Kenja · · Score: 2

    The only other options are satellite and DSL... they successfully prevented competition when they threw their "we no share our cables" fit awhile back.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. 1st hand experience by pseudorand · · Score: 2

    I switch from century link to comcast, but when my 6-month trial price expired and I tried to switch back, century link said they couldn't offer me broadband service because their lines in my neighborhood were at capacity (i'm supposedly on a waiting list). Meanwhile comcast more than doubled their introductory price on me.

    Xcel just replaced all the gas pipelines throughout the entire neighborhood last summer and the city just repaved most of the streets, so I was SURE there would be some opportunity for century link to put in new infrastructure relatively cheaply at the same time. But no, they STILL can't offer me service.

    Up until now, I figured century link was just too cheap to build infrastructure in my neighborhood. Now I wonder if it isn't really their fault. I love to hate century link, but I'm even more eager to hate comcast.

    And for the record, I'm white and middle class (as is most of my neighborhood, though I am notoriously cheap and unwilling to pay for stupid bundle I don't need). Not that racism or poorism doesn't contribute to their decisions, but don't blame on malice and -isms what greed or stupidity can explain.