Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Puts Comcast and Time Warner Merger On Hold

Posted by samzenpus on from the not-yet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a public letter to both Time Warner and Comcast, the FCC said they are putting a hold on the merger deal between the two companies. Citing inadequate responses by both cable companies to earlier FCC requests for additional information, the agency is stopping the clock on its 180-day review period until late October. Comcast and Time Warner together control most of the Internet services in the country. However, the companies said they are in different regions and are not going to suppress the competition.

132 comments

  1. All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    ...please raise your hands.

    Anybody? /didn't think so

    1. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

      Why do you _assume_ your interests speak for the 100% ??

      Politics is not black and white. There are pro's and con's for every side.

    2. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by knightghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      100%? What was I thinking?!? No, just 99% and the merger is almost all cons. Totally disregardable.

    3. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by DexterIsADog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can you name any pros for consumers? Do you believe what Comcast says about needing to get larger because their margins are too small?

      Is it a good thing that the merger would raise the barrier to entry of any part of the larger market that Comcast would control?

      Please, I'd like to know what you think is a good reason for this merger to go forward.

    4. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      unknown. what pro would there be (for consumers) if this merger were to happen. Ill wait

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      What are the cons for the consumer? As I understand it, Comcast and Time Warner cable are already in almost entirely geographically distinct regions, and neither has plans to enter the other's territory. At the moment, they get to pretend that their not a monopoly, because if you take the US as a whole there is competition, even though in any given area there isn't. Post merger, they will have bigger economies of scale and no way to hide from the fact that their a monopoly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by TWX · · Score: 2

      I believe the word as used is "Synergy", which is Orwellian double-speak for eliminating anything perceived as redundant in the now-merged company. This means layoffs usually, and things like technical support and customer service tend to be significantly reduced in the process. If Time Warner's customer service is functioning decently now, the formerly Time Warner customers will see a significant reduction in the quality of the customer service post-merger. Likewise, the already terrible customer service that Comcast customers face will be even worse as the helpdesk now has to learn how to deal with two systems, Comcast's and Time Warner's, and this will slow down call flow.

      On top of that, as separate companies, one of them could decide to try to expand operations into the other's area, as competition. Granted that's more difficult with things like cables or fiber, but in my neck of the woods, the local phone company, the local cable company, AT&T, and probably a couple of other entities own fiber in the ground or on the poles, there's more opportunity for players in the market than just the phone company or just the cable company. People need to stop thinking in terms of just two players.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it a good thing that the merger would raise the barrier to entry of any part of the larger market that Comcast would control?

      Technically, starting up Internet service is really simple and doesn't cost much. Barriers to entry in land line, cable, and wireless service are almost completely due to government regulations and government monopolies.

      But that's not the worst of it. The worst is exactly these discussions. Why would I risk my money on creating a new telecoms company when I know that if I succeed, regulators are going to come in and impose conditions on me because people like you aren't happy with my pricing?

      Can you name any pros for consumers?

      Which consumer? Rural? Urban? East Coast? West Coast? What about business owners or share holders, why don't their concerns and rights count?

      How much service and competition do you think you're going to see if you make it unattractive to invest in this sectors through this kind of regulatory b.s.? Do you think corporations just spring into existence out of nowhere to satisfy your needs out of altruism?

    8. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAND

    9. Re: All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They control is not work the customer, it is with the content. When you have a bigger company, you have better leverage to control what is available to the consumer. One large company blocking football is stronger than 2 smaller companies. The consumer gets screwed because the corporation would have greater opportunity to control this.

    10. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're supposed to be worried about the poor lil Comcast? Are you fucking serious? How does drivel like this get modded up?
       

      Can you name any pros for consumers?

      Which consumer? Rural? Urban? East Coast? West Coast?

      Any consumer. Don't be obtuse.

    11. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Cons for the consumer? Let's start with controlling the gateway. You want to reach our 288 million people (we don't care about the 20 odd million out in podunk that costs too much to reach and they don't shop anyways) you pay us. We also own content, but our content doesn't have to pay to be seen. Yours, however, will. We don't like Netflix, Amazon, etc competing with us - so the interconnects will be sized to 1Mbps unless you guessed it - they pay us.

      That's just the first thing I can see happening, as they are already doing some of this.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Technically, starting up Internet service is really simple and doesn't cost much. Barriers to entry in land line, cable, and wireless service are almost completely due to government regulations and government monopolies.

      There are huge costs, mostly in physical cable. The second part is paying to go through all the regulations and easement payments setup by those pesky incumbents.

      How much service and competition do you think you're going to see if you make it unattractive to invest in this sectors through this kind of regulatory b.s.? Do you think corporations just spring into existence out of nowhere to satisfy your needs out of altruism?

      Exactly why the cables should be common carrier at a minimum, and municipality owned at best. It's nothing more or less than water, sewer, or telephone service, all utilities we pretty much all need in today's world. To think someone should be maximizing profit off of a necessity is rather predatory. The telecoms have been drooling for an alternative to common carrier status because it prevents them from milking every last cent out of their monopoly position. Note how they promised low cost internet/phone service while cutting your copper, and now all those prices are back to previous levels with lowered costs for them.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      "On top of that, as separate companies, one of them could decide to try to expand operations into the other's area, as competition." Not in most places, as local cities love to grant exclusive monopolies to their cable system in exchange for... well, not much, that I can see.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    14. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come now, there is always a squeeze. Usually it is universal coverage but sometimes its something different.

    15. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      There are huge costs, mostly in physical cable.

      The last mile problem could be solved easily with wireless if the FCC opened up more spectrum and allowed more range for standards like WiMax and WiFi.

      The second part is paying to go through all the regulations and easement payments setup by those pesky incumbents.

      Precisely: most of the easements are for public roads, and most of the regulations have been lobbied for by incumbents. So why are you proposing more of that as the solution?

      Exactly why the cables should be common carrier at a minimum, and municipality owned at best.

      And how is that going to fix anything? If you make them common carriers, they are all going to charge even more money for even less service and create even bigger barriers to entry.

      And if you make them municipally owned, the only upside is saving the commercial ISP's profit margin (realistically, maybe 10-20%); in reality, you are going to end up almost certainly with a horrifically inefficient monopoly.

    16. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      In Comcast territory now, and thinking about moving to Time Warner territory. Better the devil you know and all that. I hope they merge before I move, so I don't have to change companies and deal with a bunch of all new bullshit.

    17. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      I am in favour, providing certain stipulations are in place.

      I would argue that merging the infrastructure of both companies in to one, and then the retail operations of both companies in to one could be beneficial, if it was also mandated that said infrastructure be made available to other, competing retail ISPs at some regulated fair and equal cost.

      For one, it would mean the retail operations of Comcast would now be competing with other retailers so they'd have to stop being dicks to customers because now customers could shift to a retailer that has decent customer service.

      Something akin to this happened in NZ just under a decade ago when Telecom NZ became Chorus and Telecom (now Spark) and while it hasn't been perfect, overall it seems to have worked out reasonably well - even though the tariffs haven't really dropped that much (for the most part), what subscribers get for their money has improved pretty substantially - especially in the last 3 or 4 years.

      I'd really like to see what would happen if all of a sudden consumers had 5 or 10 or 35 retail ISPs to choose from (even though it would all be delivered on the same infrastructure).

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    18. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      (just in case it isn't clear, there would still be 2 companies - one would be wholesale/infrastructure only and they don't deal with the public, the other retail only)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    19. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that between the two companies they own near half of the commercial content itself. This gives them even more power to kill off services like Netflix because now they can easily and safely deny nearly half of the possible content to them on top of throttling the hell out of their connection to 2/3's of the country.

    20. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Wireless is not a panacea. There's a system in Minneapolis. It doesn't provide all the stuff people might want, there are problem areas where for some reason it can't be installed, and performance degrades in the rain. The fact that it works reasonably well suggests that there is enough spectrum already, so it's not so much an FCC problem as a deployment problem. It also suggests that municipal ISPs can be well run.

      Some form of wiring or fiber is more reliable and versatile, but the wires and cables have to get laid, and that requires either easements on poles or permission to trench. This is disruptive and can be destructive, and really isn't something you want somebody to be able to do without permission and coordination. This really doesn't depend on having pesky incumbents, who faced hassles and restrictions in becoming incumbents.

      What we need is ISPs who aren't related with content owners, and who sell connectivity as their main business. Comcast is primarily a cable TV company that makes additional money selling connectivity, and that means that the ISP business gets interfered with by the other business. A company that delivered connectivity, and leased it to Comcast, would work to keep its service fast and reliable. It would also have serious competition from DSL and perhaps wireless, while Comcast's main business doesn't compete with other ISPs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The last mile problem could be solved easily with wireless if the FCC opened up more spectrum and allowed more range for standards like WiMax and WiFi.

      Wireless won't work in general for anything more than static content / downloads. No high performance 2-way streaming, for example.

      Precisely: most of the easements are for public roads, and most of the regulations have been lobbied for by incumbents. So why are you proposing more of that as the solution?

      I stated this was part of the problem. Please get it right.

      And if you make them municipally owned, the only upside is saving the commercial ISP's profit margin (realistically, maybe 10-20%); in reality, you are going to end up almost certainly with a horrifically inefficient monopoly.

      As opposed to the current horribly inefficient monopoly that also controls who or what I can connect to to promote their own profits? Municipal owned cables can have many pros, not the least that they're not being milked for every last red cent of profit.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    22. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      I stated this was part of the problem. Please get it right.

      Yet, your solution is more of the same. You simply don't realize that you are advocating exactly what you claim to be against.

      As opposed to the current horribly inefficient monopoly that also controls who or what I can connect to to promote their own profits?

      I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand what a "monopoly" is.

      Municipal owned cables can have many pros, not the least that they're not being milked for every last red cent of profit.

      Municipal utilities are subject to lobbying by public sector unions, local businesses, and all sorts of other special interests. They end up being far more expensive than the modest profit margin cable companies have.

    23. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      What we need is ISPs who aren't related with content owners, and who sell connectivity as their main business.

      "Need" in what sense? What problem are you actually trying to fix? Internet access in the US is widespread and pretty cheap.

      Wireless is not a panacea.

      No, but it is more than good enough for basic Internet access and that's where the job of government ends.

      Even if there were a problem with lack of competitiveness (there isn't), It would not be the job of government to ensure non-monopolistic practices in luxury goods, and that's what most of what we are talking about here, high resolution online video delivery, is.

    24. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) One company to boycott instead of two. I'm a cord cutter who only pays $20/month for internet and I can go lower if pissed off sufficiently.

      2) I believe cumbersome giants are easier to compete with and also easier to slay.

      3) A duopoly that has carved up distinct sections of market pie is just as harmful as a full blown monopoly in that segment. That said, more people acknowledge the danger of the latter versus the former.

      Yes I see where things are going with IP, NN and the extreme potential for abuse. I hope we see it because it is the tip of the iceberg. FWIW, I'm a coercive IP abolitionist. People should be free to negotiate their own IP agreements without being forced to glob onto things like the Berne Convention or criminal penalties for violating IP or perpetually extending terms. With voluntary IP, people can reject terms that are stupid (extensions) or onerous (jailtime).

      There are other issues I can address regarding data collection where I think exposing the lies serves more benefit than any merger harms.

    25. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand what a "monopoly" is.

      I'm sorry, but you must be trolling or truly clueless.

      Municipal utilities are subject to lobbying by public sector unions, local businesses, and all sorts of other special interests. They end up being far more expensive than the modest profit margin cable companies have.

      So you're a cable company shill? Should have known.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are numerous advantages:

      It is not such much as what you see, but what you don't see.

      Content licensing fees go up roughly X% per year. A merged company would have more leverage to bargain for lower licensing rates. This would allow Comcast to not be "forced" a subscription rate increase for consumers; with better bargaining customers would have the same pricing.

      Potentially more content would be available.

      More resources would be available to pool and expand coverage. The technical term use by the board is "Increase Operating Efficiency." Basically more money would be available to support, and upgrade the "backbone" infrastructure.

      Most of TWC cable systems are not digital, and don't take full advantage of DOCSIS 3.0. What this means is that customers living in the TWC zones would down the road have access to higher speed internet. TWC's high speed internet is currently 15 Mbps; Comcast is 25 Mbps.

      The full merger proposal is over 200+ pages. If the board thought it would be bad for customers, they definitely would object to it.

    27. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Need" in the sense of keeping the Internet functioning more or less as it should. Most of the big ISPs want to turn it into a content delivery service delivering their content.

      There *is* a problem with lack of competitiveness. Most places in the US have two choices of companies to use for last mile, if they're lucky. A lot have only one.

      WTF do you mean that it's not the job of government to ensure non-monopolistic practices in anything, BTW? And why do you think that everything better than dial-up is a luxury?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      "Need" in the sense of keeping the Internet functioning more or less as it should.

      "Should" according to who? You?

      There *is* a problem with lack of competitiveness. Most places in the US have two choices of companies to use for last mile, if they're lucky. A lot have only one.

      That's not substantially different from Europe in my experience.

      WTF do you mean that it's not the job of government to ensure non-monopolistic practices in anything,

      It's not the job of government to ensure non-monopolistic practices in luxury goods. Sorry, I don't want police, judges, or politicians who I pay for to waste their time and my money on ensuring that you get your Cartier watches or 4K TV at competitive prices. Furthermore, any attempts at monopolization by private actors is usually unstable, so there is little reason to intervene.

      In addition, the monopolistic practices we are talking about when talking about broadband providers are monopolistic practices of the government. I.e., the reason we don't have more broadband providers in many communities is because the communities chose to make exclusive deals with providers.

    29. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I am referring to how the Internet should work to fulfill at least a small part of its potential, and the vision of the people who created and developed it.

      In Europe, you're not going to have multiple lines to the house, either. (This is evidence that the limited options are not due to government, but that the last mile is a natural monopoly.) However, lots of people have said they can select multiple ISPs through their connection, which isn't at the whim of a content provider.

      It is the job of government to enforce laws favoring competition, regardless of whether the market is for necessities or luxuries. It is the government's business to make sure there's competition in 4K television manufacturing, provided there's more than one company in the market. (I would assume that Cartier watches are watches made by one company, as opposed to a sort of high-quality watch anybody could legally make. If so, anti-competitive measures would not apply.)

      Also, what's the difference between a necessity and a luxury? I can work from home on a connection that's vaguely broadband, but not dial-up. Under some circumstances, being able to work from home is not a luxury. (Travel was bad last winter, so I worked from home several days. I might well have a more important reason for doing that.)

      Finally, running copper or fiber or whatever all over has "natural monopoly" written all over it. How many cable companies would a city have if competition was legal? Power companies? Gas companies? Telephone companies? The noncompetitive contracts are actions by local government to regulate a monopoly, not to create one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      I am referring to how the Internet should work to fulfill at least a small part of its potential, and the vision of the people who created and developed it.

      You mean the Internet should be a non-commercial network for defense related research? Because that was the "vision of the people who created and developed it". It turned into what it is today only through massive private investment.

      Furthermore, the creators and developers of the Internet no more get to tell people how to use it than the people who built my care get to tell me where to drive it.

      In Europe, you're not going to have multiple lines to the house, either. (This is evidence that the limited options are not due to government, but that the last mile is a natural monopoly.)

      Are you kidding? What goes in the ground is even more tightly regulated in Europe than in the US. It is due to the same stupid regulations as in the US. Europe deregulated telecoms service only after the US led the way, before that Internet in Europe was dead. We may have to lead the way again.

      However, lots of people have said they can select multiple ISPs through their connection, which isn't at the whim of a content provider.

      Most of those are just resellers, and even the ones that have some equipment still connect through the same ISPs to providers like Netflix and YouTube, so, no, that's wrong. Furthermore, since there is effectively no free market in content in Europe anyway, "network neutrality" in Europe amounts to simply shuffling around subsidies between different interest groups.

      It is the job of government to enforce laws favoring competition

      That's wrong on several counts. (1) It simply isn't the job of the US government, it has no Constitutional authority for it. (2) More competition isn't automatically desirable; it doesn't necessarily produce better outcomes, lower prices, or more efficiencies. (Ironically, many of the people advocating "more competition" then add "or just turn it into a public utility", showing that they really don't care about competition.) (3) Laws nominally intended to "favor competition" are usually actually used for rent seeking, accomplishing the opposite. (4) Such enforcement actions frequently end up being regressive, that is, they make the poor pay to provide free government services for the rich, services that the rich could very well pay for themselves.

      You may think that it is the purpose of government to subsidize the rich and destroy market efficiency, I prefer government not to do either of those things.

      Finally, running copper or fiber or whatever all over has "natural monopoly" written all over it. How many cable companies would a city have if competition was legal? Power companies? Gas companies? Telephone companies?

      Power companies and gas companies could easily become ISPs (they all have wires already), giving you four providers for phone and entertainment with the same number of wires in the ground as we have now. Google Fiber wouldn't have to go begging for permission to cities.

      Much of what you call a "natural monopoly" is actually quite artificial: in many places, running new wires is easy, along existing poles or through existing tunnels, and the link between wires and service is rooted in laws and a history of regulation, not the market.

    31. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was the job of the US government to favor competition, I said "government". The Federal government has Constitutional authority to regulate only interstate business (although the Supreme Court has pushed that far beyond any reasonable interpretation). States have the authority to favor competition in their states.

      More competition isn't always desirable, but it usually is. Either we need more competition (so people can find deals they can live with), or more regulation. Regulated monopolies and government services work, particularly when there's good objective standards and the will to enforce them. My water and sewer service are provided directly by the city, electrical power and telephone and natural gas by regulated monopolies, and garbage service by private firms contracting with the city. I have no complaints with any of those. Of course, a regulated monopoly where there are no good objective metrics and no will to enforce them (*cough*Comcast*cough*) can really suck.

      Some laws are used for rent seeking, and some aren't. Anti-collusion laws, for example, don't lend themselves to rent-seeking. This is unlike, say, mandatory professional licensing, which usually is rent seeking. In the case of natural monopolies, rent-seeking really doesn't matter.

      I haven't heard of power or gas companies getting into the ISP business. Data transmission over power lines has a great many problems, and I don't know how you'd do it through gas lines. Before I consider them potential competitors, I'd like to see a few examples.

      Google Fiber needs to go begging for permission if they intend to run fiber in the city, because of rights of way. Allowing anybody to string up anything on the poles, or dig up trenches arbitrarily, is not going to end well. I don't have to let just any private party run any lines over or through my property, so even if private property connected up that wouldn't be viable.

      And, yes, there are things like natural monopolies. My water and sewer service is an example: should somebody else come around and create a parallel water and sewer system? Would that be financially practical? What would the benefits be of doing that? There are places where anybody who wants to can seek to wire up a city; how many cities have had another ISP come in (besides Google) and string connections all over?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:All Slashdotters in favor of the merger... by silfen · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was the job of the US government to favor competition, I said "government".

      Well, what you said was ambiguous. That's why I enumerated all the different ways in which it isn't the job of "government".

      Google Fiber needs to go begging for permission if they intend to run fiber in the city, because of rights of way. Allowing anybody to string up anything on the poles, or dig up trenches arbitrarily, is not going to end well.

      That's a false dichotomy. There are other choices besides arbitrary government decision making and anarchy. Right now, decisions like who can put in fiber is entirely arbitrary; my city can tell Google's managers to do a tap dance as a condition for putting in fiber (and they do). The right middle ground would probably to set a limit on the number of cables that could be put in the ground and auction them off, with the government staying unable to make special deals for their favorite companies.

      Some laws are used for rent seeking, and some aren't. Anti-collusion laws, for example, don't lend themselves to rent-seeking.

      Oh, you greatly underestimate the ability of rent seekers to turn laws to their benefit. For example, if products in industry A substitute partially for products in industry B, then passing "anti-collusion laws" for industry B amounts to rent seeking by industry A.

      And, yes, there are things like natural monopolies. My water and sewer service is an example: should somebody else come around and create a parallel water and sewer system? Would that be financially practical? What would the benefits be of doing that?

      A natural monopoly is a monopoly that exists because it is too expensive or not profitable for a second company to enter the market. Where you have a natural monopoly, government doesn't need to restrict market entrance because companies aren't entering the market at all.

      Your arguments regarding Internet service are of a different nature. You admit you don't know whether it is "financially practical". Obviously, at least Google thinks it is, but it has to jump through hoops, so multiple companies would like to enter the market, but government can restrict their entry arbitrarily. There may or may not be valid arguments for such restrictions, but they have nothing to do with "natural monopolies".

      More competition isn't always desirable, but it usually is.

      Yet, your entire argument is based on limiting competition. You argue for limiting new entrants into the Internet provider market because you think it would be too disruptive to have more and more providers dig up the streets. That means you don't want more competition, you want less of it.

      Either we need more competition (so people can find deals they can live with), or more regulation.

      I think it's pretty clear what you really want is regulated public utilities; all this talk of "natural monopolies" on your part isn't serious, because you don't even know whether there is a natural monopoly or not and don't have any evidence ("Would that be financially practical? What would the benefits be of doing that?").

      But more generally, I think this fear of monopolies is itself a straw man. Markets dominated by a single company and even monopolies are generally harmless. In many cases, demand is elastic and monopoly pricing is not much higher than competitive pricing. Furthermore, monopolies rarely last, and they encourage innovation because any extra profits from a monopoly provide an enormously strong incentive to break the monopoly.

  2. We are a business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "We area a business but we will not try to defeat out competition." Yes, we believe you...

    1. Re:We are a business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The wonderful words of Bull Shit !

      Trust me, the housing market will only continue to go up.
      Trust me, it doesn't bite. (seconds later.. chomp!)
      Trust me, the check in in the mail.
      Trust me, there will be no more tax increases.
      Trust me, Comcast and Time Warner will never try to suppress competition.

    2. Re:We are a business. by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think their argument is closer to:

      Trust us, Comcast and Time Warner have already colluded to suppress competition, so the merger won't change anything.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. General Suckage, Inc. is off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mike Myers will be disappointed, he was going to be their TV pitchman.

    Also, I guess the stock ticker symbol EVIL is once more available.

  4. Time to give more politicians free cable tv and HS by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Time to give more politicians free cable tv and HSI.

    Just don't piss off the sports fans who have Directv with it's way more HD. But maybe Comcast this your wake up call to get moving on that part.

  5. Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by GeekHillbilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is getting pretty deep.Competition?In Most areas,THERE IS NO COMPETITION! Like here where I live in Southeastern Kentucky,It is either Warner Cable or nothing. And yes,customer service sucks like a Black Hole.

    --
    The Geek Hillbilly
    1. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is getting pretty deep.Competition?In Most areas,THERE IS NO COMPETITION! Like here where I live in Southeastern Kentucky,It is either Warner Cable or nothing.

      Bingo! That's exactly why they said that the merger won't affect competition.

    2. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      They directly admit this: "Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Charter do not compete in any market" (direct quote)

      Appalling.

    3. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it will affect competition. The moment Comcast started charging Netflix for access, Netflix became a customer. Every website out there is now a potential customer.

      As long as Comcast and Time Warner are competing with each other, Netflix can say "Well Comcast only charged us this much, can you lower your price?" to Time Warner. But if they merge, that reduces competition. Websites have to pay more, and they'll have to charge their customers (you and me) more to compensate.

    4. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by silfen · · Score: 1

      "Admit" it? You make it sound they are under some obligation to invest in more infrastructure. Companies aren't Santa Claus; they make investments if they can expect a return, and under the current regulatory and intellectual property climate, there is no money in competing in markets with already established players.

      If you want to change that, you need to change the regulatory environment. Oh, and simply mandating competition isn't going to work, because then investors are simply going to pull their money out of that market altogether.

    5. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again this is because they colluded and traded markets and infrastructure around 10 years ago to make this happen.

    6. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by antdude · · Score: 1

      Why can't FCC make cable companies compete each other in the same areas? Change the dang city laws.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by swillden · · Score: 1

      As long as Comcast and Time Warner are competing with each other, Netflix can say "Well Comcast only charged us this much, can you lower your price?" to Time Warner.

      And Time Warner will say "How nice that Comcast is giving you a break. But if you want access to our customers -- which you cannot get from Comcast -- then this is the price."

      Competition only exists when customers have a choice of suppliers for the same good, or goods that are substantially interchangeable. In this case, Comcast is selling access to one set of users and Time Warner is selling access to a different set. Netflix wants and needs access to both, so it can't trade one off against the other.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      As long as Comcast and Time Warner are competing with each other, Netflix can say "Well Comcast only charged us this much, can you lower your price?" to Time Warner.

      And Time Warner will say "How nice that Comcast is giving you a break. But if you want access to our customers -- which you cannot get from Comcast -- then this is the price."

      Well, maybe one day unicef will get into the extortion business. Until then, we're the people to see. Do you want access to our customers or not?

    9. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      It can be changed with 2 words "common carrier"

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    10. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that why Dice bought slashdot?

    11. Re: Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice Joe Dirt reference.

    12. Re:Comcast & Warner Cable Bullshit by swillden · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why Dice bought slashdot?

      Sure. But Dice could not have gotten slashdot's customer base by buying, for example, MySpace.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. I wish theyd make up their mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im moving soon & TW is one of my 2 options for broadband.

    You can bet i'll go going for option 2 just to avoid the possibility of ever being a comcast victim er customer.

    1. Re:I wish theyd make up their mind by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My experience is AT&T is worse than Comcast.

  7. The PC way of asking for more bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This way they can get more bribes.. it's all about the Benjamins..

  8. They're already suppressing competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By letting these two merge, they'll just have the ability to devote even more resources to crushing specific pockets of competition, including the local governments that just want to provide internet for all of their constituents. Maybe it's time for those governments to revoke the big cable companies' business licenses? Eh, I'm sure there'd be something about damage to the economy or some such bullshit that always spews out of the mouths of people that can't seem to understand that not all business is good business.

    1. Re:They're already suppressing competition by silfen · · Score: 1

      By letting these two merge, they'll just have the ability to devote even more resources to crushing specific pockets of competition, including the local governments that just want to provide internet for all of their constituents.

      Great idea! Customer service will be as good as the DMV! You get to pay for putting cables into the ground directly (whether you are a subscriber or not) because the city will simply pass "special assessments" to finance the infrastructure! And prices and innovation will be as good as they were back in the Ma Bell days!

    2. Re:They're already suppressing competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many cases, local municipalities already paid the ISPs (or gave them enough of a subsidy to cover the costs) to put cable in the ground, and fiber in yet more places for that matter. But the cities can't even access what they paid for because the ISPs are hiding behind the contracts that give them monopoly powers, and they aren't even providing higher-quality service because, surprise surprise, the city can't compete because of the contracts and anyone else trying to get into the market has to pay the current reigning ISP to access "their" lines.

  9. Given my current install experience with TWC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't support this merger given how horrible my current experience is with TWC. They've been to my house 6 times over 8 weeks and still no service. I've missed neatly 3 full days of work. It's not like I have another option either. One customer service rep canceled my order accidentally and had to start a new order.

    1. Re:Given my current install experience with TWC by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I can't support this merger given how horrible my current experience is with TWC. They've been to my house 6 times over 8 weeks and still no service. I've missed neatly 3 full days of work. It's not like I have another option either. One customer service rep canceled my order accidentally and had to start a new order.

      Make sure you file a complaint with the FCC. You must know that the FCC isn't reading slashdot comments. Here: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

    2. Re:Given my current install experience with TWC by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      The FCC isn't reading FCC comments either.....

  10. If the FCC and Congress was honest.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Internet would be deemed a public utility and regulated as such.
    It's raging BS that all the companies involved were given buttloads of public dollars to build out the infrastructure and did not even come close to meeting the promises they made.

    Should they merge? yes, only if they are forced to common carrier status for internet and fall under telephone regulation and requirements.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:If the FCC and Congress was honest.... by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes Yes Yes.

      This bullshit about not calling them common carriers simply ensures and guarantees monopoly.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:If the FCC and Congress was honest.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The CEO of Comcast posts as Anon here on slashdot! NEAT!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. A Strategic Delay by caspy7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else think this is simply an attempt to let the issue calm down and be forgotten by the public?

    1. Re:A Strategic Delay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      The /. summary reads, "Citing inadequate responses by both cable companies to earlier FCC requests for additional information". This implies that as soon as the information is supplied to the FCC, the requested merger will fly through.

      Don't be too thrilled with having "option 2". We have an "option 2" and it only is marginally better than Comcast. In my area we also have WOW!. WOW! bought Knology. WOW! is really crummy: they haven't bought any new equipment since acquiring Knology last year. They are waiting to distribute "new equipment" next year. They don't want to release new equipment now and it sits at the site collecting dust. I have to exchange my set top box twice to get a "good", kinda working one. WOW!'s customer service is bad--almost as bad as Comcast. The technicians who come out to our house are the former Knology employees and are very good and very helpful.

    2. Re:A Strategic Delay by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

      Anyone else think this is simply an attempt to let the issue calm down and be forgotten by the public?

      I'd toss in that they're probably negotiating the sequence of events; they have to kill net neutrality soon as well. And, expect the announcements to be timed for minimal coverage, so Friday afternoon. They might even hold the net neutrality announcement to the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    3. Re:A Strategic Delay by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      Far more likely that the folks in the White House would rather this issue goes away until AFTER the election...and then they'll continue cashing those checks from the monopolists and let the merger happen while they throw up their hands and claim they used that extra time to "really stick it to the man"....

    4. Re:A Strategic Delay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't make it go away because the deadline is just 1 WEEK before the election! Heck, it will probably BE the election topic.

  12. What competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They've already destroyed it.

  13. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to give more politicians free cable tv and HSI.

    You're thinking too small. Super Bowl, Final Four tickets, and Washington Nationals and Redskins skybox seats, and dinner in five star restaurants, is some of the "access" that politicians talk about when referring to visits by lobbyists.

  14. automatic disqualifier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To me, if the No 1 wants to buy the No 2, that should be an automatic disqualification.

    Next.

    1. Re:automatic disqualifier by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Comcast has DirectTV and Dish on their butt, so go ahead and let the land-based providers merge.

    2. Re:automatic disqualifier by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      That works until at&t buys directtv, and then merges with comcast-time warner

  15. learn from history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throughout US history, rich people have been trying to create mega-corporations (Rockefeller, railroad barons, etc.) and the rest of us have been trying to stop them. Mega-corporations serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful; competition between small companies serves the interests of the demos.

    1. Re:learn from history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throughout US history, rich people have been trying to create mega-corporations (Rockefeller, railroad barons, etc.) and the rest of us have been trying to stop them

      No, "the rest of us" have been enabling that: the railroad robber barons got their money courtesy of Washington. Electric utility monopolies weren't created by rich people through the market, they were created by regulators.

      See, the irony is that most of these monopolies and market failures are the consequence of bad regulations rather than markets. And our political process is, and always will be, so corrupt that bad regulation is all we are ever going to get.

  16. All but a done deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with Wheeler as chair. Thanks Obama!

  17. or not renew govt enforced monopoly franchise by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > revoke the big cable companies' business licenses?

    Or maybe just not renew their franchise, the monopoly those governments enforce.

    1. Re:or not renew govt enforced monopoly franchise by sir-gold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It doesn't work to give the franchise to a smaller competitor. As soon as the smaller competitor wins the contract, it just gets bought-out by whatever mega-corp you were trying to keep out in the first place.

      This happened twice in the small town where I grew up. Every time the city tried to get rid of Charter by picking someone else, Charter would just by that other company out after the contract was awarded.

    2. Re:or not renew govt enforced monopoly franchise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do u mean buy that?

    3. Re:or not renew govt enforced monopoly franchise by Smask · · Score: 1

      +1, Funny

      No modpoints today.

  18. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to give more politicians free cable tv and HSI.

    You'll laugh, but I know an engineer who got frustrated with his cable so he grabbed some equipment for work (designed specifically for testing TV signals) and evaluated the supplied signal against FCC requirements. He then called up the local cable company and pointed out that a number of their tests were below the regulatory specifications. I don't know what they told him over the phone, but apparently the next day he noticed that all the channels were unlocked on his tuner box.

  19. GOOD NEWS!!! by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    everybody!.

    Seriously this is good news that I honestly did not expect. I assumed that the FCC was paying us lip service and was going to allow it to go through unimpeded. this doesnt mean that its NOT true (they still could simply be paying lip service now) but its a good start. The logner it takes, the more time we have to bitch and moan

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:GOOD NEWS!!! by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The FCC got a ridiculously high amount of feedback for this issue, so they have to take it slow. They still plan on letting it happen, just have to make a show of it first.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:GOOD NEWS!!! by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I understand that Comcast paid a huge bribe...ahem...made large campaign contributions to the president, is that why AT&T was blocked from buying T-Mobile? They didn't donate to the right party or candidates?? The thing is the Comcast's outrageous behavior vis-a-vis Netflix is out in the open now. I think FCC wants more information to use against these jackals. Can you imagine if one company has a majority of the ISP business in the country? No online service will be able to function without Comcast's blessing and a cut of the action. The point is not that Comcast and TWC don't serve the same end users so it's all OK. The point is that they will control the internet access to too many people and businesses to be allowed.

  20. Payolla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More time for your legislative representatives to extort "contributions" to extend the respective non competitive monopolies of these monoliths that gouge there customers.

  21. Put on hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good, they now know what it is like to call customer support, hope the music is all ads about bad M&As

  22. Re:Abolish the FCC. by jvp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm actually still trying to figure out why the *FCC* is getting involved in this, and not the *FTC* ...

    --
    Jason Van Patten
  23. No competition by sir-gold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "However, the companies said that they are in different regions and are not going to suppress the competition."

    Technically, they are telling the truth, because they had already suppressed all competition the BEFORE merging, and there isn't any left to suppress.

    1. Re:No competition by jazzis · · Score: 1

      So true.

    2. Re:No competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Looking at this from that vantage point, this means that the only way they could raise revenue is by going after each other's territory. Without a merger they'd be forced to compete. They'd rather merge than compete.

  24. Re:Abolish the FCC. by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    The FTC is waiting to see what the FCC decides.

  25. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by PRMan · · Score: 1

    DirecTV already pissed me off by merging with someone I refuse to do business with. But at least Dish is great so far...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  26. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by PRMan · · Score: 1

    He should have written a letter to the FCC instead...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  27. Re:Abolish the FCC. by sir-gold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You really want Eric Holder (who thinks backdoors should be left open for police, and that search warrants shouldn't be neccesary for drone use or cell-tapping) controlling our countries information infrastructure?

    We would end up with rules requiring all new TV sets to have always-on cameras built in, in order to spy on the TV viewers (like the viewscreen from 1984)

  28. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, the companies said that they are in different regions and are not going to suppress the competition.

    By surreptitiously "agreeing" to operate and different areas, they ARE suppressing competition. In most areas your "one" cable operator is the only game in town for broadband.

    DirecTV might be great for TV, but not so much for internet.

  29. 9 DAYS AFTER US ELECTIONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Removing liability from your newly elected officials.

    1. Re:9 DAYS AFTER US ELECTIONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how you are doing calendar math.

      This new deadline is October 29, 2014.
      US elections are on November 4, 2014.

  30. Re:Abolish the FCC. by duckintheface · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine any rationale for private ownership of a ubiquitous asset with no physical form. This does not conform to existing property law and would not enure to the advantage of the public.... but rather only to the benefit of a few wealthy corporate bosses. Exactly whose side are you on?

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  31. Re:Abolish the FCC. by duckintheface · · Score: 0

    Should air be private owned? The airwaves belong to everyone.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  32. Getting tired of this by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I hear the "no reduction in competition" argument one more time, I am going to have an aneurysm. I don't even need to say what is wrong with that argument. This is about the immense power Comcast will gain by controlling a full third of Internet subscribers. Lawmakers in congress whine and moan about giving the FCC too much power with Title II, and yet some of them support letting such a behemoth, unchained monster loose on everyone? This is beyond ridiculous.

  33. My Experience With ATT by smpoole7 · · Score: 2

    For years, I used a small ISP called Hiwaay Information Services here in Alabama. Great people, I was on a first-name basis with tech support and sales. ATT owned the lines, of course, but Hiwaay bought the service wholesale and resold it to individuals like me. It cost me a little more, but if I had a problem, instead of going through ATT's byzantine voice menus and slower-than-molasses "escalations," I called and they'd hound ATT until it was fixed.

    Well worth it, in my book. I MUST have high-speed access at home for remote administration of our servers after hours.

    Then ATT introduced Uverse. We received monthly offers to switch to Uverse; I ignored them and stayed with Hiwaay. But Hiwaay finally sent me a letter: sorry, ATT is no longer making these products available to us, so we'll have to cancel your DSL. I had no choice but to go with UVerse.

    Right now, the price is less, but they could raise it in the future and there is no competition (unless I want to use dialup; forget that). They send me WEEKLY offers to use the UVerse "cable" television service. They can't stop DirecTV from selling to me, so I'm still with that. For now. :)

    Now: you decide if the big-hearted folks at Comcast and Time-Warner will do similar or equivalent things. Add to this the service that our company gets from them in some of our other markets, and I'm afraid I'm just not quite as impressed with their protestations as I might otherwise be.

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    1. Re:My Experience With ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can't stop DirecTV from selling to me, so I'm still with that. For now. :)

      AT&T is planning to acquire DirecTV.

    2. Re:My Experience With ATT by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      keep DirecTV for TV.

      I have DirecTV + ATT dsl deal right now in a UVerse area and I want to keep Directv for the TV side the HD steams limit and NO NHL NETWORK sucks.

  34. Re:Abolish the FCC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the spectrum is not regulated, what would prevent me from creating a jamming device, or just a poorly designed transmitter, that would knock out your tv.

    I don't own a TV, why should I care? I would probably be doing you a favor anyways.

  35. NICE! by DaMattster · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is no good cause for a merger! It will just take two crappy telecom companies and merge them into one huge monolithic monster that will charge basically 100.00 a month for 10mbps up and down and call it the fastest, state of the art marketing bullshit.

  36. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by silfen · · Score: 1

    By surreptitiously "agreeing" to operate and different areas, they ARE suppressing competition. In most areas your "one" cable operator is the only game in town for broadband.

    You make it sound like it's a conspiracy. But the current cable operators are simply consolidations of local operators that often already dominated individual markets. And there isn't much economic incentive for them to enter each other's territories: it means high capital expenditures and high risk with little expected return. Choosing not to invest in something isn't the same as suppressing it; businesses and investors don't owe you service.

    The main thing that's actually "suppressing" competition is regulations, which make it costly and risky to create alternative Internet providers in an area. If you want more competition in Internet services, you need to figure out how to make it worth people's while to invest in creating that competition; strong-arm regulation by the FCC is doing the opposite.

  37. Re:Abolish the FCC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can no more be privately owned than the land upon which a culture grows may be bought or sold

    And the land upon which our culture grows is bought and sold, as private property. And so is spectrum.

  38. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it is a conspiracy... around 10 years ago Comcast and Time Warner traded markets to consolidate their holdings specifically so that would not be competing ... now they want to merge. This is complete bull shit.

  39. Comcast is EXTREMELY ABUSIVE, in my experience. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    Comcast: Most obviously abusive -- In my opinion, Comcast is apparently the most obviously abusive organization in the United States. (The financial system of the U.S. government is more abusive, in my opinion, but not as obvious.)

    I've just started Comcast internet service. It took several hours of my time to get connected because of needing to avoid the dishonesty. I've been over-billed perhaps 7 times, spent hours protesting that, and my first bill is not due yet.

    Comcast employees abuse Comcast. It's interesting to note that, when Comcast encourages employees to abuse customers, Comcast employees hear that as permission to also abuse Comcast. Comcast employees waste an enormous amount of time pretending to be friendly, apparently so they can get good results on surveys.

    Comcast abuse discussion on Reddit -- The Comcast abuse Sub-Reddit is one place to voice complaints.

    DSL Reports has information about Comcast. For example, Comcast High Speed Internet FAQ.

    Reddit has many stories in other sub-reddits like this one: Comcast, without my permission and knowledge, adds services to my account and charges me extra for it.

    The real internet connection speeds are much lower than the advertised speeds. Try the DSL Reports Flash Speed Test. There are other DSL Reports speed tests, also.

    The Numion speed test is accurate, but requires the Java plug-in.

    Most "speed tests" just show electrical connection speeds (the "line speed"), not actual data delivery speeds. They know what you want, and they lie.

  40. Competition has already been supressed ! by macpacheco · · Score: 1

    The merger sure isn't going to restart competition where it has already been suppressed.
    I don't see a single advantage to the public in this merger.
    What should happen is the other way around.
    Not only the merger is forbidden, but the two companies must start competing between each other or else !
    The merger would only escalate the anti net neutrality position those companies employ and stop any new revolutionary netflix like initiative on its tracks.

  41. They are simply waiting until after the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then the lame duck politicians will put their rubber stamp on the deal. They were paid handsomely by the comcast lobbyists to do so, why wouldn't they. No need for any backlash from the approval of this merger to become a potential election issue.

  42. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like it's a conspiracy.

    Only in your own mind.

    Anti-competitive practices do not require "conspiracy". They only require mutual complicity.

    The main thing that's actually "suppressing" competition is regulations, which make it costly and risky to create alternative Internet providers in an area.

    If that were true, then the municipalities that created public infrastructure would not be as tremendously successful as they actually are. These "regulations" you refer to are often the result of lobbying (read: "bribery") by the cable operators to keep other players out. Not only has it been in the news, I've watched it happen, pretty damned transparently, with my own City Council.

    That's not "conspiracy". It's just all-too-common, unethical, anti-competitive business practice. If you want to call lobbying and expensive presents "conspiracy", then you're saying that most of Congress are conspirators.

  43. yeah by hogleg · · Score: 1

    Someone didn't get their envelope of cash. Once that is squared away the merger will go through. Every one involved needs to get paid first.

    1. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds pretty standard yep

  44. Seriously by rabtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not talking about spread out rural areas here, so let's just stop that idiotic argument right up front.

    For the top 50 major cities in the US, how can anyone argue that the government is less efficient than private enterprise? It would take maybe 10-20 years and we could get 95% coverage of gigabit fiber to every home in those top 50 cities. Any ISP that wanted to offer service could plug their router in on the back end.

    Of course that's the joke about free markets. There is no such thing because political connections will always exist and people will always abuse them to avoid competition if possible (that and duplicating last mile infrastructure is ridiculously expensive, making it a natural monopoly).

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    1. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Many if not most of those cities already have municipal fiber rings. What's more, everywhere Comcast provides service, or ATT provides U-Verse, corporate fiber rings have already been laid.

      I'd say that your 10->20 year estimate should be pared down to 3->5 (after the innumerable corporate-backed court challenges to the plan are put to bed, natch.).

  45. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    That's not "conspiracy". It's just all-too-common, unethical, anti-competitive business practice. If you want to call lobbying and expensive presents "conspiracy", then you're saying that most of Congress are conspirators.

    I'd argue it is a conspiracy, although the level of conspiracy was at the local level, repeated many times across many localities, and then merged and acquired and continued across several decades into what we have today: de facto monopolies that not only control access to large segments of the population individually, but also use their influence to affect industries outside of themselves. Allowing Comcast/TW to merge would fulfill Comcast's ultimate goal of controlling access to most of america and be able to essentially showcase their own content, starting to slowly suppress all others - the only outcome I can see happening.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  46. Oh Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We got an election coming up.

    Wait until after it, then we'll jam it down their throats.

  47. Link to FCC letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.fcc.gov/document/letter-comcast-tw-and-charter-regarding-stopping-clock

    On September 23, 2014, Comcast Corporation and Time Warner Cable filed their Opposition to
    the Petitions to Deny and Comments. In addition to the narrative, the Opposition included three
    economist declarations, one declaration from a Comcast engineering Senior Vice-President, and one
    declaration from a professor of computer science. Part of the economist declarations presented empirical
    work arguing that prices of NBCU national cable networks and NBCU owned and operated local
    broadcast television stations did not, because of the Comcast-NBCU transaction, increase more than
    would otherwise be expected, contrary to the Commission’s analysis in the order approving the Comcast-
    NBCU transaction. This material is critical to the evaluation of the proposed transactions. In addition,
    the economist statements included theoretical calculations of estimated price increases due to increases in
    bargaining leverage, and empirical studies of two recent disputes between programming networks and
    cable systems. This material represents a relatively substantial body of new work that will take some time
    for outside parties to evaluate and respond to, and at least some of which could have been filed with the
    initial applications. As a result, in response to a request filed by Dish Network Corporation, we have
    today released a Public Notice extending the deadline for filing Responses to Comments and Oppositions
    to October 29, 2014.

  48. Looks like Obama needs another round of Golf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His Golf buddy will remind him :)

  49. They promise they will be a totally cool Duopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I promise we don't cover *any* of the same areas. And won't ever *compete* with each other, never have never will. It is all coo.

  50. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by silfen · · Score: 1

    That's not "conspiracy". It's just all-too-common, unethical, anti-competitive business practice. If you want to call lobbying and expensive presents "conspiracy", then you're saying that most of Congress are conspirators.

    Yes, businesses try to gain monopolies, and they try to gain it by lobbying, and politicians let them succeed. That's obvious. Now what are you going to do about it?

    You cannot fix that by railing at the businesses, they are never going to be any more ethical, and they don't give a f*ck what you think. You cannot fix it by voting better politicians into office; we tried that, and even Obama and Warren have succumbed (as have all previous politicians who have tried). And you cannot fix it by passing more regulation to punish businesses or politicians, because the new regulations will fall prey to regulatory capture just like the old ones.

    What businesses fear most is competition and deregulation. Of course, even "deregulation" is subject to regulatory capture, in the sense that a lot of "deregulation" simply amounts to giving away public property at bargain basement prices without actually leading to more competition. But true deregulation is the only way we can fix regulatory capture; none of the other approaches work.

  51. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    That's not "conspiracy". It's just all-too-common, unethical, anti-competitive business practice. If you want to call lobbying and expensive presents "conspiracy", then you're saying that most of Congress are conspirators.

    Yes, businesses try to gain monopolies, and they try to gain it by lobbying, and politicians let them succeed. That's obvious. Now what are you going to do about it?

    You cannot fix that by railing at the businesses, they are never going to be any more ethical, and they don't give a f*ck what you think. You cannot fix it by voting better politicians into office; we tried that, and even Obama and Warren have succumbed (as have all previous politicians who have tried). And you cannot fix it by passing more regulation to punish businesses or politicians, because the new regulations will fall prey to regulatory capture just like the old ones.

    What businesses fear most is competition and deregulation. Of course, even "deregulation" is subject to regulatory capture, in the sense that a lot of "deregulation" simply amounts to giving away public property at bargain basement prices without actually leading to more competition. But true deregulation is the only way we can fix regulatory capture; none of the other approaches work.

    Right.... cause deregulation worked soooo well for the banking and mortgage industries and the economy... oh, wait...

    Industries need a certain amount of regulation to keep them somewhat honest. I agree that regulations and laws have been passed that benefit specific companies but the the way to fix it is to roll back regulations to the basic stuff and get ride of all of the rules that add barriers to entry. However, the biggest barrier to entry in the ISP/cable space is fair access to the infrastructure.

  52. Suppress Competition? What about their customers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone worried if the TW/Crapcast merger will suppress competition?
    It won't! They'll be too busy suppressing their own customers to worry about some mom&pop ISP in their area.

  53. Most? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    "Comcast and Time Warner together control most of the Internet services in the country."

    Only for values of "most" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  54. News Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "FCC Puts Comcast and Time Warner Merger On Hold" ... until the public outcry dies down.

  55. Re:Time to give more politicians free cable tv and by silfen · · Score: 1

    Right.... cause deregulation worked soooo well for the banking and mortgage industries and the economy... oh, wait...

    Well, regulation certainly didn't work: Obama added tons of regulation and engaged in massive crony capitalism as part of that. And the economy has been in the toilet ever since.

    Deregulation of the telecoms industry, however, worked very well, both in Europe and the US. It's why we have a flourishing Internet at all.

    Industries need a certain amount of regulation to keep them somewhat honest.

    So? I didn't say we should abolish every single regulation. Maybe you're confused about the meaning of the term "deregulation"? It doesn't mean abolish all regulations, it means reducing regulation.

    agree that regulations and laws have been passed that benefit specific companies but the the way to fix it is to roll back regulations to the basic stuff and get ride of all of the rules that add barriers to entry.

    I.e. deregulation.

    However, the biggest barrier to entry in the ISP/cable space is fair access to the infrastructure.

    And stopping the Comcast merger is going to accomplish that... how? Net neutrality is related to that... how?

  56. Election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's the betting line of what happens after the midterms?