Slashdot Mirror
FCC Puts Comcast and Time Warner Merger On Hold
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.
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.
Anyone else think this is simply an attempt to let the issue calm down and be forgotten by the public?
My experience is AT&T is worse than Comcast.
I'm actually still trying to figure out why the *FCC* is getting involved in this, and not the *FTC* ...
Jason Van Patten
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
Yes Yes Yes.
This bullshit about not calling them common carriers simply ensures and guarantees monopoly.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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)