Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Worcester Mass. City Council Votes To Keep Comcast From Entering the Area

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-stay-out dept.

First time accepted submitter _AustinPowell writes Comcast wants a cable television license in Worcester, Massachusetts. In response, the City Council voted 8-3 to urge Worcester's city manager to let the company's license request die. The deadline for the decision is Wednesday, but the manager is not bound by the vote of the Council. "It's a terrible company," City Councilor Gary Rosen said. "In my opinion, they should not be welcome in this city. Comcast is a wolf in wolf's clothing; it's that bad."

55 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comcast is a wolf in wolf's clothing; it's that bad. - Gary Rosen, City Councilor

    1. Re:Awesome quote by saloomy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, No No No!!!! It doesn't matter if they are a wolf in wolf's clothing! They have a service to sell, and users should be free to to use it if they so choose.
      What we should be against is any subsidization, special treatment, or monopolistic practices, always rooted in government. It is a fact, that monopolies can only exist for any great length of time with the help of a government law or regulation insuring their monopolistic status (with only one notable exception: The London DeBeers Corporation) . A monopoly exists and extorts their customers by jacking up prices, or delivering goods and services of a less than desirable quality. Barring any regulation preventing new competition, a competitor will always enter the market; because someone will have a business plan to either lower the cost, holding the quality constant, or raise the quality, holding the cost constant. In the US, capital is not a barrier to entry, as some investment house, or other financial mechanism is always looking to exercise their capital on a solid business plan.
      That is how free markets work. When there is good competition, you have the highest available quality, and the lowest cost, the market will bear.
      Choice is good, so long as the costs are realized, and not passed on to tax payers, who are then forced to be come a customer (via a lack of options, or because their taxes have already paid or partially paid for a good or service).

      These councils need to get out of the business of "selecting" the internet provider and let the free market run its course. The outcome will always be what the customers choose, which is usually a variety of competitors, and thats a good thing!

    2. Re:Awesome quote by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, No No No!!!! It doesn't matter if they are a wolf in wolf's clothing! They have a service to sell, and users should be free to to use it if they so choose.
      ...
      These councils need to get out of the business of "selecting" the internet provider and let the free market run its course. The outcome will always be what the customers choose, which is usually a variety of competitors, and thats a good thing!

      Sorry, but just no.

      The problem is that the regulators are mis-regulating, and as a result usually consumers have NO choice... they get the one company in their area, and that's it.

      It is not reasonable to expect "market forces" to promote competition, when there is no actual market. Comcast and Time Warner Cable have divided up most of the U.S. between themselves, and voluntarily choose not to compete in their respective areas. That's illegal anti-competitive practice, but as I say: the regulators haven't been regulating. Hell, Comcast even practically BRAGGED about it to the FCC, claiming that a merger would not hurt competition because they're not competing anyway.

      If you want consumer market choices to choose the winner, the way they normally would, then you must have a genuine competitive market first. End of story. When it doesn't exist -- like today -- Adam Smith's "invisible hand" doesn't work.

      In my area, a City committee votes annually on whether to "allow competition" in the cable market. Every year they have voted it down. I am willing to bet there are kickbacks involved, but I don't have proof.

    3. Re:Awesome quote by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that the regulators are mis-regulating, and as a result usually consumers have NO choice... they get the one company in their area, and that's it.

      So, of course, it is better for the consumer to have NO company in their area.

      Comcast and Time Warner Cable have divided up most of the U.S. between themselves, and voluntarily choose not to compete in their respective areas. That's illegal anti-competitive practice,

      No, it is not. They aren't keeping anyone else from competing, they've just made a reasonable business decision that it would not be profitable for one of them to compete with the other in an already built area, or to try building out at the same time. It's not profitable for two companies to build out the same area and wind up with only half the potential customers. Fixed costs are the same, spread over half the customers, meaning the prices go up. Your desire to be able to choose would mean that everyone would pay more for the same service, not less.

      Hell, Comcast even practically BRAGGED about it to the FCC, claiming that a merger would not hurt competition because they're not competing anyway.

      It is not bragging to state a simple fact, which arose not because of some conspiracy but because of simple business economics.

      In my area, a City committee votes annually on whether to "allow competition" in the cable market. Every year they have voted it down.

      Your city council is an ass, and it is your responsibility to get them voted out if you don't like them.

    4. Re:Awesome quote by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think that illegally divvying up territory in an anti-competitive and monopolistic fashion is "simple business economics"?

      It is not illegal for one company to decide it will not compete with another in a certain region when the decision is a simple one based on simple economics. The name "Walmart" has come up in other places in this discussion. Walmart chooses locations to build stores based on expected return on investment. It is not illegal for them to decide not to build in an area that already has a large number of other low-price stores, it is a simple business decision based on economics.

      Second, each company's decision not to compete with the other has no binding on any other company that wishes try to compete. Therefore, it is not anti-competitive. You cannot force a company to compete in a market it does not want to, so you cannot prohibit one from making the decision not to. So, you cannot force Walmart to build in your town to compete with existing markets, and it is not illegal for the other markets to exist.

      What WOULD be illegal and anti-competitive would be if Comcast (or TW) decided to drop rates to below cost to drive competitors out of a market they wanted to compete in.

      Holy sheet. How much do they pay you, you bootlicking shill?

      I'm sorry that your hatred for Comcast blinds you to simple business economics and drives you to insult those who try to educate you.

    5. Re:Awesome quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Walmart occasionally competes with other companies. This isn't simple business economics. And you're still a bootlicking shill.

      From NYT:

      Time Warner Cable operates in 29 states, but thanks to the old system of regional and municipal cable monopolies, Comcast and Time Warner Cable donâ(TM)t compete anywhere. Justice Department merger guidelines define geographical markets, which is why regulators weighing airline mergers examine competition on individual routes, not national market share. In New York, Comcast will simply supplant Time Warner Cable in the array of consumer television and broadband options, which include Verizonâ(TM)s FiOS service, RCN, DirecTV and the Dish Network.

      âoeGiven that these are local markets, and that Comcast and Time Warner Cable donâ(TM)t overlap, the merger really has no impact on competition,â said Scott Hemphill, an antitrust professor and specialist in intellectual property at Columbia Law School.

      Under conventional antitrust standards, itâ(TM)s pretty much an open-and-shut case. But some opponents have seized on the rarely invoked doctrine of potential competition â" the theory that, if Comcast were barred from acquiring Time Warner Cable, it would enter the New York market on its own.

      Now, I'm no antitrust lawyer, but the guy they got to comment for the story is. The whole business is fishy as hell. 29 states and in not one single location do they compete. The only reason they get away with it is because they claim that if they were banned from acquiring each other, they would compete. "Sure, we would compete!" They've admitted they're doing it on a technicality--not on simple business economics.

      You're the one with the blinders on. Again, how much do they pay you?

    6. Re:Awesome quote by Damarkus13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not profitable for two companies to build out the same area and wind up with only half the potential customers. Fixed costs are the same, spread over half the customers, meaning the prices go up. Your desire to be able to choose would mean that everyone would pay more for the same service, not less.

      This is why the last mile infrastructure should not be owned by ISPs. Or, they should be required to lease access at regulated rates.

    7. Re:Awesome quote by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, what needs to happen is a split between the company providing the cable, and the company providing the signal on that cable.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Awesome quote by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is how free markets work. When there is good competition, you have the highest available quality, and the lowest cost, the market will bear.

      If you think that there is anything like a free market in providing TV and Internet to consumers, then I have a bridge to sell you. Other countries have forced the owners of the local loops to offer (at near cost) access to alternative suppliers. This has resulted in competition and far lower prices than in the USA.

      Cable companies have received both direct and indirect subsidies to build out their infrastructure. The chance of an alternative (other than another incumbent) to that is close to zero.

      Why isn't there another company offering to sell electricity or gas to me?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Awesome quote by F34nor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're a fucking moron. There is nothing even vaguely close to free market capitalism in any part of Comcast. They are a natural monopoly operating as a cartel / oligopoly. Cable companies have a high barrier to entry, they are profoundly non-transparent, they are engaged in rent seeking behavior and they exert undue influence on their regulators. So they are basically the worst aspects of capitalism combined with the worst part of Stalinism.

      Basic question if you are the MOST HATED company in America how else could you stay in business except by anti-competitive practices? Most hated. MOST HATED! (Is there anything more yelling than caps?) Oh I know by paying fucking shills to FUD ta interwebs.

    10. Re:Awesome quote by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Being free to join Comcast is like being free to join ISIS, except that Comcast hates Americans more.

    11. Re:Awesome quote by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      Heh. I just bought a house in Charter territory. None of their customer service people have a clue about anything. At all. The day before I closed on my house, I stopped by the local office hoping I could get my cablemodem registered so I could just plug it in when I got the keys. "Sorry, we can only activate it once you're in the house. But it's just a quick phone call."

      The next day, I called from the house. "You were given incorrect information. We have to send an installer to your house to connect you." "But I have the modem and there's a Charter box on the side of the house." "You have to have one of our modems." "No, I don't." "You don't have to use our modem but you have to have it in the house. There's no charge. I can have an installer out there between 3 and 5 today." I decided to just roll with it since it was such a short wait. The guy shows up, connects my cable down at the road (apparently they physically disconnect it for some dumb reason), plugs in my modem, provisions it, and admires how quickly it locks on. I didn't bother asking him why he wasn't leaving me an extra modem.

      Over the weekend, I set up my ancient S3 Tivo which hadn't been plugged in for 2 years. Still worked so I called to add TV service and get cablecards. "Oh, you ended up at the wrong office but that will be really easy. They'll add it to your account and you can get the cablecards from the local office and set it up yourself. I'll transfer you to the right department." "I don't know what she was talking about. We have to send out an installer to do cablecards. I can have an installer out between 8 and 10 tomorrow." "Okay. Make sure he brings two cablecards because this old Tivo needs one per tuner." "No problem."

      So the guy comes out and notices my modem. "You must have been grandfathered in or something. Charter doesn't let people use their own modems any more." "I just had service turned on Friday with no issues." "Weird. They make a lot of money on the rentals." "I was told they don't charge rental fees any more." "Weird. I'll go take the band pass filter off your connection at the road." Why on earth would there be a filter? Everything's digital now. The connection is useless without an authorized receiver. So after telling him he needs to provision one card at a time (he's never seen an S3 before) and he figures out he had the wires backwards on the tuning adapter, my Tivo's eventually up and running. A few hours later, I noticed he never connected the USB cable from the tuning adapter to the Tivo. [sigh] Fortunately, the tuning adapter had been configured properly and it seems to be working after I plugged it in.

      I think it's a small miracle that I ended up with internet working on my modem and TV working on my DVR when it seems like nobody I dealt with has the slighted clue how any of their services work.

    12. Re:Awesome quote by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it is not. They aren't keeping anyone else from competing, they've just made a reasonable business decision that it would not be profitable for one of them to compete with the other in an already built area, or to try building out at the same time.

      There's no "business decision" involved in this. In most of the U.S., it's the municipal government (usually city, sometimes county) which awards exclusive cable TV service rights to a single company. Usually it was in exchange for a guarantee that lower income areas would get service (i.e. we'll give you a monopoly, but in exchange you have to provide service to 99.5% of the residences, including lower income areas). But in the last city I lived in it was a straight payola deal. The city let the cable companies bid on how much they'd pay the city per residence hooked up, and the highest bidder got the monopoly.

      In the few areas with two or more cable companies, the second cable company usually had to butter up the local politicians ("donate" to their campaigns, aka pay bribes) or even file lawsuits to get rights to provide service. Some courts have ruled that the monopoly contracts the city entered are binding. Others have ruled that the city had no business granting a monopoly, and allowed other cable companies to provide service (that happened in the city I lived in prior to the one getting payola - the existing cable company dropped their prices $10/mo across the board the moment the second cable company announced they would begin providing service).

      See, that's the dark side of Net Neutrality, and why free market types (conservatives, liberterians) generally oppose it. It's more government regulation to fix a problem caused by government regulation in the first place. If you're going to award monopolies to cable companies, then you need Net Neutrality. But if like most of the rest of the world you just let multiple cable companies compete freely with each other, you don't need Net Neutrality. Any ISP deliberately slowing down Netflix to try to get Netflix to pay them is shooting themselves in the foot - their customers will flee to other ISPs who don't slow down Netflix.

      On a meta level, you initially want competition for cable service. Yes it's wasteful to have multiple hookups, but when the technology first rolls out, nobody is really which which implementation is the best (both in terms of cost and bandwidth). This is the sort of problem markets solve really well. So you want lots of cable companies competing to provide service, so that the ones with the best technology filter up to the top. Once the technology matures though, you want to treat it like a utility. One company is awarded a monopoly for rolling out the cables. But they're prohibited from providing service themselves - instead they must sell at a fixed rate to companies which provide the service.

      This is pretty much how it was done with electricity. At first nobody was sure if AC or DC transmission would win out. So private companies implemented both types of systems (Edison backing DC, Westinghouse/Tesla backing AC). Eventually it became clear that AC was better for transmitting over long distances. Most municipalities grant the local power company a monopoly over providing and maintaining the electrical wires, but you can usually buy the electricity transmitted over those wires to your house from dozens of different energy providers. Gas and long distance telephone service works the same way. By this point I think it's pretty clear cable TV/internet is going to all end up with fiber to the home, and we need to transition it over to a utility model.

    13. Re: Awesome quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have 20+ different companies that I can buy electricity from. They compete on price, incentives, peak/off-peak hours and rates, and efficiency rebates. I have one physical connection to the grid maintained by a highly regulated monopoly utility.

      That's exactly how I wish my internet worked.

    14. Re:Awesome quote by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the worst part of Stalinism

      The worst part of Stalinism was that people who disagreed with him ended up dead. I don't like Comcast either, but this kind of hyperbole trivializes your point. Comcast is not as bad as Stalin.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Awesome quote by Aereus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about the markets where they refused to put in fiber, so the municipality did themselves, then they sued them in court to prevent them from offering fiber internet? And continued to not offer fiber, or in certain markets a fiber-like service that was exorbitantly expensive, yet not any faster than higher-end cable options.

    16. Re:Awesome quote by drumlight · · Score: 2

      I think that is a great for many networks but you can't have a different cable provider to your neighbors without lots of new/redundant infrastructure as the same RF signal is sent to a huge number of people.

    17. Re:Awesome quote by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      You can't use logic and facts with paid shills....

    18. Re:Awesome quote by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole business is fishy as hell. 29 states and in not one single location do they compete. The only reason they get away with it is because ...

      they were banned from entering the market the other company was in when cable franchises were handed out in the first place (well, in most areas, they were banned from entering even the markets they are in, but they bought the companies that had been granted the franchise for that area).
      The problem exists because our government created it. The cable monopolies did not start with the cable companies (although they worked to encourage it once it started).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    19. Re:Awesome quote by stewbee · · Score: 2
      Just wanted to comment on this portion of your comment:

      Why on earth would there be a filter? Everything's digital now.

      When they refer to 'digital' modulation, it really means then when the decoding decision is made, it comes out as a digital word. A commonly used digital modulation scheme is QAM - X (quadrature amplitude modulation, where X is some power of 2). An analog signal is encoded at some phase and amplitude. The quadrature portion of it means that you are sending two orthogonaly encoded sine waves simultaneously so that you have unambiguous phase at the receiver (basically allows for 360 degrees of phase instead of 180 degrees). The receiver then splits the signal into its amplitude and and phase components and makes a digital decision based on these values. There may be a small integration time on the receiver to improve detection performance. At the end of this time period, a decision is made.

      Contrast the above to something like AM which is considered continuous (ie not digital) time modulation. The AM signal is always demodulating the signal and not at distinct time intervals like a QAM scheme.

      Back to the comment about the filter. None of the schemes above are dependent on what the transmit frequency is; all you are doing is encoding the signal into some bandwidth. After the encoding is done, be it analog or digital encoding, it is still effectively an analog signal. This means we can use mixers and whatnot to shift the bandwidth of the encoded signal to whatever the transmit frequency is. In the case of the cable company, When he is referring to the filter, I am guessing that he is removing the bandstop filter that is blocking this signal to getting to your receiver. This filter is going to be an analog filter.

      Here is some of the math for QAM in its gory details, and here is AM.

    20. Re: Awesome quote by Jon_S · · Score: 2

      That's not true. The wire still handles the same number of bits. It is just different suppliers feeding them into the upstream end of the pipe.

      Slashdot just had a story on how this works wonders in Sweden. And if you don't want to click, I'll provide the spoiler: it's not socialist/communist. The internet suppliers are all private companies. It's only the last mile that is owned by city.

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

  2. So competition is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell sense does this make? I thought the current groupthink is that that these ISP's have monopolies. I fail to see how this helps.

    1. Re:So competition is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you bothered to RTFA, you would know that Comcast is buying up Charter's licenses in central Massachusetts. They wish to buy it for this city too. This does not add any competition.

  3. A government picking the winners and losers? by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comcast may be "a terrible company," but this is still very worrisome.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:A government picking the winners and losers? by RyoShin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to when the government gives them a local monopoly?

    2. Re:A government picking the winners and losers? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea, how dare a city have any say in what goes on within the city!

      I think the point is, it should be the consumers who get to decide, not the city government.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:A government picking the winners and losers? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

      How the Hell are the consumers supposed to decide? "You guys are terrible! I'm getting my internet service from another cable company!"

    4. Re:A government picking the winners and losers? by flopsquad · · Score: 2

      Meh. On a notional level, I agree: regulate to prevent monopolies and safety hazards (etc) but otherwise let the market decide, the more competition the better. But this little town council doesn't have the power to effect meaningful legislation or regulation of a behemoth like Comcast. They can't break up monopolies or rain down 3-letter agencies.

      They do have a choice in not granting what they consider a malevolent hellcorp the license to service their town. That's not The Government picking winners and losers, that's a small municipality saying foff to a bad actor.

      FWIW, that "picking winners and losers" line is pretty threadbare as an idiom. It should get its own heading under the Wikipedia entry for the logical fallacy "Appeal to Limbaugh."

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  4. In short... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and from the article,
      - City Manager can ignore council vote.
      - Comcast would appeal license denial and apparently would likely win it (why exactly?)

    So really, the 'peoples' voice in all this is essentially irrelevant. Why does this sound wholly, unAmerican?

    1. Re:In short... by sabri · · Score: 2

      the 'peoples' voice in all this is essentially irrelevant.

      Vote with your money.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    2. Re:In short... by mjm1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, that's the current system. Of course, since 1% of the people have 90% of the money, most likely your vote doesn't count for much.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    3. Re:In short... by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      and from the article,

        - City Manager can ignore council vote.

        - Comcast would appeal license denial and apparently would likely win it (why exactly?)

      So really, the 'peoples' voice in all this is essentially irrelevant. Why does this sound wholly, unAmerican?

      The law allows the city to block a license transfer (that's what's happening here) only if the city can make the case that the transferee (Comcast) doesn't have the capability or resources to run the system. In other words, if Charter wanted to transfer the license to Bob's Cable Hut and Bait Shop, which had total financial resources of $83 in a checking account and had only Bob as an employee, the transfer could be blocked. While people may not LIKE Comcast, there's no doubt that they are fully capable of running a cable system, and have sufficient financial resources to do so.

    4. Re:In short... by mellon · · Score: 2

      Um. No. My town, pop. 13k, had a really great town manager who retired. I know she was really great because I saw what she did. Replacing her was hard. And that's a small town. City manager is a hard job. Of course, you can get a corrupt city manager who does a bad job, but to do the job well requires a lot of skill and dedication.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. No, they didn't by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, I was about to post this to the Firehose submission in the hopes that it wouldn't be posted because this is basically a non-story. It means nothing.

    As Ars Technica's version makes clear this is absolutely meaningless: Comcast will almost certainly be allowed to take over for Charter over the city council's objections because they don't actually have the power to prevent it. It's local political theater and nothing more.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    1. Re:No, they didn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but it's nice when Americans get reminded just how powerless they really are. Maybe a few more of these and we'll start cracking down on corruption again. For example, that City Manager is almost certainly about to lose his job... and walk right into a nice gig with Comcast. There was a time in the 70s when we threw people in jail for that.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Re:Wow, wow...wait a sec! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the decision in question is about whether or not to grant them a local monopoly franchise?

    I'd love to see a shared-line law forcing the cable owners to let other ISPs sell connectivity, and when we get that, then the free market can do its business. But the issue is a straight yes or no on whether or not to give Comcast control of the local cable market, for them to abuse as they see fit. "Let the free market decide" is an entirely separate rule that would need to be passed at a higher level.

  8. Re:Walmart is used to this by gfxguy · · Score: 2

    There are differences, of course, but they balance out, I think. First, Comcast needs infrastructure across the whole city in order to deliver it's services, and I think that gives the city even more right to decide wether or not to let them do it. They'd be using city owed property and be given rights of way in order to do their business, whereas Walmart only takes a piece of land - generally already zoned for commercial area - and builds where a commercial enterprise was already desired by the city.

    So... on the outside, it seems like Walmart would have a better case for suing. At the same time, the destruction in the wake of the Walmart tornados are terrible... we had a new one open near me and within six months it looked like a dump that had been there for 30 years, not to mention all the nearby stores that were bought out and destroyed to make it possible. Largely, though, it's the clientele. Just look at the "People of Walmart" websites... the store parking lot was trashed, oil stained, garbage all over the place... the shopping carts looked like they were 10 years past their prime when they were only six months old. In six months it went from brand new, including new parking lot and everything, to being a horrible eye-sore.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  9. It's not competition. by Letophoro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Monopoly player 1 (Comcast) is attempting to purchase the monopoly franchise from monopoly player 2 (Charter). Unfortunately for them, the city council has a say in whether or not they can do so.

    1. Re:It's not competition. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Informative

      Monopoly player 1 (Comcast) is attempting to purchase the monopoly franchise from monopoly player 2 (Charter).

      Neither company has a dejure monopoly. Comcast has already purchased the license.

      Unfortunately for them, the city council has a say in whether or not they can do so.

      No, if you RTFA you'll see that the city manager has the say and can ignore the council if he wishes.

      In response, the Council voted 8-3 to urge Worcester's city manager to let the company's license request die. The deadline for the decision is Wednesday, but the manager is not bound by the vote of the Council.

      TFA also says that if the license transfer request "dies", Comcast will simply appeal the decision and will almost certainly win. The city has already granted a franchise to Charter and as long as Comcast follows the franchise agreement the city has no reason to refuse the transfer. And if the city manager tries to keep Comcast from taking over from Charter, that means there will be no cable operator (and one less broadband ISP) in that city, a fact that the residents may take great umbrage at. As in, they elect the city council that caused their TV and internet to go away.

    2. Re:It's not competition. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      The (as in one) license implies that that there is a monopoly. Dejeure or defacto is irrelevant.

      No, dejure or defacto is quite relevant when talking about whether a government is granting a monopoly or not. Defacto monopolies exist when only one company decides to compete. Dejure means only one company is ALLOWED to compete. If the franchise in that city is exclusive, then there is a dejure monopoly granted by the government. If the franchise is non-exclusive it is defacto.

      Not that it matters. The point I was making to the OP in this thread was that there is a monopoly.

      Not just that it was a monopoly but a dejure monopoly. As in:

      Monopoly player 1 (Comcast) is attempting to purchase the monopoly franchise from monopoly player 2

      If the franchise is not exclusive, then it is not a "monopoly franchise".

    3. Re:It's not competition. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Defacto monopolies exist when only one company decides to compete.

      You might want to re-read your Econ 101 textbook.

      The most important aspects of a monopoly is its ability to raise market prices (abnormal profits) and/or exclude competitors.
      Technically a company with 50% market share could do this, but for practical purposes, the threshold is considered 70%~80% of the market.

      Markets with very few competitors (oligopolies and oligopsonies) can behave like cartels, without any formal collusion, giving everyone a chance to earn monopolistic profits.

      Cable tv and utilities (power/water/gas/phones/sewage) are considered natural monopolies, but they weren't always.
      If you dig around in US history, competition for utility infrastructure was tried and it failed miserably.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  10. Hitler by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

    friend of mine posted today:

    Instead of posting a long-winded screed about how I loathe Comcast, I'll just say this: If I had two bullets and found myself in a room with Comcast, Hitler, and Osama bin Laden - I would shoot Comcast. Twice.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Hitler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hitler didn't die, he became a Super Aryan and flew away to fight stronger opponents.

    2. Re:Hitler by F34nor · · Score: 2

      Instead of bitching just buy them out. If Kickstarter would go to 5 billion we could do it there but it doesn't. Just get households to spend their $150 a month of stock instead and shut down their account in 2 years at a steady stock price we would own it be able to vote in our own board. If everyone turns off their account it will go much faster and at an increasing rate then BAM! User owned coop. Fuck regulation, it doesn't work. Fuck the FCC. Hate fuck Comcast to death.

    3. Re:Hitler by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Funny

      "...Comcast is a bad guy the US army won't do anything about."

      That's because if the US Army attacked Comcast, they could have it fired.

  11. Following in Lexington's Footsteps by bengoerz · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is on the heels of the City Council in Lexington, KY voting recently to oppose the Comcast/Time Warner merger.

    Story on Ars: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/10/kentucky-city-threatens-to-block-comcasttime-warner-cable-merger/

  12. Re:Walmart is used to this by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

    Happened where I live. Hell, at one point there was a sign up "Walmart, coming soon to this location" and then the sign came down. Turns out, a selection of the local 'elite' pushed the city council into doing *something* and now the closest walmart is over a 2 hour round trip. Much to the annoyance of just about anyone under the age of say, 25.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  13. Re:Walmart is used to this by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Happened where I live. Hell, at one point there was a sign up "Walmart, coming soon to this location" and then the sign came down. Turns out, a selection of the local 'elite' pushed the city council into doing *something* and now the closest walmart is over a 2 hour round trip. Much to the annoyance of just about anyone under the age of say, 25.

    The problem is, with WalMart on your doorstep, the surrounding economy turns into one that can only support jobs whose pay is suitable for someone under the age of 25.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  14. I live in Worcester and would welcome competition. by dmomo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Worcester, and have been a Charter customer for five years. When their Internet connection is working it's great. It's fast, and I have no complaint.

    This isn't a "bash Charter" thread, so I won't go into the details, but lets just say that the service drops much more than I can sometimes stand. When it does that , there's no telling when it will come back. The reliability of my Internet connection and their poor customer service would have prompted me to drop them by now if I could. I had Comcast before.. they've got their pros and cons too, but I wish I could at least have a choice to leave this monopoly.

    Now, this might border on gossip, but I did get chatty with a Charter service tech who visited my home. I was venting to him and cursing the monopoly Charter has in the area. He told me that Charter had a deal with the City where all schools would get free service in exchange for an exclusivity deal. So no Comcast, no FIOS. I cannot verify this, but it is an interesting anecdote given what's going on.

  15. From Texas with Love by mi_cuenta · · Score: 3

    I'm writing this comment over a Comcast provided Internet link, that is supposedly 100Mb, but never gets me more than 6mpbs down, even if downloading from the nearest Comcast hub. Being a Texan with a conservative view, I would like to say it is time to break-up Comcast, and regulate Internet service providers to encourage competition and discourage monopolies.

    --
    /.
  16. next up by silfen · · Score: 2

    Next they'll complain that there isn't enough competition in the market. Whatever Comcast may be, if you haphazardly keep companies you don't like from competing, you'll also drive away companies you might like, because no business likes that kind of uncertainty.

    1. Re:next up by dltaylor · · Score: 2

      RFTA (I know, I know), but this is NOT about adding competition, it is about Comcast taking over the current Charter franchise, giving Comcast the monopoly on cable service.

  17. As a resident of Worcester... by Gerafin · · Score: 2

    This is actually a factor in my decision to move elsewhere. I've been super happy with Charter, our current ISP, and everyone here is dreading Comcast moving in. My girlfriend was at the meeting when they voted. I guess there were representatives from Comcast, and they were total jerks. They kept giving smug, noncommittal answers, basically getting across the point that they were there as a formality, but the vote wouldn't change anything. They refused to make any binding agreements, shiftily saying they were 'working on' improving customer service. Not a good start to their relationship with our city.

  18. Re:Comcast is not as bad as Stalin by sudon't · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should use that as a tagline in their advertising: Comcast...we're not as bad as Stalin!

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped