Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Could Nix Comcast-Time Warner Merger
jriding (1076733) writes The Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger has been in the works for so long, it's starting to feel like the impending monopolistic telecom Frankenbaby was inevitable. But the Justice Department may kibosh the deal for violating antitrust laws, according to a report from Bloomberg.
Comcast already sues against competition and wins. They have little to no competition. And they lobby the government so they don't get regulated. By definition, they are an out of control monopoly. There's no reason to make them more powerful. With more money, they'd have even more political sway to corrupt the system. If anything, there should be a way to let other people compete without getting sued away.
great Band name.
This truncated headline would have been more pleasurable.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Unless sufficient bribes are paid in the 2016 election cycle
is that Politican speak for you havent donated enough free speech yet?
This seems highly unlikely given the pro-monopoly stance that the administration of Barack Hussein "Lawnchair" Obama has taken up to this point. They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009. They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power). They didn't stop telecoms from merging either. Why would they get involved in this?
This looks like window dressing more than anything. The Administration is trying to get some positive PR but eventually they will let it slide through because the free market is teh awesome!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I was really hoping this would go through since Comcast promised to offer service in all of their monopoly areas. Since this isn't going through, it doesn't look like I'm ever going to get faster than dial-up access here since Comcast doesn't have any incentive to offer service to my block. They have the monopoly here so they have no incentive to offer service. CenturyLink has the telco monopoly, but with the 50+ year-old wiring under most of the city streets, they simply can't offer DSL. I can see the second tallest building on the west coast outside of my bedroom, but I'm still stuck on dial-up. Screw the DOJ for sticking us with dial-up.
Pst. Hey. Hey buddy. Your bias is showing.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
There's DirecTV and Dish Network available in most places, and Comcast and Time Warner don't overlap, even in NYC where there's a line drawn between the two. FIOS is being offered where Verizon thinks it's possible, and AT&T U-Verse exists where it was set up.
You have to get this down to one before you can call it a monopoly.
Since they are already de facto merged into a single monopoly, denying the de jure merger would make for good PR but make no actual difference to the companies or to consumers.
First problem in the U.S. Is the dominance of a few anti-competitive companies. Second is the FCCs blunder of selling ALL of OUR best longer range spectrum to AT& T and Verizon. Wireless Solar powered small inexpensive Microcells, arranged in a mesh network, Will chage the World in a few short years. Be they ground, car, balloon, drone or low earth satellite Based. And this will change the world faster for less money than ANYTHING else! The sabre-toothed tiger can't even begin to of had the impact that the Internet will have on the world You can take online classes from all the greatest colleges, hear all of the greatest lectures ever recorded or Sit on the couch and grow sick and fat. Now that's evolution! "Ask your Doctor" if getting off your ass is right for you. Bring the Einstein's out of the slums and the jungles We sceam We scream We all scream for broadband
A rejection of the deal would be a blow to Comcast, which has sought to gain valuable cable assets in major U.S. cities including New York and Los Angeles, where Time Warner Cable is dominant. Expanding Comcast’s broadband Internet and video footprint would help it better compete with satellite, Web and telecommunications competitors that have taken hundreds of thousands of TV subscribers from the Philadelphia-based company in recent years.
Or, Comcast, you could stop treating your customers like poop you scrape off your sole and instead offer competitive and innovative services at a reasonable price. Maybe then your customers wouldn't flee from you at the first opportunity they get. Just a thought.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Comcast has a lock on setting up a separate cable system in town, but let ma bell in by linking to the phone network. It's Big Cable v. Ma Bell v,.DBS... all three work, it's a triopoly because there's three.
I made it! I'm first!
The feds are saying they need more campaign donations and more guaranteed jobs with Comcast when they quit Uncle Sam.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Based on this list, it looks like merger activity between US banks dramatically slowed since Obama took office, after going through the roof during the Bush years.
But don't let the facts get in the way of good ol' right wing populist rhetoric.
I guess we'll see. But I seem to recall a lot of similar noise about how Obama wasn't really going to protect net neutrality.
It's a great way to sound wise -- kneejerk cynicism at every single opportunity, and then just ignore all the times that you're wrong.
Slurs and vague accusations, no facts, get modded up. That's the Slashdot way!
Is it? I can't tell which bias he has. He's expressing a desire for more regulation, which is a left-leaning bias, but a disdain for Obama, even using his middle name, which a right-leaning bias. I think he's just showing that he's pissed at the corporate cock sucking, fascist pile of shit that is the US federal government.
> the free market is teh awesome!
We haven't had free market wrt ISPs in over fifteen years. Google for "seattle director's rules internet", and you'll see over thirteen million results! While a few buildings in the area have access to multi-Mbps access, most people here are still stuck on 1.5 Mbps DSL or dial-up. Twenty years ago here I had a lot of options on ISPs. I think my employees had more than twenty different ISPs at the time. Now, copper.net is the only good option that covers the entire city, and they're limited to 56 kbps. We need a free market. Cities, like Seattle, that limit ISPs are the problem. Considering that I have never had access to cable TV or Internet because of the city's rules that prevent Comcast from adding equipment, means there is no free market. Despite the fact that Comcast has the government-granted monopoly, they still can't offer service to my block because the city blocks adding larger pedestals. Comcast and CenturyLink simply can't add the equipment they need. I've had dial-up access since Tia (The Internet Adapter, came-out in 1993 and allowed SLIP access over shell accounts) via the Univ of Wash, and I haven't had faster access since then. That's twenty-two years I've suffered with dial-up access. We need competition. The cities are not allowing competition with their government-granted monopolies.
Comcast previously agreed that if this merger went through that they would offer both cable TV and cable Internet to all of their entire monopoly areas. I've lived in Seattle all of my life, but I have never had access to either. I would have really loved to have ESPN for college football, but blocking the merger means I will not have access to cable TV or ESPN for the foreseeable future.
This ruling really makes me want to move the hell out of Seattle to somewhere that has cable TV available.
They are already too powerful as it is.
I counted 48 mergers during the Clinton years versus 39 during Bush. Who let the facts get in the way? That said, the economy has been in the tank for most of the Obama administration, banks weren't doing well for a long time.
Nixing individual mergers doesn't help anything. What government should do is nix the regulations that created these monopolies in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.
maybe comcast should be non-cast and time warner should by time warning.
Right now I suspect it's only a matter of time and bribery before they deliver a de facto or fait accompli merger, regardless of what anyone says.
I have zero faith in either wing of the US political monoparty's desire to actually stop this.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Whoosh?
They didn't stop telecoms from merging either.
U.S. Moves to Block Merger Between AT&T and T-Mobile
T-Mobile Antitrust Challenge Gives AT&T Little Recourse
They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009.
US government seeks to block American-US Airways merger
U.S., Filing Suit, Moves to Block Airline Merger
They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power)
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN AND PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN OF MID-MICHIGAN ABANDON MERGER PLANS: Decision to Abandon Deal Follows Justice Department's Decision to Challenge the Acquisition
The Minimum Standards all Health Insurance Plans Sold on and Off the Exchange
Federal Insurance Office Act"
the 2010 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
This seems highly unlikely given the pro-monopoly stance that...
U.S. Moves to Block Merger of 2 Theater Ad Companies
FTC Sues To Block Sysco-US Foods Merger
U.S. Sues to Block Big Beer Merger
3M Drops Avery Dennison Unit Buyout Amid Antitrust Worry
etc
Well, shit, when an industry is consolidating of course there are going to be a bunch of mergers (of small companies into medium companies) at the beginning, then a moderate amount of mergers (of medium companies into big companies), then just a few mergers (of big companies into gigantic, dangerous ones).
So yeah, we should fully expect Clinton mergers > Bush (II) mergers > Obama mergers, just because by the time Obama got in office there were hardly any companies left to merge!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You want this merger to go through? give us even easier direct access to all customer activity in real time...
I'm not sure you grasp how much Obama has pissed off the left. He's the most Republican president since Nixon, whose healthcare and intelligence positions he seems to be channeling. The only real difference is that Nixon ended Vietnam, while Obama just spread Iraq all over the mideast and North Africa. Hell, the leader of the ultra-right French National Front, Marine le Pen, even admitted that she's to the left of Obama.
So how'd AT&T buying T-Mobile work out?
Assuming you are only talking about last-mile video service.
If you bring data service into the mix, it drops down to Cable vs. "Ma Bell". While Sattelite technically have data solutions, they no longer qualify as "broadband" under the new definition. In many locations, DSL service does not qualify as broadband either.
If you bring content into the mix, Comcast bought NBC Universal, which owns a large set of channels. They've been using that position and extorting their smaller competitors in certain markets. Time Warner also comes with a set of channels making the merged company even more powerful in contract negotiations with their competitors in markers where they overlap.
Comcast would continue to be the largest ISP in the United States, and would essentially gobble up #3. This makes them more and more powerful for lobbying, regulations and pretty much everything else.
Of course the proposed merger would make them a bigger meaner monopoly worthy of more anti-trust scrutiny.
Before Title 2, Comcast's position in this seemed pretty much indefensible by logic.
So they perhaps resorted to the other, sadly usual, methods.
Hopefully DOJ will have none of this.
Even with Title 2, really big telco was a bad idea.
Witness how much telephone service improved after the breakup in the 80's.
Seriously, these are removing competition, not improving it.
What is needed is to encourage companies to compete against each other, not just turn themselves into companies for takeovers so that the executives walk away with large golden parachutes.
WRT data comm, with comcast-TW merger, it will remove real competition. As such, if this is to be allowed to happen, we need to require that all laws that reward monopolies in data comm, to be removed. Cities should be allowed to put in their own network as long private can come in. Likewise, just because comcast-tw is in a place, does not mean that google should be prevented from coming in.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comcast voted the 2014 "Worst Company In America".
It's interesting to note that Comcast encourages employees to abuse customers, and Comcast employees interpret that as permission to abuse Comcast.
There is an answer: Fire the Comcast CEO.
BroadbandMap.gov seems to show competition that doesn't exist as a way of fooling lawmakers, so that huge abusive corporations can limit competition.
Paul Krugman has just two questions about Comcast's deal to buy Time Warner. "First, why would we even think about letting it go through?" he asks in the New York Times. "Second, when and why did we stop worrying about monopoly power?" The broadband industry is already so non-competitive that once upon a time regulators would have been trying to break up Comcast. "Letting it expand would have been unthinkable," Krugman writes. But the bipartisan antitrust consensus has been eroding for decades—and that's a big problem. There's ample evidence that "monopoly power has become a significant drag on the US economy as a whole," Krugman explains. Economists have wondered throughout the recovery why corporations weren't reinvesting their record profits. But "this is exactly what you’d expect to see if a lot of those record profits represent monopoly rents." That's because monopolies suppress innovation, as the cable companies aptly demonstrate. "Why upgrade your network when your customers have nowhere to go?" For more on why the Comcast deal specifically is so bad, click here. http://www.newser.com/story/18... Or click for Krugman's full column. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...