Slashdot Mirror
Comcast and Charter Agree Not To Compete Against Each Other In Wireless (arstechnica.com)
Comcast and Charter announced an agreement to cooperate in their plans to sell mobile phone service, an agreement that also forbids each company from making wireless mergers and acquisitions without the other's consent for one year. "That agreement could stoke Wall Street speculation among investors and analysts that the two largest U.S. cable companies together could decide to make a play for a carrier like T-Mobile U.S. Inc. or Sprint Corp.," wrote The Wall Street Journal. Ars Technica reports: The deal could violate antitrust law, said Harold Feld, an attorney and senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. "One of the basic ideas of antitrust law is that when companies that compete with each other, or could compete with each other, make an explicit agreement to not compete with each other, that violates the antitrust laws," Feld told Ars today. "Agreeing to coordinate with each other to avoid competition is expressly a violation of the antitrust laws." But that doesn't mean Comcast and Charter won't be able to follow through with their plan. It's impossible to say with absolute certainty whether any specific agreement violates antitrust law, and "both Comcast and Charter have very good lawyers," Feld said. Comcast and Charter have a combined 47 million internet subscribers, dominating the US market for high-speed broadband, but they do not compete against each other in any city or town. The Comcast/Charter cooperation agreement fits in nicely with Comcast's mobile plans, because the company intends to sell smartphone data plans only to customers who also have Comcast home Internet service. Comcast's mobile service is scheduled to be available by the end of June, while Charter has said it intends to offer similar service in 2018.
Comcast and Charter agree to continue price fixing
We will just agree to suck in our respective markets!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Isn't this blatant anti-competitive behavior by two near monopolies???
If this is what works best for them and their shareholders, then it is what works best for customers. After all, it's not like you NEED to use their services. If people didn't like this and en masse cancelled their plans, then they would change their behaviour.
It's the free market, and democracy exists. Just as majorities are needed to pass a law, majorities are needed to steer corporate behaviour.
Doesn't anyone remember the Concast / Time Warner Collusion from about 10 or so years ago ... they TRADED infrastructure in order to not compete and agreed to no encroach on each others territory?
Almost all cable companies are monopolies in their respective areas... which is already extremely anti-competitive. Don't like your cable company's pricing, service, or policies? Well too F***ing bad! Your choice is pretty much zip (most areas don't have any other reasonable broadband option, and we are not just talking rural).
The last thing on earth consumers want or need is more "bundling" and "introductory pricing" and cross-market gobbling.
Remember when companies would at least pretend to care about the customer?
Now they're focused on giving good customer service to competitors over their customers.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
This is why we don't need any sort of oversight or Network Neutrality - we can clearly trust these companies to have our best interests at heart, because they're going to compete with each other in a robust marketplace!
/s
Answer: there's a Republican in the Whitehouse. Seriously, elections have consequences. Especially when you give power to a party whose Central plank is small government and minimal regulations. For the last time: That doesn't mean "only the regulations I don't like"
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Capitalism. The exact opposite of the White House Russian operatives single carrier model.
Ask yourself, who is a capitalist?
And who is a Russian operative Mercantalist that hates Capitalism?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
this is colluding right out in the open. They outright announced it. This is the kind of thing you don't normally talk about. You'd expect regulators to come down like a ton of bricks on this stuff.
No, this is very much a Republican issue. The Sherman Anti-Trust act was passed in 1890 before the party realignments changed who was right and who was left in the 30s. And monopolies are very free market depending on your philosophy. A truly free market is one free from government interference where only the strong survive. But even without that philosophy the Republican party has been championing less and less regulation for 40+ years. If you're going to push for less regulation you're going to get it. My point is you don't get to pick and choose when you've made "less regulation" a fundamental part of your party's platform.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
made by big SV companies was an obvious antitrust violation, but a non-compete agreement signed by the two biggest CATV companies regarding mobile phone services is not?
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
...they have agreed on another way to fuck their customers over.
These companies have been strong arming towns and cities all across the US. They are obviously bad for their consumers' bottom line and have been all out preventing competition for far too long now. They need to be broken up ASAP.
Have a little pity for Republican voters, they are getting the consequences.
e.g. Healthcare reform: "Vote Republican and we'll cut health care costs caused by big government" was the claim.....Instead premiums for older (=REPUBLICAN) voters are to go up 5 times, they are to lose cancer cover, and will get no insurance for some pre-existing conditions. These are all things hitting old people far far more than young, and older voters are far more Republican than younger ones. The only people who benefit are millionaires who could cover the worst of any healthcare bill.
So you're older, you have diebetes, maybe overweight, your insurance bill goes up 5x and you lose your cancer cover. Consequences.
Break-em up!
They might be really hurting themselves here. Continuing deals like this will make regulation pro government officials go on a rampage. The problem is with our current leadership this is probably seen as wonderful news. If they continue to act like the old phone companies, the government is going to step in eventually.
Sent from my TARDIS
...is what I read. My mind is in the gutter this morning. ;)
Can we nuke Comcast?
This is a clear and obvious violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Where is the FTC? Where is the DoJ? Hello?
I'm a conservative, and I am damn sick and tired of governments who call themselves Republicans failing to obey the law, failing to obey the Constitution, and failing to implement the conservative philosophy in government.
It's great to be "pro-business", but you cannot turn a blind eye to corporate criminal activity. Corporations break the law when they think they can get away with it. Just look at Microsoft. The court found Microsoft guilty and some of us are still waiting for Bill, Paul, and Steve to begin their jail sentences (Yeah, ok, it was a civil trial so they were found "liable", not "guilty", but my point is still valid).
We NEED the government to enforce the law, which is one of the most important functions they are supposed to provide. It doesn't matter if the criminals are private citizens or registered corporations. WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT? WHERE IS ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW?
By the way, when the government rubber-stamps a corporate merger where both companies are competitors providing goods or services in the same industry (Shell and Texaco, anyone?), the government itself is violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by consciously eliminating competitors from the marketplace. Helping consolidate a capitalist marketplace into an oligopoly or an outright monopoly is not providing a fair and open free marketplace. Therefore, the government fails us again. Where is enforcement of the law, especially when the government is the perpetrator? Hello?