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.

Comments

In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast and Charter agree to continue price fixing

Where is the FTC???

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this blatant anti-competitive behavior by two near monopolies???

Re:Where is the FTC???

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's great the the rightists have no such words! We're so lucky...

Re:Where is the FTC???

[GameboyRMH]

"Near monopolies" is a fair term considering the tiny number of enormous companies that provide telecoms service in the US, and the fact that actual regional monopolies are the norm for home Internet service.

I'm surprised the companies had the balls to make this deal public though. This is the sort of deal that shouldn't be spoken of outside of the smoke-filled rooms where they're made. I guess these megacorps feel like they can get away with anything with Trump in charge.

Re:Where is the FTC???

[Dog-Cow]

Monopolies are not anti-free market. They are the natural result of a free market. "Free" in this context means free of regulation and oversight. In such an environment, monopolies are practically inevitable.

And anti-consumer continues

[markdavis]

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.

How is this not illegal?

[rsilvergun]

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"