Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast and Charter Agree Not To Compete Against Each Other In Wireless (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the combined-forces dept.

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.

37 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comcast and Charter agree to continue price fixing

  2. We will just agree by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    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."
  3. Where is the FTC??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Where is the FTC??? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Where is the FTC??? by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"It would have been about four months back."

      No it wouldn't have. Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.

      Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president.

    3. Re:Where is the FTC??? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Where is the FTC??? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Maybe in a few more decades it'll be a vape-filled room, but for now it's still a smoke-filled room full of old white dudes...unless maybe certain Silicon Valley megacorps are involved :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Where is the FTC??? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

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

      Yes.

      But the FTC does not currently have authority over Internet service, as part of the "hands off the Internet" legislation intended to keep regulation and taxation from stifling it.

      I have been arguing for years that the FTC, rather than the FCC, is the right agency for handling things like Network Neutrality, because the pathologies we see are almost entirely the result of either monopolistic or anticompetitive behavior, and that (if it is to be regulated at all) the right way to do it is to pass legislation to designate the FTC as the responsible agency.

      In fact, I wrote a paper about it a few years ago. And I got an opportunity, a few days after Trump's election, to get a copy of it into the hands of an FTC official who was tasked with asking techies for suggestions on what the commission could do to improve the regulatory environment for tech. (I have no idea whether anything came of this, but I have daydreams about it becoming a classic among the transition teams. B-) )

      You will note that the Trump administration is now talking about moving Network Neutrality regulation from the FCC to the FTC. (In fact, there was a slashdot article a couple days ago, with most posters flaming them for the "remove it from the FCC" part of such a piece of legislation.)

      Yes, it could be a gift to the Internet cartels if they just did the "remove it from the FCC" part. Something akin to how California's cost-saving move to de-instutionalize the mentally handicapped" (or whatever phrase was politically correct at the time) and provide them with outpatient services led to an explosion of mentally challenged homeless when only the first half was implemented. But the FCC isn't really well set up to handle a competitive problem, and their approach of trying to apply a technical solution is an example of making a simple problem more complex rather than fixing it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    6. Re:Where is the FTC??? by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, both CEOs need to be locked in jail for attempting to violate the public's trust.

      Fining the corporations don't work. The actual people at the top need to be held accountable.

    7. Re:Where is the FTC??? by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      President's don't pass laws. Don't feel bad for not understanding though... Trump didn't get it either.

    8. Re:Where is the FTC??? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Where is the FTC??? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Judging from what I've seen in the nearly 4 decades I've been around, you and your neighbor don't have monopolies on ill-kempt property.

    10. Re:Where is the FTC??? by gtall · · Score: 1

      So what if Sherman was passed under a Republican president. The Republicans elected Trump, want to bet whether his administration would write a new one and push it through Congress? Would Trump even read it? Can he read?

    11. Re:Where is the FTC??? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"President's don't pass laws. Don't feel bad for not understanding though."

      That's why I said "passed under" and not "passed by". But don't feel bad for not understanding English.

    12. Re:Where is the FTC??? by markdavis · · Score: 2

      They are anti-free market because they destroy choice and freedom for new companies to compete in the market. Yes, they are inevitable because we don't have the theoretical "perfect consumer" (an economics term), which is why anti-trust measures are necessary. So I guess it is which "freedom" that matters- the consumer or the company.

    13. Re:Where is the FTC??? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Duh?
      are you suprised?
      "Free Market" is just another term to control the "semi" smart,,, oh but Free market will save us!!! ROFL

    14. Re:Where is the FTC??? by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      To the ultra right everyone looks like a leftist. :-)

    15. Re:Where is the FTC??? by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      The President is irrelevant as to what laws are passed. Now if you said he didn't veto a bill or his veto was overruled, then it would have been a relevant comment. My English is fine.

    16. Re:Where is the FTC??? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"The President is irrelevant as to what laws are passed. Now if you said he didn't veto a bill or his veto was overruled, then it would have been a relevant comment."

      The fact that it was passed under a President means it wasn't vetoed. And that in turn means the President signed it into law (and did participate/approve in the process by not vetoing). So you are wrong, the President certainly is very relevant as to what laws are passed, because they cannot be passed if they are vetoed (unless overridden by huge majority, which wasn't necessary).

  4. So? Free market is a free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:So? Free market is a free market by markdavis · · Score: 2

      >"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."

      I don't know about you, but I *need* internet service just like I need electricity, water, sewer, and phone services.

    2. Re:So? Free market is a free market by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You are roman_mir AICMFP.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. Doesnt Matter they control the GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  6. And anti-consumer continues by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. So...fuck the customer? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    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!
  8. See, the Market Works! by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  9. How is this not illegal? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:How is this not illegal? by markdavis · · Score: 3

      >"Answer: there's a Republican in the Whitehouse. Seriously, elections have consequences

      Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.. Funny how so many people want to blame all these long-standing issues on recent politics.

      Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president...

    2. Re:How is this not illegal? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cable monopolies have been around for eons and they were just as strong under the Dems and would have retained that strength under Hillary.

      Wheeler would have stayed on as head for at least a bit. Net neutrality was protected under Obama and nearly immediately killed under GOP rule. Do you have a reason to suggest Hillary would have been the same aside from an insistence that democrats must be as bad as republicans despite evidence to the contrary?

      Monopolies are anti-free market. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

      In theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.

      In reality, "free market" should join santa claus on the list of things adults realize aren't real.

      Oh, by the way, the Sherman Antitust Act was passed under a Republican president...

      Different definition of "republican party" as you should know from high school.

    3. Re:How is this not illegal? by will_die · · Score: 1

      It is not illegal because the summary and main links are fake news.
      This is not an agreement to not complete it is an agreement to work together on technologies and standards in the areas of creating common operating platforms; technical standards development and harmonization; device forward and reverse logistics; and emerging wireless technology platforms.
      So get over your hate and look at reality.

    4. Re:How is this not illegal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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"

      No, that's the only thing it ever means when a career politician claims that they are against excessive regulation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. And you wonder why we trust the FCC how? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    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! --
  11. True but they've never been this brazen by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
  12. This just means... by Alan+Evans · · Score: 1

    ...they have agreed on another way to fuck their customers over.

  13. Attention isn't always good.. by sqorbit · · Score: 1

    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
  14. cock-market gobbling by Immerial · · Score: 1

    ...is what I read. My mind is in the gutter this morning. ;)

  15. If Comcast buys T-Mobile by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Can we nuke Comcast?