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???

[markdavis]

>"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.

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.

Re:Where is the FTC???

[markdavis]

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.

Doesnt Matter they control the GOV

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

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.

So...fuck the customer?

[grasshoppa]

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.

See, the Market Works!

[Fire_Wraith]

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

Re:So? Free market is a free market

[markdavis]

>"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.

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"

Re:How is this not illegal?

[markdavis]

>"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...

Re:How is this not illegal?

[interkin3tic]

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.

True but they've never been this brazen

[rsilvergun]

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.