Should Comcast Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations? (theverge.com)

The American Cable Association (ACA), an industry group that represents over 700 small and medium-sized cable operators, wants antitrust regulators to investigate whether Comcast-NBCUniversal is abusing its power to hurt smaller television and internet service providers. The group has "asked U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim to 'immediately' open an investigation into Comcast's practices," reports The Verge. Comcast is denying the claims, and while the Justice Department hasn't publicly responded, that may change soon. President Donald Trump tweeted about the ACA's claims earlier this afternoon. From the report: The ACA claims Comcast has a uniquely powerful hold on the U.S. cable industry because it controls a large chunk of "must have" programming like NBC's regional sports channels. The group argues that the Comcast "has shown a willingness to harm rivals" in the past, even while bound by a 2011 consent decree that expired earlier this year. The letter is dated November 6th but was published today, after Fox Business Networks reported on its existence last week.

Contra Trump's description, the letter doesn't seem to describe "routine" violations of antitrust law. It's primarily arguing that there's a huge risk of Comcast abusing its market position, while explaining just how much damage could result if Comcast did so. The ACA has put forward more concrete claims in the past, though -- like a 2017 complaint that Comcast was forcing smaller cable providers to bundle unwanted NBC-owned channels into TV packages, driving up their costs. The ACA's letter also raises concerns involving Hulu, suggesting that Comcast could effectively hold the service hostage. "We have heard from ACA members that they fear that ComcastNBCU may restrict, if it is not already restricting, their ability to access Hulu and make it available to their customers as an alternative to their cable offerings," reads the letter.

Comments

Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

Comcast should be investigated for antitrust violations because every single company that size and larger should be investigated for antitrust violations.

If we would just make a serious example of a few huge corporations that fuck over their customers, all of our lives would be better.

Re:Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Trumpf era. I suspect they will be punished by being forced to purchase all of their rivals.

Re:Absolutely

[fustakrakich]

If we would just quit doing business with huge corporations that fuck over their customers, all of our lives would be better.

And if we would just stop reelecting their puppets into congress, all of our lives would be better also.

I will die wondering why people disagree with that.

Re:Absolutely

[ShanghaiBill]

If we would just quit doing business with huge corporations ...

It is not so easy to "just quit doing business" with a monopoly, which is the whole point of anti-trust laws. They apply when normal markets fail.

And if we would just stop reelecting their puppets into congress ...

When people step into a voting booth, they have other concerns than just their cable company. Comcast and other telecoms are generally supported by Republicans, while content providers are generally supported by Democrats. These stances are not based on principle, but just on where the donations come from.

Switching your vote from one candidate to the other is just switching one set of problems for another.

I will die wondering why people disagree with that.

Nobody is disagreeing, because you didn't actually say anything meaningful.

Re:Absolutely

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

He's not part of the problem. You're either trolling, or horribly naive.

It's not possible to not do business with corporations that are essentially utilities. Unless you're willing to go without electricity, or phone or data.

There are no other options in most markets. Living in the dark ages just to "prove a point" isn't going to do me a shits worth of good, and it sure isn't going to change anything.

Re:Absolutely

[fustakrakich]

Fine, vote for politicians that will change the regulations. All this other bullshit is just chasing your damn tail. Until you people make at least a feeble effort, your complaints don't mean much. Chronic problems like this are self inflicted.

Re:Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

If we would just quit doing business with huge corporations that fuck over their customers, all of our lives would be better.

How do you stop doing business with a corporation that is the only provider of broadband you have access to?

The whole point of antitrust is to go after monopolies, and "monopoly" means, you can't stop doing business with them.

Re:Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

Don't know what else to tell you. If nobody can be bothered to make even the weakest effort to remove the incumbents, then, such is life.

We just had an election where a whole bunch of incumbents were removed. You've got to stay positive, fustakrakich.

Re:Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.

When there is only one provider of a certain service available in an area, that's called "monopoly".

Here's the dictionary definition:

"1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

Re: Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

Trump says investigate. Knee jerk reaction says No it a Trump plot. Stop it.

Can anyone translate this? Google couldn't do it.

Oh, and I just realized that Comcast owns MSNBC, so Trump has his own reasons to investigate.

Re:Absolutely

[Solandri]

The service monopolies Comcast has are not an anti-trust issue because they're government-granted service monopolies. You don't need anti-trust to dissolve that type of monopoly. The government simply has to rescind the monopoly they (foolishly) granted, and allow other cable companies to offer competing service.

The issue here isn't service; it's vertical integration. Comcast provides cable TV service, but also controls some of the content to be distributed over that service (they own NBC). That allows them to leverage control in one market (NBC content) to gain more share in another market (service, because you can only see certain NBC sports content if you use Comcast's service). That degrades the effectiveness of allowing alternate cable companies to provide competing service in the area. Even if other cable companies are allowed to provide service, fewer people will want to use them if their lineup doesn't include NBC because Comcast won't license to them.

The utility model you want here is what's used for gas and electric service. One company is awarded the service contract to construct and maintain the lines, but they are prohibited from offering service over those lines. Instead, they must sell access to the lines at the same rate to anyone wishing to provide gas/electricity.

Re: Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs should never have been allowed to be content creators or own content creation companies.

Re:Absolutely

[houghi]

Please define "Normal market".

When I hear people explain the capitalist market where cometition brings down prices for customers and innovate to bring prices lower, I always think that this is based where there are certain rules in place.
First is that going into that market should be easy. So I always look at it as habing bakeries in a city. Opening a bakery is not that expensive. You have an over, buy some milled grains, Add water and a lot of time and knowledge.
Now you are a baker.

This obviously will only work for smaller bakeries. So I am then thinking of bakeries in the middle ages in Europe. It is at that moment I realize that those bakeries had a guild (like a Union in the US) that protected the ones that where already there. Bit like a monopoly for bakers (and beermakers and ...) So they regulated these markets even then.

If the regulation for business goes back so far, what then is a "normal market"?

AQnd even t hen, sometimes such a thing is not so much forbidden as encouraged in some cases.

So what is a "normal market"?

Re:Absolutely

[drinkypoo]

."Fine, vote for politicians that will change the regulations. "

If you live under a rock you might not be aware that we're actually concerned most about whether this nation will go full Nazi, and whether a particular politician is hip to telecoms abusing their market positions is way, way down the list at the moment. Basic human rights are at stake. What good is internet access when you're dead or in prison?

Re:Absolutely

[fustakrakich]

we're actually concerned most about whether this nation will go full Nazi, and whether a particular politician is hip to telecoms abusing their market positions is way, way down the list at the moment.

If it does go full Nazi, it is for the same reasons, the voters did it. Unless they turn their backs, the threat is very real. But everybody here is chasing ghosts to avoid seeing the real monster.

Re:Absolutely

[drinkypoo]

If it does go full Nazi, it is for the same reasons, the voters did it.

I guess you haven't heard of a thing called gerrymandering, eh? Or, for that matter, the electoral college? How about vote tampering, heard of that? Welcome to reality, it's a more complicated place than you imagine.

Re:Absolutely

[fustakrakich]

The voters are letting it happen, at the very least. And the procedure for eliminating the electoral college is well documented. And vote tampering will be an issue until the voters actively demand an accountable system. Everything you describe is self inflicted. The voters have to be as active as paid lobbyists, and they can show their power by the simple act of voting out the incumbent party. But over 96% choose the GOP/DNC. What am I supposed to say? The Russians did it?

Re:Absolutely

[Obfuscant]

Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.

Don't be an asshole yourself. I used my words, quote correctly. "Monopoly" does not mean "can't stop doing business with them". It never has. It never will. It means there is a sole source for something. Whether you actually buy whatever that is or not is irrelevant.

Want an example? There is a monopoly here for residential natural gas service. Fact. I don't have to buy from them, and were I to be a current customer I could easily stop buying from them. There is also a monopoly for wired telephone service. I do currently buy from them, but if I wanted to I could easily stop buying from them.

In other words, I do not think that word means what you think it does. I said it in a semi-humorous way, attempting to make a well-known reference to "The Princess Bride", but apparently that went over your, and other people's, head.

You even looked the word up, but in your haste to be personally insulting you didn't bother to read the definition. Show me in the definition of "monopoly" where it says anything about not being able to stop buying from them. What it does mean is that you can't buy it from someone else, but "stop buying" and "buy from someone else" are two, pretty clearly different things.

Re:Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

You even looked the word up, but in your haste to be personally insulting you didn't bother to read the definition. Show me in the definition of "monopoly" where it says anything about not being able to stop buying from them. What it does mean is that you can't buy it from someone else, but "stop buying" and "buy from someone else" are two, pretty clearly different things.

So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand corrected.

But in many places in the United States, Comcast is the very definition of a monopoly. Is that not true? If they're the only supplier of broadband, how the everloving fuck is that not a monopoly?

Re: Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

By historical standards, the Dims underperformed by a pretty significant margin.

That is so not true. By historical standards, the president's party loses 25 seats. The Democrats are projected to win 35-39 seats. That's bigger than the wave election of 2006. When you add in the governors' races, you get a pretty huge realignment. I mean, fucking Kansas went blue for chirssake. That's a goddamn wave.

Re: Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

So what? Since when do you have a right to broadband? Show us the amendment.

Who said anything about rights? We're talking about monopolies.

Decades ago, AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, but that didn't mean you have some kind of a "right" to a telephone.

Maybe you need to take a minute and learn a little bit about what a monopoly means:

https://www.quora.com/What-are...

Re: Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

The average number of seats lost by a sitting president's party in midterms going back to 1862 is 38 seats.

You're a little off. The number is 37, and that's only for unpopular presidents.

Since we're looking at an eventual swing of 39 or so, I don't see how you can call that "underperforming". It's just above average for an unpopular president, and Trump is historically unpopular.over the course of his first two years.

What did you call it when Obama lost 63 seats in 2010? You're delusional.

I bet you didn't know that after the 2010 election the Democrats still held a commanding lead in the Senate. Bigger, in fact, than any lead won in a Republican "wave".

Here are the actual numbers, not the Breitbart numbers:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/2...

Re:Absolutely

[Obfuscant]

So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand corrected.

Stop being an asshole. I corrected you on a definition of "monopoly". Get over it.

But in many places in the United States, Comcast is the very definition of a monopoly. Is that not true?

In many places, Comcast is the very definition of "defacto monopoly" for "cable-delivered video services." That doesn't mean you can't stop buying from them. You can easily stop. In fact, the huge number of "cord cutters" proves this to be true.

They are NOT the definition of a "video delivery service" or "ISP" monopoly, however. There are too many of both for anyone to claim Comcast has a monopoly in either.

If they're the only supplier of broadband,

They are not. I've already pointed out as an example, for just my small city, 8 different broadband providers, and I'm using two of them on a regular basis. Comcast isn't even the cheaper of the two. You just have to look, and be open to seeing something that conflicts with the meme that "evil Comcast is evil monopoly...".

how the everloving fuck is that not a monopoly?

Profanity doesn't make you look smarter. I never said they weren't a monopoly of some kind for cable video services. In fact, I've been pretty clear in saying they are. They are NOT a monopoly as an ISP, nor are they a monopoly for video content delivery.

What I replied to is YOUR DEFINITION of monopoly, which was absurd. By YOUR DEFINITION they are NOT a monopoly, because you can, indeed, stop buying services from them quite easily. They may balk at letting you go, but when you stop paying them they'll stop providing service. And getting your local franchise authority in the loop will make it happen faster. But you can stop buying from them, which according to the definition you provided earlier, means they are not a monopoly.

Do you want them to be a monopoly or not?

Re: Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

I understand perfectly what a monopoly is. What I don't understand is why you think you should be entitled to interfere with them.

Because, young man, it's the law, and it's been the law of land since the 1890s, and Congress has made those laws even stronger since then. These are not regulations, they are actual US Code.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Re:Absolutely

[PopeRatzo]

They are not. I've already pointed out as an example, for just my small city, 8 different broadband providers, and I'm using two of them on a regular basis.

Thank you for sharing that anecdote.

But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.

https://www.extremetech.com/in...

So let's stipulate the actual legal definition of monopoly: Now do you want to tell us how the fuck that's not a monopoly?

Re:Absolutely

[Obfuscant]

The service monopolies Comcast has are not an anti-trust issue because they're government-granted service monopolies. You don't need anti-trust to dissolve that type of monopoly. The government simply has to rescind the monopoly they (foolishly) granted, and allow other cable companies to offer competing service.

This very thing was enacted in federal law more than 25 years ago. That's how long exclusive franchises (the method of implementing "government-granted monopolies") have been illegal.

Notice the inrush of competition? No? Well, maybe that's not because there is some "government-granted monopoly" at work, but simple economic forces. You can't force companies to do business in your city. If they don't think they can make a profit, they won't bother trying.

Re:Absolutely

[Obfuscant]

But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.

You have to actually read that article to see that it refers to wired broadband, and that it comes from a very very biased source. It's odd how every time someone actually provides specific location data it turns out there are a lot of providers. You just have to look. About a year ago there was a big hoopla about a town in Colorado that implemented municipal broadband because Comcast was the only option. Except, if you looked, you could find 11 different ISPs serving that town.

In other words, you dismiss my anecdotal evidence, but rely heavily on other people's because it fits your viewpoint.

So let's stipulate the actual legal definition of monopoly: Now do you want to tell us how the fuck that's not a monopoly?

More profanity posing as rational argument. And I'll say it again: I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT COMCAST IS NOT A MONOPOLY IN MANY PLACES IN THE COUNTRY. Go back one sentence and read that again. Look up the words you don't understand. They just aren't a dejure monopoly, they are a defacto one. And they aren't a monopoly of ANY kind for ISP or video content delivery services. When you can find half a dozen other providers, then the one you hate really isn't a monopoly, no matter how much you hate them.

This is getting tiresome. You want to debate whether Comcast is some kind of monopoly, and the only point I wanted to make is that Comcast is NOT a monopoly of any kind using your "can't stop buying from them" definition. I've never said they weren't a monopoly at some things, but you can't seem to see those words.

Re: Absolutely

[drinkypoo]

I understand perfectly what a monopoly is. What I don't understand is why you think you should be entitled to interfere with them.

If you actually understood perfectly what they were, then you would also understand why we are entitled to interfere with them. Those monopolies are corporations. Corporations are legal fictions created by the government, ostensibly for the benefit of The People. (And the government is of The People). It's not in the benefit of The People to permit these legal fictions to engage in anticompetitive practices. QED, it is just for The People to interfere in the actions of the Corporation which is only permitted to exist at the sufferance of The People.

also for the forced hardware rent as well.

[Joe_Dragon]

also for the forced hardware rent as well.

Re:also for the forced hardware rent as well.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You are not forced to rent their hardware. They are required by law to give you* a CableCard decoder for a third party set-top, and you can buy like a billion different modems off the shelf in many stores.

*It may be a $5/mo rental. But the point is use whatever hardware you want for non-decrypting part.

Re:also for the forced hardware rent as well.

[Joe_Dragon]

with comcast business internet static ip you must rent there hardware on top of the static ip fee.

Re: also for the forced hardware rent as well.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Sounds like you need to escalate up the Customer Service chain...

Investigated? Investigated!?

[Narcocide]

You've got to be kidding me. Their stated business plan is establishing a global communications monopoly and then metering and throttling the everliving shit out of it's traffic. They were flagrantly in violation of net neutrality laws for years before they got repealed. They still practice traffic shaping that has nothing to do with improving service quality for anyone, and when you call to complain about it they insinuate that anyone using an encrypted connection for something other than to log into Facebook is a pirate. What is to investigate here? Seriously?

I use comcast as my ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is because my only other choice is CenturyLink, and they are absolutely awful.

I understand that Comcast makes Hitler look like a nice guy, but, CenturyLink has cheated me, broken promises to me, and pissed me off. Comcast hasn't done as much of that to me personally, yet.

I hate them both, and I have to put up with them because there is too little competition in this domain. And THAT is because those bastards lobby to prevent local communities from standing up their own ISPs.

As far as I am concerned, they don't need to be investigated. They are already plainly guilty and should just be punished. Mainly by being broken-up and forced to compete.

Re: I use comcast as my ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP. Even an all fiber one.

Re:I use comcast as my ISP

[No Longer an AC]

My anecdotal experience is the opposite. CenturyLink works reasonably well for me while Comcast was horrible

I could write a huge wall of text detailing my complaints about Comcast, but I can summarize it as follows:

I'd rather have 75% of the promised speed 95% of the time and only goes out once a year (CenturyLink) than 20% of the promised speed 33% of the time that goes out once a month. Those numbers are guesses, but should show the difference in my personal experiences with the 2.

I hate Comcast so much if you were passing out torches and pitchforks I'd join in, so I'm disappointed this lawsuit seems mostly to be about potential abuse rather than something more....substantial?

CLink and Comcast both have similarly horrible customer service and charge similarly exorbitant prices, but I don't have to talk to CLink as much.

The only other options are satellite, mobile or waiting several years for municipal fiber to be built out which might be faster than waiting on hold with Comcast.

Re: I use comcast as my ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

This highlights the bigger problem. There isn't actually a free market, which is the main reason why monopolies and oligopolies form in the first place.

Once a corrupt player can become big enough, they'll bribe/coerce their way to getting the rules changed in ways that favor them and punish or prevent competition. Regulations are great for that. It makes it appear to the people that they're being reigned in, but in reality, it's not much more than a minor inconvenience to them as a the big fish, but overwhelmingly cost prohibitive to any newcomer to the market. Regulations can be a solid investment to the corrupt monopolist.

Re: I use comcast as my ISP

[Obfuscant]

No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP.

Name one community that thinks it has the right to franchise ISPs, much less grant exclusive franchises. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just one.

I'll help you out. "Comcast" is not the answer. Franchises for Comcast are for the cable TV operation, not ISP, and they do not have exclusive franchises anywhere. Tell me any community that banned Earthlink or AOL or any other ISP from their area because they gave an exclusive franchise to someone else.

I'll also point out that franchising is not accomplished via zoning laws. A "zoning law" that specified one ISP would be called a "bill of attainder" and is unconstitutional.

Of course not

[bobstreo]

Why waste the time and money to investigate.

They should be reduced to a series of companies that don't create content, and are only allowed to exist in one state, never permitted to be re-united aka AT&T

If that isn't enough, start breaking up the companies by city.

Re:Of course not

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Breaking it up into geographic monopolies isn't any better. Better still that they, Verizon Fiber, etc. are forced to sell to all markets.

Wrong entity

[Anonymous Coward]

Should our government be investigated for Anti-Trust Violations. Think about it!

Re: Wrong entity

[jd]

No, not really.

Prompted by Disney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this prompted by Disney? Comcast may have a lot of power, but one wonders if there would be anyone left to challenge Disney's onward march in the same direction if Comcast is handled poorly.

Handle it right, and perhaps Disney is next to fall. Handle it wrong, and Disney wins it all.

Re:Prompted by Disney?

[desdinova 216]

there is a slight difference. Disney doesn't offer connection services like Comcast does.

In related news ...

[fahrbot-bot]

Comcast said they were happy to cooperate and that the US Attorney should simply contact Comcast Customer Support for the information they need.

Duh.

[wonkavader]

Yes.

Bad Customer Service

[kenwd0elq]

Want to break up Comcast? I certainly do. Regulators should hammer the company for every single complaint for bad customer service.. Since Comcast has the worst customer service in the country. Any company that performs THAT badly needs to be broken up.

Re:Bad Customer Service

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Since Comcast has the worst customer service in the country

Not by a long shot. ISPs in general are only like 4 or 5 on the annual lists.

Betteridge was wrong!

[ArhcAngel]

If ever a headline with a question mark needed a yes...it's this one!

Where I lived in Virginia

[jd]

Comcast had a deal with the other providers - none of them would offer service in rival territiry, or if they did, they'd accidentally deliver something different. This is direct from the chief engineer at CenturyLink in that area

The Ars Technica article on the ISP whose lines were illegally cut by Comcast would seem to confirm territorial claims maintained by violence and protection rackets.

Definitely, Comcast should be investigated, as should all the major ISPs. To the extent that illegal monopolies exist over territory, or other criminal acts under RICO or other relevant legislation are taking place, the guilty should be in court for those acts.

The guilty should not become innocent by right of cash. Ever. Whatever side they're on in any debate. A side does not make you innocent. Nor does any cause, or any political philosophy.

So you're saying

[jd]

That the tribe in power is de-facto innocent? That might makes right? That your side justifies your crimes?

No?

Then don't set an order and prosecute all the guilty together. Whatever their side, whatever their agenda.

But you're opposed to that, you don't want your side prosecuted at all. Get out of jail free cards for all. And you don't care if the other side hasn't committed an offence, you want them harassed anyway.

Which means it's not the criminality that bothers you, but the politics. You can't stand it when those who think differently don't fail the way you think they should.

If they won't comply with your beliefs, dammit you'll make them.

Abandon ISPs

[jd]

The Internet is a natural monopoly and ISPs complain they can't serve rural areas.

Transfer control to each State.

"Must have"?

[sjbe]

The ACA claims Comcast has a uniquely powerful hold on the U.S. cable industry because it controls a large chunk of "must have" programming like NBC's regional sports channels.

"Must have"? Seriously? I am heavily involved in sports (coaching) but they are the very definition of optional. Yeah I know people get worked up if they cannot share the latest victories of their local sports franchise but so what? If they won't give me access to watch my sport of choice on terms I'm willing to live with then I have other things I can do with my life. If you go into withdrawal because you cannot see a basketball game live I don't have a lot of sympathy.

The problem I have with companies like Comcast is that I think that companies that sell content should be prohibited from owning the wires that deliver the content. You can have one or the other but not both. Otherwise we have a built in conflict of interest where the company that owns the pipes has an incentive to prioritize their content over anyone elses. (this is the root of the whole net neutrality fight) That wouldn't be a problem if there was adequate competition among companies delivering services to my house but in much of the country you have just one or if you are lucky two options. (Comcast is the only serious option for a land line to my house for example) I have wireless options but those aren't ideal either for a variety of reasons slashdot users are adequately familiar with.

The entire industry needs investigating.

[sabbede]

Cable companies agree not compete with each other. That's an illegal cartel.

Break AT&T up again in the process. That'd be doing it a favor - right now it's a hopelessly broken mess. Too big to function.

Whole indestry doing the same

[Stan92057]

Why just Comcast? RCN does the very same thing i would gather the whole industry hijacks the so called must have channels to force people to higher tear subscriptions. me having no children i am not hijacked to get kids channels like Disney who BTW will be creating their own netflix type subscription channel as a lot of other are doing as well..because of the mas exodus from cable tv subscriptions. Its an industry problem not just Comcast, but they are the top dog so what they do the rest follow like dogs.

Re:Investigated? Investigated!?

[geek]

Net neutrality was never a law. It was an executive order. Laws are passed by congress. You can violate an executive order and exactly shit will happen to you, ever.

That depends

[rolias]

Do you want to enforce the law?