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

[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

[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"?

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.

[Joe_Dragon]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

Betteridge was wrong!

[ArhcAngel]

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

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.