I think it would be fair for regulators to approve this merger if local municipalities and conpanies were afforded the same right to provide and compete with these titans
That would be a major concession. Comcast-TWC would need to immediately cease all lobbying efforts to prevent municipal broadband. Furthermore, they would be required to lobby for municipal broadband whenever there was a push against it (lest they try to wiggle out by just funding opponents while not lobbying directly themselves).
[Note: I still don't think this would be a large enough concession to make the merger a net benefit to the public though.]
It's not actually possible to force someone to lobby for something. How could you be sure they were really trying? They could just hire really bad lobbyists or run really bad advertising, for instance.
Essentially, as part of the Master Settlement Agreement, the government just said, "You have to put X dollars into this independent anti-smoking group."
This is slightly different because it's just a public campaign:
TheTruth.com uses web, print and television promote
its message.
Lobbying efforts are different. How do you know that Comcast-TWC wouldn't just put more funding into a group that opposed municipal broadband than they put into the required pro-muni broadband group?
Oh, I know it's not air-tight. I say it's a major concession because large ISPs seem to see municipal broadband as a huge wrench in their plans, so taking away their ability to fight it would not just be some sort of 'lip service' concession that they don't really care about.
As for forcing them to stop + lobby for it? You might even run into some Supreme Court issues, and they might challenge it on free speech grounds. It would be an uphill battle for something that might not even be enforceable (which is why I also said that it's not enough of a concession to make the merger a net public gain).
I don't think it would be "fair". (Comcast business practices are simply wrong and do not deserve a pass. Nor do past de facto geographical non-compete agreements warrant rewarding them with further expansion.)
Regardless, if the FCC is nonetheless going to act as errand boy in ramming this down our throats, it could at least be somewhat mitigated by a well-structured ruling that municipal et al. broadband is legal, permitted, and shall not be impeded including and especially at the state and local level.
If we can't get these corporate behemoths to actually compete against each other, then let others step in to provide the competition. There seem to be plenty of volunteers eager to do so.
Yes, massive pension, mutual and investments funds voted via proxy on behalf of all shareholders of their funds. Yeah sure, shareholders overwhelmingly voted for it... I don't think that means what you think that means.
All I can say is No. If this is allowed to go forth without major concessions this is a travesty. My TWC is bad enough but Comcast is a whole new magnitude of hurt. I expect that I will be unable to access anything on the internet any more but what they want me to see and pay for. This type of merger is exactly why antitrust needs to exist.
I've moved around a lot and I've had both TWC and Comcast in several locations each. I actually found the service from Comcast to be far better than TWC. I mean, they're a loathsome company, but the actual quality of the service was quite good.
That said, I think this merger would be a terrible thing for all cable consumers in the US.
I have no experience with TWC, but moved from Cox to Comcast territory about 4 years ago and would put the quality of their service at about equal. Customer service is no comparison however. Cox wins that by a wide margin.
Agreed. Keep thinking that the concessions should include:
1. Disposition of all content assets (e.g. NBCU).
2. Permanent net neutrality with verification + penalty mechanisms.
While the merger as proposed wouldn't reduce competition for end users, it does give them more leverage in negotiations with content companies (e.g. cable broadcasters). That said, we need a much better regulatory regime for the ISP industry. A regime based on sound economic analysis that takes into consideration the utility nature of the business and the national reliance on broadband for the economic well-being of citizens, small businesses and startups... particularly those that are economically disadvantaged.
I would be flabbergasted if the regulators looked at the rest of the world and decided to allow this sale. If anything, the whole debacle should prompt immediate action to drastically increase the competitiveness of that market.
Anything less, and people need to start talking about jail time because someone is on the take.
i suspect it will be allowed to go-ahead, the government at all levels seems to like to support the telecommunication monopolies. Municipal and community internet alternatives, or competition, seem to be inhibited by regulation and bureaucracy. There is such a barrier of entry and regulation on cable provisioning that it's hard to see how anyone can compete, and if they do, it's got to be someone the size of Google who have their own agenda.
I would never imagine that happened in Europe. Free market works if there is competition, but monopolies either natural or artificial need regulations to prevent from abusing their powers.
Personal story: I live in SF Bay Area and got Comcast. Net was working really slow and got outages few times each week. To get any support I had to wait 40m to hear basic advice like restarting router.
Switched to smaller provider Sonic.net. Everything works, just once got some problem (in last 3 months). My call was immediately connected to competent human which diagnosed the problem in less than 3m. Next day they proactively call to improve one more thing.
Contenders usually got so much more will to do things right than monopolies.
As a frequent employee in the past (I've worked there multiple times and in multiple positions), I'll second that it's a really great company (and frequently gets press for being on the forefront of privacy rights for it's users).
Unfortunately, when I bought my house, it was a new development and while it was pre-wired for Comcast and AT&T, those are the only options.
Living in the east bay (Berkeley) means your options are pretty limited in terms of service, but we have a local company (www.lmi.net) which has incredible service. When there was an outage, they sent the technician 2 hours after I called and I've never had any trouble with them.
When I moved out to the Bay Area I wanted to go with Sonic, especially over Comcast. However their speeds were just SO SLOW, especially for the price, compared to Comcast.
In the consumer class connections, they simply did not offer fast enough speeds, and Comcast just blew them out of the water. Really wish they'd get their speeds up as I would definitely consider switching.
Hopefully all of the negative publicity that Comcast is getting will have an impact on some of the regulators and they decide this will not benefit any of the current users for either company.
If it's approved then it may actually spur some action to fix the market. TWC and Comcast are the two most hated companies in the U.S. Once they merge it won't take long before some politician or attorney general figures out they can score serious popular approval by going after what will be the most evil company in the country.
This deal is sadly going to go through. It's all based on anchoring and based on the industry's first "offer" to the FCC and other regulators:
1. Let us create a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane. This allows Telcos and ISPs to raise rates and gain even more power than we already had.
2. Let us, as the #1/2 player in an oligopoly, merge with the #3/4 "competitor". This allows us to provide better service, etc, etc, etc.
#1 is ridiculous and the public push-back has been strong that it likely won't happen (let's pray to God it doesn't).
However, in the context of asking for industry-wide de-regulation (that still might go through), a merger between industry leaders, which happens all the time, doesn't seem that ridiculous. Plus, having an FCC chairman who used to be your head lobbyist helps the merger even more[1].
If municipal broadband and other significant competition for broadband existed, this wouldn't be such a big deal, but the fact is in terms of TV you have like 2 major satellite TV providers and 1 cable company available in most areas. In terms of broadband internet you have 1 cable company and maybe 1 or 2 DSL providers available.
Realistically, there is basically never more than 1 cable company per city anymore that I can see. Fiber internet and television is all but nonexistant as an option for the vast majority of people.
Long story short, after this merger, Comcast will be an even bigger media conglomerate with almost no competition in their core business. Expect higher prices and worse service.
I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with comcast yesterday for one the offices I manage. I didn't have the account number and the phones were down (voip). I gave them the address and phone number and they still needed the account number. After 45 minutes they just hung up on me. Must be nice to be a monopoly.
I have Comcast residential and went for 19 days without internet service in August. Took ~10 calls and 5 cancelled service rep trips (by them), before it got fixed.
Comcast Internet went out at my girlfriend's once. After several phone calls of BS it turns out Comcast came to service the apartment next to hers and decided to unplug the cable from the street that goes into her apartment. Their rationale was that it was unmarked so obviously it couldn't have been important.
Count yourself luck that they cancelled them. My reps didn't even cancel - they just never showed up ... 5 times in a row. I had to cancel my connection, complain to the BBB to get the charge off my bill, and set up a new connection under my dad's name to internet in my apartment. It took me a month and a half from move-in day to getting internet.
If this got approved, no chance to reduce the price of the broadband.
I was shocked for the internet price when I moved to bay area last year, ~$70 for 16M/3M ( I use comcast business, residential may around $40~$50), but in my hometown, a mid-sized city near the east China coast, my father use a 300RMB ($50) / year service for 10M internet.
In my hometown, each apt may at least have two providers with similar bandwidth, but here we have few choices because comcast may hold most of the infrastructure and just no one can compete.
If this merge got approved, over half of US's residential internet infrastructure may under its control, I cannot imagine what will happen. The most expensive internet in the world? maybe.
That price sounds like you got screwed or are not getting offers similar to other parts of the Bay Area.
I moved here last year as well and signed up for a promo that got me 50/7, their Blast service, for ~$45/mo with the intro rate. It went up to ~$70-80+ and I talked them down to just under $70.
Then they recently decided to double my bandwidth for the same price and now I regularly get 100/12 for their Blast service. I'm in Mountain View and know someone in SF with a similar package. I JUST have internet, none of the other crap.
Their service is what you would expect, and while I fully expect prices to go up on average if this finishes going through, I have to say that I was shocked at what I got for my money here compared to say, Chicago, where there are a few larger ISPs in competition.
Someone on reddit asked why this isn't considered an Antitrust violation (akin to Microsoft). An anti-trust lawyer explained why, but better yet, provided more context around the merger. It appears that this will ultimately go through, given the climate of the current administration and the dynamics of the merger.
Here is the anti-trust lawyer's explanation:
Antitrust lawyer here.
For one, we're talking about different antitrust issues. Broadly speaking, the antitrust laws prohibit (1) concerted action that harms competition, like price fixing cartels; (2) unilateral action by a monopolist that harms competition; and (3) mergers and acquisitions that significantly diminish competition.
Microsoft was alleged to have used its position as a monopolist to undermine competition. That's (2) above. Typically, monopolization entails an element of foulplay. Achieving or maintaining a monopoly through normal, reasonable business practices is not illegal.
Comcast and TWC are proposing to merge. That's (3) above. When evaluating a merger, the DOJ looks at whether the companies directly compete in any markets, and whether the merger is likely to reduce competition in those markets.
Comcast and TWC claim that they do not directly compete. That's true, but there's more to the story. Comcast and TWC will point out that cable systems are "natural monopolies" -- it costs a lot to lay cable, and where one company has already laid cable in a given area, it enjoys a huge cost advantage over other would-be competitors, who would have to lay their own cable to compete.
But on the other hand, Comcast and its rivals have also done some dubious stuff in the past that has led to the current competitive landscape. For example, Comcast, TWC, and others have engaged in a number of anticompetitive deals, such as geographic market allocation and customer swapping, to create large regional monopolies. These deals themselves arguably violate the antitrust laws -- see (1) above -- and indeed are the subject of ongoing litigation. But unfortunately, the DOJ most likely would not take this background into account when evaluating the likely effect of the merger on competition.
So when Comcast and TWC say that the merger will not reduce competition because they do not currently compete, that is in part due to the fact that they have already agreed not to compete. It's like two members of a price fixing cartel saying that merging would not reduce competition because, hey, they aren't competing anyway.
We don't know yet whether the DOJ will challenge the merger. The Obama DOJ has been decent in this area; they challenged the AT&T/T-Mobile merger and US Air/American Airlines merger. But neither of those cases played out -- the FCC killed AT&T/T-Mobile, and the DOJ caved once politicians began pressuring the agency to let US Air/American Airlines go through.
Given that Comcast is so well connected in Washington, and in light of the potential difficulties in establishing that the merger will actually reduce competition, I expect that the DOJ will approve the Comcast/TWC merger, subject to certain concessions.
Politics is a core issue when it comes to antitrust enforcement. In fact, I don't think the Obama DOJ would sue Microsoft today. Clinton's DOJ was a bit more aggressive in this area.
43 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] thread[Note: I still don't think this would be a large enough concession to make the merger a net benefit to the public though.]
http://www.thetruth.com/
Essentially, as part of the Master Settlement Agreement, the government just said, "You have to put X dollars into this independent anti-smoking group."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheTruth.com
As for forcing them to stop + lobby for it? You might even run into some Supreme Court issues, and they might challenge it on free speech grounds. It would be an uphill battle for something that might not even be enforceable (which is why I also said that it's not enough of a concession to make the merger a net public gain).
Regardless, if the FCC is nonetheless going to act as errand boy in ramming this down our throats, it could at least be somewhat mitigated by a well-structured ruling that municipal et al. broadband is legal, permitted, and shall not be impeded including and especially at the state and local level.
If we can't get these corporate behemoths to actually compete against each other, then let others step in to provide the competition. There seem to be plenty of volunteers eager to do so.
As Thiel said, if they are a true monopoly they will lie and say they are part of a much bigger market.
That said, I think this merger would be a terrible thing for all cable consumers in the US.
Anything less, and people need to start talking about jail time because someone is on the take.
I'd love for you to be right, but if I were you, I'd prepare to be flabbergasted.
http://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor-...
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
A couple of years back, this would have been tin foil hat territory. But not today.
Personal story: I live in SF Bay Area and got Comcast. Net was working really slow and got outages few times each week. To get any support I had to wait 40m to hear basic advice like restarting router.
Switched to smaller provider Sonic.net. Everything works, just once got some problem (in last 3 months). My call was immediately connected to competent human which diagnosed the problem in less than 3m. Next day they proactively call to improve one more thing.
Contenders usually got so much more will to do things right than monopolies.
Unfortunately, when I bought my house, it was a new development and while it was pre-wired for Comcast and AT&T, those are the only options.
In the consumer class connections, they simply did not offer fast enough speeds, and Comcast just blew them out of the water. Really wish they'd get their speeds up as I would definitely consider switching.
I can only hope at this point.
#1 is ridiculous and the public push-back has been strong that it likely won't happen (let's pray to God it doesn't). However, in the context of asking for industry-wide de-regulation (that still might go through), a merger between industry leaders, which happens all the time, doesn't seem that ridiculous. Plus, having an FCC chairman who used to be your head lobbyist helps the merger even more[1].
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
Realistically, there is basically never more than 1 cable company per city anymore that I can see. Fiber internet and television is all but nonexistant as an option for the vast majority of people.
Long story short, after this merger, Comcast will be an even bigger media conglomerate with almost no competition in their core business. Expect higher prices and worse service.
That's comcastic.
In my hometown, each apt may at least have two providers with similar bandwidth, but here we have few choices because comcast may hold most of the infrastructure and just no one can compete.
If this merge got approved, over half of US's residential internet infrastructure may under its control, I cannot imagine what will happen. The most expensive internet in the world? maybe.
I don't think the buying power difference would be that large.
I moved here last year as well and signed up for a promo that got me 50/7, their Blast service, for ~$45/mo with the intro rate. It went up to ~$70-80+ and I talked them down to just under $70.
Then they recently decided to double my bandwidth for the same price and now I regularly get 100/12 for their Blast service. I'm in Mountain View and know someone in SF with a similar package. I JUST have internet, none of the other crap.
Their service is what you would expect, and while I fully expect prices to go up on average if this finishes going through, I have to say that I was shocked at what I got for my money here compared to say, Chicago, where there are a few larger ISPs in competition.
Here is the anti-trust lawyer's explanation:
Antitrust lawyer here.
For one, we're talking about different antitrust issues. Broadly speaking, the antitrust laws prohibit (1) concerted action that harms competition, like price fixing cartels; (2) unilateral action by a monopolist that harms competition; and (3) mergers and acquisitions that significantly diminish competition.
Microsoft was alleged to have used its position as a monopolist to undermine competition. That's (2) above. Typically, monopolization entails an element of foulplay. Achieving or maintaining a monopoly through normal, reasonable business practices is not illegal.
Comcast and TWC are proposing to merge. That's (3) above. When evaluating a merger, the DOJ looks at whether the companies directly compete in any markets, and whether the merger is likely to reduce competition in those markets.
Comcast and TWC claim that they do not directly compete. That's true, but there's more to the story. Comcast and TWC will point out that cable systems are "natural monopolies" -- it costs a lot to lay cable, and where one company has already laid cable in a given area, it enjoys a huge cost advantage over other would-be competitors, who would have to lay their own cable to compete.
But on the other hand, Comcast and its rivals have also done some dubious stuff in the past that has led to the current competitive landscape. For example, Comcast, TWC, and others have engaged in a number of anticompetitive deals, such as geographic market allocation and customer swapping, to create large regional monopolies. These deals themselves arguably violate the antitrust laws -- see (1) above -- and indeed are the subject of ongoing litigation. But unfortunately, the DOJ most likely would not take this background into account when evaluating the likely effect of the merger on competition.
So when Comcast and TWC say that the merger will not reduce competition because they do not currently compete, that is in part due to the fact that they have already agreed not to compete. It's like two members of a price fixing cartel saying that merging would not reduce competition because, hey, they aren't competing anyway.
We don't know yet whether the DOJ will challenge the merger. The Obama DOJ has been decent in this area; they challenged the AT&T/T-Mobile merger and US Air/American Airlines merger. But neither of those cases played out -- the FCC killed AT&T/T-Mobile, and the DOJ caved once politicians began pressuring the agency to let US Air/American Airlines go through.
Given that Comcast is so well connected in Washington, and in light of the potential difficulties in establishing that the merger will actually reduce competition, I expect that the DOJ will approve the Comcast/TWC merger, subject to certain concessions.
Politics is a core issue when it comes to antitrust enforcement. In fact, I don't think the Obama DOJ would sue Microsoft today. Clinton's DOJ was a bit more aggressive in this area.
Hope this helps.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h87ob/e...