Comcast Shareholders Greenlight Time Warner Merger

Status
Not open for further replies.

czar1020

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2006
185
0
18,680
0
"Comcast chief executive Brian L. Roberts said he was very excited about the merger with Time Warner Cable. He also emphasized that the two companies really don't compete with each other, and that the merger will not eliminate customer choice."

Exactly, because each of them have a monopoly in every area they are located.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Just like nearly all other forms of infrastructure. Duplicating infrastructure is very expensive and splitting potential revenue quickly undermines the potential return on investment so infrastructure tends towards natural monopoly.

If major ISPs wanted to increase their profits while lowering prices, they would set their arrogance aside and merge their infrastructure to eliminate infrastructure duplication: half or possibly less of the total outside plant investments to serve the same subscriber base for about twice the overall ROI.
 

4ktv

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2011
216
1
18,715
6
Good they will get rid of Time warner cable, Comcast has so much faster and better internet. They also have better techs that have there own laptops to test with than just leaving saying it's all your stuff that's broken.

 

RIPPEDDRAGON

Reputable
May 22, 2014
6
0
4,510
0
They have been colluding from the beginning. The internet trolls of the USA must put a stop to this merger as it seems the FCC and our politicians have had their pockets lined.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

How? They do not serve overlapping markets and the reason for that is because it is not cost-effective to do so.

Most types of infrastructure are a natural monopoly: natural factors make competition intrinsically inefficient and expensive, making infrastructure competition fundamentally undesirable.

That's why most infrastructure (like roads, waterworks and power distribution) is either government-owned or tightly regulated.
 

RIPPEDDRAGON

Reputable
May 22, 2014
6
0
4,510
0


This is why the current system is inherently flawed. If municipal fiber was run across the US we wouldn't have this problem...companies can fight over providing better services over the same infrastructure or the local governments can run it.

Even if you want to argue with fair competition and other US capitalism b.s. Comcast and Time Warner pay off politicians to stop other companies from laying new lines in their areas.

I have a great form letter all you have to do is fill in your name and submit it to the FCC here: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display;

Here is the source of the form letter: https://teksyndicate.com/forum/general-discussion/fcc-letter-1-page-version-draft/176563

Here is a quick copy/paste version of the letter:

From: RIPPED

To: Chairman Tom Wheeler & the FCC Leaders

Subject: Proposed Internet “Fast Lane” FCC Rules

Mr. Tom Wheeler & FCC Commission,
I am writing to you today as a ___________. I have an acute understanding of the current situation with the proposed “internet fast lane” rules and I am aware of the technical and circumstantial details around the recent Netflix/Comcast event.
I must say that I was not expecting this from your office at this time; the proposed rules do not make sense and do not follow the FCC charter. In 2009 the FCC drafted similar rules because of the events surrounding Comcast and Comcast’s arbitrary throttling of peer-to-peer traffic; in that case the FCC lost their case when the DC district court ruled that Comcast is classified as an “information service.” Recently, the FCC finished writing the “Open Internet” rules and once again the FCC was sued by Verizon. The FCC lost their case once again – in both of these cases the court urged the FCC to reclassify these ISPs as a Title II communications company if the office of the FCC was serious about drafting rules that these companies must follow.
I’m aware that Title II has some stringent rules and that these rules may not all be applicable to internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. However, I would remind you that the FCC has the power of forbearance; the office can choose what rules will be imposed. Were these internet service providers classified as “telecommunications services”, as the FCC has been encouraged to do by these two court cases, then it does not have to enforce all the rules under Title II.
Certainly I have been surprised by these proposed “internet fast lane” rules; they were entirely unexpected at this time. I do not see how they are substantially different than the rules put forth in the previous two failed court cases. Also, I would not expect to entertain such a proposal unless and until the FCC reclassifies these ISPs as telecommunications companies under Title II.
In point of fact, Comcast has already negotiated a “fast lane” deal with Netflix. However, Comcast is selling service tiers to customers that specify a speed (e.g. 50 megabits per second) and a byte cap (250 gigabytes, as specified in the terms-of-service). As a customer of Comcast, I may elect to use some or all of the capacity I have purchased on Netflix services.
I am confident that should the FCC investigate the particulars of Comcast’s activities in this case, they would have an open-and-shut antitrust case. To use a telephone analogy, this is no different than a cellular telephone provider charging a call recipient "extra" to "help prevent the call from being dropped."
This is exactly the same type of abusive conduct that the FCC tried to deal with in the court cases in 2009 and again with Verizon more recently.
Please, halt what is being done with these “internet fast lane” rules, and simply reclassify internet service providers as Telecommunications companies under Title II of the 1996 telecommunications act. It is a faster, simpler, and more effective way to accomplish your goals.
Sincerely,

RIPPED

__________________________________________
If you are still reading here is some more information on why we have been screwed by these companies from the start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIOcbclh370

 

Raid3r

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
120
0
18,680
0
Come on guys, ignore the facts...go for the FUD!!?!? /S

Said every person who is going to benefit and eat their customers money so they don't have to give it back in better infrastructure.
 

casey0999

Reputable
Oct 9, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
The merger of two giant corporations is rarely (if ever) beneficial for the consumer. The merger of two giants controlling such a vast, critical infrastructure is the last thing we need. We have so few choices in internet providers already - this will make things worse, as the resultant company will have huge leverage on CONTENT as well as how we receive it, not to mention the price we pay for our internet connection.

The comment period for the FCC ends on October 29th - the URL for sending a comment to the FCC has been helpfully posted below by RIPPEDDRAGON. If this is allowed to go through we have only ourselves to blame for not raising our voices.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

They are already monopolies within their respective markets where no viable xDSL or other broadband is available and their footprints do not overlap so the two merging does not add or remove choices for anyone unless you are willing to move and change job just to switch internet provider.
 

gmarsack

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2009
320
0
18,780
0
Instead of leaving merger's of this size up to FCC and FTC, why not let the people who use their services vote on it? Oh wait, that's because most of us HATE these companies for being evil. Yeah, justice will never happen. Ah well...
 

casey0999

Reputable
Oct 9, 2014
2
0
4,510
0


Yes, you're right - I guess to me the bigger issue is the new leverage that the new combined company would have over prices for, and access to, content..

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

When you look at how greedy and consolidated independent content sources are also becoming, you end up in a tough spot either way - just look at how the minor cable companies are simply giving up on TV because TV networks are charging too much for carriage and those smaller operators have insufficient leverage for better rates.

The whole thing is out of control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY