Krugman: Say No To Comcast Acquisition of Time Warner 187
nbauman writes "In his column, 'Barons of Broadband' New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says: 'Comcast perfectly fits the old notion of monopolists as robber barons, so-called by analogy with medieval warlords who perched in their castles overlooking the Rhine, extracting tolls from all who passed. The Time Warner deal would in effect let Comcast strengthen its fortifications, which has to be a bad idea. Comcast's chief executive says not to worry: "It will not reduce competition in any relevant market because our companies do not overlap or compete with each other. In fact, we do not operate in any of the same ZIP codes." This is, however, transparently disingenuous. The big concern about making Comcast even bigger isn't reduced competition for customers in local markets — for one thing, there's hardly any effective competition at that level anyway. It is that Comcast would have even more power than it already does to dictate terms to the providers of content for its digital pipes — and that its ability to drive tough deals upstream would make it even harder for potential downstream rivals to challenge its local monopolies.'"
Ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they don't compete. Cable companies have government-sanctioned monopolies.
I'd say give them a choice. You can merge if you relinquish your monopoly.
Then we'll see what's most important to them.
Who is he talking to (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly not us. We don't really have a choice. Comcast could merge with freaking Verizon, thus giving us the granddaddy of all broadband monopolies and dooming to forever pay too much money for a crappy connection and no recourse when stuff breaks (which would be often), and our choices would be to suck it up, or just suck it. So I'm not sure what he thinks we should be doing about it...?
Let them merge then split (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paul Krugman, 1998 (Score:0, Interesting)
Yeah, that and everything else. The guy is a gigantic fraud / propagandist for the power establishment, he has nothing to do with economics, he is a justifier in chief for the money printing elite, that are the actual reason that the economy is dying and as such, it can afford fewer and fewer choices in the market and that is what leads to acquisition and consolidation.
Now, obviously the government created and protects a number of gigantic monopolies / oligopolies, including telecommunications in the USA, this started with the destruction of 3000 competitors to AT&T 100 years back [google.ca], but this does not mean that people should want more of the same 'solution' that actually created all of these problems in the first place. I could say that Krugman and his ilk are insane, that's their eternal position: government introduces a "solution", which makes things worse, so let's have more government "solutions".
Comcast and Time Warner acquisition is going to happen and if it does not, there will be a bankruptcy and liquidation somewhere there. The same thing happened to Blockbuster as an example, the company had plans to save its business by acquiring rival Hollywood Videos, but FTC prevented that from happening, so the company eventually died. I am not saying with certainty that Blockbuster would not have died if the acquisition went through, but it cannot be known now. What can be known is that the company tried to stay in business and it died, but not before government prevented it from trying to change its business model.
The USA market is shrinking, USA is unproductive, US dollars are fake, Krugman is a huge part of the propaganda that justified destruction of the value of the US dollar and US bonds. To listen to Krugman on any matters at all is insanity.
Re:Comcast challengers? What is K been smoking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable is a natural monopoly. Competition really doesn't work in this type of business.
What we really need is for cable high-speed internet service to be declared a "Common carrier", so they are required to not discriminate against NetFlix, etc.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Interesting)
De-regulation along the lines of the power companies? In other words, break apart "generation" and "distribution"......make TV/broadband one entity and then make the lines themselves a different entity. Have the distribution entity charge customers the same rate scale so that other companies can compete on equal footing.
Exactly. Why take it. (Score:2, Interesting)
I stopped my cable because I couldnt' take being fucked anymore by Comcast.
When I tell others why, they just say, "Good for you. I can't give up my sports."
There you go. People love their bread and circuses. They are sheep. They want their NFL and College (slave) ball (its funny that they ARE mostly African American and getting paid shit!). And yet, NFL, ESPN and whatnot are making millions or billions.
I'm not trying to start trouble here, but the black man is still getting exploited..
Just say'in.
As a Comcast employee... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't really know how I feel about the acquisition. I think some of the things Krugman talks about -- e.g., no incentive to upgrade networks -- certainly has validity; I also know that we *HATE* network congestion, and just in my unit, alone, spend tens of millions a year to avoid it. Of course, without incentive, that's just 'cause we feel like doing that, not because we have to.
The one that has me really, truly worried, though, is Net Neutrality. I am *STRONGLY* in favor of the FCC saying "F*** you all: it's time," and pushing it out. I think that neutrality, combined with the rise (and eventual commoditization) of cellular networks, as well as good ol' Ma Bell and DSL, will be able to offer competing solutions. Of course, then there's satellite, as well, but the inherent latency makes that a poorer option by definition.
Comcast is, however, essentially right: they don't compete with other cable companies because of the infrastructure; one thing that might be interesting -- though I have a sneaking suspicion Republicans would cry foul about over-regulation all day long -- would be if the gov't enforced a move akin to the telecom and power companies: if cable companies could offer the landline connection, but you were able to get service from anyone. That would go a great way toward leveling the playing field.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable is a natural monopoly. Competition really doesn't work in this type of business.
What we really need is for cable high-speed internet service to be declared a "Common carrier", so they are required to not discriminate against NetFlix, etc.
Or pry the last mile out of the fingers of cable companies and put it in the hands of Local government, like streets, water, sewer.
That way the local rate-payers and tax payers can allow multiple content and internet providers, and maintain their own fiber/cable plant.
Natural monopolies require special treatment.
Re:Comcast challengers? What is K been smoking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc.
If I'm some dinky little neighborhood cable company, and I'm negotiating a contract with Viacom for carriage on my network (with my 30,000 subscribers) and I insist that part of the agreement is that they can't license any of their shows/movies for streaming from Netflix, Viacom would tell me to fuck off.
Now, if it's Comcast instead, Viacom has a hard choice... Do they cut access to all their shows off from the 40 million Netflix subscribers, or from the 30 million Comcast subscribers? How about if they do the same to HBO, and their DVD releases have to be delayed an extra year...?
Re:Comcast challengers? What is K been smoking? (Score:4, Interesting)