Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Internet

The Comcast/TWC Merger Is About Controlling Information 107

Posted by Soulskill
from the there's-a-party-at-comcast's-house-and-attendance-is-mandatory dept.
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from The Consumerist: "Comcast and proposed merger partner Time Warner Cable claim they don't compete because their service areas don't overlap, and that a combined company would happily divest itself of a few million customers to keeps its pay-TV market share below 30%, allowing other companies that don't currently compete with Comcast to keep not competing with Comcast. This narrow, shortsighted view fails to take into account the full breadth of what's involved in this merger — broadcast TV, cable TV, network technology, in-home technology, access to the Internet, and much more. In addition to asking whether or not regulators should permit Comcast to add 10-12 million customers, there is a more important question at the core of this deal: Should Comcast be allowed to control both what content you consume and how you get to consume it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Comcast/TWC Merger Is About Controlling Information

Comments Filter:
  • by ganjadude (952775) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @04:56PM (#46736047) Homepage
    Does not mean that it is a good idea. Why would anyone want the company called the worst company in the world to take over another company? Time warner is not great by any stretch of the imagination, but comcast makes them look like gold
  • by SpockLogic (1256972) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @05:05PM (#46736101)
    Should Comcast be allowed to control both what content you consume and how you get to consume it?"
    No. Hell NO.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2014 @05:08PM (#46736113)

    Yes, Comcast is entitled to control both the content you consume and how you consume it. It's their property, they earned it fair and square and can do whatever they want with it. To suggest otherwise is COMMUNISM!

  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2014 @05:32PM (#46736247)

    No. This merger should be prohibited. I'd go so far as to say that Comcast, and TWC need to split into SMALLER more competitive cable companies that might actually deliver shit that people want.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:02PM (#46736393)

    Yet another person who has no idea what "communism" means. The people, actually, should own the means of production, both of their work and their entertainment. To say otherwise is to be at the mercy of someone else. No, thank you. A social democrat government where people come first over profit is the goal. Absolutely screw libertarian ideals. They are as bad as the fascists because they believe collusion between government and corporations is OK, despite their being against big government.

    Hey Einstein, once "the people" take over the means of production, WHO THE HELL DECIDES WHAT TO DO WITH IT???

    WHO DECIDES what "people come first" means?

    Stalin?

    Kim Il Sung?

    Pol Pot?

    I know damn well what "communism" means - the bloodiest governments in all history were Communist.

    A Communist is someone who read Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:10PM (#46736457)

    Well, there's money to be made.

    Never EVER think that switching something over to the private sector would make it cheaper to you. Yes, government isn't great at running stuff, but what makes you think that a private company would offer it cheaper to you rather than pocketing what they can cut in slack?

    And not always is slack a bad thing. Usually it's redundancies that ensure availability. For reference, see internet.

  • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:14PM (#46736491)

    Go bankrupt? How? By creating a monopoly situation that lets you either buy their service or exist without internet? Yeah, that's gonna send any company to a chapter 11 instantly.

    If the choice is only a for-profit monopoly or a government keeping companies from forming one, I side with the obvious lesser evil.

  • Re:GIve it up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:42PM (#46736661)

    The internet was our garden. And a beautiful garden it was. Sure, some fed agency created it, but let's face it, they used a fraction of the lot and we didn't really care for their supersecret bases they had littered about. There was so much empty space in between! And that lot we cultivated. We built a few nice trees and in their shadows we relaxed, we planted beautiful roses and yes, a few fruits and vegetables because, hey, it's always better if you grow it yourself. And ... heh, well, yeah, we had a few corners here or there where we grew that "special weed", ya know, but nobody really gave a shit, it was just us.

    We were pretty good gardeners. Well, you pretty much had to be in those days, if you didn't know your way 'round with rake and shovel, you didn't really get much out of it. Still, we were quite happy with it. So happy actually that we thought we should share that. I mean, there's so many people out there who don't even know just how great the garden is! And we invited them in. They looked around and, well, most of them didn't quite "get" it. Sure, it was nice, here or there, well, if you're into botany, that is, but it's kinda hard to get around and find your way through the jungle, and using a machete wherever you go, phew, hard work! But a few of them stayed. They didn't quite know what they do, but we handed them a few saplings and some seed and some actually managed to learn a thing or two about gardening. Sure, of course a few smartasses tried to steal our stuff, but we usually didn't have much of a problem to whack them with our shovel and get our stuff back. And, heh, yeah, we, too, went into each other's yards and played some pranks on each other, painted their roses black and the like, but it was all in good fun! And hey, they sure liked our ... ya know, "special stuff". They still had no idea how to grow it, but they were quite willing to help us share everything with everyone, as long as they got their share, too. And, well, why not, pass the blunt!

    That was about when the corporations noticed that, hey, where did all the people go? They took a look at the garden and they went batshit crazy. I mean, sure, we knew that it's great, but we never saw anyone go so insane about it. They saw it as the next big thing to make money with, and we laughed. Money? With this? Dude, you can't make money out of a system based on freedom and sharing! Everything in here is free. Yeah, in both ways.

    True. You can't make money in such a system. Unless of course you change the rules. And changing the rules, they could.

    I can't help but think that this must be how the natives of the US felt after they were "discovered". Because we had to face that there are suddenly areas in what we considered OUR garden where we couldn't go anymore. Worse, something that was the staple of our culture, going to a guy who did something great and asking him for a sapling of his wonderful tree. Became anathema. Instead of you SHOULD imitate and build on top of mine, the new creed was you MUST NOT. This rule, of course, did only surface after they themselves took from our gardens what they could possible rake together quickly. You might understand our utter disbelief and of course outrage when we noticed that turnabout is not fair game.

    Well, we have had our share of trolls and nuisances before. Long before we already had to deal with people who trampled through our gardens or were a general pest. Our solution was simple, we took our superior gardening skills and whacked them from here to next week with our shovels 'til they either learned to play nice or left for good. This didn't work out so well this time. No, not because they had the better gardeners. But they didn't need to. They had a much more powerful weapon in their arsenal: The law. First, they ensured that the laws would benefit them, and then they used it against us. And despite how despicable it may be, we have to admit that it is quite efficient to have others take care of your battles, especially wh

  • Re:Right on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @06:43PM (#46736675)

    The split should be between owning the cables, running an ISP and providing content. Any combination thereof is already too much.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2014 @08:46PM (#46737353)

    Internet should count as critical infrastructure that should be paid for and maintained out of tax money, just the same as roads.

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Saturday April 12, 2014 @08:57PM (#46737391)
    is there anyone here that is in favor of, or will even defend the rights to do this merger?

    What I like is, when this goes through with almost universal opposition it'll be just one more reminder of how little power we here in America all have...

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...