Charter Challenges Comcast/Time Warner Merger 90
An anonymous reader writes "Regional ISP Charter Communications is fighting back against the potential merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast. Charter had been bidding for TWC before Comcast got involved, and now they're urging shareholders to reject the deal. 'From the regulatory perspective, it is difficult to imagine a transaction that could concentrate the industry more than the proposed Comcast merger,' they said in an SEC filing. James Stewart with the NY Times explains what Comcast would look like if the merger continues — when you add the TWC deal to the NBCUniversal pickup a few years ago, Comcast is starting to resemble a global tech company. He also explains why the deal isn't setting off antitrust alarm bells: 'Time Warner Cable operates in 29 states, but thanks to the old system of regional and municipal cable monopolies, Comcast and Time Warner Cable don't compete anywhere. Justice Department merger guidelines define geographical markets, which is why regulators weighing airline mergers examine competition on individual routes, not national market share. ... Under conventional antitrust standards, it's pretty much an open-and-shut case.'"
These companies need to be split up (Score:5, Interesting)
Not merged... and they need to compete with each other.
Currently they don't because the cities and counties don't let them. They set up absurd pole leasing rates and policies that effectively mean only one company can operate in the area. Its a violation of the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law. They need to be split and they need to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame just the cities and counties for that.
The Cable companies went to them and said "Oh woe is us, we can't possibly put up lines and run the risk of somebody else coming in to steal our thunder, please give us an exclusive franchise, and we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe.
They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their ow
Re: (Score:2)
again, that's illegal... since 98 I think. So that isn't what happens. However, the cities do say "oh we can't possibly have more then one cable running over there or it will be a major inconvenience/eye sore"
Re: (Score:2)
1. I never said anything about lobbying being illegal.
2. Prior to deregulation they had literal monopolies. The current effective monopolies are mostly the inertia FROM regulation. To claim that the current state of affairs was created by deregulation when the blocks against competition are all still government regulation... is moronic.
What keeps companies from competing with the cable and DSL providers? Its not economics. Its not logistics. Its not technology.
Its government regulation. Mostly local regulat
Re: (Score:2)
In a situation where the government does corrupt things you want to blame that corruption on the criminals NOT in government?
So if I'm a drug dealer... and I pay a police officer to kill someone... which was the greater crime?
Me paying the police officer... or the police officer taking my money and shooting someone?
And which of the two is less acceptable?
Obviously the police officer taking the money and shooting someone.
And that relates to the government allowing itself to be bought by companies. It is effe
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the police officer that shoots someone for money is less responsible for the act and you should take less action against corrupt government officials then those that simply try to bribe them.
Fine.
You're an idiot.
This discussion is over.
Good day, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously both should be held accountable. No where did I say the people offering the bribes should be left alone.
The difference is that offering such bribes is often not illegal where as taking them is always illegal.
Again, we're done. Even if your statement was due to miscommunication you know my position on the matter and I've seen nothing from you to make me think you have something to contribute beyond that point.
So again... Good day.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the briber is involved... but people willing to bribe exist everywhere.
The difference between a corrupt country and a clean one is not whether one country has corrupt people or not. There are just as many people willing to bribe government officials in one as in another.
The difference is rather that in a clean system the bribes are refused and the official turns them into the authorities for prosecution.
In short, my interpretation is what defines a society that has low corruption. While yours seem
Re: (Score:2)
What does being done have to do with responding? I'm not dead.
Re: (Score:2)
No government regulations come from nothing... doesn't mean all laws are reasonable, ethical, or effective. I could cite the most barbaric horrific law in the history of the world and show that it was justified by something or there was some sort of intention behind it. So the fuck what? Good intentions does not automatically mean that whatever you're doing is good or desirable.
Kindly demonstrate a fundamental grasp of logic or people can safety assume you lack one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that if evidence comes to light of government officials accepting bribes you need to come down on it like the hammer of God.
Corporations or individuals offering bribes? Yes, send them to jail.
No question... it should not be tolerated from any quarter.
But when the government accepts the bribe... You destroy that person. The toughest sentences used for fraud should be employed. And if we're talking about a major breach then even capital punishment can be on the table.
I'm not kidding. You cross that
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with lobbying. I have a problem with quid pro quo politics between specific businesses and specific politicians.
You want a make a deal? Make a deal for everyone with the government in general. Pass a law that applies to everyone.
You make some back room deal where company X gets Y in return for giving campaign funds R to politician Z... that you kill with fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Being allowed to petition the government is a key quality of democracy.
Its a matter of free speech. Lobbying is a fundamental right.
Cutting secret deals with corporations and wealthy individuals is not.
Your inability to distinguish between the two speaks poorly for you.
Re: (Score:2)
You contradict yourself.
You hold lobbying as responsible in some of your posts and then hold it as sacrosanct.
The contradiction is holding it responsible. It is not.
It is the corruption that is responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
All true, which is why the finances of politicians must be scrutinized.
Note amongst the other things they've carved out for themselves is immunity from insider trading laws.
You control the issue not by preventing people from petitioning for change but rather by monitoring the politicians such that when they go bad you catch them and they're removed from office.
If you come down on lobbying you'll only strengthen the corruption in the system because you will have removed legitimate means to redress grievances
Re: (Score:2)
We are the lobbyists. I am a lobbyist and you are a lobbyist and we all are lobbyists.
We're done... talking to you is like trying to hold a conversation with a tomato.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically no ISPs besides the big guys run their own cable.
The only places you see multiple providers are in some small towns mostly in the south for some reason. You find very few competing ISPs in canada as well, with the exception of some small towns that actually went so far as to build their own ISPs.
Look, we need more companies that actually run the cable themselves.
What stops it is regulation. Not economics. Not technology. Not logistics. Not anything but naked legal bullshit.
And until that stops t
Re: (Score:2)
again, that's illegal... since 98 I think. So that isn't what happens. However, the cities do say "oh we can't possibly have more then one cable running over there or it will be a major inconvenience/eye sore"
There are still regions in my town where Comcast has a service monopoly. It is in exchange for some public access channels. Woah.
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I understand that's against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"... we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
There's nothing "honest" about it, and yes you can blame those officials.
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
Not here.
Re: (Score:3)
"You don't get the Sarcasm Channel there either, do you?"
Actually I did get your sarcasm. But it wasn't very obvious where the sarcasm actually began and ended. The last part was obviously serious, and I thought perhaps you meant the first part seriously too, with just the middle being sarcastic.
"If you're going to chop-quote, at least make it so you aren't showing how you missed the point of what I said."
I didn't miss anything. But you sure seem to have.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you hadn't missed it, why reply to a specifically quoted in a manner that indicates you hadn't realized it was sarcasm?"
Look, since this seems to be going over your head, I'll explain it in detail, okay?
The FIRST PART of what you said was:
"Don't blame just the cities and counties for that."
which seemed pretty serious. Then, the next part:
"Oh woe is us, we can't possibly put up lines and run the risk of somebody else coming in to steal our thunder..."
is OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic. BUT, the part following that:
"... please give us an exclusive franchise, and we'll give you a truckload of money" which you can hardly blame the government officials for, it's a perfectly honest bribe."
Seemed pretty serious again... for the simple reason that is what happened in a lot of the U.S. I know it did in my area. So while you wrote it in a snarky manner, I had every reason to believe you were being serious.
Then the following part:
"They've also gone to your state legislatures and REQUIRED such franchise contracts to be exclusive, and even banned competitors with their own rights to the line (like your power company) from competing."
Appears perfectly serious again. So pa
Re: (Score:2)
"No, no you had no reason whatsoever to believe it was anything but sarcasm"
So now you claim to know what I'm thinking?
Go away. I don't have time for this BS.
Re: (Score:1)
Err... I've seen a bunch of franchise agreements in places we've looked at operating and none of them were exclusive.
There are other barriers though (company has to be a registered CLEC or cable TV operator, FCC hoops to jump through including registrations and contributions which are simply downright confusing and so forth... oh, and sometimes working with the cities themselves can be a royal pain in the arse and/or painstakingly slow).
As for banning competition, I think that's a new thing with those munic
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea.
So your idea is that they can own the cables but they can't actually do anything with them. The cables themselves can only be used by third party companies?
I still would prefer if more companies ran cable. But your idea would be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
That is not why you don't get multiple lines in an area. And in built up areas such as major cities, the market is rich enough to support dozens of ISPs with independent lines.
Think about the math for a second. If ONE ISP can be viable in a rural or suburban environment then how much more infrastructure is required in an urban one? Not much more. Its really just higher density which ultimately lowers costs. As such, an urban environment must be able to sustain many ISPs having multiples of the suburba
Re: (Score:2)
No.
I am not giving last mile to the government.
Re: (Score:1)
What are the pole leasing rates where you are? In So IL, it costs $9/year per pole, or about what... $0.75 a month per pole? If you assume 25% penetration (or we say that 1 in 4 houses has cable) & roughly 1 pole per 2 houses passed (judging by what I can see out my window), that means about $1.50/cust/mo goes to poles in built-up areas.
Granted, it could possibly be cheaper, but it's not as absurd or exorbitant as it seems to be being made out to be.
Disclaimer: Prices are based on leasing space on Amere
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers aren't correct. The cost of regulation often inflates the cost or running cable by as much as 50 percent above the cost of the cable. And the ongoing costs can be arbitrary and extreme.
The larger operators insulate themselves from this with various agreements not available to the smaller operators. This means they pay a lower rate and are interfered with less. That should be offered to everyone without exception.
Again... when this is done you'll have multiple operators in most large cities at th
Re: (Score:1)
Which numbers are you referring to? The numbers I quoted are what I pay as direct costs... The cost of regulation is another matter entirely, but even then there are also subsidies offered left, right and centre in some areas which can counteract some or sometimes most of these costs.
For providers offering phone service, there's usually between $5 and $10 on top of the advertised monthly rate that's taken directly from the subscriber as "taxes and fees" for stuff like 911 (which I think is absurd - other co
Comcast cable tv is far behind other cable systems (Score:2)
Comcast cable tv is far behind other cable systems
so will they make it better or cut stuff from the time Warner systems to make them more in line with Comcast systems?
Cable customers shafted by state government. (Score:2)
"Time Warner Cable operates in 29 states, but thanks to the old system of regional and municipal cable monopolies, Comcast and Time Warner Cable don't compete anywhere."
This is your state government(s) shafting you. The states created laws which allow cable monopolies. Local governments collect a franchise fee on the gross revenue of the cable companies operating within their boundaries. In the eyes of local government, less competition means higher prices which means more tax revenue (without voter feed
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously the voters. They won't vote the corruption politicians out of office.
"they don't compete" is the reason for rejecting (Score:5, Insightful)
When are people and regulators going to wake up and realize that the "well, they don't compete against each other an any areas" is *not* a reason to say this merger is OK, but is a reason why it should be rejected!
The problem with broadband access in the US is that we don't have competition in most places. Some places have DSL (slow) or Fios/U-verse, but most don't. And no, satellite or 2 GB-capped cell service doesn't count as competition.
The very statement that they don't compete anywhere is the problem. Things need to be changed so that they compete against each other. That will not happen if they merge.
Re: You are an idiot. (Score:1)
Um, they've already woke up (Score:2)
Here in America we've been voting pro corporate right wingers into office since Reagan. They stacked the supreme court and have been chipping away at the gains made after WWII non-stop since those gains were made. It's not a battle I see us winning
Hmm (Score:1)
What's this capitalism I hear so much about? It's meant to stop stuff like this, maybe the USA should give it a go
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
. I suppose it's closer to socialism/fascism.
The fact that you connect "socialism" and "fascism" in that fashion suggests that you either don't know what either word means, or you don't know what "/" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your response suggests you don't realize that socialism and fascism are but two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism and authoritarianism are different concepts. You can have a non-authoritarian socialistic society (in theory), and a capitalistic fascism (the US after another century of current trends continuing, e.g.)
In practice, every human-run government is going to shift over time toward authoritarianism, regardless of its economic philosophies.
Love Charter. (Score:2)
Somehow I've almost always managed to live in one of the small pockets of my state that Charter services, and they're always been awesome. Other than the occasional weeklong power outage or some such natural nonsense, they've been rock solid. I always see all the people constantly bitching about Comcast and thank the heavens that whatever little rural enclave I've ended up in hasn't had them as the cable provider.
Programming is hard because computers are slow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then there's the whole "posting in the correct discussion thread" optimization...
Re: (Score:2)
Slow clap.
Wish I had mod points.
Local loop unbundling (Score:1)
I'm totally okay with these guys all merging.
I'm totally okay with comcast charging excessively for connectivity between themselves and other ISPs. It's their wires, they can do what they want with them.
I'm not okay with the last-mile monopoly these companies have in the majority of the cities they operate in.
The solution to that is "local loop unbundling" -- which we already have for DSL and for local phone service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
If you don't like your DSL provider, you
Re: (Score:2)
we have this in NYC in some areas with time warner having to unbundle its wires to others. the others are more expensive than time warner
"They don't compete"? (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the entities that sell programming to them were also divided into non-overlapping geographic areas.
Captive Audience (Score:1)
If you really want to get an idea as to how this is all playing out, you should read Susan Crawford's book, "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age". It's not a happy story, and you'll probably be tempted to start throwing chairs at some point or another, but it is very important from an educational perspective. For the reasons given in the summary, I see no chance that the TWC acquisition will be blocked, and it's entirely possible that Comcast will control essenti
Already Monopolies (Score:2)
CableCos are already monopolies.Stand in line for a half hour at any service center, if you need to be convinced. Any company that has to compete actually has to take care of their customers in a timely manner.
antitrust (Score:2)
The problem here isn't a trust between Comcast and Time Warner. Rather, the problem is a trust between Comcast/Time Warner and the local government.