Time Warner Cable Customers Beg Regulators To Block Sale To Comcast 80
An anonymous reader sends this report from Ars Technica:
New York is shaping up as a major battleground for Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. While the $45.2 billion merger will be scrutinized by federal officials, it also needs approval at the state level. TWC has 2.2 million cable TV, Internet, and phone customers in 1,150 New York communities, and hundreds of them have called on the New York Public Service Commission to block the sale to Comcast. Comcast doesn't compete against TWC for subscribers, and its territory in New York is limited but includes a VoIP phone service offered to residential and business customers in 10 communities. "Both Time Warner Cable and Comcast already have monopolies in each and every territory in which they do business today, and combining the companies will reinforce those individual territorial monopolies under a single corporate umbrella, with NBC-Universal thrown in to boot," resident Frank Brice argued in a comment to the PSC posted yesterday.
Predictable outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
Customers: Please don't!
FTC: Hmm, the customers seem vocal about this one.
Time Warner/Comcast to FTC: Don't you dare...
FTC: We'll need to study the issue.
(One U.S. election cycle passes)
New FTC Head: What's good for Time Warner/Comcast is good for America! Full steam ahead, job-producers!
Re:Predictable outcome (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot:
America! Fuck yeah!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Predictable outcome (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Predictable outcome (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot the part where lobbyists give them $10 million
18 million in 2013 : http://www.opensecrets.org/lob... [opensecrets.org]
3 million so far in 2014: http://www.opensecrets.org/lob... [opensecrets.org]
so 21 million.
Re: (Score:1)
The lobbyists seem to be behind for 2014. They better pony up more money if they want this deal to go through.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a midterm election year so expect more lobbying a little later this year. Plus I'm sure there will be rather sizable increase just after it's approved. Lobbyists aren't dumb. Why spend $X to get something approved when you can spend another $X afterwords as a reward.
Re:Predictable outcome (Score:5, Insightful)
NSA: One company would be more easy to deal with.
Federal law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with.
State law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with. Can we keep the networks on copper or coaxial cable in use for a few more decades?
City law enforcement: One company would be more easy to deal with. Optical networks are too expensive to tap. Offer more very low cost mobile plans.
Customers: Free mobile with my new internet plan on a 24 month contract.
The freedom of choice to be online sitting at home or on the move. Every 24 months I get a new free mobile phone.... freedom of choice from a huge selection of approved mobile phones.
Re:Simple economics. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition. .
When did the free market have anything to do with the telecommunications industry? At least in the United States, it has been a regulated industry for as long as anyone alive can remember. I really wonder why we've let companies with a government created monopoly in one area (local cable monopolies) leverage that monopoly to improve their business position in another area (content creation).
Re: (Score:3)
Industry regulation does not constitute a non-free market, just as industry deregulation does not constitute a free market. I think you did not mean to suggest that regulation un-frees markets.
While the telecommunications industry has always been regulated, there are many very competitive industries that face regulation. The regulation, in effect, creates a more level playing field for all competitors within a market. For example, the contractor I know faces regulation. He h
How has this monopoly thing worked for us all? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Industry regulation does not constitute a non-free market, just as industry deregulation does not constitute a free market.
Um, we're talking the telecommunications industry here -- where a free market does not exist. You cannot go into the cable business without the local and/or state (depending on the area) giving its blessing -- and they won't. The local/state governments have create monopolies. This is not a free market.
The same holds for the telephone industry. The norm is that a single company is granted a government monopoly in an area. There is no competition for land lines in a locale.
Don't get me wrong. You
Re:Simple economics. (Score:4)
no, we just need regulatory bodies that have some teeth and backbone enough to say no to lobbyists and bribes. If a company achieves monopoly status, break them up.
This HAS happened in the past, and all the laws to do it are on still on the books. The only reason it doesn't happen is dick douches like Wheeler get spun around the revolving door of government and corporate America.
achieves monopoly? They are GRANTED monopolies (Score:2)
What do you mean "if a company achieves monopoly status"? They are GIVEN monopoly status by local governments. The NYC web site has a map showing which boroughs each company is allowed to operate in.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a clue.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition.
You have to remember how the government has framed "competition" for companies like Comcast. Comcast and Time Warner are not competitors, any more than New York's MTA is a competitor of San Francisco's BART. Comcast competes with other "Internet Service Providers" or "Video Services" in its exclusive territorial boundaries. ie: Comcast only competes with AT&T, Verizon, and Dish.
As long as you can manage the double-think of "competition" specifically excluding the relationship between multiple provide
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition. Once someone wins, and becomes a monopoly, then *all* the benefits of this model vanish.
Most of the benefits vanish a lot sooner than that. Once there are few enough competitors for them to keep track on each other there is no longer any benefit to rock the boat since the competition will know what is going on and can follow easily.
With five or six companies "competing" there isn't really any competition going on, the numbers only prevents anyone from doing anything drastic in either direction.
You need something closer to twentyish companies competing in each region to get the benefits of comp
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like:
Customers: Please don't!
FTC: Hmm, the customers seem vocal about this one.
Time Warner/Comcast to FTC: Don't you dare...
FTC: OK, you can merge if you meet these tough conditions, and we'll closely monitor that you are doing so.
(One U.S. election cycle passes)
New FTC Head: What's good for Time Warner/Comcast is good for America! Full steam ahead, job-producers! You don't need these pesky conditions anymore.
Scrutinized by federal officials (Score:5, Insightful)
The deal will indeed be scrutinized by federal officials, to ensure that campaign contributions are large enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but those companies have more speech, so they should be allowed to use more speech. And those companies are people. And the speech is money. And the legislation that eliminates one potential competitor actually doesn't eliminate any competition.
Is there ANY way this isn't backwards? Wow.
Re:Scrutinized by federal officials (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the "backwards" portion of the proposal, namely the presumed backroom deals going on to ensure that customers would be prevented from having choice, and to ensure that should they dislike the level of service offered, their only option would be to move to a location where you have elected to allow a "competitor" to operate unrestricted by your presence.
The distinction that corporations should have a voice in the political process is itself asinine considering that a corporation is nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals who already possess said voice and can act independently. The removal of campaign contribution caps is itself a travesty considering that it allows for an extremely unleveled playing field. While we are at it, perhaps we should go back to pre-Jacksonian era voting rights and only extend them to individuals who own in excess of 50 acres of property while we are at it; allowing those who want their voice heard to be required to jump through quite specific hoops to buy their way into the system and making those who are "drains on the system" as stated by a our last Presidential Election's Runner-Up sit back and watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. RE corporations: the standard Republican (conservative?) rejoinder is that unions could always contribute money, but I'm in favor of denying them all. Screw them. All only individual contributions up to $45, adjusted for inflation going forward. Make a law that prohibits politicians and staffers from joining lobbying outfits after their term is up to eliminate the opportunity for deferred under the table contributions. Then we'll finally have a government that responds to the true will of th
Like... (Score:1)
Hundreds? (Score:2, Redundant)
TWC has 2.2 million cable TV, Internet, and phone customers in 1,150 New York communities, and hundreds of them have called...
I'm thinking that's not going to impress the FTC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hundreds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering the whole Janet Jackson issue was due to 1(one) letter, maybe they will
Re: (Score:2)
TWC has 2.2 million cable TV, Internet, and phone customers in 1,150 New York communities, and hundreds of them have called...
I'm thinking that's not going to impress the FTC.
The good news is that Comcast is planning on losing 3.9 million customers to ease the approval process. NY could be a large chunk of that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
This is like reading the comments section of a Fox news story. So everyone on slashdot wants to believe their own myopic version of reality so badly they're willing to accept something that so obviously biased, so obviously skewed that it's not dis-similar to a lot of the anti-global warming stories I see elsewhere?
The Comcast/Time-warner merger involves 32,000,000 customers total. The FCC got a total of less than 2000 comments... good or bad. The article only mentions ONE PERSON that stood up and spoke out against the deal at the hearing. ONE.
Now, I don't dispute that if you asked the majority of customers they'd probably prefer this deal didn't happen. But to portray it as if there is this massive customer revolt? This submission and that article are, at the very least, intentionally misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
New fashion colors every few months and all the benefits of a dynamic and very competitive consumer hardware market.
Enjoy the freedom to select from several closed source or fully open source product lines.
If you like you can even write free or for profit programs for the 32,000,000 customers via dynamic and free to join online marketplace or shop.
Welcome to your new telco
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to your new telco system. One Contract, One Network, Universal Surveillance.
You mean like half the rest of the world? It's not uncommon for a country to have a single sudo-government agency that runs telecoms like its a utility. Again, you make it sound like we're talking about the end of democracy or something here. 2 Companies merged for gods sakes, it happens all the time. 0.0000625% could be bothered to submit an online complaint form in protest. ONE showed up at a hearing. I had more people complaining than that when I tried to put up a chain link fence 3yrs ago.
I bet more peo
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
As a slight point of clarification, one member of the public was granted time during the hearing to speak, and said person pre-request it and was asked to submit their script for review. It was not a "we will now open the floor" situation.
And the article makes it sound like the throngs of unwashed masses stormed the gates and threw off the shackles of their corporate overlords. I think I was a tad more accurate in my description.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's not by accident. Those hearings have limited seating. It has been well known that corporations pay "plants" to grab those seats well in advance, show up and claim their seat, and do nothing at all during the entire proceeding. Some of them are brazen enough to sleep. This effectively shuts out the dissenters and could be a 1st amendment violation.
Re: (Score:3)
And your problem with that statement is what now? Also the article used as examples two people and their reasons for opposing the merge.
Complaining that the article has not listed everyone who oppose this merger is just inane.
Re: (Score:2)
New York is shaping up as a major battleground for Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable.
Battleground eh?
0.0000625% of the customers complained.
That's not a battleground, that's one dude with jock itch.
How to protest? (Score:2)
It would be nice if someone posted where we (the customers) can protest this sale... I'm OK with TWC right now, but Comcast is the devil. Really don't want them combining.
Re: (Score:2)
You are seeking capitalism, entrepreneurship and a vibrant local telco sector.
Think about your local laws and community broadband.
http://arstechnica.com/busines... [arstechnica.com]
Structural separation will ensure any local, state or national provider can offer its network down to homes without been shut out by any one regional monopoly.
I don't want Comcast too... (Score:2)
... But cable companies still have monopolies for the cities. We do need competition between cable companies like in my area. I can't get DSL, FIOS, etc. I can get dial-up, satellite, etc. but why when cable is affordable and fast. They can be faster and cheaper with competitions! :(
The subtitle (Score:2)
The subtitle should be: From the Devil You Know Department.
Good luck New York (Score:1)
Here's what you do (Score:1)
Every day, every single day, snatch up one employee of Time Warner or Comcast. And you burn them alive in front of their family. Continue until their business model changes.
Re: (Score:1)
Every day, every single day, snatch up one executive of Time Warner or Comcast. And you burn them alive in front of their family. Continue until their business model changes.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the fix. I know firsthand that there exist TW employees who are fighting to stop this. They have more reason than we as the customers do, because layoffs almost always follow mergers.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this matters. (Score:1)
Beg all you want... (Score:2)
Regards,
Your Telecom Corporate Overlords
How Time Warner Cable and Comcast work (Score:2)
I have dealt with Time Warner Cable, specifically in New York City. I have also dealt with Comcast. I think this merger is a natural for them because of several factors: