Charter Gets FCC Permission To Buy Cox, Become Largest ISP In the US (arstechnica.com) 59
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Charter Communications, operator of the Spectrum cable brand, has obtained Federal Communications Commission permission to buy Cox and surpass Comcast as the country's largest home Internet service provider. Charter has 29.7 million residential and business Internet customers compared to Comcast's 31.26 million. Buying Cox will give Charter another 5.9 million Internet customers. The FCC approved the deal on Friday, but the companies still need Justice Department approval and sign-offs from states including California and New York.
Opponents of Charter's $34.5 billion acquisition told the FCC that eliminating Cox as an independent entity will make it easier for Charter and Comcast to raise prices. But the FCC dismissed those concerns on the grounds that Charter and Cox don't compete directly against each other in the vast majority of their territories.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's primary demand from companies seeking to merge has been to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and policies. In a press release (PDF), the Carr-led FCC said that "Charter has committed to new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination," and that Charter's network-expansion plans will bring "faster broadband and lower prices" to rural areas. The merger was approved one day after Charter sent a letter to Carr outlining its actions to end DEI. Charter offers broadband and cable service in 41 states, while Cox does so in 18 states.
Opponents of Charter's $34.5 billion acquisition told the FCC that eliminating Cox as an independent entity will make it easier for Charter and Comcast to raise prices. But the FCC dismissed those concerns on the grounds that Charter and Cox don't compete directly against each other in the vast majority of their territories.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's primary demand from companies seeking to merge has been to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and policies. In a press release (PDF), the Carr-led FCC said that "Charter has committed to new safeguards to protect against DEI discrimination," and that Charter's network-expansion plans will bring "faster broadband and lower prices" to rural areas. The merger was approved one day after Charter sent a letter to Carr outlining its actions to end DEI. Charter offers broadband and cable service in 41 states, while Cox does so in 18 states.
We need more, smaller ISPs. Not big ones. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I live there is one ISP. Spectrum. The cost of 1Gbit service is $129 a month. The service sucks. It's always having outages.
Where my brother lives, they have both AT&T and Spectrum. Both carries offer internet for $59 a month to his house.
We need more ISPs. More competition. Less mergers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We need more, smaller ISPs. Not big ones. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubt it, their operating costs are always going to be higher than cables laying in the ground, it will always have lesser total capacity, the latency, even if good, will always be higher and it will always be subject to more interference issues.
The idea that Starlink is anything close to a replacement for a dedicated fiber line is a pipe dream. It can both be a marvel of technology with amazing capabilities and providing amazing service for people who need it and still not be comparable to dedicated fiber and that's OK, these things do not compete, they complement eachother.
The idea it just has to be a replacement is Musk making his personal insecurities everyone elses problem yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My friend pays about ~$120 for Spectrum and a telepone line (I have no idea, maybe his 80 yo mil "needs" it). He says he gets about 700mb down, not to shabby.
So given the choice, I'd rather have Spectrum then Starlink. Starlink is really awesome if you are in a bad communication spot (side of a hill, flight path, middle of no where). It just depends on your use case I suppose. 100mb connection is overkill for me personally, but I don't stream beyond HD, don't even have a 4k tv. Latency is just fine on Starl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink only has good speeds until they are saturated. There are a limited number of ground stations - imagine cellular except maybe one big cell tower per state for the US. Nobody should use Starlink if they have other options. Not because it's bad but because it will be if too many people subscribe. They are way beyond traditional satellite Internet but it still has limits.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the latency that kills the idea... ping times of 5-10 seconds.
Not to mention the need for a clear view of the sky (maybe trees aren't as big of a deal these days).
*hugs his modem* -- $30 a month for Ping 39 ms, Download 100.81 Mb/s, Upload 11.19 Mb/s (Verizon Forward)
Spectrum is straight junk, haven't tried Starlink.
Re: We need more, smaller ISPs. Not big ones. (Score:1, Insightful)
While I don't use Starlink, I've never heard anybody complain about anything you just mentioned. There's also no rhyme or reason to mention interference at all given the technology behind phased array antennas seems to deal with it well. If that wasn't the case, and what you're saying is even remotely true, then it should be pretty easy for Russia to block Ukrainians from using it now that Russia can't.
I know Canada doesn't like it, but that's probably for the same reason they blocked Verizon from operating
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying these are common issues but it's more to the point I don't think it's anywhere near correct to expect Starlink to be an alternative to actual broadband infrastructure. It's very good, we don't have to strawman me and pretend I'm knocking it to make a bad argument.
Is the latency good? Yes. Is it better than fiber or even DOCSIS? No. Does it deal with interference really well? Yes. Does it suffer more issues tahn cables? Also yes. Does it cost more to maintain and operate than traditional in
Re: (Score:1)
It's very good, we don't have to strawman me and pretend I'm knocking it to make a bad argument.
You're right, I don't, and I didn't.
Is the latency good? Yes. Is it better than fiber or even DOCSIS? No.
Median latency is said to be around 25ms as of last year when the orbital position was lowered, which soundly defeats DOCSIS at around 60ms. LLD might beat it, but at this point you're already low enough that no applications will be bothered by it. (It also puts the maximum theoretical Kessler event time at about one year.)
Does it suffer more issues tahn cables? Also yes.
I'm going to have to call BS on that, mainly because my knowledge as a former network engineer and my lived experience tells me otherwise. All it takes
Re: (Score:2)
Except it has already done that. In quite a big way. One thing you might not have noticed in the last some odd years is people complaining about the local cable company claiming to serve areas that it doesn't actually serve just to prevent a competitor from receiving broadband subsidies, and then quoting insane prices just to run residential copper to an area they claim to already serve. Now it's like...why even fuck with their asses? If they really want you as a customer that bad, then tell them they can call you in three weeks between the hours of 5:00PM and 9:00PM, because karma's a real fucking bitch.
Because that is like 5% of the population where they don't have existing service and are quoted insane prices to run it... that's my point, that's where Starlink serves and excels... thats the point of it existing. Also Starlink doesn't actually fix that issue it's just being used an excuse to not actually fix the issue, exactly as you laid out here. Those areas will not actually get their wired service or any regulations to prevent such things now they are just stuck inside another monopoly, so when Spac
Re:We need more, smaller ISPs. Not big ones. (Score:5, Informative)
I just got Starlink as it's come down to my only option and it cost $120 per month, no additional taxes, fees or equipment rentals. They actually sent me a Starlink kit (receiver, outdoor ethernet 50', and a router with a power cord. If it gets damaged or broken, I buy it. When I'm done with the service, I return the used equipment free and clear. I may have to pay for return shipping but I'm not really concerned and will deal with that hopefully a very long time from now.
I just did a speedtest.net test and am getting about 230/30 connection. Now I am on wifi entirely as I've decided not to drag wires around the home and cannot make any changes otherwise. I think the quoted speed on the website says up to 300mb but that's ideal, perfection conditions I'm thinking. Considering my rather slow 10mb hotspot connection is patchy at best in this location, I'm just happy to have Starlink as an option. It was kind of the fall back plan otherwise I would not live where I am.
The kit arrived in about a week though they will say up to two weeks for shipping. You just use your cellphone and an app to position the receiver. It's all very simple and pretty cool at the same time. You definitely need a clear view for optimal performance, which I'm lucky to have.
Their website also claims to have cheaper deals for lower speeds, but the only one offered to my address in the San Diego County region was of course the $120. I'd of actually gone with half the speed, as before I moved here I was paying Cox $52.01 a month for 100/??up. It more then met all my needs.
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live there is one ISP. Spectrum. The cost of 1Gbit service is $129 a month. The service sucks. It's always having outages.
Where my brother lives, they have both AT&T and Spectrum. Both carries offer internet for $59 a month to his house.
We need more ISPs. More competition. Less mergers.
Pretty much the same here. Our neighbors can get AT&T and Comcast, but we are one house down the side road and only Spectrum runs lines down here (we are less than 50 feet from them and there are a couple dozen more homes before the dead end). We pay $90 for internet that struggles to try to meet the supposed 100 MB, and hasn't been stable since they upped our speed (and bills) from 25 MB.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just we need more competition, it's we need these kinds of backroom deals made illegal and the law actually enforced as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiber service is available down the hills, but I can't get it. :(
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt prices will change in my neighborhood unless ATT breaks out the fiber they ran past it. At least my service is reliable. Charter in my neighborhood is damn near bulletproof (midnight service windows aside). I don't think it's ever gone down, but a couple miles down the road it's hideously unreliable.
The biggest problem is us (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we never complain, and the company lawyers do. If more people would get involved then they wouldn't improve these mergers, when the only people that are speaking are lawywers then they'll push the merger through. Any consumer could recognize that this is going to be bad for them. Mergers never pass on savings to consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
You are never going to get enough people interested (signing petitions, writing their elected representatives, protesting in the streets, whatever) to overcome lobbying, campaign contributions (i.e. bribes) and other pressure and convince the current US federal administration to say no to mergers like this.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, yes, you are right. But if you could get a large mass of people, say 10 20 percent, and get them to state affecting voting, you would get listened to.
Re: (Score:2)
You are never going to get enough people interested (signing petitions, writing their elected representatives, protesting in the streets, whatever) to overcome lobbying, campaign contributions (i.e. bribes) and other pressure and convince the current US federal administration to say no to mergers like this.
Ultimately, the only solution to lobbying is going to have to be people coming together to lobby for what they want. No, we don't individually have the money to do much, but there are a whole lot of us. If even a subset of people that are pissed off at the political process in the US right now could agree on any particular issue and then dedicate a buck or two a week to it, we might be able to make some headway against the larger lobbyists. Does it suck that money is literally the only thing deciding the di
Re:The biggest problem is us (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that, people complaining rarely seems to do anything.
The problem is that until Trump our government was beholden to lobbyists and small scale corruption, and now it's beholden to large scale corruption and with-me-or-against-me loyalty tests. In neither of these models is "Doing the right thing and ensuring the public's best interests are taken care of" a thing, and we've gone from a semi-corrupt-but-at-least-obviously-extreme-examples-were-quashed environment to something completely out of control. All corporations need to do is kiss Trump's ass, donate to one of his fraudulent enterprises, and wait for approval to come in.
If we ever get our government back, first priority needs to be making it act in the public interest, and making sure voters have to take it more seriously than they've done in the past.
We've devolved into a banana republic. It's awful.
Re: (Score:3)
2) Make Election Day a federal holiday.
3) Mandatory fines of private businesses if their employees fail to vote on Election Day. In percentages of their gross income.
4) Mandatory ranked-choice voting in all races. No more "first-past-the-post" BS.
5) Mandatory recall elections for all politicians. With any vote where they made the tie breaking vote on since their last electoral victory, having a mandatory do over with instant suspension of the legislation in que
Re: (Score:2)
Only Congress can declare war or define a budget, though legislation, and it shall not delegate that authority.
Nothing would EVER EVER EVER get done. If there is not some threat to Congress and its' authority they will never do anything. I live in Arizona, the Repubs try every year to shutdown the state until they get what they want.
Re: (Score:1)
RCV could work, but would it get rid of the electoral college and make our vote actually matter?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe if the electoral college votes were allocated to match the popular vote in each state it would be fine. Sure somebody in Wyoming has 4x the voting power as somebody in Texas, but this may not matter much, particularly because the population of Wyoming is not that high. There is no election in history where such allocation of electoral votes produces a different result than the popular vote.
Weighing everybody's vote by multiplying it by their state's electoral college size and dividing by the numbe
Re: (Score:2)
Something like 1 electoral college vote per 10,000 popular votes or something? That could work. Maybe they have to go through the votes by a list (Environmental, Immigration, Military, et cetera (of course, that would require a candidate has an opinion on each of those areas)).
Ranked voting would get too complicated (if there was five candidates), and what if there's only two or one?
Of course, the people in charge of the voting process aren't going to listen to 'the little people' when they update the rul
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm suggesting the states still have exactly the same number of electoral votes as they do now.
But votes are calculated by multiplying each vote by the number of electoral votes for the state divided by the actual number of votes in the state.
I feel this might pass the constitutional requirements and the result won't be too far from the popular vote.
The winner-take-all aspect of electoral votes is MUCH more damaging than the fact that they don't match the population.
I believe "approval" voting (where a v
Re: (Score:2)
Having people decide on who can run on the ballot (in like a pre-vote vote) is gonna end up with a dozen candidates on each side of the aisle (or more)... at that point, we'll need posters covering the voting booths that list off what each candidate is running on, and it'll take each person 15 minutes to read through it all.
For Anoka County, MN (9PM tonight): 247,189 registered voters * 10 electoral votes for the state / 247,189... gives you 10, which is exactly what it was before all the math.
I suppose if
Re: (Score:1)
Just pick a candidate and vote for them. Changing the rules to give bad candidates a better chance is stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
EULAs/TOS's... sure, they apply if they're enforced (which, they never are).
I vaguely remember the Bill Of Rights applies to people, although, sadly, that's only if people fight for it when they are affected by it.
Everything you said is impossible and/or ridiculous. Businesses are supposed to allow you time off to vote, 'mandatory voting' requirements reek of socialism, how are you going to enforce "nobody (politician, judge, public servant, anyone being payed by tax payers, or president)" being above the
Re: (Score:1)
Hate to break it to ya (Is that you, rsilvergun)... Trump isn't the problem... it's the companies. Now that everything is done online, the ISPs found out that people need internet, and the people will pay whatever to get internet.
Sorry to tell ya, we never 'had' the government in the first place, and making it act in the public interest isn't going to happen (you could run for office), and our vote doesn't matter (mine and yours and everyone else's is just the popularity vote... the real deciding vote is u
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to be that stupid or are you just referencing stupid people?
Trump is the SYMPTOM of the society's collapse. not the source of the problem. now that you figured out...or parroted like the other BS you listed. Sounds like most millennials to me; not opinions but the echoing of cynical thought that began in childhood with that group. Saw it. ignorant children with opinions picked up from media they has zero grasp in which to legitimately hold. Reminded me of some racist kids... Ironically the
Re: (Score:1)
(try running your post through Office grammar checker, then try again)
Sorry, I'm more in the real world, where Americans lose their jobs to immigrants, and immigrants drive up insurance rates and soak up county funds (SNAP and cash assistance). Perhaps you'd rather Harris put in an express lane for immigration so we can just hand over everything on a silver platter.
Trump isn't perfect, let me be the first to voice that, but at least he's tried to clean up the system and the country... would Harris have don
Re: (Score:2)
We never lost 'our government'... regardless of who gets elected, it's all about helping their friends get rich through favoritism.
The only way we'll ever truly get out government back... a regular Joe has to get elected (me, you, that shade tree mechanic down the block), and I don't see that happening for a long time.
Strategy Updates (Score:3)
you must buy disney channel online and ESPN to get (Score:1)
you must buy disney channel online and ESPN to get internet unless you pay for an business internet plan that starts at 1.5-2.0X the cost of the home plan.
Guessing how this goes ... (Score:1)
the companies still need Justice Department approval
Someone in the White House is getting another shiny gold trinket/trophy!
"DEI discrimination" (Score:4, Informative)
https://diversity.com/post/is-... [diversity.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you have cultural bigotry, it's like rock. Just saying "stop" is more inane than saying "just don't do drugs." You need an illogical counter move to the illogical behavior; you can't reason with it. Forcing race quotas is the ONLY way to do something outside of massive sustained social engineering.
Anything you dream up, the very motivated racists will find loopholes and dishonest interpretations even flat out illegality (prior to that , they even did terrorism and before that war.) You can't do nuan
Re: (Score:1)
That's it. Racism is dying out and probably would have effectively vanished from the public consciousness were it not for the people who depend on it for a living. The only forms of racism that could be dealt with via legislation, has been dealt with. It was removed from hiring, housing, public accommodations and public services. The only elements remaining are in people's hearts
And guess what happens next (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Customer,
As we merge our operations with Cox Communicats, adjustments will need to be made to our billing practices. Starting on April 1, 2026, there will be an additional $25 integration fee added to your bill. This will continue for a period of six months after which this fee will be added to your bill on a permanent basis.
This fee will allow us to continue to providing you with the best service possible as we work to merge our operations. Additional fees may be necessary in the near future.
If you wish to dispute this fee, tough shit. There's no one else in your area.
Sincerely,
Charter Communications
Re: (Score:2)
no you will just become an standard customer no new customer signup bonus.
this used to be a real country (Score:2, Insightful)
Now it's only a kakistocracy
They'll raise prices, they did it before (Score:5, Informative)
Charter brought Time Warner Cable and raised prices. Consumers paying less after a merger such as this is rare and counterintuitive to the company. Why not recoup the cost of the purchase quicker by pushing up prices a skosh? What are the customers gonna do? Go to the competitor we just bought? Oh, will you look at that: those whiny customers WILL pay more... how about we charge them some more?
Re: (Score:2)
Enshrining Protections Against DEI Discrimination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see, just like the UTTERLY unqualified administration, who hires based on the willingness to kiss ass.
protect against DEI discrimination? (Score:2)
Another merger... (Score:2)
Y'know, I have this crazy idea... maybe we should UNDO the dereg act of '97, and reregulate heavily. No more random suprise fees, for example, and no more massive price increases solely for CEO ROI?
Cocks? (Score:1)
No more cocks? (Score:1)
Crap buys more crap (Score:1)