# Stop the Comcast/TimeWarner merger



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Here your only chance to stop the Comcast/TimeWarner Cable merger and require more competition in the cable industry.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-comcasttimewarner-cable-merger-and-require-more-competition-cable-industry/ym52vbd4


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Sorry but the merger does not effect competition. TWC and Comcast do not directly compete in any market.

Competition would be a good thing, just that merger or not has no effect.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand they don't directly compete, but on the other a consolidation of this size never seems like a good idea. Is having one company in control of cable TV, and more importantly internet access, for 30M people a good idea? Seems to give them a huge advantage in negotiations with content providers. And with the net neutrality laws getting struck down could be a serious problem for startup OOT providers.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Sorry but the merger does not effect competition. TWC and Comcast do not directly compete in any market.
> 
> Competition would be a good thing, just that merger or not has no effect.


Not true. TWC and Comcast compete with each other on content deals with content providers and hardware providers (basically, their suppliers). The merger leverages their ability to throw around customer volume to get what they want.

You should probably research this more before you say more incorrect things that might confuse someone else reading your post.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand they don't directly compete, but on the other a consolidation of this size never seems like a good idea. Is having one company in control of cable TV, and more importantly internet access, for 30M people a good idea? Seems to give them a huge advantage in negotiations with content providers. And with the net neutrality laws getting struck down could be a serious problem for startup OOT providers.


You answered your own question.... no?

The ma-bell breakup split AT&T into a bunch of companies that didn't directly compete (in the way you are using it) and yet the DOJ saw it as necessary to protect the industry.

Consider that for a minute.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> You answered your own question.... no?
> 
> The ma-bell breakup split AT&T into a bunch of companies that didn't directly compete (in the way you are using it) and yet the DOJ saw it as necessary to protect the industry.
> 
> Consider that for a minute.


Exactly. Even without directly competing, they indirectly compete, which benefits consumers. The real question you have to ask about this merger is "Will it benefit consumers or harm consumers." If the answer is that it will benefit consumers (lol) then it should be allowed to go forward. If the answer is that it will hurt consumers (duh) then it should never be approved. The only people that this merger will benefit is shareholders and executives of the 2 companies at the expense of their customers.

We live in an era of deregulation, and the idea that local monopolies should be allowed to merge into national monopolies in such a deregulated environment is ridiculous.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Exactly. Even without directly competing, they indirectly compete, which benefits consumers. The real question you have to ask about this merger is "Will it benefit consumers or harm consumers." If the answer is that it will benefit consumers (lol) then it should be allowed to go forward. If the answer is that it will hurt consumers (duh) then it should never be approved. The only people that this merger will benefit is shareholders and executives of the 2 companies at the expense of their customers.


I think the usage of "indirect" here is misleading, because it *is* direct competition, it's just not for consumer dollars. It's for content. But I totally get what you're saying and agree with you.

Of course, the argument TWC/Comcast will put together is that, by merging, they can leverage their size to force better deals from content providers. Things like, being forced to pay CBS to carry the station, or being forced to carry the NFL network on the basic cable tier, etc. Fights that they each fought independently and lost, maybe they could win merged? They would argue that maybe they can split off Disney and ESPN and force them to allow ala carte pricing, etc. That will be THEIR argument.

The problem is, as many people have mentioned, the internet business. When you tie TV and internet together, now Comcast has leverage against Hulu and Netflix and Amazon Prime etc. And now they turn that leverage AGAINST what consumers want.

I think if the US government said "Sure, you can merge, but if you do, you can't sell internet anymore" I would say "yep. done. do it." But unless that happens (it won't) then I will oppose this merger in every forum available to me.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Of course, the argument TWC/Comcast will put together is that, by merging, they can leverage their size to force better deals from content providers. Things like, being forced to pay CBS to carry the station, or being forced to carry the NFL network on the basic cable tier, etc. Fights that they each fought independently and lost, maybe they could win merged? They would argue that maybe they can split off Disney and ESPN and force them to allow ala carte pricing, etc. That will be THEIR argument.
> 
> The problem is, as many people have mentioned, the internet business. When you tie TV and internet together, now Comcast has leverage against Hulu and Netflix and Amazon Prime etc. And now they turn that leverage AGAINST what consumers want.
> 
> I think if the US government said "Sure, you can merge, but if you do, you can't sell internet anymore" I would say "yep. done. do it." But unless that happens (it won't) then I will oppose this merger in every forum available to me.


Another big problem along these same lines is Comcast's ownership of NBC/Universal. This gives them a conflict of interest in wanting to promote and profit from the content that they own at the expense of content which they do not own or profit from. A merged entity the size of Comcast/Time Warner should not be allowed to own any content of its own whatsoever. The uneven playing field that this will create for other content producers is completely unacceptable.


----------



## brewman (Jun 29, 2003)

The ma-bell breakup was because it was a true monopoly - at the time there was no competition. Cable has competition from multiple areas including internet feeds, satellite, and U-Verse - just not from other MSOs. 

Personally, I wish municipalities would have sole-source cable contracts, but that's not likely to happen.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand they don't directly compete, but on the other a consolidation of this size never seems like a good idea. Is having one company in control of cable TV, and more importantly internet access, for 30M people a good idea? *Seems to give them a huge advantage in negotiations with content providers*. And with the net neutrality laws getting struck down could be a serious problem for startup OOT providers.


Wouldn't that perhaps be a good thing for consumers? Maybe put the kabosh to content providers jacking up fees so much?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

UCLABB said:


> Wouldn't that perhaps be a good thing for consumers? Maybe put the kabosh to content providers jacking up fees so much?


You must work for Comcast. Restricting content provider fee increases will be good for Comcast's profits but not for consumers. Comcast and TWC will continue to raise prices on consumers as high as they think they can get away with to maximize their profits regardless or what happens with content fees. The outrageous prices that you pay Comcast will be completely unaffected.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I don't see how giving all the top markets and that many customers to one company does anything but make them more powerful and less accountable to consumers. And having the carrier plus content...sounds like a conflict there. I wish I had a choice. If I want modern internet (that is, bandwidth greater than 1.5mbps) Comcast is my only choice. If they didn't benefit from the public spaces that allow them to network to my house, I probably wouldn't care.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Until we move away from the Municipal Franchise model that limits only one provider to a geographic area, we are never going to see any real competition and pressure on pricing.

FIOS was doing a great job competing against that model, but for some reason has stopped all expansion.

Now the only real competition to the "selected" Cable providers in most areas is satellite and generally you still need to go to the cable provider to get decent broad band internet.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

hefe said:


> I don't see how giving all the top markets and that many customers to one company does anything but make them more powerful and less accountable to consumers.


+1


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

bradleys said:


> FIOS was doing a great job competing against that model, but for some reason has stopped all expansion.


The reason Verizon stopped expansion of FIOS is simple. They realized that they were creating a semi-competitive market for wired broadband, which would only result in average profits rather than the excessive profits that many corporations now seem to demand.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The reason Verizon stopped expansion of FIOS is simple. They realized that they were creating a semi-competitive market for wired broadband, which would only result in average profits rather than the excessive profits that many corporations now seem to demand.


related, today google announced it was looking to expand it's fiber internet service to 9 new markets.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> related, today google announced it was looking to expand it's fiber internet service to 9 new markets.


Crap, not in my area.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

brewman said:


> The ma-bell breakup was because it was a true monopoly - at the time there was no competition. Cable has competition from multiple areas including internet feeds, satellite, and U-Verse - just not from other MSOs.
> 
> Personally, I wish municipalities would have sole-source cable contracts, but that's not likely to happen.


And that's why were not talking about "breaking up" TW or Comcast into smaller cable companies. We're talking about not letting them merge.

And the whole "people have other choices besides cable!" argument is a joke. No, the majority of Americans do not have any choices for their internet if they want anything faster than 1MBPS. And while most do have choices for their TV, many do not (if you don't have clear LOS to the south, for example). UVerse exists in my city. I have it for internet. MY parents can't get it though. My brothers couldn't until recently. I've had Uverse internet for... sheesh.... 3 years? 4 years? Maybe more?

And we haven't even touched on rural areas yet.

So, no, many many many many people do not have choices, making it a true monopoly for them.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

hefe said:


> Crap, not in my area.


I'm actually not sure this matters... I mean, it does. But it doesn't matter as much as you think.

Every time Google fiber moves, it pressures cities to WANT fiber. Which pressures cities to offer fiber deals to ANYONE who will come build it.

Which is Google's goal. I mean, they will take some profits from it... but that is not what they care about. What they care about is that EVERYONE has fast high speed internet at all times 24/7 so we can all keep using google's services.

So they don't care WHO provides that internet... as long as SOMEONE does.


----------



## rogmatic (Sep 17, 2009)

If you have TWC, you probably want to merger to go through because Comcast is much better - especially for Tivo.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Grakthis said:


> I'm actually not sure this matters... I mean, it does. But it doesn't matter as much as you think.
> 
> Every time Google fiber moves, it pressures cities to WANT fiber. Which pressures cities to offer fiber deals to ANYONE who will come build it.
> 
> ...


Well, I want someone to pressure the market...my ONLY choice for internet > 1.5 mbps is Comcast.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

rogmatic said:


> If you have TWC, you probably want to merger to go through because Comcast is much better - especially for Tivo.


Really?? I don't see Comcast offering a Roamio box without a tuning adapter and has VOD. If Comcast did this and let you chose between two or more boxes (one of them is a TiVo), all of them the same, all receive VOD, all are price the same price. If Comcast did this, then I would agree with your statement.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Johncv said:


> Really?? I don't see Comcast offering a Roamio box without a tuning adapter and has VOD. If Comcast did this and let you chose between two or more boxes (one of them is a TiVo), all of them the same, all receive VOD, all are price the same price. If Comcast did this, then I would agree with your statement.


Comcast is one of the only companies who actually does offer VOD via TiVo. Their XFinity VOD app is available in most major Comcast markets.

As for the TA... That's a hardware limitation. The cable companies own boxes have that hardware built in, but because the hardware is non-standard and depends on being matched to head end equipment TiVo can not build it in. They have to depend on an external USB version of the hardware instead, which is the TA. There is no way any cable company could offer a TiVo without a TA unless they got rid of SDV completely. And most cable systems depend on SDV to expand their bandwidth beyond what the coax cable itself is physically capable of providing.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

bradleys said:


> Until we move away from the Municipal Franchise model that limits only one provider to a geographic area...


The Municipal Franchise model doesn't exist to limit things to only one provider in a given area, it exists to deal with the physical reality that allowing more than one can get really messy, really fast.

Crossing our front yard, near the street, are underground lines for the power company, the telephone company, and the cable company.

With just them, any time one of them needs to dig things up to do any work, we hold our breath waiting to see if the Backhoe Operator From H311 damages one of the other services.

Now imagine the increased chances with more than 3 companies burying lines our there.

It's a trade-off between giving the residents a choice of more than one source for one of those services and the alternative of minimizing the chance of service interruptions.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

rogmatic said:


> If you have TWC, you probably want to merger to go through because Comcast is much better - especially for Tivo.


Can anybody elaborate on Comcast and their usage of the copy restriction flag in digital cable? (as per Tivo Desktop and KMTTG functionality and downloading to a PC). I have TW and might stand to see an improvement in that area if there is actually an acquisition. However I also understand the negatives, as already mentioned in this thread.

Also I am skeptical of quick changes after a buyout. Historically many companies maintain their existing infrastructure, at least for a transition period, in the name of cost savings. Many things end up not changing. So the way I would expect that to apply here is older TW features that we don't necessarily like might stick around for a while, whether or not Comcast buys them.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

unitron said:


> The Municipal Franchise model doesn't exist to limit things to only one provider in a given area, it exists to deal with the physical reality that allowing more than one can get really messy, really fast.
> 
> Crossing our front yard, near the street, are underground lines for the power company, the telephone company, and the cable company.
> 
> ...


 I know what you mean, we could only get Uverse after DWP was done doing pipe work under the street. So under the street we now have Cable,Power, Uverse/phone lines. As long as pipes don't break fine, but if one does..pray they don't hit any of the lines down there.


----------



## rogmatic (Sep 17, 2009)

I don't know if this is universally true, but I switched from TWC in Dallas to Comcast outside of Philly and got improved service. In my area the on-demand feature doesn't work on Tivo (unfortunately) but I don't have to use a tuning adapter. More importantly, I don't drop signals any more on my Tivo Elite. This could obviously be from the location, so I wouldn't read too much into that. I like the TWC app a little better because it offers more live channels, while Comcast offers more on demand shows and movies on its app (although it sucks compares to Netflix). My do not believe any of my channels are flagged copyright protection, although I will admit that I don't use that feature.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

rogmatic said:


> If you have TWC, you probably want to merger to go through because Comcast is much better - especially for Tivo.


First of all, my TiVo on TWC has been fine.

Second of all, if you're willing to trade some short-term comfort with your cable for long term destruction of the market, then you're incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Comcast is one of the only companies who actually does offer VOD via TiVo. Their XFinity VOD app is available in most major Comcast markets.
> 
> As for the TA... That's a hardware limitation. The cable companies own boxes have that hardware built in, but because the hardware is non-standard and depends on being matched to head end equipment TiVo can not build it in. They have to depend on an external USB version of the hardware instead, which is the TA. There is no way any cable company could offer a TiVo without a TA unless they got rid of SDV completely. And most cable systems depend on SDV to expand their bandwidth beyond what the coax cable itself is physically capable of providing.


I have TWC and we do not have SDV or TAs.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Grakthis said:


> I have TWC and we do not have SDV or TAs.


I didn't say all cable companies use SDV, just that there is no way for them to offer a TiVo that works without a TA in areas where they do. It does not have the hardware required. Nor is it possible for them to include it because the hardware varies based in headend equipment.

Although are you sure you don't have SDV? I thought all TWC markets used SDV. Maybe yours does and it just doesn't effect the channels you subscribe to?


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

unitron said:


> The Municipal Franchise model doesn't exist to limit things to only one provider in a given area, it exists to deal with the physical reality that allowing more than one can get really messy, really fast.
> 
> Crossing our front yard, near the street, are underground lines for the power company, the telephone company, and the cable company.
> 
> ...


Having worked for a city in public works for decades, I completely disagree with this reasoning. Yes, it is one more underground thing to worry about, but not that big of a deal. The franchise model arose to protect the investment of the cable company's capital investment from competition AND to provide franchise fees to cities which are quite considerable- 5% of the total bill in my case. A very cozy relationship. Initially the cities could control quality and prices, but later lost this ability at least in my state.

So now we are left with a near monopoly. Ideally, cities, especially those which provide utilities, should have put in the lines themselves. Now, it is simply too expensive for a company to come along and invest in its own cable infrastructure only to have to compete with the current provider.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I didn't say all cable companies use SDV, just that there is no way for them to offer a TiVo that works without a TA in areas where they do. It does not have the hardware required. Nor is it possible for them to include it because the hardware varies based in headend equipment.
> 
> Although are you sure you don't have SDV? I thought all TWC markets used SDV. Maybe yours does and it just doesn't effect the channels you subscribe to?


Right. I get that. But you said 'And most cable systems depend on SDV' and I was just letting you know that not even TWC uses SDV in all markets.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Comcast is one of the only companies who actually does offer VOD via TiVo. Their XFinity VOD app is available in most major Comcast markets.
> 
> As for the TA... That's a hardware limitation. The cable companies own boxes have that hardware built in, but because the hardware is non-standard and depends on being matched to head end equipment TiVo can not build it in. They have to depend on an external USB version of the hardware instead, which is the TA. There is no way any cable company could offer a TiVo without a TA unless they got rid of SDV completely. And most cable systems depend on SDV to expand their bandwidth beyond what the coax cable itself is physically capable of providing.


Dan, you miss my point. If Comcast really were "supporting" customers and "good" for TiVo. Comcast would let a customer choose between a TiVo Roamio (with built in TA) or another box. One of the requirements for the merger should be that Comcast can no longer sell or rent a cable box and Comcast must release the spec to support SDV and VOD and let the market (TiVo, Apple, whoever) build the box. You just go to Bust Buy, TiVo, Apple and buy the box.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Having a built in TA isn't going to do anything except make it so that TiVo can only ever be used in a Comcast market. There is nothing inherently wrong with TAs. I know some people have problems with them, but that's mainly due to out of date firmware or head end issues. Having it built into the box isn't going to change that.

What needs to happen is for the FCC to push forward with AllVid. That will consolidate the CableCARD, TA and tuners into a single gateway device making 3rd party devices cheaper and easier to make and interoperable between providers. One TiVo could be used with cable, DirecTV, Dish, Uverse, etc... bacause all the operator specific technology would be contained in the gateway.

The problem is that MSOs don't want competition. They don't want users to be able to easily jump between providers, they don't want users to be able to buy their own boxes and they don't want CE makers to be able to supplant their UI and bypass all their ad revenue. Back in the CabkeCARD 2.0 days the big fight was over the UI. It eventually resulted in OACP which badically allowed cable companies to download their own UI on to consumer devices. Obviously that never took off. 

Cable companies like having their monopolies. They're not going to willingly give it up. The FCC has to grow a pair and force them. Unfortunately the FCC is the type of agency that is easily swayed by money and political influence, and these giant cable companies have a ton of both.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Having a built in TA isn't going to do anything except make it so that TiVo can only ever be used in a Comcast market. There is nothing inherently wrong with TAs. I know some people have problems with them, but that's mainly due to out of date firmware or head end issues. Having it built into the box isn't going to change that.
> 
> What needs to happen is for the FCC to push forward with AllVid. That will consolidate the CableCARD, TA and tuners into a single gateway device making 3rd party devices cheaper and easier to make and interoperable between providers. One TiVo could be used with cable, DirecTV, Dish, Uverse, etc... bacause all the operator specific technology would be contained in the gateway.
> 
> ...


Very well said. The CableCard standard is clearly outdated technology at this point. To TiVo's credit, they have managed to push the CableCard just about as far as it can go, but it simply isn't going to be around forever. I still hope and pray that by some miracle the FCC will do the right thing here and force CableCard's successor to be a universal standard across all MSOs, despite essentially being bribed by the entire video industry not to. And for what it's worth, the AllVid Alliance is still at least trying to persuade them to do it, god bless them. Here is their latest letter to the FCC from 2 days ago for anyone who is interested:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521073594

They even give a shout out to TiVo!


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Having a built in TA isn't going to do anything except make it so that TiVo can only ever be used in a Comcast market. There is nothing inherently wrong with TAs. I know some people have problems with them, but that's mainly due to out of date firmware or head end issues. Having it built into the box isn't going to change that.
> 
> What needs to happen is for the FCC to push forward with AllVid. That will consolidate the CableCARD, TA and tuners into a single gateway device making 3rd party devices cheaper and easier to make and interoperable between providers. One TiVo could be used with cable, DirecTV, Dish, Uverse, etc... bacause all the operator specific technology would be contained in the gateway.
> 
> ...


*nods*

OACP was such a mess and such a waste of time for everyone.

The reason the FCC is never going to grow a pair and do the right thing in a way that benefits consumers is because every FCC chair leaves to go work for a cable company.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I say make them dump NBCU to get TWC... having NBCU and Comcast under one roof is a big problem and a conflict of interest, unlike TWC and Comcast... two companies who do the same thing and don't compete with each other.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> TWC and Comcast... two companies who....don't compete with each other.


Please stop repeating that line.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I say make them dump NBCU to get TWC... having NBCU and Comcast under one roof is a big problem and a conflict of interest, unlike TWC and Comcast... two companies who do the same thing and don't compete with each other.


As other have pointed out they do compete with each other on the content side. They don't compete on the consumer side but when it comes to striking deals with content providers, etc... they do compete and allowing them to merge will not only create less competition in that space it'll create a single huge company with so many subscribers the content providers will pretty much have to meet their demands. They'll become the Wal-Mart or iTunes of TV content. Content providers will be at their mercy and they'll be able to demand almost anything they want. Although that may not be a bad thing for consumers.

What really concerns me is that they'll also become the largest ISP, and with the net neutrality laws getting struck down it opens up a window for them to put pressure on providers like Netflix to start paying a stipend to prevent throttling. If that happens then all ISPs are going to demand the same and Netflix prices are going to go up for the consumer.


----------



## snoopdogg1 (Sep 24, 2008)

TiVo with TWC is NOT fine. It records fine, sure, but you CANNOT download or stream a majority of TWC programs (95%+). Most shows cannot be downloaded-- only network programs, because TWC puts a flag on them. The same 95%+ of programs cannot be streamed out of network because of the same flag. I would welcome a different cable provider!



Grakthis said:


> First of all, my TiVo on TWC has been fine.
> 
> Second of all, if you're willing to trade some short-term comfort with your cable for long term destruction of the market, then you're incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Anyone who doesn't understand what happens without net neutrality and the FCC protecting our right to access what we want without it being messed up and why the big deal here is not only the combine cable company but the combined ISP and the power it will have, just needs to read a little I would start here: http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/21/netflix-cogent-verizon/


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

When it comes to buying content to offer to their subscribers, I don't see how TWC and Comcast are in competition with each other.

It's not as though in Genericville, where one has the east side and the other has the west side, if one carries HBO the other won't be able to in that market. HBO will happily sell to both so as to get subs from both sides of town.

Of course if they merge, they can pressure HBO for a lower price by threatening them with the alternative of no subscribers on either side of town, if TWComcast thinks enough subscribers will stay for the other stuff even if they can't get HBO.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Please stop repeating that line.


It's a true statement.



Dan203 said:


> What really concerns me is that they'll also become the largest ISP, and with the net neutrality laws getting struck down it opens up a window for them to put pressure on providers like Netflix to start paying a stipend to prevent throttling. If that happens then all ISPs are going to demand the same and Netflix prices are going to go up for the consumer.


Comcast is already a monopoly in many places it operates, having more subs and more markets doesn't fundamentally change much. Unless we figure out some way to make it financially viable to overbuild most of the cable companies' footprints, we need heavy regulation to keep them in line. Classifying them as a common carrier would be a good start.



unitron said:


> Of course if they merge, they can pressure HBO for a lower price by threatening them with the alternative of no subscribers on either side of town, if TWComcast thinks enough subscribers will stay for the other stuff even if they can't get HBO.


That's the good part. The content providers are totally out of control, and they are the ones driving outrageous prices for cable. I wish that DirecTV, DISH, and Comcast could form a cartel to bludgeon these greedy content providers into submission and set the prices far lower than they are today, they can take a chunk off the top, and pass the remainder of the savings to the customer.

However, NBCU throws a wrench into that plan, as Comcast isn't going to beat it's other arm into the submission that it needs to be beaten.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Please stop repeating that line.


Its true and all the bickering about the merger is not going to help net neutrality a bit. NN is what we need to be lobbying for This TWC Comcast thing is just a diversion from the real problem. Let this one go.

Sorry if you don't like others opinions.


----------



## wolverines (Jul 15, 2005)

Just reading through this thread and there are some funny arguments. I especially like the one that they can't rent boxes. I guess that's aimed at forcing people to satellite, unless you can afford to purchase 3-4 boxes at whatever high cost per box that is (vs. the $6/mo to rent one or the free boxes from satellite). There are clearly some happy and some unhappy existing TWC/Comcast subscribers. In the end the economics will determine what the customer is offered. The folks I know with TWC in NYC love it. Great experience, the app that works on any device to watch live tv (including Roku's), etc. My family in the boonies has TWC there and it stinks. Way over priced with limited features. Just not the same as the folks in NYC. I'm sure the same goes for different Comcast locations (some of my family has it and it's ok where they are). I have neither but I do have options (fios, cablevision or satellite) and that brings more innovation. Ideally what the government can do is try and find a way to foster more competition (like Fios).

In the end this merger will work for consumers if they pass on some programming savings to keep cable bills down instead of keeping the savings, or if they use those savings to invest and offer higher internet speeds, etc. It all will depend on what the government requires from them. As a tivo owner I'd selfishly love to see something that tells me cablecards will be around for quite some time, or something that pushes tivo as an option for cable subscribers.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Look like Netflix paid off Comcast:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-comcast-network-speeds-20140223,0,5606777.story#axzz2uCekhmZv


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Johncv said:


> Look like Netflix paid off Comcast:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-netflix-comcast-network-speeds-20140223,0,5606777.story#axzz2uCekhmZv


That's to get OpenConnect running, and is basically a peering/ connectivity deal, and kind of allows both of them to beat around the bush on net neutrality, as it's not directly a function of net neutrality. We'll see what the big tech news outlets have to say about it tomorrow.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wolverines said:


> In the end this merger will work for consumers if they pass on some programming savings to keep cable bills down instead of keeping the savings, or if they use those savings to invest and offer higher internet speeds, etc.


LOL that's a joke right? Whatever "savings" they get from the merger will be pumped into dividends for shareholders and stock buybacks to boost share price.

My only real hope at this point is that Google Fiber does expand into the new cities they have teased that they might expand into. If they did that, I will drop TWC so fast their heads will spin and I will never, ever come back to them. The only downside is I'll have to say goodbye to TiVo, but that's a small price to pay.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Comcast is already a monopoly in many places it operates, having more subs and more markets doesn't fundamentally change much. Unless we figure out some way to make it financially viable to overbuild most of the cable companies' footprints, we need heavy regulation to keep them in line. Classifying them as a common carrier would be a good start.


I realize that in a lot of places they are the only real choice when it comes to ISPs. (DSL is slow and satellite is ridiculous) That wasn't my point. My point was that if a single company suddenly has 40M customers using their internet service that gives that company a LOT of power over content providers. In the TV space where content providers are huge, entrenched, media companies with virtually no real competition that might be a good thing for consumers. But in the internet space, where any start up could potententially be the next big thing, that could be really bad. Comcast could purposely sqeeze out small startups if they think they're going to threaten their business, or even the business of a bigger company they happen to be partners with. If the net nutrality laws had been upheld then I really wouldn't care that much, since from the consume perspective the cable company is already a monopoly so who gives a sh*t who's name is on the bill. But with the possibility of these companies using their monopoly to effect what their users can or can not access on the internet a bigger company just creates a bigger possibility for abuse.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

snoopdogg1 said:


> TiVo with TWC is NOT fine. It records fine, sure, but you CANNOT download or stream a majority of TWC programs (95%+). Most shows cannot be downloaded-- only network programs, because TWC puts a flag on them. The same 95%+ of programs cannot be streamed out of network because of the same flag. I would welcome a different cable provider!


This was all true when I had Insight too. Nothing changed with TWC.

The cost to gain the ability to stream outside of your home and copy basic cable programs will be the entire industry becoming monopolistic in nature. That is not a worthy trade-off.

The most important functionality to me is that my recording and streaming INSIDE of the home work properly. Period. Everything after that is secondary to the health of the market.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Its true and all the bickering about the merger is not going to help net neutrality a bit. NN is what we need to be lobbying for This TWC Comcast thing is just a diversion from the real problem. Let this one go.
> 
> Sorry if you don't like others opinions.


It's not true.

If you read this thread, you would know it's not true. It's been explained already, repeatedly, why it's not true.

If your point is that NN would fix the issue, then that's great, but where is the NN? Do you have some NN in your back pocket you want to spread around here and just magically wave away all of these issues? No? Ok then, stop telling me about things that would fix the problem when those things don't exist in the real world.

We could also fix the problem by splitting out internet and TV service to difference companies. But that hasn't happened yet either.

In the mean time, we can stop the problem by not letting them merge.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

wolverines said:


> In the end this merger will work for consumers if they pass on some programming savings to keep cable bills down instead of keeping the savings, or if they use those savings to invest and offer higher internet speeds, etc.


TWC used this same argument during their negotiations with the NFL network, and yet their prices remained as high as ever. Nothing changed.

They claim to be negotiating for consumers, but when we price compare, nothing is different between TWC and Uverse or Comcast or whoever else. Their negotiations that were so sure to protect us, did nothing for us.

You know why? They pocketed anything they saved.

As they should... they are a monopolistic industry with shareholders and their responsibility is to those shareholders. I don't blame THEM for acting within the framework we gave them.

It is us who gave them a broken framework!


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

wolverines said:


> In the end this merger will work for consumers if they pass on some programming savings to keep cable bills down instead of keeping the savings, or if they use those savings to invest and offer higher internet speeds, etc.


Better hope for some fantastic service improvements, because keeping prices down is a long wait for a train that don't come...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-will-go-down-or-even-increase-less-rapidly/



> "The impact on customer bills is always hard to quantify. We're certainly not promising that customer bills are going to go down or even increase less rapidly," Comcast Executive VP David Cohen said in a conference call today in response to a question on price.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> It's not true.
> 
> If you read this thread, you would know it's not true. It's been explained already, repeatedly, why it's not true.
> 
> ...


Its still true that TWC and Comcast do not compete. They do not overlap in any market and are not a choice for any comsumer.

They do not 'compete' for content either as they do not supply it, they are the consumers of content for redistribution. Forming a larger bargaining group would have the net effect of lowering that cost of content. Doubt any of that savings would pass on to consumers, but its still lower cost and NO detriment to the consumer.

This thread has gone on and on about the merger being bad for consumers because it lessens competition. It does neither. It would not benefit consumers either. My point was if a protest or lobby was to be pushed forward, it should be for net neutrality, not this merger. For or against, its a waste of time either way for the consumer. NN is not and needs all the help it can get.

Yes, I know Comcast is also a provider and that is a wrinkle in the argument, and should have never happened, but for now they seem to provide the content (NBC) to other distributers for roughly the same price they do amongst their own companies or other national OTA networks. And again, this merger would neither enhance nor detract from that situation.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

jcthorne said:


> Its still true that TWC and Comcast do not compete. They do not overlap in any market and are not a choice for any comsumer.


Hold on, let's back up here.

So, in your opinion, if two companies do not compete IN ONE AREA OF THEIR BUSINESS, they therefore do not compete AT ALL?

Is that your assertion?

Because TWC and Comcast DO compete in multiple aspects of their business, but because they do not compete in households in the markets in which they are already established (they do compete in new markets and in M&A targets) therefore, by your definition, they do not compete?

You want to stand by that?

Anyone else?

I have to feel like someone is making an elaborate joke with multiple troll accounts....


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> Because TWC and Comcast DO compete in multiple aspects of their business, but because they do not compete in households in the markets in which they are already established (they do compete in new markets and in M&A targets) therefore, by your definition, they do not compete?
> 
> You want to stand by that?
> 
> ...


You're the one who's arguing emotionally, and he's arguing legally. I fail to see how that is troll-like in the least.

Competition legally is defined by markets and Comcast and TW are not in the same markets (for that reason it would be almost impossible, for example, for Comcast to acquire FIOS from Verizon even though it's much smaller than TW.). It's unfortunate, but that's the standard for media company acquisitions, and has been for decades.

I agree that share of the national market should be a consideration, but that's going to be a new legal argument that's going to be very problematic. Comcast has more or less behaved itself as FIOS has expanded into its territories - it's going to be hard to argue that the merger will make the barrier to entry worse for any particular market.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CrispyCritter said:


> Competition legally is defined by markets and Comcast and TW are not in the same markets


They are in the same markets when it comes to purchasing content from national content providers. And the size of their subscriber base does have an effect on those negotiations. But I'm not sure if that's the type of thing that'll be considered in this type of merger or not.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> They are in the same markets when it comes to purchasing content from national content providers. And the size of their subscriber base does have an effect on those negotiations. But I'm not sure if that's the type of thing that'll be considered in this type of merger or not.


It hasn't been in the past. That's competition as a customer, not competition as a seller and monopolistic precedent have been focused on seller monopolies.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I realize that in a lot of places they are the only real choice when it comes to ISPs. (DSL is slow and satellite is ridiculous) That wasn't my point. My point was that if a single company suddenly has 40M customers using their internet service that gives that company a LOT of power over content providers. In the TV space where content providers are huge, entrenched, media companies with virtually no real competition that might be a good thing for consumers. But in the internet space, where any start up could potententially be the next big thing, that could be really bad. Comcast could purposely sqeeze out small startups if they think they're going to threaten their business, or even the business of a bigger company they happen to be partners with. If the net nutrality laws had been upheld then I really wouldn't care that much, since from the consume perspective the cable company is already a monopoly so who gives a sh*t who's name is on the bill. But with the possibility of these companies using their monopoly to effect what their users can or can not access on the internet a bigger company just creates a bigger possibility for abuse.


The cable operators could do that now. I don't see how this is a substantive change to what we have now. We either need very tight regulation and classification as a common carrier, or 3 good ISPs for most customers (yeah, right, although in many parts of my town, that is the case).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We only have 2 here. AT&T which has a max DSL speed of 6Mbps and rarely actually reaches those speeds and Charter which has a max of 30Mbps and typically runs a little faster except at peak times. I guess if you count HughesNet then we'd have 3, but a that's ridiculous option for most people with the caps, overage charges and excessive ping times.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> You answered your own question.... no?
> 
> The ma-bell breakup split AT&T into a bunch of companies that didn't directly compete (in the way you are using it) and yet the DOJ saw it as necessary to protect the industry.
> 
> Consider that for a minute.


The break up spurred competition in long distance. It did nothing for local calls or local service.

And it did break open competition for hardware. Before you had to buy your phone from an ATT store. Before that you just leased a phone from ATT. AFter the break up there emerged a hardware phone business. And styles and features grew.

If Comcast and TW don't merge you still face the same problems with settop box hardware as before. Few options. There's the cable box and Tivo and I guess WMC. And you already have 2 large national companies competing for content in most locations besides the cable company - DISH and DirectTV. Plus you have a few other decent sized cable companies.

Perhaps approval of this deal is a good time to pass some requirements.

a) open up set top box hardware and software UI

b) offer ala carte tv channels (although personally doubt this saves most money.)

c) net neutrality


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

bradleys said:


> FIOS was doing a great job competing against that model, but for some reason has stopped all expansion.


They didn't want to go bankrupt.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> They didn't want to go bankrupt.


Don't give me that. Verizon was in absolutely no danger of bankruptcy even if they had continued the FIOS expansion. Verizon was and is making tons of money and are spending billions on dividends and stock buybacks. They should be using those billions building out FIOS as they promised they would for years to justify constant rate hikes on traditional phone customers.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> The break up spurred competition in long distance. It did nothing for local calls or local service.
> 
> And it did break open competition for hardware. Before you had to buy your phone from an ATT store. Before that you just leased a phone from ATT. AFter the break up there emerged a hardware phone business. And styles and features grew.
> 
> ...


If no merger happens, then we have a HOPE of an open standard to replace cable cards.

If they merge, imagine the bargaining power they have to suppress any kind of innovation like that at the regulatory level?

I mean, yes, you can let them merge cable companies, and then force new rules on them in other areas, and it can be fine.

I've said that if we demanded they split internet into an entirely different company it might be workable. And net neutrality rules might also be a way to make this happen. Certainly, an open box standard would help things.

If you mitigate the issues in other areas, and let them merge their cable TV, then it's probably fine.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> Competition legally is defined by markets and Comcast and TW are not in the same markets (for that reason it would be almost impossible, for example, for Comcast to acquire FIOS from Verizon even though it's much smaller than TW.). It's unfortunate, but that's the standard for media company acquisitions, and has been for decades.


None of this is true, in case anyone was curious. I can only assume CC is just saying things that he thinks sound like they make sense, but are not actually true.

The DOJ is allowed to consider all areas of competition before approving a M&A bid.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> It hasn't been in the past. That's competition as a customer, not competition as a seller and monopolistic precedent have been focused on seller monopolies.


Again, not true. Alcoa was charged with antitrust in large part because they engaged in PURCHASING monopolistic practices w/r/t buying up bauxite suppliers and supplies.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> None of this is true, in case anyone was curious. I can only assume CC is just saying things that he thinks sound like they make sense, but are not actually true.
> 
> The DOJ is allowed to consider all areas of competition before approving a M&A bid.


Sure, where did I deny that? They can consider anything they want. But it's what the courts will uphold. What I said was that it would require a new legal theory, and the precedents were against it.

Can you give precedents in support of your position?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> Again, not true. Alcoa was charged with antitrust in large part because they engaged in PURCHASING monopolistic practices w/r/t buying up bauxite suppliers and supplies.


Baloney. Alcoa was broken up because it was a monopoly, and that other companies couldn't compete with them. Again, the fact that FIOS has entered Comcast markets is strong evidence that Comcast is not a monopoly.

Purchasing monopolistic practices require denying other companies the ability to purchase those products. Comcast is not doing that, unless you want to confine your objection to potential problems with NBC, which I agree is a legitimate concern. But that can be addressed all kinds of ways, and has not been your focus at all.

As I've said, I'm not in favor of the merger and do think it is unfortunate. But other than the mixture of Comcast as a content provider and consumer, I don't see any legal precedent for stopping the merger. There are no legally important increased barriers to entry for new competitors.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> We only have 2 here. AT&T which has a max DSL speed of 6Mbps and rarely actually reaches those speeds and Charter which has a max of 30Mbps and typically runs a little faster except at peak times. I guess if you count HughesNet then we'd have 3, but a that's ridiculous option for most people with the caps, overage charges and excessive ping times.


Many parts of my town have AT&T DSL, AT&T U-Verse, Comcast, and the local cable overbuilder, so 3. Very few places have that many options, and I'd trade our three for a Comcast/ FIOS duopoly any day of the week, since all of our three kind of suck.



trip1eX said:


> They didn't want to go bankrupt.


They could have easily continued building out. Now, half their network is so decrepit that they either have to sell it off (they did sell big parts of it off), or upgrade it at some point in the future. Copper has no future.



Grakthis said:


> I've said that if we demanded they split internet into an entirely different company it might be workable. And net neutrality rules might also be a way to make this happen. Certainly, an open box standard would help things.
> 
> If you mitigate the issues in other areas, and let them merge their cable TV, then it's probably fine.


I think that the government should take this as an opportunity to enact more regulation on them, in terms of regulating bundling. If you eliminate bundling, that eliminates a lot of the problem in terms of competition with satellite and maybe cord-cutting, if that whole thing ever takes off. They would also have to regulate against data caps, and for net neutrality.

CableCard needs to eventually be replaced with the whole AllVid type of thing, but I'm not that worried about Comcast with it. They are by far the biggest MSO to support VOD on TiVo. I'm not sure what can be done to force more competition in the STB market, as actually buying boxes is a hard sell to consumers in the US who are used to just renting stuff. It might be an easier sell if an AllVid-like system was required to be used by U-Verse and Dish/DirecTV in addition to the cable cos.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> It might be an easier sell if an AllVid-like system was required to be used by U-Verse and Dish/DirecTV in addition to the cable cos.


That's the point of AllVid. It would move all the tuning/authorization technology into a gateway device which would then connect to your home network and 3rd party STB would access it via standard IP technologies like DLNA.

That would allow the 3rd party STB to be used with any MSO because the gateway would act as a bridge between the proprietary technology of each MSO and the open standards used for the 3rd party STBs. And if an MSO wanted to completely change their technology, like say switch from QAM over coax to pure IP based fiber, they could do so by simply replacing the gateway device and the users equipment would continue to function.

This would not only foster competition in the retail market, since users would have confidence that their new box would work with any provider, but it would foster competition between providers themselves and open up possibilities for new providers based on different technologies.

That's the main reason MSOs are fighting AllVid, they like their monopolies and don't want the competition.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> If no merger happens, then we have a HOPE of an open standard to replace cable cards.


What are you smoking? With or without any mergers, CableLabs is never going to support an open standard. In effect, CableLabs already *is* a merger of every CATV system in the United States. 'Not financially, of course, but from a technology and development standpoint, it is. The only hope for an open standard would be for the FCC to outlaw CableLabs and set up a fully independent development laboratory.



Grakthis said:


> If they merge, imagine the bargaining power they have to suppress any kind of innovation like that at the regulatory level?


They don't need bargaining power. They already have absolute control, within the few and ineffective guidelines set by the FCC.



Grakthis said:


> If you mitigate the issues in other areas, and let them merge their cable TV, then it's probably fine.


No, it isn't. The larger any entity gets the less it cares about the individual. Only if a company is small enough that the loss of even a single customer has significant ramifications for the financial success of the company will the company pay proper attention to its customers. Only if the owner of the company will take a measurable hit to his income if the revenue from a single customer is lost will the company truly be responsive to its customers. A CEO and / or majority stockholder raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year doesn't give a tinker's damn about the needs of any individual. The fact they have no moral, ethical, or economic right to rake in all that money isn't irrelevant, either.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's the point of AllVid. It would move all the tuning/authorization technology into a gateway device which would then connect to your home network and 3rd party STB would access it via standard IP technologies like DLNA.
> 
> That would allow the 3rd party STB to be used with any MSO because the gateway would act as a bridge between the proprietary technology of each MSO and the open standards used for the 3rd party STBs. And if an MSO wanted to completely change their technology, like say switch from QAM over coax to pure IP based fiber, they could do so by simply replacing the gateway device and the users equipment would continue to function.
> 
> ...


Why don't you submit a White House petition that request this. I will sign it along with two million TiVo users.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Johncv said:


> Why don't you submit a White House petition that request this. I will sign it along with two million TiVo users.


Speaking of White House petitions, the "Stop Comcast/TWC merger" petition hasn't yet cracked 10k votes. Everyone go sign it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...uire-more-competition-cable-industry/ym52vbd4


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Speaking of White House petitions, the "Stop Comcast/TWC merger" petition hasn't yet cracked 10k votes. Everyone go sign it.
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...uire-more-competition-cable-industry/ym52vbd4


If you know if anyplace else to post this, do it.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> Sure, where did I deny that? They can consider anything they want. But it's what the courts will uphold. What I said was that it would require a new legal theory, and the precedents were against it.
> 
> Can you give precedents in support of your position?


Ah. So you're saying, they haven't done it before? Ok, let's argue about Alcoa then!


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> Baloney. Alcoa was broken up because it was a monopoly, and that other companies couldn't compete with them. Again, the fact that FIOS has entered Comcast markets is strong evidence that Comcast is not a monopoly.


Gibberish! Ok, I'm starting tot hink maybe I am arguing with someone who doesn't know much about antitrust laws.

Apple existed, Firefox existed and yet Microsoft was pursued for anti-trust violations. Why? Because they behaved monopolisticly w/r/t to their inclusion of a browser within their OS. Their OS owned a huge market share and they leveraged that to gain browser share. This is monpolistic behavior even while not being a STRICT monopoly. This is how monopoly determinations are done.

Did you read the DOJ decision on apple w/r/t their book sales? It's pretty enlightening on this topic and you would learn a lot about anti-trust laws!

Alcoa WAS a monopoly, but not a STRICT one. Other aluminum smelters and casters existed, but Alcoa was HUGE and was using their monopolistic position to engage in anti-competitive behaviors. One of those behaviors was that they leveraged their size to buy up the SUPPLY of aluminum, thereby making it impossible for competing smelters and casters to buy aluminum and compete on the consumer/business sales side.

The US government didn't actually base their case on Alcoa doing anything monopolistic w/r/t sales... the case was not based on pricing issues or hurting their customers. It was based on them using their size to drive other smelters and casters (virtually none of whom sold in Alcoa's market in the USA) out of business.

This is CLEAR precedent for the TWC/Comcast situation, because while TW and Comcast may not compete for customers pockets, their size would allow them to squeeze out other content buyers from entering those markets and would also leverage them as BUYERS of content, allowing them to negotiate monpolistic deals on content.

BOOM! Knowledge bomb.

I actually know what I am talking about sometimes, yo.



> Purchasing monopolistic practices require denying other companies the ability to purchase those products. Comcast is not doing that, unless you want to confine your objection to potential problems with NBC, which I agree is a legitimate concern. But that can be addressed all kinds of ways, and has not been your focus at all.


I agree that they are not doing that YET.

But we're talking about FORMING A NEW monopoly, not breaking up an EXISTING one.

The question the DOJ has to consider is, "is there a threat that the new company would do this?"

And the answer is "yes."



> As I've said, I'm not in favor of the merger and do think it is unfortunate. But other than the mixture of Comcast as a content provider and consumer, I don't see any legal precedent for stopping the merger. There are no legally important increased barriers to entry for new competitors.


*points to the above text*


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> What are you smoking? With or without any mergers, CableLabs is never going to support an open standard. In effect, CableLabs already *is* a merger of every CATV system in the United States. 'Not financially, of course, but from a technology and development standpoint, it is. The only hope for an open standard would be for the FCC to outlaw CableLabs and set up a fully independent development laboratory.
> 
> They don't need bargaining power. They already have absolute control, within the few and ineffective guidelines set by the FCC.
> 
> No, it isn't. The larger any entity gets the less it cares about the individual. Only if a company is small enough that the loss of even a single customer has significant ramifications for the financial success of the company will the company pay proper attention to its customers. Only if the owner of the company will take a measurable hit to his income if the revenue from a single customer is lost will the company truly be responsive to its customers. A CEO and / or majority stockholder raking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year doesn't give a tinker's damn about the needs of any individual. The fact they have no moral, ethical, or economic right to rake in all that money isn't irrelevant, either.


I don't actually disagree with most of what you're saying here... I guess i would just say I am a more 'glass half full' person than you are.

I still have hope that a large CABLE provider would negotiate in the interests of the consumers if that cable company didn't have competing loyalties in areas like internet and content production.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> The US government didn't actually base their case on Alcoa doing anything monopolistic w/r/t sales... the case was not based on pricing issues or hurting their customers. It was based on them using their size to drive other smelters and casters (virtually none of whom sold in Alcoa's market in the USA) out of business.
> 
> This is CLEAR precedent for the TWC/Comcast situation, because while TW and Comcast may not compete for customers pockets, their size would allow them to squeeze out other content buyers from entering those markets and would also leverage them as BUYERS of content, allowing them to negotiate monpolistic deals on content.
> 
> ...


From other threads, I know that is true. But not this thread.

What are the "markets" you reference (in "squeeze out other content buyers from entering those markets")? Please be precise as to what exactly is involved, because it isn't clear to me. I see no ability in the merged company that doesn't already exist in the separate companies. Yes, there is bad behavior that could happen, but it is already prohibited in the current situation (Comcast already can't sign monopolistic content deals to keep FIOS out of their current areas.) There is nothing new here.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> From other threads, I know that is true. But not this thread.
> 
> What are the "markets" you reference (in "squeeze out other content buyers from entering those markets")? Please be precise as to what exactly is involved, because it isn't clear to me. I see no ability in the merged company that doesn't already exist in the separate companies. Yes, there is bad behavior that could happen, but it is already prohibited in the current situation (Comcast already can't sign monopolistic content deals to keep FIOS out of their current areas.) There is nothing new here.


I would suggest you do some research in the breakup of the Bell System (AT&T) back in the 80s. The concern wasn't local telephone service it was lots of other things not the least of them being the power such a large company (AT&T) had over all facets of the telecommunication industry.

There are many similarities here, cable TV alone isn't the issue. The power such a large company will have over whole industries and the Government is. If we have to have monopolies or near monopolies the smaller they are the better as they will have less over all power and have to be more responsive to their consumers.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> From other threads, I know that is true. But not this thread.
> 
> What are the "markets" you reference (in "squeeze out other content buyers from entering those markets")? Please be precise as to what exactly is involved, because it isn't clear to me. I see no ability in the merged company that doesn't already exist in the separate companies. Yes, there is bad behavior that could happen, but it is already prohibited in the current situation (Comcast already can't sign monopolistic content deals to keep FIOS out of their current areas.) There is nothing new here.


So, the regulatory bodies don't have to know specific examples. They aren't expected to predict the future.

But I'm not a regulatory body, so i get what you're asking.

How about a case where the new merged entity, owning 30% of the cable market, negotiates exclusive rights to built-in Netflix streaming on a cable box?

or they negotiate exclusive first-run rights to HBO content?

or they start airing their own self-produced streaming content and make it accessible VOD at no cost, driving out paid offerings from Netflix?

Imagine they leverage their market size to buy out specific DVR manufacturers and patents and pursue patent litigation against DirectTV etc al for their DVR technologies in an attempt to make competition in their markets impossible?

Imagine they leverage their install base to make HBO stop selling to DirectTV or to force the NFL to sell Sunday Ticket at half price to their customers?

While I agree that most of the bad behaviors are already punishable under existing laws, that's not relevant to anti-trust concerns when looking at M&A. What you look at is, can we prevent having to litigate this later as an anti-trust violation by simply preventing the M&A activity RIGHT NOW.

Larger companies tend to buy influence in legislative bodies (google rent-seeking) which can make enforcement of existing rules problematic. They also get very good at hiding their behaviors, where smaller companies cannot.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> This would not only foster competition in the retail market, since users would have confidence that their new box would work with any provider, but it would foster competition between providers themselves and open up possibilities for new providers based on different technologies.
> 
> That's the main reason MSOs are fighting AllVid, they like their monopolies and don't want the competition.


I'd like it, because I'd go to DirecTV, but for the vast majority of the population, it wouldn't affect their choice of provider. It would just open up the hardware platforms. I think the MSOs are far more scared of people getting their own hardware and not paying ridiculous rental fees, as opposed to jumping ship to other providers. It is a stupid move on DirecTV's part though not to support the TiVo Premiere through an AllVid-like gateway, as I'd have DirecTV if they had a little 6-tuner box with a SWiM port and an Ethernet jack that I could use to convert my existing TiVo Premiere to DirecTV (I'd only get 4 tuners, but the hardware could also support Roamios).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> So, the regulatory bodies don't have to know specific examples. They aren't expected to predict the future.
> 
> But I'm not a regulatory body, so i get what you're asking.
> 
> ...


I'm confused. Aren't some of those things GOOD for the consumer? You're arguing that the merger would actually create competition in some areas, such as video streaming services, and might also release DirecTV's death grip on NFLST. Even though, like the DVR hardware scenario, it can't be done as there are long-term contracts already in place.

The other things you mention could either already be done today, with or without the merger. But they're not going to happen. Time Warner already owns HBO, and Comcast already owns NBCU, and they don't dare refuse to offer those channels to some customers. Not only would it bring bad publicity and possibly get the FCC ticked off, but it makes sense to sell your product to as many people as you can.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> I'm confused. Aren't some of those things GOOD for the consumer? You're arguing that the merger would actually create competition in some areas, such as video streaming services, and might also release DirecTV's death grip on NFLST. Even though, like the DVR hardware scenario, it can't be done as there are long-term contracts already in place.


Yes, sometimes a monopoly results in things that are good for the consumer... int he short term. Think of dumping. Are you familiar with the idea? So, imagine a Chinese company swooping in and selling... let's say... Diamonds REALLY cheap. Cheaper than their costs. They do that to drive out the US businesses who can no longer compete, and then once they are the SOLE provider, they can raise prices. In the short term, dumping BENEFITS the consumer... we get REALLY cheap diamonds. But then once they own the market, they are a monopoly and can behave monopolisticly in pricing, which is above market value (natch).

Diamonds might not be a great example, because it's already a fake market, but you get the idea. Imagine it's corn instead. Or aluminum.



> The other things you mention could either already be done today, with or without the merger. But they're not going to happen. Time Warner already owns HBO, and Comcast already owns NBCU, and they don't dare refuse to offer those channels to some customers. Not only would it bring bad publicity and possibly get the FCC ticked off, but it makes sense to sell your product to as many people as you can.


They can't happen today, because the bargaining power is not high enough.

Yes, it might get the FCC ticked off, but if the combined company is sufficiently large, what do you think the odds are that the FCC does anything about it?

Keep in mind, like 80% of FCC chairpersons end up going to work for a cable company or cable industry organization when they leave the FCC for MUCH higher salaries.

Like, do you know the kind of things that go on? In the financial industry they literally offer retirement bonuses for employees who go work for the government. You work for Bank One, and then leave to go work for the government in the regulatory industry, and when you retire, Bank One gives you a huge check. Talk about a conflict of interest! I am *sure* these things go on at the FCC too.

The result is that people at the FCC only half work for us, and still half work for the cable industry.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I'd like it, because I'd go to DirecTV, but for the vast majority of the population, it wouldn't affect their choice of provider. It would just open up the hardware platforms. I think the MSOs are far more scared of people getting their own hardware and not paying ridiculous rental fees, as opposed to jumping ship to other providers. It is a stupid move on DirecTV's part though not to support the TiVo Premiere through an AllVid-like gateway, as I'd have DirecTV if they had a little 6-tuner box with a SWiM port and an Ethernet jack that I could use to convert my existing TiVo Premiere to DirecTV (I'd only get 4 tuners, but the hardware could also support Roamios).


The MSOs get a lot of money from VOD, which Tivo owners currently don't do much of. Not only that, but in an oligopoly one of the limited ways you can distinguish yourself from your competitors is in the end-to-end experience you offer your customers. Tivos take away much of that control from the MSO. (I love it when people with Apple products complain about how MSOs don't like Tivos. The MSO is just trying to do what Apple does -- control every aspect of your user experience so that it all "just works".)

But more importantly, Allvid doesn't offer any services or features to the end user that MSOs don't already provide. They have absolutely no motivation to support Allvid. The Genie, Hopper and whatever else it's called already exist (except for FIOS, and that's coming soon). The Genie supports RVU, so in theory you don't need a client box if your TV supports it. In reality, it works a lot better with a client box. Note that D* charges you the same monthly fee whether you use their box or not.

As far as an all-in-one CATV/DBS DVR, that's not going to happen because nobody wants to build such a box, mainly because it's too complicated and nobody would buy it. I'm guessing that DVR would have to sell for around $700, and you'd be a fool to buy such a box because you can't check out all of its functionality within the warranty period.

As far as an Allvid gateway, if I were DirecTV I'd lease that thing for $30/month plus an up-front lease fee of $300. In other words, I'd just charge the outrageous rental fee to one box instead of spreading it out across boxes. I'd also charge an outlet fee for each tuner you want to use in the gateway. I'd also price it so that my proprietary system would be slightly cheaper than the Allvid system. And then you'd be right back where you are today with CableCard -- new system, same old problems.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> Diamonds might not be a great example, because it's already a fake market, but you get the idea. Imagine it's corn instead. Or aluminum.
> 
> They can't happen today, because the bargaining power is not high enough.


The problem is there are no good examples of this market, so trying to compare it to other markets, especially commodities markets, is flawed. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the number of choices for the consumer will not decrease, unlike the AT&T Wireless/T-Mobile merger which was (sadly) blocked. That is usually the biggest concern, and it doesn't exist here.

Also, when you talk about bargaining power, with whom are you bargaining? An increase in bargaining power could be beneficial when negotiating prices with content providers.

The bottom line is, there's no obvious reason with a moderate amount of likelihood as to why the merger should be blocked, so I believe it's going to happen.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> The problem is there are no good examples of this market, so trying to compare it to other markets, especially commodities markets, is flawed.


Just because you say a thing, doesn't make that thing true. You're going to have to explain WHY the comparison is flawed if you expect to get any credibility here.



> It has been repeatedly pointed out that the number of choices for the consumer will not decrease, unlike the AT&T Wireless/T-Mobile merger which was (sadly) blocked. That is usually the biggest concern, and it doesn't exist here.


No, that's not usually the biggest concern. For like the fifth time, I would point to Ma Bell and Alcoa as perfect examples. If you'd read the thread, you'd see this exact point has already been addressed and dismissed as not relevant.



> Also, when you talk about bargaining power, with whom are you bargaining? An increase in bargaining power could be beneficial when negotiating prices with content providers.


Beneficial is irrelevant to the discussion. As I just said. Literally, int he post you quoted. A monopoly being beneficial to the consumer in the short run is not an argument that all other monopolistic behaviors should be forgiven.

Microsoft's monopoly on the OS market in the 90's was beneficial to the industry and arguably their monopoly on the browser market was a benefit to web developers for close to a decade, and yet, that didn't change that their behavior w/r/t IE was monopolistic and illegal.



> The bottom line is, there's no obvious reason with a moderate amount of likelihood as to why the merger should be blocked, so I believe it's going to happen.


You're wrong, I've given multiple reasons, none of which you've addressed in any coherent way.

It might happen... but it won't happen because there are no good objections. It will happen because our system is corrupt as all get out.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> No, that's not usually the biggest concern. For like the fifth time, I would point to Ma Bell and Alcoa as perfect examples. If you'd read the thread, you'd see this exact point has already been addressed and dismissed as not relevant.


WHAT!!! Somehow you are the arbitrator of this thread and get to dismiss all points that you personally don't like???

The points have not been dismissed. AT&T and Alcoa are very different cases as several people in this thread have pointed out. Comcast is not preventing anybody from becoming a competitor by buying up all raw materials as Alcoa did. AT&T was a recognized and established by regulation monopoly that explicitly was allowed to do things that other companies couldn't do. It again had established strong barriers to entry for anybody else, and was broken up so its parts could compete with each other, since there was no way to establish competition at the needed level from the outside.

Your examples are examples that are already illegal for Comcast to do. Comcast is a monopoly in specific markets already, and already is subject to many restrictions in what they can and can't do. The merger does not increase the illegality of those actions, and you have presented no argument at all to the contrary.

Comcast cannot refuse to license NBC to Charter right now, for example. Do you claim otherwise?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> As far as an Allvid gateway, if I were DirecTV I'd lease that thing for $30/month plus an up-front lease fee of $300. In other words, I'd just charge the outrageous rental fee to one box instead of spreading it out across boxes. I'd also charge an outlet fee for each tuner you want to use in the gateway. I'd also price it so that my proprietary system would be slightly cheaper than the Allvid system. And then you'd be right back where you are today with CableCard -- new system, same old problems.


If AllVid were to become a reality there would be caps on what they could charge for the gateway device just like there are now on what they can charge for a CableCARD. Now a CableCARD is a lot cheaper to make then a complete gateway box, so I wouldn't expect the <$5 limit that is on CableCARDs, but excessive fees of $30/mo + $300 installation wouldn't be allowed either.

Also AllVid would not necessarily preclude them from renting you additional equipment. You'd still need some sort of box at each TV for playback. At least until new TVs started including the functionality natively, which would take at least a decade for serious market penetration. (turnover on TVs is typically 6-10 years)

As for the end to end experience.... The details of AllVid have not been hammered out, but I'd expect that services like VOD would be provided by the gateway via a MSO supplied "app". Perhaps the STB would use standard HTML5 to access the apps and the gateway could present that HTML5 to the STB in any way it wanted. They could have their own UI, ads, etc... This is basically how the Comcast VOD works on TiVo now and people are happy with it. (i.e. via an app)

Having a standard for STBs also makes it easier for MSOs to negotiate when buying equipment. Right now they're sort of stuck buying equipment from the manufacturer of their backend equipment. By creating a standard interface for the STB to connect to all their services it opens up that market so they're able to buy STBs from whoever they want.

It would also help them insulate themselves from future changes to the underlying technology. It could be deployed now with a more complex gateway that includes QAM tuners, integrated security, DOCSIS for communication, etc... and then down the road if the cable company decides to switch to a pure IP based system the gateway could simply be replaced by a simpler modem like device that simply bridges communication between the STB and the head end.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> The MSOs get a lot of money from VOD, which Tivo owners currently don't do much of.


If that was the issue, then they would do what Comcast did and support TiVo.



> Not only that, but in an oligopoly one of the limited ways you can distinguish yourself from your competitors is in the end-to-end experience you offer your customers. Tivos take away much of that control from the MSO. (I love it when people with Apple products complain about how MSOs don't like Tivos. The MSO is just trying to do what Apple does -- control every aspect of your user experience so that it all "just works".)


That logic doesn't work very well when their own hardware is a complete pile of garbage. CableCard has, at least in small numbers, helped the cable companies. The majority of the people on this board who have cable for their TiVos would have DirecTV with the Genie if it weren't for CableCard allowing TiVo on to the cable systems. Those are also lost subs for DirecTV. Cable "just working". HAHAHA.



> But more importantly, Allvid doesn't offer any services or features to the end user that MSOs don't already provide. They have absolutely no motivation to support Allvid. The Genie, Hopper and whatever else it's called already exist (except for FIOS, and that's coming soon). The Genie supports RVU, so in theory you don't need a client box if your TV supports it. In reality, it works a lot better with a client box. Note that D* charges you the same monthly fee whether you use their box or not.


Until Apple brings out a magic AllVid box, or Microsoft adds a little server box that turns the XBOX ONE into a DVR.



> As far as an all-in-one CATV/DBS DVR, that's not going to happen because nobody wants to build such a box, mainly because it's too complicated and nobody would buy it. I'm guessing that DVR would have to sell for around $700, and you'd be a fool to buy such a box because you can't check out all of its functionality within the warranty period.


That's the whole point of AllVid. However, existing TiVo Premieres and Roamios, should, at least in theory, be able to be updated to work with AllVid over a network and let their current built-in tuners sit idle.



> As far as an Allvid gateway, if I were DirecTV I'd lease that thing for $30/month plus an up-front lease fee of $300. In other words, I'd just charge the outrageous rental fee to one box instead of spreading it out across boxes. I'd also charge an outlet fee for each tuner you want to use in the gateway. I'd also price it so that my proprietary system would be slightly cheaper than the Allvid system. And then you'd be right back where you are today with CableCard -- new system, same old problems.


That would be a problem when a desirable AllVid box comes out and all your customers switch to another provider who has better pricing.



Dan203 said:


> It would also help them insulate themselves from future changes to the underlying technology. It could be deployed now with a more complex gateway that includes QAM tuners, integrated security, DOCSIS for communication, etc... and then down the road if the cable company decides to switch to a pure IP based system the gateway could simply be replaced by a simpler modem like device that simply bridges communication between the STB and the head end.


If the thing was advanced enough, it could seamlessly mix IPTV, SDV QAM, and traditional linear QAM.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's the point! The gateway can be as fancy as it wants and as long as the output side supports the standard interface then the STBs would still work.

In fact if designed correctly you could have multiple gateway devices in your house and a single STB would be able to access them all. For example you could have a gateway for DirecTV and an OTA gateway and your TiVo would be able yo record from either one.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> WHAT!!! Somehow you are the arbitrator of this thread and get to dismiss all points that you personally don't like???


I don't have to convince you, dude. You're clearly wrong. I'm convincing someone else who might read this discussion. I'm satisfied that you've made no points I need to address. Hence, dismissed.



> The points have not been dismissed. AT&T and Alcoa are very different cases as several people in this thread have pointed out.


Cite?



> Comcast is not preventing anybody from becoming a competitor by buying up all raw materials as Alcoa did.


And that's why were not pursuing antitrust litigation against ComCast. If this thread were about pursuing antitrust litigation against Comcast, you'd have a valid point. It's not, so you're posting non-sequiturs.



> AT&T was a recognized and established by regulation monopoly that explicitly was allowed to do things that other companies couldn't do. It again had established strong barriers to entry for anybody else, and was broken up so its parts could compete with each other, since there was no way to establish competition at the needed level from the outside.


And yet, their parts didn't compete with eachother derpa derpa derpa!

You're actually making my points for me now. Which, I actually appreciate!



> Your examples are examples that are already illegal for Comcast to do. Comcast is a monopoly in specific markets already, and already is subject to many restrictions in what they can and can't do. The merger does not increase the illegality of those actions, and you have presented no argument at all to the contrary.


You're right. I haven't attempted to. I feel no need to. It's irrelevant to the point. The point is that comcast is a greater risk to do those things as a merged company.

I don't think you understand DOJ M&A review processes, do you? They aren't about "is this illegal" they are about "is this a risk that they will do something illegal."



> Comcast cannot refuse to license NBC to Charter right now, for example. Do you claim otherwise?


Of course not. Well, maybe? I'm not actually that familiar with the laws involved. But there are many business moves that make no sense for a smaller company that do make sense for a larger one. This is potentially one of them.

Like, from your post, I don't think you're following the discussion. You're arguing things that have nothing to do with the actual DOJ review material for a M&A.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> I'm not actually that familiar with the laws involved.


Yes, you've made this extremely clear throughout your diatribes.

The point remains that Comcast is already legally constrained not to do the things you are worried about, so the merger represents no increased risk in these areas.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> The point remains that Comcast is already legally constrained not to do the things you are worried about, so the merger represents no increased risk in these areas.


"X is illegal therefore X is not a risk/increased risk to happen" is maybe the worst point anyone has raised in this thread so far... and let me tell you, you've raised some AWFUL points.

edit: i'm still waiting for that citation, BTW. Or are you just conceding the point?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> The point remains that Comcast is already legally constrained not to do the things you are worried about, so the merger represents no increased risk in these areas.


I think the point you miss is the larger (and therefor more powerful) Comcast becomes the less likely any legal/regulatory constraints that Comcast doesn't like will actually continue to exist. It is even more important when the issues are controlled by regulation versus law as interpretation of regulations is very subject to political pressure.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I think the point you miss is the larger (and therefor more powerful) Comcast becomes the less likely any legal/regulatory constraints that Comcast doesn't like will actually continue to exist. It is even more important when the issues are controlled by regulation versus law as interpretation of regulations is very subject to political pressure.


I explained this to him, and he ignored it, and responded with a huff.

*shrug*


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> I think the point you miss is the larger (and therefor more powerful) Comcast becomes the less likely any legal/regulatory constraints that Comcast doesn't like will actually continue to exist. It is even more important when the issues are controlled by regulation versus law as interpretation of regulations is very subject to political pressure.


I actually agree with that point - I didn't miss it. As I've said, I view the merger as undesirable, for reasons like this. However, that in no way means that the merger is illegal and can be stopped. There is no increased risk of illegal activity due to this point, only a risk that the definition of legal activity may change. The ends don't justify the means - the merger has to be reviewed according to the law, even if people like Grakthis wish otherwise.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Comcast cannot refuse to license NBC to Charter right now, for example. Do you claim otherwise?


I just noticed this one. That makes NO sense. They don't compete with Charter. The cable cos are all very friendly to each other. The issue would be if they don't license it to DirecTV, DISH, FIOS, or U-Verse.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atm said:


> I think the point you miss is the larger (and therefor more powerful) Comcast becomes the less likely any legal/regulatory constraints that Comcast doesn't like will actually continue to exist.





CrispyCritter said:


> I actually agree with that point





CrispyCritter said:


> The point remains that Comcast is already legally constrained not to do the things you are worried about, so the merger represents no increased risk in these areas.


*jazz hands*


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> *jazz hands*


You must be kidding!! My position hasn't changed one iota throughout this discussion. You are still spouting complete nonsense in your claims about competition and legality of the merger, and that is the only thing I've been arguing against.

I said early on that I viewed the merger as undesirable.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think the point you miss is the larger (and therefor more powerful) Comcast becomes the less likely any legal/regulatory constraints that Comcast doesn't like will actually continue to exist. It is even more important when the issues are controlled by regulation versus law as interpretation of regulations is very subject to political pressure.


Yes, but that's not really Comcast's fault, is it? You're arguing (perhaps unknowingly) that most mergers should be blocked because our government can't get its act together to regulate merged companies. That's a poor reason to block a merger and is not fair to the businesses involved.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> You must be kidding!! My position hasn't changed one iota throughout this discussion. You are still spouting complete nonsense in your claims about competition and legality of the merger, and that is the only thing I've been arguing against.
> 
> I said early on that I viewed the merger as undesirable.


So, you do or do not acknowledge that the merger increases the risks of TWC and Comcast acting in a monopolistic manner and doing so despite laws making such illegal?

This is a pretty simple question.

Because, if you think it increases that risk, then the DOJ has a valid LEGAL basis on which to deny the merger.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> Yes, but that's not really Comcast's fault, is it? You're arguing (perhaps unknowingly) that most mergers should be blocked because our government can't get its act together to regulate merged companies. That's a poor reason to block a merger and is not fair to the businesses involved.


It is actually a very good reason to block a merger and is completely fair to the massively profitable huge corporations involved.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> So, you do or do not acknowledge that the merger increases the risks of TWC and Comcast acting in a monopolistic manner and doing so despite laws making such illegal?
> 
> This is a pretty simple question.
> 
> Because, if you think it increases that risk, then the DOJ has a valid LEGAL basis on which to deny the merger.


Baloney once again. It is not a simple question and you know it!!! And the answer absolutely does NOT mean the DOJ has a valid legal basis, and I strongly suspect you know that, too. Otherwise you don't understand the English language.

There are present laws that make some monopolistic actions illegal. I agree that the merger increases the risk that Comcast can get those laws changed. But that doesn't imply that the risk is increased of Comcast acting illegally. It's perfectly legal to advocate changing the law, and it's perfectly legal to obey the new law. There is no increased danger of Comcast acting illegally, and therefore no basis for the DOJ to deny the merger.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> "X is illegal therefore X is not a risk/increased risk to happen" is maybe the worst point anyone has raised in this thread so far... and let me tell you, you've raised some AWFUL points.


No, THAT"S the worst point in this thread. You're telling me I can't be allowed to drive a car because I might be a bad driver. Murder and manslaughter are already illegal, and I had to pass tests and I have to follow other laws and regulations so I can keep my license. But if I drive a car I'm more likely to kill someone than if I didn't drive a car, so I shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.

Now, somebody else might prefer that I didn't drive, and that's fine. I might be an accident waiting to happen. But if I pass all the tests and have followed all the rules so far, and they can't show a clear future danger (such as me being blind), they can't stop me from driving and they know it.

What's really weird here is that the two companies involved are in the same business yet aren't direct competitors. I would think for example that a DirecTV & Dish merger or a Comcast & FIOS merger would come under far more scrutiny than this merger would. I'm trying to come up with examples for this merger, but it's difficult. The best one I can come up with (and it's not great) is when Chrysler merged with Daimler, or when Fiat was recently allowed to buy Chrysler. (Actually, Fiat was encouraged by our government to buy Chrysler because of their financial distress. But the AT&T Wireless/T-Mobile merger was blocked even though T-Mobile is under financial distress.)

I think the telling sign is that the DOJ gave up trying to stop the U.S. Airways/American Airlines merger. To me that's a worse merger than this one, and it's being allowed to go through.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> Baloney once again. It is not a simple question and you know it!!! And the answer absolutely does NOT mean the DOJ has a valid legal basis, and I strongly suspect you know that, too. Otherwise you don't understand the English language.
> 
> There are present laws that make some monopolistic actions illegal. I agree that the merger increases the risk that Comcast can get those laws changed. But that doesn't imply that the risk is increased of Comcast acting illegally. It's perfectly legal to advocate changing the law, and it's perfectly legal to obey the new law. There is no increased danger of Comcast acting illegally, and therefore no basis for the DOJ to deny the merger.


Ok. Fair enough. I at least understand your position better now.

You think the DOJ cannot consider that a larger merged media company will have more political leverage to change the laws... they can only consider the possibility of them BREAKING the laws. Fair enough.

But we know they can consider that a larger merged media company will be harder to regulate. So that's enough reason to ban it, even if it doesn't directly involve law breaking.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> No, THAT"S the worst point in this thread. You're telling me I can't be allowed to drive a car because I might be a bad driver.


Corporations are not people. I'm not reading your post past that analogy, because it's clear you don't understand this concept and it can only go downhill from here.

You have a bill of rights. Corporations do not. Corporations are legal entities that exist because government has created a legal framework in which they operate. They are not small businesses, they are not individuals, they are not sole proprietorships. The exist with liability only up to their assets, they exist in perpetuity (as long as the terms of their charter are met) and they cannot be held criminally liable for things.

THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> But we know they can consider that a larger merged media company will be harder to regulate. So that's enough reason to ban it, even if it doesn't directly involve law breaking.


They can consider it; they can consider anything. But what legal theory allows them to ban it for that reason? There's not a chance of them proving that claim and having it survive a court challenge.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Hmmm..... Next thing we know, we'll have people marrying corporations. 
But would the corporation be the wife or the husband? Oh... that doesn't matter any more does it?

Seriously, LoadStar's wiki reference makes it clear: Corporations are not people -- they just have some of the legal rights of people.


----------



## Loach (Jan 11, 2013)

Grakthis said:


> Corporations are not people. I'm not reading your post past that analogy, because it's clear you don't understand this concept and it can only go downhill from here.
> 
> You have a bill of rights. Corporations do not. Corporations are legal entities that exist because government has created a legal framework in which they operate. They are not small businesses, they are not individuals, they are not sole proprietorships. The exist with liability only up to their assets, they exist in perpetuity (as long as the terms of their charter are met) and they cannot be held criminally liable for things.
> 
> THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE.


Corporations absolutely can be held criminally liable, at least for the past 100+ years...


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I wish someone could be held liable for this thread!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Consumers Union (Consumer Reports) has taken a stand against the merger. If anyone wants a way to support that position you can sign a Consumers Union petition:

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2879


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Consumers Union (Consumer Reports) has taken a stand against the merger. If anyone wants a way to support that position you can sign a Consumers Union petition:
> 
> https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2879


I sign it. :up:


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Hmmm..... Next thing we know, we'll have people marrying corporations.
> But would the corporation be the wife or the husband? Oh... that doesn't matter any more does it?...


Nope, because if there's a corporation involved, one way or another, someone's getting scr3w3d.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Most people hate Comcast. Most people hate TWC. Why do people think that these two companies merging together can somehow equal something good?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Most people hate Comcast. Most people hate TWC. Why do people think that these two companies merging together can somehow equal something good?


Well, it's going to be really good for TWC's recently appointed CEO Robert Marcus--he's getting an _*extra*_ $79.5 million, and he's only been in office since the first of the year.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-ceo-to-get-79-5-million-from-comcast-buyout/


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> Well, it's going to be really good for TWC's recently appointed CEO Robert Marcus--he's getting an _*extra*_ $79.5 million, and he's only been in office since the first of the year.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/201...-ceo-to-get-79-5-million-from-comcast-buyout/


It's disgusting. The middle class continues to erode because of crap like this. I'm all for someone working and getting rich. I'm not for a company simply handing out money for the sake of handing money. This will only increase the cost of their services.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> It's disgusting. The middle class continues to erode because of crap like this. I'm all for someone working and getting rich. I'm not for a company simply handing out money for the sake of handing money. This will only increase the cost of their services.


You know, if I could time it just right, I could make a fortune selling torches and pitchforks.


----------



## DeltaBill (Dec 15, 2003)

Sorry, but I have to disagree that the merger is entirely a bad thing. Even if it turns out to more bad than good, though I don&#8217;t believe it will make a difference one way or the other, any downside is only a symptom of what I believe is a much larger issue. The issue is the home entertainment industries ability to monopolize the consumer. Unfortunately, there are several key areas that need to be addressed to truly open up competition. 
First, the content providers have been allowed to leverage the content distributer which has inflated the price of carriage. Normally I am heavily against government intervention in such business matters, but in this scenario the public&#8217;s interest has been greatly eroded. The traditional model for home entertainment has been free, over the air access. Redistribution of over the air content was also freely allowed and protected until recently. With the rise of the cable industry, additional content providers supplied access to new entertainment either freely or as a paid subscription to the end user. In a logical business move to increase profits, the additional content providers started to change for access by the redistributors. This eventually evolved into additional content providers dictating terms to the redistributors and negotiating higher fees by threating non-access. This is where I believe the additional content providers have crossed the line and the government should step in. To reduce the monopolistic nature of these transactions, I believe additional content providers should be required to charge set fees to all redistributors for access to their content. The fees can still be variable based on terms and packages, but all redistributors should be treated equally. Likewise, over the air content providers should be prohibited from charging for local redistribution of publicly aired content assuming it is unedited and in its entirety.

Next, the entertainment redistribution industry has been allowed to thwart competition by utilizing proprietary technology. The FCC made a very poor attempt to reduce this issue by implementing CableCard standards. However, the execution of this was hideous and lacked any real teeth. With today&#8217;s current environment, I would like to see the government give the industry a chance to develop a standard that provides consumer electronics the ability to select one of 6 tuners and program guide provided by any paid redistribution service. For example, Comcast, Google Fiber, DirectTv, Dish, etc would all have to allow a consumer purchased device access content using the same protocol. Additionally, the same guide data viewable through company devices should be allowed to the accessed by other industry devices. By forcing this standard, we can truly have a competitive market place. Additionally, each redistributor must provide a standardized content access point as part of the service or allow outside manufactures to build and sell these devices without royalty.

As an aside to my second point, I believe all visual devices (TVs) that allow network access to paid services (Smart TVs) must also be able to access a tuner and guide data from standardized content access point.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DeltaBill said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree that the merger is entirely a bad thing. Even if it turns out to more bad than good, though I dont believe it will make a difference one way or the other, any downside is only a symptom of what I believe is a much larger issue. The issue is the home entertainment industries ability to monopolize the consumer. Unfortunately, there are several key areas that need to be addressed to truly open up competition.
> First, the content providers have been allowed to leverage the content distributer which has inflated the price of carriage. Normally I am heavily against government intervention in such business matters, but in this scenario the publics interest has been greatly eroded. The traditional model for home entertainment has been free, over the air access. Redistribution of over the air content was also freely allowed and protected until recently. With the rise of the cable industry, additional content providers supplied access to new entertainment either freely or as a paid subscription to the end user. In a logical business move to increase profits, the additional content providers started to change for access by the redistributors. This eventually evolved into additional content providers dictating terms to the redistributors and negotiating higher fees by threating non-access. This is where I believe the additional content providers have crossed the line and the government should step in. To reduce the monopolistic nature of these transactions, I believe additional content providers should be required to charge set fees to all redistributors for access to their content. The fees can still be variable based on terms and packages, but all redistributors should be treated equally. Likewise, over the air content providers should be prohibited from charging for local redistribution of publicly aired content assuming it is unedited and in its entirety.
> 
> Next, the entertainment redistribution industry has been allowed to thwart competition by utilizing proprietary technology. The FCC made a very poor attempt to reduce this issue by implementing CableCard standards. However, the execution of this was hideous and lacked any real teeth. With todays current environment, I would like to see the government give the industry a chance to develop a standard that provides consumer electronics the ability to select one of 6 tuners and program guide provided by any paid redistribution service. For example, Comcast, Google Fiber, DirectTv, Dish, etc would all have to allow a consumer purchased device access content using the same protocol. Additionally, the same guide data viewable through company devices should be allowed to the accessed by other industry devices. By forcing this standard, we can truly have a competitive market place. Additionally, each redistributor must provide a standardized content access point as part of the service or allow outside manufactures to build and sell these devices without royalty.
> ...


While the Pay TV side of this isn't without issues what concerns me (and many others) most is the Internet Access side of this. The pay TV side has good competition via Direct TV, Dishnetwork, and in some markets FIOS, & AT&T U-Verse . While there is some competition on the ISP side via DSL, FIOS, & AT&T U-Verse, because of DSL's limitations this is the area where a combine Comcast/TWC could stifle innovation and negatively impact consumers choices by affecting the services being offered via the Internet.


----------

