DOJ Could Nix Comcast-Time Warner Merger 76
jriding (1076733) writes The Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger has been in the works for so long, it's starting to feel like the impending monopolistic telecom Frankenbaby was inevitable. But the Justice Department may kibosh the deal for violating antitrust laws, according to a report from Bloomberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast has a lock on setting up a separate cable system in town, but let ma bell in by linking to the phone network. It's Big Cable v. Ma Bell v,.DBS... all three work, it's a triopoly because there's three.
Re: (Score:1)
maybe comcast should be non-cast and time warner should by time warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you are only talking about last-mile video service.
If you bring data service into the mix, it drops down to Cable vs. "Ma Bell". While Sattelite technically have data solutions, they no longer qualify as "broadband" under the new definition. In many locations, DSL service does not qualify as broadband either.
If you bring content into the mix, Comcast bought NBC Universal, which owns a large set of channels. They've been using that position and extorting their smaller competitors in certain market
Could Nix (Score:2)
DOJ Could Nix Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
This truncated headline would have been more pleasurable.
Re: (Score:2)
May kibosh in 2017 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As for as the corporate psychopaths are concerned control main stream media and you control the world. Psychopaths, whilst content to conspire together to lie, cheat, steal and kill, the rest of us being the targets, they know full well, the greatest threat to them, is each other. That merger would simply place too much power in the hands of one group of psychopaths for the rest of them to accept. Any threat to that power base is attacked ie right now the Sony group is attacking RT News by working to censo
Re: (Score:1)
This applies equally well if you replace the word "corporate" with "government".
Or do you really believe that the guys with the $4T budget are less of a problem than the guys whose budget is measured in billions?
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the average individual budget of a typical corrupt politician and who funds it, the tax payer or those corporations and what do the corporations expect in return.
Re: (Score:2)
"Campaign Contributions", geeze. How are the politicians supposed to make a living without them?!
At this point? Really? (Score:1, Insightful)
This looks like window dressing more than anything. The Ad
Re:At this point? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it? I can't tell which bias he has. He's expressing a desire for more regulation, which is a left-leaning bias, but a disdain for Obama, even using his middle name, which a right-leaning bias. I think he's just showing that he's pissed at the corporate cock sucking, fascist pile of shit that is the US federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that "Lawnchair" isn't a typical appellation given by right-wingers to President Obama. ( They typically go for things like "Obummer", "Binladen-lover", "Tyrant", "Dictator, and "Weak" - not that these make much sense.) It sounds like damn_registrars is mad that Obama hasn't done more, which equally senseless, given the dysfunction of Congress. But I count him as absolutely very left wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Since they are already de facto merged into a single monopoly, denying the de jure merger would make for good PR but make no actual difference to the companies or to consumers.
Let me translate (Score:2)
The feds are saying they need more campaign donations and more guaranteed jobs with Comcast when they quit Uncle Sam.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Based on this list [wikipedia.org], it looks like merger activity between US banks dramatically slowed since Obama took office, after going through the roof during the Bush years.
But don't let the facts get in the way of good ol' right wing populist rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, shit, when an industry is consolidating of course there are going to be a bunch of mergers (of small companies into medium companies) at the beginning, then a moderate amount of mergers (of medium companies into big companies), then just a few mergers (of big
Re: (Score:1)
Whoosh?
They didn't stop telecoms from merging either.
U.S. Moves to Block Merger Between AT&T and T-Mobile [nytimes.com]
T-Mobile Antitrust Challenge Gives AT&T Little Recourse [bloomberg.com]
They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009.
US government seeks to block American-US Airways merger [cnn.com]
U.S., Filing Suit, Moves to Block Airline Merger [nytimes.com]
They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power)
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
So how'd AT&T buying T-Mobile work out?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, it sure sounds to me like it's Seattle that's the shithole!
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle has the most screwed-up local leadership you can imagine. The mayor is busy building tent cities for the homeless and waging war on car commuters, but can't take time out to get their internet infrastructure up to twenty-first century standards. The mayor talked about doing something about it last year, but nothing's happened so far.
Of course, Seattle keeps electing these people, so it's really on their heads. I live in the Eastside (Eastern Seattle suburbs) where we have no such ridiculous restr
Re: (Score:1)
You're right that this really screws over the city of Seattle. I work IT for a large company that I'm sure you've heard of, and I do home visits to setup cisco ASA routers at employee's homes. Only a few of our employees have access faster than ISDN or dial-up. We were really looking forward to having Comcast offer service to more of Seattle.
Re: (Score:1)
Where I work we have over a dozen people sharing dial-up. It sucks to work in a downtown area with parking costs of >$350 per month and not have access to modern Internet speeds.
No Monopoly There... (Score:2)
There's DirecTV and Dish Network available in most places, and Comcast and Time Warner don't overlap, even in NYC where there's a line drawn between the two. FIOS is being offered where Verizon thinks it's possible, and AT&T U-Verse exists where it was set up.
You have to get this down to one before you can call it a monopoly.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Satellite and cellular internet are different products that do NOT compete directly with terrestrial broadband services like Comcast's: Cable is low latency, high bandwidth; Satellite is high latency, high bandwidth; Cellular is low latency, low bandwidth. For applications like streaming audio and video (internet radio, voip, Netflix, etc.), where only bandwidth matters, one could argue there is competition. For applications like online gaming and web browsing, where both latency and bandwidth matter, there
Re: (Score:2)
That's not government law giving them a monopoly, it's a physical law that's getting in the way. Too much Seattle population decided it was better to move than rewire the city, which is why they blew up the King Dome on a classic ESPN Classic broadcast.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Give us liberty Give us broadband (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently Dr. Bronner [subgenius.com] is a broadband advocate now.
Why merge? (Score:5, Insightful)
A rejection of the deal would be a blow to Comcast, which has sought to gain valuable cable assets in major U.S. cities including New York and Los Angeles, where Time Warner Cable is dominant. Expanding Comcast’s broadband Internet and video footprint would help it better compete with satellite, Web and telecommunications competitors that have taken hundreds of thousands of TV subscribers from the Philadelphia-based company in recent years.
Or, Comcast, you could stop treating your customers like poop you scrape off your sole and instead offer competitive and innovative services at a reasonable price. Maybe then your customers wouldn't flee from you at the first opportunity they get. Just a thought.
nix the regulations creating these monopolies (Score:2, Insightful)
Nixing individual mergers doesn't help anything. What government should do is nix the regulations that created these monopolies in the first place.
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
Right now I suspect it's only a matter of time and bribery before they deliver a de facto or fait accompli merger, regardless of what anyone says.
I have zero faith in either wing of the US political monoparty's desire to actually stop this.
Long past time to stop large mergers (Score:2)
What is needed is to encourage companies to compete against each other, not just turn themselves into companies for takeovers so that the executives walk away with large golden parachutes.
WRT data comm, with comcast-TW merger, it will remove real competition. As such, if this is to be allowed to happen, we need to require that all laws that reward monopolies in data comm, to be removed. Cities should be allowed to put in their own network as l
On What Planet Is the Comcast Merger OK? (Score:1)