Should Comcast Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations? (theverge.com) 103
The American Cable Association (ACA), an industry group that represents over 700 small and medium-sized cable operators, wants antitrust regulators to investigate whether Comcast-NBCUniversal is abusing its power to hurt smaller television and internet service providers. The group has "asked U.S. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim to 'immediately' open an investigation into Comcast's practices," reports The Verge. Comcast is denying the claims, and while the Justice Department hasn't publicly responded, that may change soon. President Donald Trump tweeted about the ACA's claims earlier this afternoon. From the report: The ACA claims Comcast has a uniquely powerful hold on the U.S. cable industry because it controls a large chunk of "must have" programming like NBC's regional sports channels. The group argues that the Comcast "has shown a willingness to harm rivals" in the past, even while bound by a 2011 consent decree that expired earlier this year. The letter is dated November 6th but was published today, after Fox Business Networks reported on its existence last week.
Contra Trump's description, the letter doesn't seem to describe "routine" violations of antitrust law. It's primarily arguing that there's a huge risk of Comcast abusing its market position, while explaining just how much damage could result if Comcast did so. The ACA has put forward more concrete claims in the past, though -- like a 2017 complaint that Comcast was forcing smaller cable providers to bundle unwanted NBC-owned channels into TV packages, driving up their costs. The ACA's letter also raises concerns involving Hulu, suggesting that Comcast could effectively hold the service hostage. "We have heard from ACA members that they fear that ComcastNBCU may restrict, if it is not already restricting, their ability to access Hulu and make it available to their customers as an alternative to their cable offerings," reads the letter.
Contra Trump's description, the letter doesn't seem to describe "routine" violations of antitrust law. It's primarily arguing that there's a huge risk of Comcast abusing its market position, while explaining just how much damage could result if Comcast did so. The ACA has put forward more concrete claims in the past, though -- like a 2017 complaint that Comcast was forcing smaller cable providers to bundle unwanted NBC-owned channels into TV packages, driving up their costs. The ACA's letter also raises concerns involving Hulu, suggesting that Comcast could effectively hold the service hostage. "We have heard from ACA members that they fear that ComcastNBCU may restrict, if it is not already restricting, their ability to access Hulu and make it available to their customers as an alternative to their cable offerings," reads the letter.
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Comcast should be investigated for antitrust violations because every single company that size and larger should be investigated for antitrust violations.
If we would just make a serious example of a few huge corporations that fuck over their customers, all of our lives would be better.
Re: Absolutely (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs should never have been allowed to be content creators or own content creation companies.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the Trumpf era. I suspect they will be punished by being forced to purchase all of their rivals.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If we would just quit doing business with huge corporations that fuck over their customers, all of our lives would be better.
And if we would just stop reelecting their puppets into congress, all of our lives would be better also.
I will die wondering why people disagree with that.
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
If we would just quit doing business with huge corporations ...
It is not so easy to "just quit doing business" with a monopoly, which is the whole point of anti-trust laws. They apply when normal markets fail.
And if we would just stop reelecting their puppets into congress ...
When people step into a voting booth, they have other concerns than just their cable company. Comcast and other telecoms are generally supported by Republicans, while content providers are generally supported by Democrats. These stances are not based on principle, but just on where the donations come from.
Switching your vote from one candidate to the other is just switching one set of problems for another.
I will die wondering why people disagree with that.
Nobody is disagreeing, because you didn't actually say anything meaningful.
Re:Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not part of the problem. You're either trolling, or horribly naive.
It's not possible to not do business with corporations that are essentially utilities. Unless you're willing to go without electricity, or phone or data.
There are no other options in most markets. Living in the dark ages just to "prove a point" isn't going to do me a shits worth of good, and it sure isn't going to change anything.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fine, vote for politicians that will change the regulations. All this other bullshit is just chasing your damn tail. Until you people make at least a feeble effort, your complaints don't mean much. Chronic problems like this are self inflicted.
Re: (Score:2)
."Fine, vote for politicians that will change the regulations. "
If you live under a rock you might not be aware that we're actually concerned most about whether this nation will go full Nazi, and whether a particular politician is hip to telecoms abusing their market positions is way, way down the list at the moment. Basic human rights are at stake. What good is internet access when you're dead or in prison?
Re: (Score:1)
we're actually concerned most about whether this nation will go full Nazi, and whether a particular politician is hip to telecoms abusing their market positions is way, way down the list at the moment.
If it does go full Nazi, it is for the same reasons, the voters did it. Unless they turn their backs, the threat is very real. But everybody here is chasing ghosts to avoid seeing the real monster.
Re: (Score:2)
If it does go full Nazi, it is for the same reasons, the voters did it.
I guess you haven't heard of a thing called gerrymandering, eh? Or, for that matter, the electoral college? How about vote tampering, heard of that? Welcome to reality, it's a more complicated place than you imagine.
Re: (Score:1)
The voters are letting it happen, at the very least. And the procedure for eliminating the electoral college is well documented. And vote tampering will be an issue until the voters actively demand an accountable system. Everything you describe is self inflicted. The voters have to be as active as paid lobbyists, and they can show their power by the simple act of voting out the incumbent party. But over 96% choose the GOP/DNC. What am I supposed to say? The Russians did it?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here isn't service; it's vertical integration. Comcast provides cable TV service, but also controls some of the content to be distributed over that service (they own NBC). That all
Re: (Score:2)
The service monopolies Comcast has are not an anti-trust issue because they're government-granted service monopolies. You don't need anti-trust to dissolve that type of monopoly. The government simply has to rescind the monopoly they (foolishly) granted, and allow other cable companies to offer competing service.
This very thing was enacted in federal law more than 25 years ago. That's how long exclusive franchises (the method of implementing "government-granted monopolies") have been illegal.
Notice the inrush of competition? No? Well, maybe that's not because there is some "government-granted monopoly" at work, but simple economic forces. You can't force companies to do business in your city. If they don't think they can make a profit, they won't bother trying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Absolutely (Score:4)
How do you stop doing business with a corporation that is the only provider of broadband you have access to?
The whole point of antitrust is to go after monopolies, and "monopoly" means, you can't stop doing business with them.
Re:Absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.
When there is only one provider of a certain service available in an area, that's called "monopoly".
Here's the dictionary definition:
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be an asshole. If you want to say something, use your words.
Don't be an asshole yourself. I used my words, quote correctly. "Monopoly" does not mean "can't stop doing business with them". It never has. It never will. It means there is a sole source for something. Whether you actually buy whatever that is or not is irrelevant.
Want an example? There is a monopoly here for residential natural gas service. Fact. I don't have to buy from them, and were I to be a current customer I could easily stop buying from them. There is also a monopoly for wired telephone service.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand
Re: (Score:2)
So, your shocking revelation is that "not having any choices" is very different from "not being able to stop buying from them". I stand corrected.
Stop being an asshole. I corrected you on a definition of "monopoly". Get over it.
But in many places in the United States, Comcast is the very definition of a monopoly. Is that not true?
In many places, Comcast is the very definition of "defacto monopoly" for "cable-delivered video services." That doesn't mean you can't stop buying from them. You can easily stop. In fact, the huge number of "cord cutters" proves this to be true.
They are NOT the definition of a "video delivery service" or "ISP" monopoly, however. There are too many of both for anyone to claim Comcast has a monopoly in either.
If they're the only supplier of broadband,
They are not. I'
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for sharing that anecdote.
But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.
https://www.extremetech.com/in... [extremetech.com]
So let's stipulate the actual legal definition of monopoly: Now do you want to tell us how the fuck that's not a monopoly?
Re: (Score:2)
But more than 30% of the country only have access to one broadband provider.
You have to actually read that article to see that it refers to wired broadband, and that it comes from a very very biased source. It's odd how every time someone actually provides specific location data it turns out there are a lot of providers. You just have to look. About a year ago there was a big hoopla about a town in Colorado that implemented municipal broadband because Comcast was the only option. Except, if you looked, you could find 11 different ISPs serving that town.
In other words, you dismiss
Re: (Score:3)
We just had an election where a whole bunch of incumbents were removed. You've got to stay positive, fustakrakich.
Re: (Score:2)
That is so not true. By historical standards, the president's party loses 25 seats. The Democrats are projected to win 35-39 seats. That's bigger than the wave election of 2006. When you add in the governors' races, you get a pretty huge realignment. I mean, fucking Kansas went blue for chirssake. That's a goddamn wave.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a little off. The number is 37, and that's only for unpopular presidents.
Since we're looking at an eventual swing of 39 or so, I don't see how you can call that "underperforming". It's just above average for an unpopular president, and Trump is historically unpopular.over the course of his first two years.
I bet you didn'
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about rights? We're talking about monopolies.
Decades ago, AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, but that didn't mean you have some kind of a "right" to a telephone.
Maybe you need to take a minute and learn a little bit about what a monopoly means:
https://www.quora.com/What-are... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because, young man, it's the law, and it's been the law of land since the 1890s, and Congress has made those laws even stronger since then. These are not regulations, they are actual US Code.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic... [ftc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I understand perfectly what a monopoly is. What I don't understand is why you think you should be entitled to interfere with them.
If you actually understood perfectly what they were, then you would also understand why we are entitled to interfere with them. Those monopolies are corporations. Corporations are legal fictions created by the government, ostensibly for the benefit of The People. (And the government is of The People). It's not in the benefit of The People to permit these legal fictions to engage in anticompetitive practices. QED, it is just for The People to interfere in the actions of the Corporation which is only permitte
I use comcast as my ISP (Score:2, Informative)
But that is because my only other choice is CenturyLink, and they are absolutely awful.
I understand that Comcast makes Hitler look like a nice guy, but, CenturyLink has cheated me, broken promises to me, and pissed me off. Comcast hasn't done as much of that to me personally, yet.
I hate them both, and I have to put up with them because there is too little competition in this domain. And THAT is because those bastards lobby to prevent local communities from standing up their own ISPs.
As far as I am concern
Re: I use comcast as my ISP (Score:1)
No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP. Even an all fiber one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This highlights the bigger problem. There isn't actually a free market, which is the main reason why monopolies and oligopolies form in the first place.
Once a corrupt player can become big enough, they'll bribe/coerce their way to getting the rules changed in ways that favor them and punish or prevent competition. Regulations are great for that. It makes it appear to the people that they're being reigned in, but in reality, it's not much more than a minor inconvenience to them as a the big fish, but overwhe
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because your Local Community setup an exclusive Franchise deal. If they changed their zoning and right of way access laws, anybody could run an ISP.
Name one community that thinks it has the right to franchise ISPs, much less grant exclusive franchises. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just one.
I'll help you out. "Comcast" is not the answer. Franchises for Comcast are for the cable TV operation, not ISP, and they do not have exclusive franchises anywhere. Tell me any community that banned Earthlink or AOL or any other ISP from their area because they gave an exclusive franchise to someone else.
I'll also point out that franchising is not accomplished via zoning la
Re: (Score:2)
My anecdotal experience is the opposite. CenturyLink works reasonably well for me while Comcast was horrible
I could write a huge wall of text detailing my complaints about Comcast, but I can summarize it as follows:
I'd rather have 75% of the promised speed 95% of the time and only goes out once a year (CenturyLink) than 20% of the promised speed 33% of the time that goes out once a month. Those numbers are guesses, but should show the difference in my personal experiences with the 2.
I hate Comcast so much
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone translate this? Google couldn't do it.
Oh, and I just realized that Comcast owns MSNBC, so Trump has his own reasons to investigate.
also for the forced hardware rent as well. (Score:3)
also for the forced hardware rent as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not forced to rent their hardware. They are required by law to give you* a CableCard decoder for a third party set-top, and you can buy like a billion different modems off the shelf in many stores.
*It may be a $5/mo rental. But the point is use whatever hardware you want for non-decrypting part.
Re: (Score:3)
with comcast business internet static ip you must rent there hardware on top of the static ip fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you need to escalate up the Customer Service chain...
Investigated? Investigated!? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding me. Their stated business plan is establishing a global communications monopoly and then metering and throttling the everliving shit out of it's traffic. They were flagrantly in violation of net neutrality laws for years before they got repealed. They still practice traffic shaping that has nothing to do with improving service quality for anyone, and when you call to complain about it they insinuate that anyone using an encrypted connection for something other than to log into Facebook is a pirate. What is to investigate here? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality was never a law. It was an executive order. Laws are passed by congress. You can violate an executive order and exactly shit will happen to you, ever.
Of course not (Score:4, Informative)
Why waste the time and money to investigate.
They should be reduced to a series of companies that don't create content, and are only allowed to exist in one state, never permitted to be re-united aka AT&T
If that isn't enough, start breaking up the companies by city.
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking it up into geographic monopolies isn't any better. Better still that they, Verizon Fiber, etc. are forced to sell to all markets.
Wrong entity (Score:1)
Should our government be investigated for Anti-Trust Violations. Think about it!
Re: Wrong entity (Score:2)
No, not really.
Prompted by Disney? (Score:1)
Was this prompted by Disney? Comcast may have a lot of power, but one wonders if there would be anyone left to challenge Disney's onward march in the same direction if Comcast is handled poorly.
Handle it right, and perhaps Disney is next to fall. Handle it wrong, and Disney wins it all.
Re: (Score:2)
In related news ... (Score:3)
Comcast said they were happy to cooperate and that the US Attorney should simply contact Comcast Customer Support for the information they need.
Duh. (Score:2)
Yes.
Bad Customer Service (Score:2)
Want to break up Comcast? I certainly do. Regulators should hammer the company for every single complaint for bad customer service.. Since Comcast has the worst customer service in the country. Any company that performs THAT badly needs to be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by a long shot. ISPs in general are only like 4 or 5 on the annual lists.
Betteridge was wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
Where I lived in Virginia (Score:2)
Comcast had a deal with the other providers - none of them would offer service in rival territiry, or if they did, they'd accidentally deliver something different. This is direct from the chief engineer at CenturyLink in that area
The Ars Technica article on the ISP whose lines were illegally cut by Comcast would seem to confirm territorial claims maintained by violence and protection rackets.
Definitely, Comcast should be investigated, as should all the major ISPs. To the extent that illegal monopolies exist
Abandon ISPs (Score:3)
The Internet is a natural monopoly and ISPs complain they can't serve rural areas.
Transfer control to each State.
"Must have"? (Score:2)
The ACA claims Comcast has a uniquely powerful hold on the U.S. cable industry because it controls a large chunk of "must have" programming like NBC's regional sports channels.
"Must have"? Seriously? I am heavily involved in sports (coaching) but they are the very definition of optional. Yeah I know people get worked up if they cannot share the latest victories of their local sports franchise but so what? If they won't give me access to watch my sport of choice on terms I'm willing to live with then I have other things I can do with my life. If you go into withdrawal because you cannot see a basketball game live I don't have a lot of sympathy.
The problem I have with compani
The entire industry needs investigating. (Score:2)
Break AT&T up again in the process. That'd be doing it a favor - right now it's a hopelessly broken mess. Too big to function.
Whole indestry doing the same (Score:2)
That depends (Score:1)
So you're saying (Score:3)
That the tribe in power is de-facto innocent? That might makes right? That your side justifies your crimes?
No?
Then don't set an order and prosecute all the guilty together. Whatever their side, whatever their agenda.
But you're opposed to that, you don't want your side prosecuted at all. Get out of jail free cards for all. And you don't care if the other side hasn't committed an offence, you want them harassed anyway.
Which means it's not the criminality that bothers you, but the politics. You can't stand it