Comcast Set to Acquire Time Warner. Where the Hell is Net Neutrality?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 7:56am

So, for those who keep on the whole Net Neutrality issue in D.C., did that ultimately hold up? Surely this acquisition is an unfair "monopoly" on our access to internet, phone, and television....

DAVID GELLES - Comcast announced on Thursday an agreement to acquire Time Warner Cable for more than $45 billion in stock, a deal that would combine the biggest and second-biggest cable television operators in the country. For Comcast, which completed its acquisition of NBC Universal, the television and movie powerhouse, from General Electric less than a year ago, the latest deal would be its second big act to radically reshape the media landscape in the United States. And the merger is almost certain to bring to an end a protracted takeover battle that Charter Communications has been waging for Time Warner Cable.


Comcast Set to Acquire Time Warner Cable for $45 Billion

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 8:49am

This is f**king ridiculous.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 11:33am

How this affects you.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 1:27pm

Thanks for posting that, Borstal. There are many people out there who don't realize how dangerous a "monopoly" over internet and television access could be and how it will impact us for generations to come. We need Net Neutrality. It's time.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 1:47pm

Net Neutrality is actually the opposite of what it sounds like.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 1:56pm

No, it's not..

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

This concept also applies to content and access to television.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 2:00pm

For some reason, I was thinking that the Net Neutrality bill did the opposite of what it sounds like, but thanks Wikipedia's Headband!

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 2:06pm

Yes. That was the definition from Wikipedia. Your point?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 2:07pm

The problem is the government. If there weren't so many government regulations stopping people from starting new businesses, then there would be healthy competition and you wouldn't need net neutrality laws.

But the government makes laws that hurt business then they add laws on top of those laws. And then everyone gets angry and blames it on the 1 percenters when their anger should be directed at the government.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 2:16pm

+++++++++++++#######+++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++############++++++++++++++ ++++++++++###############++++++++++++ +++++++++#####++++++++###++++++++++++ ++++++++###++++++++++++###+++++++++++ ++++++++##++++++++++++++###++++++++++ +++++++##+++++++++++++++####+++++++++ +++++++#+++++++++++++++++###+++++++++ ++++++##+++++++++++++++++####++++++++ ++++++#+++++++++++++++##++###++++++++ +++++##++++++++++++############++++++ +++++##++++++++#+++##+####+####++++++ +++++##++++#####+++#++#####+####+++++ +++++##+++##+###+++#+++****++####+++++ +++++##+++++#++#+++#+++++++++##++++++ +++++##+++++++++++++#+++++++##+#+++++ +++++#+++++++++++++++#++++++##+#+++++ ++++++#+++++++++++++#++++++####++++++ ++++++##+++++++++++####++++####++++++ ++++++++++++++++++####++++++####+++++ +++++##+#+++++++++++++++++++##+#+++++ +++++#++++++++++++++##++++++####+++++ +++++#++++++++++++######++++##+++++++ +++++#+#+#+++++++##+++#+++++##+++++++ ++++++#++#++++++##+++###++++##+++++++ +++++++#++++++++++++++++++#####++++++ +++++++++#+++++++++++#++++#####++++++ +++++++++++#+++++++++++++############ ++++++++++++#+++++++++++############# +++++++++++++#++++++++############### ++++++++++++++##++++########+######## +++++++++++++#++###########++######## +++++++++++###+++#########++######### ++++++++#######++++######+++######### ++++++#########+++++++##++++######### +++++##########+++++###++++########## +++############+++++#++++++########## ++##############++++#++++++########## ++##############++++++++++########### OBAMA

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 2:18pm

Yes. That was the definition from Wikipedia. Your point?

Not your words and no attribution is kind of like copying someone's yahoo answer and passing it off as your own words, isn't it?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 4:44pm

Liberty Cable has freed 609 East 68th Street (just a little joke for long time New Yorkers)

[javero]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 4:50pm

"If there weren't so many government regulations stopping people from starting new businesses, then there would be healthy competition and you wouldn't need net neutrality laws."

That presupposes that the corporate oligarchs would act as good citizens and further that they not impose artificial barriers to entry for small business owner/operators.

Comcast is poised to become the Wall-Mart of mass communications. The megacorp has a virtual monopoly within it's current service area via the local franchise authorities. And many states have rushed to put laws on the books to block municipalities from rolling out their own affordable broadband offerings, in the wake of the success of places like Wilson, NC.

What is often conveniently overlooked in the free trade discussion, Goth, is the amount of lobbying done by the major players at the state and municipal level to protect their respective turfs from start-ups and interlopers. But, I'm certain you're well aware of that.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 5:38pm

When I saw this news flash across my phone yesterday I couldn't ****ing believe it. Cable companies already have what amount to effective monopolies on broadband accesss in most neighborhoods in which they operate. Comcast is already a behemoth, but this deal puts them on a whole other level. With all this consolidation and lack of true competition for broadband access, these companies will be even less motivated to innovate and improve broadband access in the US. The US, the inventor of the internet, is now ranked 31st in the world for average download speed--behind countries like Sweden, Japan, South Korea and even Romania and most of them provide these much faster services at significantly lower prices than US providers.

Short of a sea change in the way ISPs work in the US, it seems like the only thing that will allow the US to catch up is massive public works programs creating high-speed fiber networks. Yes, more government, not less. (Sorry, Repubs!)

BTW, NPR's Fresh Air just had a very interesting interview with Susan Crawford, author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in which she explains why it's so dangerous for both consumers and for the future of the US economy for us to be falling so far behind other developed nations. I wish they'd conducted the interview after this latest merger news. Crawford described one city--I think it was Stockholm--where when you move into a new home you would have 5 or 6 different broadband ISPs to choose from. That level of competition is unfathomable in the US. And, as she pointed out in her interview, Sweden is very similar to the US in terms in population sparsity. The whole thing is just maddening.




FRESH AIR: When It Comes To High-Speed Internet, U.S. 'Falling Way Behind' Updated On: 2/13/14 at 05:38 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 6:28pm

Yes, more government, not less. (Sorry, Repubs!)

Crawford described one city--I think it was Stockholm--where when you move into a new home you would have 5 or 6 different broadband ISPs to choose from.

These two statements are at odds with each other. You can't have government and choice at the same time. (See Obamacare)

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 7:48pm

And yet, Goth, the free market is the very reason Time Warner Cable holds such a massive monopoly in Manhattan (and now Comcast) with little incentive or need to invest in and improve on their infrastructure or services. They don't need to because YOU are at their mercy. I'm sorry, but that's just not right. In Manhattan -- of all places -- building tenants and owners should have competitive options. Not just one mandated internet, phone, and cable provider as such is the case in thousands of neighborhoods throughout Manhattan and elsewhere.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 10:02pm

Gotham - while I think it's obvious we do need more regulation, when I said "more government", I was referring to a massive public works program in which local, state and Federal government agencies effectively bypass the private sector and create the infrastructure that create a TRULY high speed fiber network. Government agencies wouldn't operate the fiber networks once they were online, but would effectively lease them out to telcom/ISP companies. Otherwise, do you really think a massive company like the soon-to-be-merged Comcast/TimeWarner Cable would have any motivation to improve services and install fiber networks? Why would they when there's virtually no competition for them?

And, Gotham, why is it that in international municipalities, like Stockholm, which has more regulation and which had the foresight to create this government-funded infrastructure years ago, that there is actually much more competition--with 5 or 6 broadband ISPs competing against each other and offering Swedish consumers far greater value--than in the US "free" market? The argument that creating even more of a monopoly will lead to more competition and somehow benefit consumers is just ludicrous, but I'm sure Comcast's lawyers will find more than a few ways to make that very argument. Hell, they've probably been refining those arguments for years in anticipation of this very kind of merger.

[javero]

Posted: 2/13/14 at 11:54pm

Don't mean to put too fine a point on it, Goth, but please check out the handiwork of Time Warner at the jump. I have absolutely no confidence that Comcast will avoid similar bullying tactics against municipalities that follow Wilson, NC's suit in attempting to roll their own broadband platforms.

The corporate oligarchs (and their mouthpieces) can't have it both ways. On the one hand they chant the tired party line of "less gov't, more innovation & jobs". Yet, on the other hand they buy legislation to thwart competition in their protected territories at every turn.

It's a game that they play all too well.


Big Carriers Kill Local Broadband

Updated On: 2/13/14 at 11:54 PM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 9:21am

Ugh. Javero - that article made me almost throw up in my mouth. And that $1 million is chump change to a company as big as Time Warner. They can afford to extend that kind of influence into pretty much every community in the US that wants to build its own broadband network. At the end of the day, so much of this goes back to money in politics, doesn't it? I keep praying for the sudden deaths of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito during Obama's term. Not that a Citizens United reversal would solve all of the campaign finance reform issues.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 11:08am

If there weren't so many government regulations stopping people from starting new businesses, then there would be healthy competition and you wouldn't need net neutrality laws.

"Healthy"? In what America do you believe the competition would be "healthy"? Certainly not the one in which we live.

OMG! OBAMACARE!

I can't believe you went there. Well, I guess I can, but it's still hilarious.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 11:33am

Various tweets about the merger of suck

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 12:10pm

"I was referring to a massive public works program in which local, state and Federal government agencies effectively bypass the private sector and create the infrastructure that create a TRULY high speed fiber network."

HorseTears, who do you think is going to pay for this? Where do you think government money comes from? As Margaret Thatcher once said (loosely quoting): The problem with government is that it eventually runs out of other people's money.

In addition, with all we've learned recently about the NSA, do you really want the government owning the highway to which you do all your internet work?

Plus, we've seen what government does with a healthcare website. Why do you want to entrust these people with anymore of your life?

Once again, if the government didn't have laws on top of laws, there would be more small businesses creating competition. In NYC, Liberty Cable used to be the competition to Time Warner. But NYC has made it so difficult to do business, that nobody wants to even make the attempt anymore.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/14/14 at 6:00pm

Even the Parents Television Council thinks this sucks

[bobs3]

Posted: 2/15/14 at 3:14am

OMG! My cable bill is already a $140.00 per month. I can just imagine how much it rises now!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:04pm

Do you get to see "Looking" for only $140 a month?