> 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't follow. If anything, Comcast will price gouge Netflix out of business, and we'll be back to being stuck watching their awful "On Demand" instead.
They can do this, because Comcast owns the content (NBC), the delivery mechanism for said content (cable TV), and the only delivery mechanism (broadband Internet) for their competitor (Netflix/Amazon Prime).
On the other hand, the (failed) merger attempt between AT&T and T-Mobile was the best thing to happen to consumers in a long time, due to the breakup fee that AT&T had o pay T-Mobile($1+ billion worth of spectrum).
I'm trying to imagine a similar silver lining that could happen here, though I can't think of any.
Another problem is that Comcast is an internet provider for a lot of people. It's actually my only option right now, so if I want to access that Netflix subscription, I still need to pay Comcast, so point 1) will make that all the worse since it's already clear they throttle heavily on Netflix, this will only make the degraded experience even more expensive.
> 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
Not when they're direct competitors to Comcast, Comcast is the only ISP for most people, and Comcast can legally charge Netflix et al out of the market.
I don't think your second premise is entirely true, since Comcast doesn't provide enough bandwidth for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube already. Those services are going to become harder and harder to use if anything.
>the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that
Call me a pessimist but I think this will go through. Why? The lobbyists already sounded out (lobbied/paid-off/promised-job-in-future) enough people in govt to feel that this will go through, or at least there is enough chance of it happening.
I bet this will go through, especially using the point that they don't compete against each other (which would be stupid reason to accept by AntiTrust people). They were NOT designed to compete against each other in the first place. They were given geographic divisions by regulators for that very reason.
As someone who bailed cable/satellite a long time ago in favor of OTA broadcast, I'm personally less concerned about the impacts this will have on cable vs. the impacts this would have on cable broadband internet (though I definitely agree with concerns expressed over the impacts of cable).
For cable, we have Netflix, Amazon, etc. as a possible alternative. And I guess for broadband internet, we always have DSL to fall back to.
It would be insane to let this go through. They're both effectively monopolists in most markets they serve; allowing them to combine just allows them to exert more political influence to make sure they keep their monopoly and high profit margins. Their core business is very much a low-value-added, rent-seeking concern, which doesn't benefit from economies of scale except for in as much as they can increase their market power by reducing competition - a fundamentally zero-sum game.
Political influence is a major and underexplored negative externality of monopolies.
Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.
This is crazy I don't see how this can get past any sort of anti-trust. Particularly with Comcast's stake in NBC. Comcast would own both the content and distribution of too large a chunk of the broadcast industry.
As a TWC customer I've been long certain based on conversations with others that I have the second worst cable company in the country. So my reaction to this announcement is approximately "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK."
The baseline I had from years of living in a Comcast market is so rotten that I really was deeply, fervently in love with TWC for the first year or so after I moved to a market that they own. It was hard for me to believe that a cable company could really be that awesome.
Upshot being. . . yeah, Comcast is so heinous that simply spending any amount of time in contact with them will actually warp your mind.
Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be.
In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".
I hate TWC with a great and fiery passion. I literally shake when I think about the company. And from my understanding, most Comcast subscribers feel the same way about their service. This sort of thing makes me angry, not because I think the monopoly will be worse than it currently is. But because these mega-companies have so much power and influence that they can make their own laws. A free and open internet simply doesn't stand a chance against that much money. Because all of the protests will happen online. And if I'm ComWarner and I see a site protesting me what am I going to do? I'm going to ban hammer them. And if the public complains about it the I'll slip some judges a few mil each to get them to interpret the law in my favor. And that's the simple fact: America is one of the most corrupt countries. If not the most corrupt. Because our law makers at every level are in the pockets of billionaires.
There seems to be a lot of buzz around that technical solutions won't dig us out of this hole; and while I agree that we definitely need some dramatic power shift to happen, I feel like there are technical solutions on the horizon. There are a lot of compelling mesh network/darknet projects going on, fast forward wireless tech a few years, it may be more feasible than ever. Use your anger as motivation.
If you're wondering how this could possibly go through, see another WSJ article on the topic: "Comcast, Time Warner Deal to Spark Regulatory Debate, Outcome Uncertain"
Summary: On the one hand, there are the obvious consumer concerns
about the impact on pricing and service if the two largest cable
companies were to merge. Besides Justice Department and Federal
Communications Commission review, Congress will likely seek hearings
where they can be seen being involved in such a high profile matter.
On the other hand, Comcast successfully practiced completing the 2009
acquisition of NBCUniversal from GE by agreeing to a wide array of
commitments with the Justice Department, FCC, and state attorney
generals.
Article concludes that the acquisition may well go through: "This is
the first major merger review under new FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who
once served as the cable industry's top lobbyist. Mr. Wheeler
suggested in 2011 the Commission should have allowed AT&T to buy
T-Mobile in exchange for agreeing to a new slate of
regulations. Lawyers and analysts in Washington believe Comcast could
similarly secure the Commission's approval by expanding its existing
regulatory commitments."
"Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this?"
You might think the share holders. Not correct. Though they don't lose.
Think: the law firms handling the deal. This type of deal is worth millions in fees; banks - both investment (for finding the cash) and traditional (for providing the cash); and the governments which would levy taxes and fees. And of course anything below the public view (kick-backs, trips, outright campaign donations). I mean it's no surprise they picked a campaign year to merge. ;) The companies have probably been talking about this for at least a year.
It might not go through. If there is enough back lash from other companies. Happened with ATT recently. What will matter are other content providers (Disney, Fox, Viacom, etc etc) - though it wouldn't surprise me if they get certain guarantees they we won't know about.
Netflix doesn't really have any muscle on the ground to fight this. But if they could form a coalition of sorts, with the likes of Amazon, Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, (maybe even) MS and Sony (they have a stake in this too), etc, etc - combined they'd be a formidable force that Commcast/TM would have to deal with.
And then there's us. But I hold little hope for the american public to rally around any cause. Plus too many are too easily swayed.
My hope lies in a the coalition of net companies I mentioned.
At a minimum you can expect to fire some staff. You don't need two marketing departments coming up with ads, for instance. It won't quite be half the staff, but salaries are expensive (health care too).
Classic peak of the market bozo move. Comcast is massively overpaying for a dying business that will be valued at 1/3 this price in three to five years. I'd mark this equivalent to the HP / Compaq deal, and the AOL / Time Warner deal (in which Time Warner allowed a soon-to-implode dial-up player to eat them).
TWC has a mere $1b in cash, and negative $22.8b in net tangible assets. Comcast shareholders just bought a massive black hole.
With this announcement we as a community REALLY need to get behind Net Neutrality as much as we did w/ SOPA -- Companies like Google, Netflix, et al - should block all access to their sites from D.C. IP addresses as a protest to show them what 'Throttling' feels like.
This is yet another reminder to check out your local DSL options, like Sonic.net and Megapath. Hopefully the ones in your area haven't gone out of business yet from everyone getting duped into "faster" cable.
Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who can switch to TWC. I know there's still a diversity of offerings across the market that will change, but that seems a minor thing compared to the fact that most broadband users don't have a choice who they get their broadband from anyway.
The future isn't cable though, it's internet, and even the cable companies know this. In most places the best internet is still via cable. Having such a dominant monopoly would put them in prime position to gouge everyone in every direction.
Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist.
And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.
One thing I find stupid is franchise. In NYC Comcast, TWC, Verzion and RCN get franchises. Sometimes living a block away from where one used to live means a different provider and you are locked. TWC isn't so badly in the last 2-3 years after the major pool expanison and relatively stable, but in the end, why the hell is FiOS still not available to me when they promised they would have it complete by now?
As far as I know the Verizon FiOS buildout is complete and there are no plans to expand availability. Last time I read about FiOS expansion, Verizon's official position was something like this:
Customers in areas not currently served by FiOS may be able to get 4G from Verizon Wireless, which is up to four times faster than Verizon High Speed Internet (DSL).
Your options in NYC tend to be driven by the deals your building has made. My building has TWC, RCN and after Sandy destroyed the copper infrastructure FIOS. From what I understand about getting FIOS, it comes down to your building being big enough and receptive to having them wire it up. Most are not very receptive.
I don't have access to Time Warner or Comcast. I currently have Cox and I have never had Time Warner or Comcast my entire life. I have only read online from sites like Hacker News or Ars Technica in the comments about how bad it is.
Could someone enlighten us with some points of how this possibly could benefit consumers?
Will they have more capital to build out fiber networks like Google has been doing to compete with that? If this goes through how much control can be put in place by the regulators to make sure pricing is not increased, they don't throttle or block out certain content providers such as Netflix?
Even though they server different markets it seems insane that this gets approved from the knowledge I have.
[+] [-] suprgeek|12 years ago|reply
1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen
2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
[+] [-] chimeracoder|12 years ago|reply
I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't follow. If anything, Comcast will price gouge Netflix out of business, and we'll be back to being stuck watching their awful "On Demand" instead.
They can do this, because Comcast owns the content (NBC), the delivery mechanism for said content (cable TV), and the only delivery mechanism (broadband Internet) for their competitor (Netflix/Amazon Prime).
On the other hand, the (failed) merger attempt between AT&T and T-Mobile was the best thing to happen to consumers in a long time, due to the breakup fee that AT&T had o pay T-Mobile($1+ billion worth of spectrum).
I'm trying to imagine a similar silver lining that could happen here, though I can't think of any.
[+] [-] codezero|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cenhyperion|12 years ago|reply
Not when they're direct competitors to Comcast, Comcast is the only ISP for most people, and Comcast can legally charge Netflix et al out of the market.
[+] [-] delucain|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|12 years ago|reply
Call me a pessimist but I think this will go through. Why? The lobbyists already sounded out (lobbied/paid-off/promised-job-in-future) enough people in govt to feel that this will go through, or at least there is enough chance of it happening.
I bet this will go through, especially using the point that they don't compete against each other (which would be stupid reason to accept by AntiTrust people). They were NOT designed to compete against each other in the first place. They were given geographic divisions by regulators for that very reason.
[+] [-] gorner|12 years ago|reply
The FCC previously had a 30% coverage limit but that was struck down by the courts in 2009: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125147230997266951
[+] [-] axus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jader201|12 years ago|reply
For cable, we have Netflix, Amazon, etc. as a possible alternative. And I guess for broadband internet, we always have DSL to fall back to.
But Google Fiber can't get here soon enough.
[+] [-] 31reasons|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fiatmoney|12 years ago|reply
Political influence is a major and underexplored negative externality of monopolies.
[+] [-] kevinalexbrown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeryan|12 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-ca...
This is crazy I don't see how this can get past any sort of anti-trust. Particularly with Comcast's stake in NBC. Comcast would own both the content and distribution of too large a chunk of the broadcast industry.
[+] [-] famousactress|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunderbunder|12 years ago|reply
Upshot being. . . yeah, Comcast is so heinous that simply spending any amount of time in contact with them will actually warp your mind.
[+] [-] ryanSrich|12 years ago|reply
Nothing in your life has prepared you for Comcast.
[+] [-] zerohm|12 years ago|reply
By far Comcast was the worst of my experiences.
[+] [-] chimeracoder|12 years ago|reply
At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall, which forces ISPs, cable companies, and content providers to be separate entities.
The current situation is laughably awful for consumers. I can't imagine a single informed customer actually supporting the status quo.
[+] [-] WaterSponge|12 years ago|reply
Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be.
In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".
[+] [-] nine_k|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacinbusiness|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] existencebox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iandanforth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjhughes|12 years ago|reply
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...
Summary: On the one hand, there are the obvious consumer concerns about the impact on pricing and service if the two largest cable companies were to merge. Besides Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission review, Congress will likely seek hearings where they can be seen being involved in such a high profile matter. On the other hand, Comcast successfully practiced completing the 2009 acquisition of NBCUniversal from GE by agreeing to a wide array of commitments with the Justice Department, FCC, and state attorney generals.
Article concludes that the acquisition may well go through: "This is the first major merger review under new FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who once served as the cable industry's top lobbyist. Mr. Wheeler suggested in 2011 the Commission should have allowed AT&T to buy T-Mobile in exchange for agreeing to a new slate of regulations. Lawyers and analysts in Washington believe Comcast could similarly secure the Commission's approval by expanding its existing regulatory commitments."
[+] [-] ritchiea|12 years ago|reply
It certainly feels like little else than a handshake deal to create a monopoly.
[+] [-] crag|12 years ago|reply
You might think the share holders. Not correct. Though they don't lose.
Think: the law firms handling the deal. This type of deal is worth millions in fees; banks - both investment (for finding the cash) and traditional (for providing the cash); and the governments which would levy taxes and fees. And of course anything below the public view (kick-backs, trips, outright campaign donations). I mean it's no surprise they picked a campaign year to merge. ;) The companies have probably been talking about this for at least a year.
It might not go through. If there is enough back lash from other companies. Happened with ATT recently. What will matter are other content providers (Disney, Fox, Viacom, etc etc) - though it wouldn't surprise me if they get certain guarantees they we won't know about.
Netflix doesn't really have any muscle on the ground to fight this. But if they could form a coalition of sorts, with the likes of Amazon, Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, (maybe even) MS and Sony (they have a stake in this too), etc, etc - combined they'd be a formidable force that Commcast/TM would have to deal with.
And then there's us. But I hold little hope for the american public to rally around any cause. Plus too many are too easily swayed.
My hope lies in a the coalition of net companies I mentioned.
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kawera|12 years ago|reply
At first, the deal makers: executives, bankers, lawyers, auditors, consultants and assorted advisors.
Down the road... nobody.
[+] [-] gorner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tsagadai|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|12 years ago|reply
TWC has a mere $1b in cash, and negative $22.8b in net tangible assets. Comcast shareholders just bought a massive black hole.
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redwall_hp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knodi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blazespin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidgay|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delucain|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|12 years ago|reply
Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist.
And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|12 years ago|reply
How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...
[+] [-] iends|12 years ago|reply
I don't want to do business with one of the worst American companies, too bad both my choices are just that.
[+] [-] yeukhon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nandhp|12 years ago|reply
Customers in areas not currently served by FiOS may be able to get 4G from Verizon Wireless, which is up to four times faster than Verizon High Speed Internet (DSL).
[+] [-] gaadd33|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben1040|12 years ago|reply
http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warne...
[+] [-] mroby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b3b0p|12 years ago|reply
Could someone enlighten us with some points of how this possibly could benefit consumers?
Will they have more capital to build out fiber networks like Google has been doing to compete with that? If this goes through how much control can be put in place by the regulators to make sure pricing is not increased, they don't throttle or block out certain content providers such as Netflix?
Even though they server different markets it seems insane that this gets approved from the knowledge I have.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]