Not a typo, monopsony in spotlight in U.S. cable deal

Comments (13)
Slammy wrote:

I hope this gets axed, Comcast is awful but have only had good experiences with Time Warner.

Feb 21, 2014 4:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ozymandias870 wrote:

I get my Internet through my cable provider. In fact, I don’t have phone or cable, only an Internet connection. The “other platforms” listed for TV viewing seemed to be overwhelmingly Internet provided content.

Feb 21, 2014 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CDN_Rebel wrote:

They should just set hard and fast rules that define what percentage of marketshare maximum any one company can have and be done with all this humming and hawing. Though that would be a massive blow to Microsoft, Facebook, and several other ubiquitous tech companies…

Feb 21, 2014 5:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I say no more mergers period. We need smaller companies, not larger ones. Since when have any of these mergers resulted in lower costs to consumers. Not in two decades at least has there been any drop in prices for any kind of utility, and there’s no end in site. This proposed merger will not offer better choices or prices for consumers. It has nothing to do with consumers, it has to do with shareholders and C-levels increasing their bottom line. Lots of people will lose their jobs because of this merger, and most of them will be in the middle to lower pay scale. Just another brick in the wall the corporations are building around American society while everyone is too busy playing with their toys to notice.

Feb 21, 2014 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

The government is playing a semantics game. If the FCC can’t see a monopoly of TV, internet and telephone, and these companies producing their own programs which the buyer must take at any price, then are government (FCC) is useless. The public owns the airwaves and each of us should get discounted rates, faster internet speeds, and a telephone signal you can understand. Cell phones are unintelligible in the US. You need to write to Congress and the head of the FCC and tell them to stop taking payoffs and serve the people.
No more ridiculous terms like monopsony.

Feb 21, 2014 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

The government is playing a semantics game. If the FCC can’t see a monopoly of TV, internet and telephone, and these companies producing their own programs which the buyer must take at any price, then are government (FCC) is useless. The public owns the airwaves and each of us should get discounted rates, faster internet speeds, and a telephone signal you can understand. Cell phones are unintelligible in the US. You need to write to Congress and the head of the FCC and tell them to stop taking payoffs and serve the people.
No more ridiculous terms like monopsony.

Feb 21, 2014 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

The government is playing a semantics game. If the FCC can’t see a monopoly of TV, internet and telephone, and these companies producing their own programs which the buyer must take at any price, then are government (FCC) is useless. The public owns the airwaves and each of us should get discounted rates, faster internet speeds, and a telephone signal you can understand. Cell phones are unintelligible in the US. You need to write to Congress and the head of the FCC and tell them to stop taking payoffs and serve the people.
No more ridiculous terms like monopsony.

Feb 21, 2014 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@PopUp

Cable is not airwaves. Take your rant to a relevant article. The cable companies own the cables in the ground. They paid for the infrastructure. The service they provide is a service, not a right.

Feb 21, 2014 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
QuietThinker wrote:

Monopoly, monopsony, why not both? Comcast and Time-Warner would not have announced this preposterous deal if they did not feel that they had sufficient functionaries in the DOJ already in their pocket.

Feb 22, 2014 8:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
pmview wrote:

the profit motive works equally well for both corporations such as COMCrap as well as FED’Lgov. lobbyist/lawyers provide exemptions legally for their clientele in order to acheive highest levels of financial advantages. this merger-deal with sabre-rattling is an excellent case study of how political-power works hand-in-glove with multi-nationals. when FED’Lgov spending becomes less than their revenues receipts from previous year, then we can expect COMCrap to provide lower cost of services, ok?

Feb 22, 2014 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
jscott418 wrote:

Merging is a requirement in US business because of profit margins. Good example is airlines where stiff competition and rising costs are forcing mergers. I don’t see that happening in Cable. But they don’t compete with just other cable companies. This is about competing against cord cutters, satellite TV and other internet services. But what merging will do in the Time Warner/ Comcast merger is simply leverage what subscribers they have into higher costs for services. The teaser rates cable companies offer are simply that. They try and reel the consumer into their services.
The perk for cable over satellite is cable has broadband and satellite does not. This is a huge problem as technology is slow and expensive to get broadband on satellite. Many have tried and it has not been but a last resort service who has very little choice. Cable companies will want to merge as they become less of a TV content provider, and more of a broadband provider. The long term money is in broadband not TV.

Feb 22, 2014 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse

I hope that everyone who’s against this merger, as I am too, will take a minute to sign the petition against the merger, it needs a lot more signatures.

Comcast is an absolute disaster, their X1 platform is a miserable failure (my first X1 dvr died after a week, the replacement died literally 5 minutes after the installer left), and you get less channels for the same money than either Dish or DirecTV.

Much better customer service with Dish or DirecTV, too, you can actually talk to someone without being on hold for an hour.

As thinkb4its2late pointed out below, none of these mega mergers are good for consumers. I hope the regulators stop them in their tracks, Comcast is already bad enough as it is.

Feb 22, 2014 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dumspirospero wrote:

The merger is not going to improve services for consumers; let’s not kid ourselves. Internet access is still cheaper and better abroad despite the ridiculously huge SONET infrastructure the US has. Comcast does not provide better service than Time Warner, neither does it provide a better network, and just like Time Warner, it’s more expensive than it needs to be. Nevertheless choosing between bad and worse is still a choice and still encourages competition–this is the only benefit consumers of inadequate cable services can rely on. One would have to be daft to believe that removing this choice could be a good thing for sellers or consumers.

As a side note, the Comcast history of ‘managing networking resources’–viz., purposely interfering with their subscribers connections–is one of the reasons why the FCC pressed so hard for net neutrality. Considering the latest ruling on net neutrality, if this merger goes through I can only anticipate a future of more expensive internet access fees coupled with more expensive internet content prices. Bleh.

Feb 23, 2014 8:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.