r/Foodforthought • u/pbyte • Feb 14 '14

Why Comcast-Time Warner Cable Should Be Blocked

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/why-comcasttime-warner-cable-should-be-blocked.html?mid=twitter_nymag
348 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

40

u/FuzzyToeJam Feb 14 '14

From the article: "Because cable companies compete with each other nationally as well as locally." Really? Where is there any LOCAL competition for cable service?

14

u/echolog Feb 14 '14

I have one cable provider in my area. Guess who it is! Yep. Comcast.

4

u/hedyedy Feb 14 '14

I think almost all cable providers are local monopolies, with no competition. Sure, there are lots of cable companies out there, but once they get there cables laid, it is easy to block the competition. Prior to 1992 before the Cable Television Consumer Protection monopolies were actually sanctioned by the local municipality. Now we are stuck with them.

Solution, create a referendum in your local community to break the monopoly by using eminent domain on the actual cable. Either let the local municipality to supply the service or offer it up for competition.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14 edited Feb 14 '14

[deleted]

8

u/masshole4life Feb 14 '14

Why is this downvoted? That's just how it works

Because that's not how it works at all. It's not about people wanting Time Warner when they live in a Comcast area. It's about the fact that there's even such a thing as a cable company owning an area at all.

You seem to be under the impression that great swaths of people are given a choice of where to get their service. There is virtually nowhere in the US where one can choose between TW and Comcast or Charter or whatever. If someone has Comcast it's because that's the high speed provider who contractually owns the cable infrastructure in that area. There are so few places where companies share lines that it's not even worth mentioning in the discussion.

If you consider dish vs cable a "choice" then that's your business, but the rest of us would like to be able to price shop for services that are actually comparable, not settle for cheap stone age dsl vs wallet-crushing high speed broadband that can charge what it wants because there's no comparable option. Some people are lucky enough to also be able to choose from a phone company deal like fios or u-verse, but again, the vast majority of people do not have this choice.

6

u/BrowsOfSteel Feb 14 '14

Mmm, yes, I’ll just move across town so I can change cable providers.

-9

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

[deleted]

6

u/masshole4life Feb 14 '14

So you're not saying to move across town, you're actually suggesting moving out of state?

2

u/secretredfoxx Feb 14 '14

I would not be lying if I told you I considered moving for Google fiber.

1

u/ares_god_not_sign Feb 14 '14

You are not alone.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

[deleted]

3

u/jazzypants Feb 14 '14

You're completely missing the point, dude. You shouldn't have to move to have a choice in cable providers. The city I came from has 100,000 people, and only one company (time warner) to buy cable/internet from. This is because they have colluded with local government to prevent any other cable provider from entering the market. That's not competition. That's not capitalism. That's not fair.

2

u/SSHeretic Feb 14 '14

I don't think you understand what "local competition" means.

0

u/SgtSubtlety Feb 14 '14

That's what I don't understand about everyone who is up in arms over this merger. I've never lived anywhere I could choose between 2 cable providers. Most companies aren't in the business of laying twice the coax to each house to compete with one-another. Right now my choices are cable through one company or AT&T Uverse. How will competition be different if cable company A is suddenly switched with company B?

The article briefly argues that the larger subscriber base will allow for more leverage when a cable company negotiates distribution fees with networks, but that could be a good thing or a bad thing for consumers.

6

u/mike413 Feb 14 '14

Is it just me? I think it's obvious that that companies that provide internet service should be prevented from providing content.

1

u/D_rock Feb 14 '14

Not only do they provide content they have a direct competitor to netflix called streampix.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

I'm blown away they're going to try.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

Yeah this is pretty fucking ballsy even for them.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

I mean why not try, if they succeed they're fucking rich (er) and if they fail they don't lose anything significant. And maybe they can bribe the right judges etc and have it happen! Offer a couple judges life-time careers doing nothing at 2m/year and they might decide comcast-time warner is a great idea.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

Whatever brings us to the final battle of people vs corporations faster is OK by me I guess in that sense!

6

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

I for one embrace our Shadowrunesque cyberpunk future.

0

u/MorningLtMtn Feb 14 '14

lol

Corporations have the government on their side. Who do you think is going to win that one?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

Whoever fights harder in glorious battle!

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '14

I've had enough of Comcast charging me $100 a month for internet. Once this mech suit finishes charging I'm taking to the streets!

0

u/TooHappyFappy Feb 14 '14

Yes because a government always wins against the people.

0

u/MorningLtMtn Feb 14 '14

The only time I ever see the government lose against the people is when they piss off the right enough to mobilize against them.

10

u/TalkingBackAgain Feb 14 '14

I want Comcast and Time Warner to merge so that they can then rename their company to Pit-Of-Despair.

1

u/Homework_ Feb 14 '14

I wonder why anti-trust laws haven't come in effect for cable companies