
FCC Clears Comcast Purchase Of AT&T Broadband 240
Torgo's Pizza writes "The FCC just granted final approval for Comcast to complete its $30.5 billion purchase of AT&T Broadband. Despite consumer worries of increased rates and clear domination of the market, Chairman Michael Powell stated, "The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harms negligible.""
Aha! (Score:1)
(see students?)
Re:Aha! (Score:2)
I think the laws need to be changes so that when two companies want to merge, or a large company wants to buy another large company, it has to come to a vote by the people. We all know how much fun national elections are and that would be the only way to really do what the people want. Obviously right now money talks and whoever is willing or able to pay off a few key officials (or maybe a lot of key officials), can merge to their hearts content... consumers be damned.
Re:Aha! (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, you do have the choice of Dish vs. DirectTV no matter where you are.
the potential harms negligible. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the potential harms negligible. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ya know, right up until the point were people wanted to do slightly more that just voice with their phones, old Ma Bell did pretty damn well. Everyone (and that is key) had reliable, affordable voice service.
Eventually it became a hindrance to market forces, so we altered the system slightly in the so-called "break-up", but the monopoly served to establish a strong infrastructure.
Right now, I'd kill for broadband if I thought it would help. Nope. No can do. I don't add up on some vestige of the monopolies spreadsheets.
Frankly, at this point, I'm all done being patient. I want an adult in charge, put the fist down and say, "universal broadband access, no excuses." If welding together enough of these separate bean-counter telecoms creates the opportunity at the national level for this to occur, I'm all for it.
What I don't like is that we were making fair progress through deregulation. It would have taken only a little more access by third parties to the "last mile" infrastructure to get it effectively done. Now, we change administrations and go 180 degrees the other way.
Fuck.
It isn't the bandwidth... (Score:2, Insightful)
...it's the money. It isn't that they don't want you using VPNs on their service, they don't want you using them on their home service. If you get the service that costs twice as much, you are free to use VPNs. In fact they list it as a feature!
oh shit (Score:2, Insightful)
And now they get another large chunk of the internet.. that's bad news, even for us guys overseas
Negligible? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Negligible? (Score:1)
Re:Negligible? (Score:2)
Re:Negligible? (Score:1)
Re:Negligible? (Score:2)
mine.
Re:Negligible? (Score:2)
Bah (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Uh, AT&T will be out of the picture (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Explain to me how what you have is better? I had DSL for years before cable was available in NW Ohio. I would NOT switch back, ever.
I had RoadRunner for over a year. Rarely lost block sync, had INCREDIBLY fast speeds (close to 300k/s), and it was cheap (49.95).
I worked for ATTBI as a CSR and now unfortunatly I have to use them as my HSD service now that I have relocated to Minneapolis (AT&T area).
I still get 1.5mbs/256k, no loss of sync, and at 46.95/mo (w/my own cable modem and no CATV service)
So, w/DSL I had TWO different people I had to talk to if there was a service problem (Verizon and the ISP), neither talked to each other, and the one ALWAYS blamed the other.
80k/s or 200+ for the same price? There is no argument here.
Re:Bah (Score:3, Informative)
Are you saying all DSL is 768/128? If you think that, you are horribly mistaken. Not everyone has such shitty DSL in their area.
My DSL provider gives me 1.5/256, for $49 per month. I also get a static IP, DNS services, several e-mail boxes, and almost never do I get downtime. Not only that, I don't even have to use PPPOE.
DirectTV DSL truely IS a very good provider. When I first started out with them over a year ago they had a few minor issues but it's all blue skies now.
In fact, the ONLY people in my area who WILL touch cable are those who for whatever reason can't get DSL. The cable provider in our area (Charter) blows goat cheese. Frequent downtimes, lag for no good reason, crappy agreements, no static IP, not allowed to run any servers, etc. etc.
I think the reasons for using DSL are pretty obvious. There is no argument here.
Re:Why DSL? (Score:2)
Yes. [alfter.us]
Re:Bah (Score:2)
A company will never make me angry enough to get out of this chair. They will spend billions of dollars to make me stay in this chair.
If they blocked a website and diverted me to a similar one for a small fee, I WILL get out of this chair.
And they would quiver at the thought of that.
Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I don't watch TV so that's a moot point for me anyway...
RickTheWizKid
A man needs TV like a fish needs a bicycle
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:1)
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:5, Insightful)
27 million Comcast/AT&T subscribers still leaves almost 50 million households getting their cable from elsewhere.
If DirecTV and Dish Network merged, the new company would have over 80% of the US DBS marketmore than enough to claim monopoly status. Satellite TV may not matter to you if you live in a city, but for folks in rural areas, DBS is the only way to receive "cable" channels.
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:2)
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:2)
Second, I got broadband for the same reasons you did, and I specifically chose DSL over Cable because of ATT's reputation (well earned, in my experience) for shitty customer service. My own personal experience with ATT has been so bad that if DSL were not available to me I still would not have gotten a Cable modem. I might have gotten ISDN, or I may have gone with Satalite if I could stomach the latency. More likely I would just annoyed my wife into letting me go to more LAN parties.
because (Score:2)
The truth only happens in a place where there are many publishers of equal weight. A place with one or two heavies is likely to have "news" that's more entertianment, spin and propaganda than information. An old Russian poverb, "There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth," was made fact by the Soviet Union which had only two news services in any media, Tass and Isvestia, meaning Truth and News (order may be incorrect). Both printed up the same nonsense. It can happen elswhere with far less repressive measures.
Re:Why merge cable cos but not sattelite? (Score:2)
E* and DTV on the other hand do compete directly both with each other and with local cable systems - their merger would have dropped the number of suppliers from 3 to 2 in most areas, and 2 to 1 in a lot of rural ones. Commcast/AT&T doesn't change this
Having said this I think a bigger Commcast is both good/bad - it creates someone to go up against AOL/TW - on the other hand it's just another media giant - us real people are pretty much forgotten in all this - except .... when companies like this merge/get sold - we do too, litterally - there's usually a $/subscriber amount set as part of the deal.
So - in the long run it's better to have two hungry satellite companies keeping the local cable giant honest
Haven't we seen this before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Haven't we seen this before? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Haven't we seen this before? (Score:2)
Duh.
Too much? (Score:2, Interesting)
Benefits/Harms (Score:5, Insightful)
What he's really saying:
The benefits to Comcast are considerable, the potential harms to the users are not a consideration because their political donations aren't as large as Comcast's, now are they.
You are correct (Score:2)
Chairman of the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain-Feingold? (Score:2)
And, considering the large number of endruns around the CFA have already been reported on, I'm quite sure that no politician needs limit him/herself to being bought for only $5K.
Plus, you're missing the real point. Powell isn't an elected official. He is a Republican party member however, who has continued to reward through action and/or inaction large contributors to the party. I'm not suggesting personal greed. I'm stating political loyalty/ethical vacuum.
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to provide a translation:
The benefits of this transaction are considerable: I'm receiving plenty of "benefits" (read: bribes) from the companies involved. All I have to do in return is not throw antitrust laws at them.
the potential harms negligible: Who cares about the consumer? As long as I'm not harmed, all is good.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
How easy, for example, is it for someone like GW Bush to understand the plight of someone making minimum wage? Hes never been there, his parents have never been there, nor his grandparents.
The monetary frame of reference of our politicians is so skewed that a doubling of rates really IS no big deal to them. But they do understand the plight of corporate heads, as that is where they come from and where they will go after government. So OF COURSE they are going to be rabidly pro corporate, even without all the legalized bribery.
Oh good! (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if Comcast can bring the same exciting server name changes and mass outages that came with the last switch. I am all-aflutter with anticipation!
No, really I am.
Re:Oh good! (Score:3, Informative)
From @Home -> ATTBI they tried to manually put everyone into the provisioning database, but couldn't w/anyone that had a proprietary modem (Motorola Cybersurfer Wave, COM21 proprietary, some LANCity's).
So when AT&T RoadRunner when to ATTBI all the users had to do was call and get the instructions, some of them actually recieved instructions in the mail (that most people here would have no problems following).
there is a web page called the SAS registration page. You goto that site (w/a proxy set temporarily) and the site grabs your MAC address from the modem and allows you access to the new network.
PRAY that Comcast keeps this. The changeover will be mostly painless.
Comcast was telling the CSRs that they would have more concentration on GOOD customer service and less problems... They WANT to keep customers, not ignore them till they leave.
Again, we can always hope
Re:Oh good! (Score:2)
Mikey seems confused (Score:5, Funny)
I am pretty sure he got that backwards...
Re:Mikey seems confused (Score:5, Funny)
Hint: It's not you.
Costs will probably go up (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Costs will probably go up (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the laugh at the end of a long day. I needed it.
Re:Costs will probably go up (Score:2)
Very simple... (Score:2)
Translation: (Score:2, Redundant)
The benefits of this transaction are considerable to us, the potential harms that many come to you, we don't give a damn about.
Monopolies (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet, they stop the merger of dish and hughes, and echo offered to sell off part their equipment, and spots to allow for another company.
Guess which the FCC allows?
Like the bush league, it follows the money.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other arenas besides subscribers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's important to understand... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's important to understand... (Score:2)
Anybody remember @home? (Score:2, Interesting)
@Home was with comcast originally. They went down the drain. I wonder how long it will take them to drive ATT's broadband division into the crapper too.
Re:Anybody remember @home? (Score:1)
Re:Anybody remember @home? (Score:2)
its bad enough that AT&T's entire range of products are commodity items, but c. michael armstrong proceeded to sell off all the parts that could ever make him a profit. he won't be happy until the only thing AT&T has left is consumer long distance. all that "new fangled" technology is just too much for him.
Re:Anybody remember @home? (Score:2, Informative)
What is the thinking? (Score:2, Interesting)
My visions of the results of telecommunication deregulation remain visions. At every step where small providers have made progress, obstacles are created by the legacy monopolies. Progress toward telecom dereg was made under Clinton, and it is being quickly reversed under Bush. I'd like to know how they justify it.
Frankly, I don't care how it gets done. I want cheap, reliable, wide bandwidth. Whether it gets to me via Joe's KickAss Wires Inc. or COMCASTATTMEGOPOLY doesn't mean a lot, except that in the former case there would be a lot fewer bean counters micro managing my usage, for a time. Eventually it'll all end up in the hands of a small number of large companies anyhow; economies of scale for a commodity product.
No more AT&T Broadband commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Editors... (Score:2)
"The benefits of this transaction are considerable, the potential harm [to our margins] is negligible."
Tech Rage against the Machine (Score:2, Funny)
I'd add some clever names of songs from RATM but with an added tech influence, but I should be working or something.
Re:Tech Rage against the Machine (Score:2, Funny)
I'll do it for you then!
Take the Bandwidth Back
Guerilla P2P
Packet in the Net
Fuck the Cable Company
Know Your ISP
I'd pay anything for broadband (Score:1)
Benefits vs. Harm (Score:1)
Yea right. What was the benefit again? Higher Prices? Less bandwidth? Port Blocking?
Heck,
I just wish I could get decent broadband. The only thing available here is via satellite. If the govment is going to approve a monopoly at least make them provide their service to smaller markets too.
The real truth (Score:2)
Seems more like the inverse of this is becoming true of the FCC.
Does this mean... (Score:3, Funny)
The FCC should get Comcast to buy out my local library so I and other consumers can benefit from rental/late fee consolidation.
nooooooo (Score:2)
Re:nooooooo (Score:3, Insightful)
They did similar things to the long distance companies, preventing them from accessing their local networks without costly equipment, but that is what brought about the lawsuit that ended with the breakup agreement. Of course those were the days, when long distance calls were more of a luxury. Its ironic that AT&T more or less got to decide how to split up the company, but still gave away all the powerful parts of the monopoly. They kept the then profitable long distance business, Bell Labs, and NCR. Only after it became appearant that the local loops were where the monopoly power was, did AT&T start buying cable companies for rich valuations, hoping to create a local network to compete with the companies they gave away in the settlement.
Bend over and grab your ankles! (Score:3, Funny)
Lower costs through higher prices!
Join us in the new world!
Michael Powell is The Man's biatch (Score:2, Flamebait)
Sorry to use such harsh language.
In case you're wondering, a house nigger is a slave that got to live in the big house with the master, rathen than in the grubby slave quarters. He had a better life because of this but was thoroughly despised by the other slaves.
Come to think of it, my explanation is probably more offensive than my use of the "n-word." If you're modding me down because you're a historian, then that's okay.
Re:Michael Powell is The Man's biatch (Score:2)
And you got modded up, too.
Hey, maybe the truth is that bad so that even something that looks like trolling is considered "Insightful".
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, so what's up with this? It's like when AT&T got chopped up, but all that did was create a bunch of little baby monopolies that didn't compete with each other, or anyone else.
I expected this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Makes no sense to me. If the FCC wants to block monopolies, fine, just do it consistenly.
Yeah I know that there is still more than one cable internet service but for how long?
Re:I expected this. (Score:2)
Because the cable companies don't really compete with each other exept in population dense areas, where the sat, companies also both compete, this was viewed as adding little to the compined company's market power. A city that was served by one of the companies will still be served by one of the companies. The cable companies are also currently classified as competitors to the local phone monopolies, when you add all these competitors together, the FCC decided that this would not reduce competition much.
Finally, the abrasivness of the EchoStar CEO probably did more than anything else to turn regulators off towards the merger. He is pretty brash, and well you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Some more info (Score:3, Insightful)
What is not being advertised is that those people who are current local phone (over digital cable) customers of AT&T broadband (Comcast does not do phone over cable) are going to be quietly ignored. Comcast does NOT want to support local phone service; local phone service will cease to be advertised, sold, pushed, etc.; they're hoping for slow attrition of existing customers once the merger is done.
As for moving the high speed users between networks - it shouldn't be as much as a clusterfuck as the @Home move was; they have all of the data this time and they control the networks.
One other clarifications:
Michael Armstrong is moving to Comcast. Plus Armstrong is looking a little better (not much, but a little) now that it's been revealed that QWest and WorldCom were fudging their numbers in a big way, while AT&T didn't play that game. (Interesting muse: what would have happened to AT&T if the other companies had not, well, lied? Wall Street forced AT&T's stock price into the toilet because they were comparing the T to companies that were pulling numbers out of their ass)
Protesting the wrong crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Allowing Comcast to buy AT&T Broadband is not a major crime. This is just replacing one bad monopolist with another -- the two firms weren't explicitly competing against each other so there is no serious concern that the merger will lead to higher prices, lower quality. Ask yourselves: what was preventing AT&T or Comcast from unilaterally offering more expensive, crummy service? It sure wasn't the "threat" of competition from each other. If anything, it was the threat that consumers would get fed up and revolt or the government would actually be forced to respond to consumer outrage. A merger doesn't affect either constraints - if anything, the merger makes the joint firm more vulnerable to such outrage and government scrutiny.
The real crime is the fact that we tolerate and allow these regional monopolies to prosper under government protection.
No Usenet (Score:2)
Re:No Usenet (Score:3, Funny)
<voice="Montgomery Burns">
Ex-cellent.
Now all I need is to convince AOL Time Warner to drop their Usenet feed as a "cost-cutting move," and the Backbone Cabal will rule again!
Fly, my pretties!
</voice>
Unless you're HBO or C-Cor, not a big deal (Score:2, Informative)
For end customers, it won't make a damn bit of difference. AFAIK, not a single market in the US are served by both of these providers, so no consumer will see a reduction in the service offerings provided to them.
For folks who complain about only having one cable operator, it's not a regulatory issue. Every local franchise agreement (contract between the cable company and your city or town that says the cable company gets to string wires and provide service, and in exchange the city government gets a % of the revenue plus free cable service for city offices and schools) signed in the last 15 years is non-exclusive, so another cable operator is welcome to come in and set up shop. Problem is, with a few exceptions (quite dense, wealthy neighborhoods), the economics just don't justify building a second network. It's not some global conspiracy, just the fact that you can pay for building a network to pass 100 houses if you get 65 of them as customers, but not if you only get 37 of them.
So...umm when will we have only one media company? (Score:2)
How long will I be able to keep my home network? (Score:2)
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:3)
What are they doing that's proprietary? I don't know how Comcast works, but ATTBI uses a cable modem with an ethernet out port on it. It doesn't care what kind of computer is talking to it as long as it does TCP/IP.
I would understand if they were using a USB device or something, but I'm puzzled as to how it'd be incompatible with Linux. Could you please clarify?
*Note: I'm not challenging your information, I'm genuinely curious because I may end up being a Comcast customer as a result of this merger.*
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:1)
I have wanted to switch to AT&T cable modem for quite some time now because my DSL likes to die on me when I'm in the middle of important work but I'm stuck in a service agreement for another 6 months so that can't happen. I'm wondering how the prices will change once the merger/acquistion is finalized. Maybe this won't be such a bad thing (I think it will, but maybe we'll get lucky)
Maybe once they have merged, they can eliminate a lot of duplications and dramatically cut costs, passing the savings on to the customers... oh, damn, did I just say that? Ha! I need to lay off the crack.
Most likely they will lay off a lot of their employees, cut costs dramatically and pocket the resulting increase in profits while claiming higher operating costs and jacking up the prices.
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:2)
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:2)
Crap, if there was another option besides sas, I wish my techies knew about it. I talked to plenty of them on the phone.
I also got a DHCP, but it didn't do me any good because it was restricted to talking only to the sas server.
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:2)
What the HELL are you talking about? I've had Comcast cable broadband for going on two years now, and I've never had a PC connected directly to the cable, only an SMC router. What that humble little router box can, Linux can anyday--which amounts to DHCP and nothing more.
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:2, Interesting)
PATENTLY FALSE (Score:2)
Re:PATENTLY FALSE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PATENTLY FALSE (Score:2)
A 802.11b wireless CM router all in one unit and 2/256 service for $64.99 with up to 5 machines. I currently pay $49 +$5 CM rental and only get 1.5/128 for one machine, of course my floppy Linux NAT/router handles that. So for basically $10 more a month I could get 25/100% faster speed and a free use of a wireless access point. Actually for me that 256 up would allow me to stream my own mp3's or my security webcam over ssh to work or anywhere I may be, my current 128 is barely to slow. The package does not seem like a bad idea. I could find NOTHING about this on their web site. My only concern is exactly what control will they have over that all in one device?
For those asking about special connecting software.. In my area its plain old DHCP. I brought my CM home, plugged it into my Freesco [freesco.org] floppy based Linux distro on eth0 and it was working within seconds.
Re:bad news for linux users (Score:2)
Comcast tells people that their service is not compatible with Linux because their browser branding/half-assed customer service software is only for Windows. Because they do not currently have the capability to turn your Linux PC into an animated Comcast advertisement, they claim that no part of their service is compatible with Linux.
Gee, I'm so glad that this company just got bigger.
Re:one bill! (Score:2)
Once the comcast merger is complete, I'll probably drop them anyway, since they don't provide a newsfeed and have download caps.
Re:I didn't really like my email address anyway. (Score:2)
MediaOne was my first address.
Then, with the AT&T buyout, they changed the mailserver format, so the portion after the @ changed, change #1.
Then just 3 months later, they changed forced me to change to an @attbi.com address, change #2.
Now, I'll most likely get a @comcast.com or some shit,for change #3.
Check it out, if you don't believe me, or are thinking of crackmoderating me.
Re:Welcome to the Fold (Score:2)