9 ms·

Only 30% of Americans Out of Comcast Reach After Deal

62 points by sharkweek 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago
Now.
- ignostic 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure "after" means, "after the deal is approved." The FCC and DOJ still have to weigh in.
BlackDeath3 13y ago
Is it just me, or is this headline a little confusing?
swasheck 13y ago
Awesome. So glad that deregulation works to open the free market. I mean, if you don't like it the. You can just get service from another provider, right? What's that, you say? There aren't any other viable providers in my market? Go on. Oh my. You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. That doesn't feel very free or open.
- seehafer 13y ago
  There is nothing free about the market for cable & internet access in the US.
  - kaonashi 13y ago
    Nothing free about any market, since the bounds of said market is inevitably dictated by whatever social coordination mechanisms are available (the most wide-spread being some form of government).
    - zanny 13y ago
      If you can make something of your own volition without any violent coercion, and I can voluntarily exchange with you for it, then that is a pretty free transaction. I guess that means there aren't any free markets, since you are at least being violently taxed, and are probably violently forced to comply with regulation unless your implicit production process doesn't violate any such laws, which is unlikely.
      - kaonashi 13y ago
        Taxes aren't violence, they're dues for engaging in the external economy.
        cobrausn 13y ago
        No anarchist here, but try not paying your taxes for long enough and the violence will come.
        kaonashi 13y ago
        If you try to walk into a baseball game or a movie without paying, it's called theft. If you try to participate in the economy without paying your dues, likewise it's theft and you will suffer the punishment.
        tsotha 13y ago
        Taxes have very little to do with the economy.
        kaonashi 13y ago
        They're the gradient in the system that drives economic activity. If you must acquire a particular currency to pay taxes to avoid jail, then you will offer your output in that currency.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  "You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast" I don't disagree with your sentiment, but just to note: Municipalities can't have exclusive franchise agreements anymore (since 1992).
  - clauretano 13y ago
    They can and do have franchise agreements where one provider gets the vast majority of the region, leaving only the less desirable scraps for someone else. As an example, see the cable franchise map link (in bold) here https://www.seattle.gov/cable/franchises.htm https://www.seattle.gov/cable/franchises.htm --thankfully it's not a perpetual contract.
- benihana 13y ago
  >my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. That doesn't feel very free or open. Think about those sentences compared to your second sentence. >So glad that deregulation works to open the free market. You set up a strawman about the free market in the beginning and then contradict it at the end. The reason it doesn't feel free is because by definition, it isn't.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    It's entirely possible for the same situation to happen in a free market, and it does in some states. Replace "municipality" with "private corporation that owns the common areas of the subdivision" (sometimes called "homeowners' associations" or similar names). As long as there's a landowner that owns land that's necessary to transit to run cable to a neighborhood, they can reach exclusive deals with providers, because you can't dig up stuff without permission of the landowner. And having lived in both "traditional municipalities" and the new private-style non-municipalities in Texas, it's not clear to me the latter result in markets that are freer in any meaningful sense: in both cases the only real freedom you have against the organization is to either try to change their policies through internal democracy (municipal elections, board elections, etc.), or "vote with your feet" and move to a different organization's territory.
    - jmccree 13y ago
      Our HOA fees cover providing internet access for every resident. I've found the end-user "tech support" to be totally incompetent. (A call back 3 DAYS after I submitting traceroutes showing my traffic was stuck in a routing loop in their network, wherein the "tech support professional" asked me to try rebooting my computer before even asking me if I was still having issues. I hung up mid-script.) However, when we had consistent outages and horrible service, I eventually gathered enough evidence to give to the HOA of what the problem was, and when the HOA contacted the ISP, they looped me into an email chain with their account rep and we got immediate service. If we all had to choose Comcast or ATT individually, neither would really care about individuals. But the HOA is in a much larger bargaining position and our ISP cares about losing the whole building. From my experience and friends in the area, those in condo buildings with the exclusive ISP arrangement tend to get better/faster service than those in condos with the standard cable/telco choice. Since condo buildings are managed by the residents who mostly use internet, usually enough percentage care about the quality of internet access to hold the exclusive ISP accountable or replace them. Of course in Apt buildings, mgmt just views internet as an expense and it's a different scenario.
- baddox 13y ago
  > You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. In other words, if you or anyone else attempted to compete with Comcast in your municipality, the government would use violence (or the threat thereof) to prevent them from doing so. If that doesn't count as "regulation" then I don't know what does.
  - jellicle 13y ago
    Wait a second. So everyone is free to make bargains in "the market" except for a city? How do they buy toilet paper for city hall then?
- rayiner 13y ago
  The cable industry was substantially deregulated in the 1990's. For example, municipalities were prohibited from granting exclusive franchises in 1992: https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://www.mackinac.org/10118. Most areas continue to have only one cable company for the simple reason that it's not profitable to compete with the incumbents.
  - hrkristian 13y ago
    That is not the case for fiber. We -Norway, a country of 6 million people spread out- have multiple companies competing in all parts of the country. Fiber companies compete in the larger cities, and even in the smaller towns we are starting to see more and more fiber competition. I have a hard time believing the U.S. offers less grounds for competition, that's a ridiculous proposal at best. When we can do it, you can. Your problem is rampant corruption. I wish I could, as a foreigner, ignore it, but what happens across the Atlantic has a tendency of spreading here.
    - wmf 13y ago
      I wonder how those competing fiber ISPs recoup the costs of running fiber past buildings that aren't their customers. Is this "competition" government-subsidized by any chance?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Most of your population lives along the coasts, and is also quite wealthy relative to much of our population. If you look at our densely populated east coast states, which are also quite wealthy, you'll see that in terms of average internet speeds, many would rank between #3 and #4 on the worldwide chart if they were countries: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q113 http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_i... (compare pages 14 with 17). They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast.
      - 13y ago
- wmf 13y ago
  Realistically we were already in that situation before the merger.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Whatever. Before deregulation all I had in my metro area was dial up, ISDN, or a T1. Then came the various providers riding on the dial up wave when the phone company was forced to allow them. Guess what I was stuck with even more dial up. Eventually DSL showed up but was the same price by all of them. Then Comcast (I forget who they were before the name changed) came in and suddenly my DSL came down in price but was still slower. So, yeah it worked. The key takeaway is when we look for bad its easy to forget worse. I am no fan of Comcast in general but they have been many times faster than my phone company for the same price or less. Would it be nice to have a third or more option? Certainly and I damn well want someone to one day think they can do it, but if you common carrier it we will be stuck with whatever some damn government guy thinks is good for my area. You know that means, tell me who has their streets plowed first in the storms, well lets just say the right people don't live here.
dopamean 13y ago
> Only 30% of Americans Out of Comcast Reach After Deal This is a weird way to say this. "Only 30%" seems like kind of a large number even in this context. I get the point but maybe it would have been more effective to say that 70% of Americans can now be reached by Comcast.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  It's also a little strange to talk about "reach," which is a hypothetical concept, and not actual market share. When the DoJ considers antitrust legislation against a putative monopolist, it usually looks at the market share of the entity in question. Comcast will exploit this to the hilt, of course. There are a lot of "technical" grounds on which Comcast is not a monopolist, and it will argue those grounds aggressively if investigated.
- revelation 13y ago
  It's even weirder because the missing 30% are not out of reach because Comcast just didn't get to them yet, they are out of reach because Comcast doesn't actively enter into competition with other providers. They have silently split the market. So the numbers really don't mean anything.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
noxryan 13y ago
Not that it adds much, but the maps must not take into account Comcast's other holdings. The Upper Midwest is missing from that map which includes Midcontinent Communications which is a jointly owned by Comcast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications
mariuolo 13y ago
Won't antitrust regulators oppose this?
- icegreentea 13y ago
  Potentially... but not in isolation. The issue should not be that Comcast can now reach 70% of Americans, the issue is how many Americans will then be left with Comcast as their only option.
- javert 13y ago
  Nope. In their ideal world, Comcast will eventually get 100% and then be nationalized. Then, politicians can finally get their "fair elections."
- VLM 13y ago
  The important figure is I've read online that Comcast will go from (some large number) to (some ridiculous larger number) of DC lobbyists. If the fox is guarding the henhouse...
rayiner 13y ago
70% of Americans now have Comcast as an option, but only 9% have Comcast as their only terrestrial TV option.
- gphil 13y ago
  > 70% of Americans now have Comcast as an option, but only 9% have Comcast as their only terrestrial TV option. Thanks for pointing this out. It would be better for that second percentage to be zero, but this isn't that alarming.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >over 90% of Americans will still have other wired choices for their TV service I live in a Comcast area. Can you explain what my alternative is? I've certainly never known about one.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Not sure on tv, but check http://www.broadband.gov/ http://www.broadband.gov/, since most cable companies are bundling.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      Their map correctly shows the DSL and Cable provider in my area, but the speeds are not correct. The impressive looking high speed options (100 Mbps - 1 Gbps) are not actually offered or available.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Where I live we have Comcast and another cable provider, plus at least two DSL companies, plus some kind of wireless company I haven't checked into, plus the mobile phone companies (at least three). I'm guessing you're rural.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      I'm not rural at all, but I still only have one cable provider. I was of the belief that most of the country was in the same situation.
jhprks 13y ago
Well, as long as comcast doesn't increase the bills and provide us with good service and fast internet connection, why not just give them a break?
tolmasky 13y ago
All in all this article seems to defend the deal more than anything. Regardless of your beliefs on monopolies/regulation/whatever, it seems particularly silly and irrelevant to use potential reach as a marker of anything. 0% of Americans are "out of Apple's Reach", so what? That has nothing to do with monopolies. You can have 99% of Americans outside your reach and still be a monopoly in your area. You can have 0% of Americans Out of your reach and be in a highly competitive space. The article seems to kind of point this out by showing that its still the case that only 9% of Americans "wouldn't have a choice". The actual interesting question is how that compares to today. From what I've read there wasn't much overlap so its theoretically not much different.
- chucknelson 13y ago
  I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). I think this will get better as things like FiOS and uVerse expand (hopefully), but for right now many of us are "stuck" with a provider.
  - tolmasky 13y ago
    Yes, but this is specifically separately covered is my point. If you take two disjoint areas and combine them, you have not changed the "choice" landscape at all. If anything the arguments that should be made is that this makes Comcast/TimeWarner more powerful in the net-neutrality debates (which I think is actually a very strong and much more meaningful potential result), not that it is somehow affecting actual monopolistic realities for most Americans (or at the very least, this should be conclusively shown as opposed to listing verifiably unrelated statistics). I guess my position is that this is setting up this debate for failure. If you make the unsubstantiated claim that less Americans will have choice, and they can actually prove that its not practically different from today, it makes this argument not very effective.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    >I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). Then let's measure what really matters - the number (or percentage) of people who are served by Comcast only. My guess is between competing cable companies, FIOS, and DSL it's a pretty small number and wouldn't generate any clicks. EDIT: Other people are saying 9% don't have other choices. But even then I'll bet they're not include mobile phone companies, and everybody has access to satellite.
ericdykstra 13y ago
The concerning part of this deal isn't ad reach or who has "access" to certain markets. TV is a luxury, and simply functions as entertainment for the vast majority of Americans. More and more people are "cutting cable" than ever, deciding that they'll find their entertainment somewhere else. The concerning part is high-speed internet, which is coming close to a necessity for many people to live and work, and it will only progressively become more-so. Comcast is my only option for high-speed internet, and they charge me too much for speeds that are too slow, but I have to pay it.
- LandoCalrissian 13y ago
  I honestly can't see how someone could function without the internet in this day and age. Even for minimum wage jobs you typically have to apply online. Not to mention just finding those potential employers would be pretty arduous without a connection . Asking someone making $7 an hour to pay $50 - $70 a month for internet is unreasonable. I don't know why it isn't treated as a utility at this point, since to have any shot of upward monetary mobility it's essentially required. The answer of course is to make providers common carriers, but money and political will make that extremely challenging.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    You would be surprised about how many people live just fine without the internet. Radio, the paper, and TV are their sources of information. Job fairs, government handouts, and more, are covered in many ways through those three mediums. Then add in the personal networks, friends and family, and ever present cell phones. If anything their cell phones are far more important than the internet. Upward mobility is primarily an effect of self discipline and will power. Internet and related are simply tools that help one get there but by no means are not the limiting factor.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      And you would be surprised how much of a shrinking segment that represents. The trend is toward a more connected society and not having access to the technology is quickly becoming a non-option. Data is quickly becoming just another utility, along with power, water, and climate control, and just as necessary.
xaviorm 13y ago
I believe Comcast can only service 30% of households in the US by FCC mandate. As part of this deal it's likely they are going to have to sell off some regions. Not have access to 70% of the US.
- endianswap 13y ago
  That changed in 2009. http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-throws-out-fccs-30-cable-subscriber-cap http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-throws-out...
evo_9 13y ago
Now would be a good time for Google to update us on their longterm plans for their fiber rollout. It's my one hope at this point since Google isn't someone Comcast can just buy and of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity to control something like our access to the internet. So when will Google fiber hit Denver and beyond?
- aaronem 13y ago
  > of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity to control something like our access to the internet Unless Google is that entity, of course.
pdkl95 13y ago
A simple solution - if they want to act like a utility, treat them as such, and nationalize the monopoly. (clarification: nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-like; the content-production and other aspects of the business can be preserved as they currently exist) What happens after that has several options. It can be a publicly-owned utility, or spun off as a heavily-regulated independent (private) corporation under the PUC, to name a few possibilities. Such minutia is a secondary issue, and open for debate. Now that internet access has become a requirements for even basic things such as applying for a job, declaring the ISPs a "public utility" is long overdue.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Calling something essential then regulating it as a utility is a sure way to disaster. Look at our other utilities: I don't know what about water with lead in it, rolling brownouts, or crumbling bridges make you think treating internet as a utility would be a good idea. It's a sure way to freeze capital investment into improving the infrastructure. Is this about making sure that poor people have access to the internet, or subsidizing Netflix's business model? If it's the former, then Comcast is irrelevant. Let's address the problem directly and subsidize cell phones with HSPA+ level data access.
  - dba7dba 13y ago
    Weren't the cable companies initially treated sort of like utility, due to the cost of laying the last mile cables? Isn't that why they were able to gain virtual monopoly on different regions?
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Yes, they were, though I think it had more to do with people not wanting the streets to be dug up every week by a different company. I think most places will support more than one ISP, but it takes time and the right economic environment to shell out the big bucks you need to challenge an incumbent.
  - pdkl95 13y ago
nfriedly 13y ago
I'm in that 30 percent. As much as I hated Time Warner, Windstream is far worse. Its okay during the day, but in the evenings speed and reliability just goes to crap.

62 points by sharkweek 13y ago

coldcode 13y ago

Now.

ignostic 13y ago
I'm pretty sure "after" means, "after the deal is approved." The FCC and DOJ still have to weigh in.

BlackDeath3 13y ago

Is it just me, or is this headline a little confusing?

swasheck 13y ago

Awesome. So glad that deregulation works to open the free market. I mean, if you don't like it the. You can just get service from another provider, right? What's that, you say? There aren't any other viable providers in my market? Go on. Oh my. You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. That doesn't feel very free or open.

seehafer 13y ago
There is nothing free about the market for cable & internet access in the US.
- kaonashi 13y ago
  Nothing free about any market, since the bounds of said market is inevitably dictated by whatever social coordination mechanisms are available (the most wide-spread being some form of government).
  - zanny 13y ago
    If you can make something of your own volition without any violent coercion, and I can voluntarily exchange with you for it, then that is a pretty free transaction. I guess that means there aren't any free markets, since you are at least being violently taxed, and are probably violently forced to comply with regulation unless your implicit production process doesn't violate any such laws, which is unlikely.
    - kaonashi 13y ago
      Taxes aren't violence, they're dues for engaging in the external economy.
      - cobrausn 13y ago
        No anarchist here, but try not paying your taxes for long enough and the violence will come.
        kaonashi 13y ago
        If you try to walk into a baseball game or a movie without paying, it's called theft. If you try to participate in the economy without paying your dues, likewise it's theft and you will suffer the punishment.
        tsotha 13y ago
        Taxes have very little to do with the economy.
        kaonashi 13y ago
        They're the gradient in the system that drives economic activity. If you must acquire a particular currency to pay taxes to avoid jail, then you will offer your output in that currency.
DannyBee 13y ago
"You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast" I don't disagree with your sentiment, but just to note: Municipalities can't have exclusive franchise agreements anymore (since 1992).
- clauretano 13y ago
  They can and do have franchise agreements where one provider gets the vast majority of the region, leaving only the less desirable scraps for someone else. As an example, see the cable franchise map link (in bold) here https://www.seattle.gov/cable/franchises.htm https://www.seattle.gov/cable/franchises.htm --thankfully it's not a perpetual contract.
benihana 13y ago
>my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. That doesn't feel very free or open. Think about those sentences compared to your second sentence. >So glad that deregulation works to open the free market. You set up a strawman about the free market in the beginning and then contradict it at the end. The reason it doesn't feel free is because by definition, it isn't.
- _delirium 13y ago
  It's entirely possible for the same situation to happen in a free market, and it does in some states. Replace "municipality" with "private corporation that owns the common areas of the subdivision" (sometimes called "homeowners' associations" or similar names). As long as there's a landowner that owns land that's necessary to transit to run cable to a neighborhood, they can reach exclusive deals with providers, because you can't dig up stuff without permission of the landowner. And having lived in both "traditional municipalities" and the new private-style non-municipalities in Texas, it's not clear to me the latter result in markets that are freer in any meaningful sense: in both cases the only real freedom you have against the organization is to either try to change their policies through internal democracy (municipal elections, board elections, etc.), or "vote with your feet" and move to a different organization's territory.
  - jmccree 13y ago
    Our HOA fees cover providing internet access for every resident. I've found the end-user "tech support" to be totally incompetent. (A call back 3 DAYS after I submitting traceroutes showing my traffic was stuck in a routing loop in their network, wherein the "tech support professional" asked me to try rebooting my computer before even asking me if I was still having issues. I hung up mid-script.) However, when we had consistent outages and horrible service, I eventually gathered enough evidence to give to the HOA of what the problem was, and when the HOA contacted the ISP, they looped me into an email chain with their account rep and we got immediate service. If we all had to choose Comcast or ATT individually, neither would really care about individuals. But the HOA is in a much larger bargaining position and our ISP cares about losing the whole building. From my experience and friends in the area, those in condo buildings with the exclusive ISP arrangement tend to get better/faster service than those in condos with the standard cable/telco choice. Since condo buildings are managed by the residents who mostly use internet, usually enough percentage care about the quality of internet access to hold the exclusive ISP accountable or replace them. Of course in Apt buildings, mgmt just views internet as an expense and it's a different scenario.
baddox 13y ago
> You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. In other words, if you or anyone else attempted to compete with Comcast in your municipality, the government would use violence (or the threat thereof) to prevent them from doing so. If that doesn't count as "regulation" then I don't know what does.
- jellicle 13y ago
  Wait a second. So everyone is free to make bargains in "the market" except for a city? How do they buy toilet paper for city hall then?
rayiner 13y ago
The cable industry was substantially deregulated in the 1990's. For example, municipalities were prohibited from granting exclusive franchises in 1992: https://www.mackinac.org/10118 https://www.mackinac.org/10118. Most areas continue to have only one cable company for the simple reason that it's not profitable to compete with the incumbents.
- hrkristian 13y ago
  That is not the case for fiber. We -Norway, a country of 6 million people spread out- have multiple companies competing in all parts of the country. Fiber companies compete in the larger cities, and even in the smaller towns we are starting to see more and more fiber competition. I have a hard time believing the U.S. offers less grounds for competition, that's a ridiculous proposal at best. When we can do it, you can. Your problem is rampant corruption. I wish I could, as a foreigner, ignore it, but what happens across the Atlantic has a tendency of spreading here.
  - wmf 13y ago
    I wonder how those competing fiber ISPs recoup the costs of running fiber past buildings that aren't their customers. Is this "competition" government-subsidized by any chance?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Most of your population lives along the coasts, and is also quite wealthy relative to much of our population. If you look at our densely populated east coast states, which are also quite wealthy, you'll see that in terms of average internet speeds, many would rank between #3 and #4 on the worldwide chart if they were countries: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q113 http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai_soti_q113.pdf?WT.mc_i... (compare pages 14 with 17). They also have pretty widespread fiber options between Verizon and Comcast.
    - 13y ago
wmf 13y ago
Realistically we were already in that situation before the merger.
Shivetya 13y ago
Whatever. Before deregulation all I had in my metro area was dial up, ISDN, or a T1. Then came the various providers riding on the dial up wave when the phone company was forced to allow them. Guess what I was stuck with even more dial up. Eventually DSL showed up but was the same price by all of them. Then Comcast (I forget who they were before the name changed) came in and suddenly my DSL came down in price but was still slower. So, yeah it worked. The key takeaway is when we look for bad its easy to forget worse. I am no fan of Comcast in general but they have been many times faster than my phone company for the same price or less. Would it be nice to have a third or more option? Certainly and I damn well want someone to one day think they can do it, but if you common carrier it we will be stuck with whatever some damn government guy thinks is good for my area. You know that means, tell me who has their streets plowed first in the storms, well lets just say the right people don't live here.

dopamean 13y ago

> Only 30% of Americans Out of Comcast Reach After Deal This is a weird way to say this. "Only 30%" seems like kind of a large number even in this context. I get the point but maybe it would have been more effective to say that 70% of Americans can now be reached by Comcast.

jonnathanson 13y ago
It's also a little strange to talk about "reach," which is a hypothetical concept, and not actual market share. When the DoJ considers antitrust legislation against a putative monopolist, it usually looks at the market share of the entity in question. Comcast will exploit this to the hilt, of course. There are a lot of "technical" grounds on which Comcast is not a monopolist, and it will argue those grounds aggressively if investigated.
revelation 13y ago
It's even weirder because the missing 30% are not out of reach because Comcast just didn't get to them yet, they are out of reach because Comcast doesn't actively enter into competition with other providers. They have silently split the market. So the numbers really don't mean anything.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

noxryan 13y ago

Not that it adds much, but the maps must not take into account Comcast's other holdings. The Upper Midwest is missing from that map which includes Midcontinent Communications which is a jointly owned by Comcast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications

mariuolo 13y ago

Won't antitrust regulators oppose this?

icegreentea 13y ago
Potentially... but not in isolation. The issue should not be that Comcast can now reach 70% of Americans, the issue is how many Americans will then be left with Comcast as their only option.
javert 13y ago
Nope. In their ideal world, Comcast will eventually get 100% and then be nationalized. Then, politicians can finally get their "fair elections."
VLM 13y ago
The important figure is I've read online that Comcast will go from (some large number) to (some ridiculous larger number) of DC lobbyists. If the fox is guarding the henhouse...

rayiner 13y ago

70% of Americans now have Comcast as an option, but only 9% have Comcast as their only terrestrial TV option.

gphil 13y ago
> 70% of Americans now have Comcast as an option, but only 9% have Comcast as their only terrestrial TV option. Thanks for pointing this out. It would be better for that second percentage to be zero, but this isn't that alarming.
dublinben 13y ago
>over 90% of Americans will still have other wired choices for their TV service I live in a Comcast area. Can you explain what my alternative is? I've certainly never known about one.
- zanny 13y ago
  Not sure on tv, but check http://www.broadband.gov/ http://www.broadband.gov/, since most cable companies are bundling.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Their map correctly shows the DSL and Cable provider in my area, but the speeds are not correct. The impressive looking high speed options (100 Mbps - 1 Gbps) are not actually offered or available.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Where I live we have Comcast and another cable provider, plus at least two DSL companies, plus some kind of wireless company I haven't checked into, plus the mobile phone companies (at least three). I'm guessing you're rural.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    I'm not rural at all, but I still only have one cable provider. I was of the belief that most of the country was in the same situation.

jhprks 13y ago

Well, as long as comcast doesn't increase the bills and provide us with good service and fast internet connection, why not just give them a break?

tolmasky 13y ago

All in all this article seems to defend the deal more than anything. Regardless of your beliefs on monopolies/regulation/whatever, it seems particularly silly and irrelevant to use potential reach as a marker of anything. 0% of Americans are "out of Apple's Reach", so what? That has nothing to do with monopolies. You can have 99% of Americans outside your reach and still be a monopoly in your area. You can have 0% of Americans Out of your reach and be in a highly competitive space. The article seems to kind of point this out by showing that its still the case that only 9% of Americans "wouldn't have a choice". The actual interesting question is how that compares to today. From what I've read there wasn't much overlap so its theoretically not much different.

chucknelson 13y ago
I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). I think this will get better as things like FiOS and uVerse expand (hopefully), but for right now many of us are "stuck" with a provider.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  Yes, but this is specifically separately covered is my point. If you take two disjoint areas and combine them, you have not changed the "choice" landscape at all. If anything the arguments that should be made is that this makes Comcast/TimeWarner more powerful in the net-neutrality debates (which I think is actually a very strong and much more meaningful potential result), not that it is somehow affecting actual monopolistic realities for most Americans (or at the very least, this should be conclusively shown as opposed to listing verifiably unrelated statistics). I guess my position is that this is setting up this debate for failure. If you make the unsubstantiated claim that less Americans will have choice, and they can actually prove that its not practically different from today, it makes this argument not very effective.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). Then let's measure what really matters - the number (or percentage) of people who are served by Comcast only. My guess is between competing cable companies, FIOS, and DSL it's a pretty small number and wouldn't generate any clicks. EDIT: Other people are saying 9% don't have other choices. But even then I'll bet they're not include mobile phone companies, and everybody has access to satellite.

ericdykstra 13y ago

The concerning part of this deal isn't ad reach or who has "access" to certain markets. TV is a luxury, and simply functions as entertainment for the vast majority of Americans. More and more people are "cutting cable" than ever, deciding that they'll find their entertainment somewhere else. The concerning part is high-speed internet, which is coming close to a necessity for many people to live and work, and it will only progressively become more-so. Comcast is my only option for high-speed internet, and they charge me too much for speeds that are too slow, but I have to pay it.

LandoCalrissian 13y ago
I honestly can't see how someone could function without the internet in this day and age. Even for minimum wage jobs you typically have to apply online. Not to mention just finding those potential employers would be pretty arduous without a connection . Asking someone making $7 an hour to pay $50 - $70 a month for internet is unreasonable. I don't know why it isn't treated as a utility at this point, since to have any shot of upward monetary mobility it's essentially required. The answer of course is to make providers common carriers, but money and political will make that extremely challenging.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  You would be surprised about how many people live just fine without the internet. Radio, the paper, and TV are their sources of information. Job fairs, government handouts, and more, are covered in many ways through those three mediums. Then add in the personal networks, friends and family, and ever present cell phones. If anything their cell phones are far more important than the internet. Upward mobility is primarily an effect of self discipline and will power. Internet and related are simply tools that help one get there but by no means are not the limiting factor.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    And you would be surprised how much of a shrinking segment that represents. The trend is toward a more connected society and not having access to the technology is quickly becoming a non-option. Data is quickly becoming just another utility, along with power, water, and climate control, and just as necessary.

xaviorm 13y ago

I believe Comcast can only service 30% of households in the US by FCC mandate. As part of this deal it's likely they are going to have to sell off some regions. Not have access to 70% of the US.

endianswap 13y ago
That changed in 2009. http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-throws-out-fccs-30-cable-subscriber-cap http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-throws-out...

evo_9 13y ago

Now would be a good time for Google to update us on their longterm plans for their fiber rollout. It's my one hope at this point since Google isn't someone Comcast can just buy and of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity to control something like our access to the internet. So when will Google fiber hit Denver and beyond?

aaronem 13y ago
> of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity to control something like our access to the internet Unless Google is that entity, of course.

pdkl95 13y ago

A simple solution - if they want to act like a utility, treat them as such, and nationalize the monopoly. (clarification: nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-like; the content-production and other aspects of the business can be preserved as they currently exist) What happens after that has several options. It can be a publicly-owned utility, or spun off as a heavily-regulated independent (private) corporation under the PUC, to name a few possibilities. Such minutia is a secondary issue, and open for debate. Now that internet access has become a requirements for even basic things such as applying for a job, declaring the ISPs a "public utility" is long overdue.

rayiner 13y ago
Calling something essential then regulating it as a utility is a sure way to disaster. Look at our other utilities: I don't know what about water with lead in it, rolling brownouts, or crumbling bridges make you think treating internet as a utility would be a good idea. It's a sure way to freeze capital investment into improving the infrastructure. Is this about making sure that poor people have access to the internet, or subsidizing Netflix's business model? If it's the former, then Comcast is irrelevant. Let's address the problem directly and subsidize cell phones with HSPA+ level data access.
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Weren't the cable companies initially treated sort of like utility, due to the cost of laying the last mile cables? Isn't that why they were able to gain virtual monopoly on different regions?
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Yes, they were, though I think it had more to do with people not wanting the streets to be dug up every week by a different company. I think most places will support more than one ISP, but it takes time and the right economic environment to shell out the big bucks you need to challenge an incumbent.
- pdkl95 13y ago

nfriedly 13y ago

I'm in that 30 percent. As much as I hated Time Warner, Windstream is far worse. Its okay during the day, but in the evenings speed and reliability just goes to crap.