Comcast Is Simply Getting Huge > Too Big To Fail?

Too Big To Fail?

I was going to post that! you beat me to it darn you!!
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~

reply to kapil
THey don't own any phone lines. True, some areas an't get any other broadband than Comcast but that's a different problem.

Now the content side of things is a whole other ballgame, however infrastructure-wise Comcast should be allowed to grow as big as it wants by purchasing MSOs. Overbuilders OTOH might be an antitrust deal.

I think you are splitting hairs to say they do not own any phone lines. They do keep their phone product on their backbone as much as possible and Comcast's backbone is huge. The same goes for any of the other large ISPs(and Google).

You could say that of Clear as well...they have ClearVoice with their VoIP service. Doesn't really matter; voice service at this point is at pretty much commodity status. There are enough companies fighting for your money most of the time taht this isn't a big deal.

Also, Comcast built their own network. No government subsidies. So they can do with it what they want, though they shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly in any area if someone else wants to build the infrastructure.

reply to kapil
Actually the FCC tried, the courts beat them back. So yes congress needs to do something.

Only problem is that they're too busy cashing checks sent to them from Comcast.

reply to kapil
Then we should make ATT and VZ give up their backbone as well? after all they control too much as well.

I agree. Backbone/infrastructure companies should either be publicly owned or not allowed to compete in the retail marketplace. Retail companies should all be on a level playing field....unlike the current clusterfuck where a handful of companies have bought their way into a monopoly position in both the wholesale and retail markets.

There would be no net neutrality debate if AT&T didn't think it had leverage...which it does because it not only controls the backbone, but also the pipe into your home.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com

reply to iansltx

Then we're good to go then. Comcast is the second-fastest MSO in the U.S. (behind Cablevision) in terms of internet speeds, their national network is solid, their digital voice product is fine...not sure about TV though since I've never paid for my own TV service from anyone.

reply to kapil
Microsoft controls 85% of the operating software fos business. Is that too big?

UVerse and FiOs over the next few year will cut down Comcast's numbers; we just have to wait to see how much.

reply to kapil

reply to baineschile

reply to baineschile

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to kapil
250 GB cap vs before not having it hrm wonder if the price gouging makes them money.......

reply to iansltx

reply to chronoss2009
Bandwidth costs have been cratering for years. Combined with the fact that backbone operators have been A) consolidating and B) are also the end user ISPs, the amount of traffic that actually leaves a network has also declined. Add in peering and BGP and the bandwidth costs to most ISPs are negligible.

The whole bandwidth hog brouhaha is a made-up myth...so that ISPs, who are also content owners in many cases, can protect their content businesses. It's all about protecting profits...with no basis in reality.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com

reply to kapil
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be competition in the broadband market. I'm not saying that Congress should be at the beck and call of large corporations. However what I AM saying is that Comcast isn't AT&T, they didn't take money from the government to build infrastructure, they don't have a monopoly on anything and they shouldn't be punished for their success.

Do I want my internet bill to be lower? Absolutely! Do I want a faster connection? Yup. However breaking up Comcast or limiting its growth isn't the way to do that, at least from an infrastructure standpoint. As a content company, I'll grant that things are getting iffy.