Cohen made a credible defense of the deal
Comcast's Cohen made a credible defense of the deal between the cable companies and Verizon. Especially in the claims that the deal should trigger anti-trust concerns.
He has been lobbying Congress for 10 yrs now as Comcast's mouthpiece and before that as the City of Philadelphia's Chief of Staff to the Mayor. And as a big time Dem contributor and power broker and also a mouthpiece for Comcast, he speaks easily to both parties on the Senate Committee.
His main points:
Deal has made no changes to previously planned action by Verizon to curtail Fios and Comcast's plan to not get in to wireless. So that concerns the deal encouraged that behavior was ridiculous.
This isn't a merger and no competitors are being removed from the marketplace like the AT&T/TMO deal.
The cross-selling agreements are no different than those already being done by competitors with Dish & DirecTV.
Therefore anti-trust concerns are not relevant.
Verizon spokesperson made the same points.
Ultimately the long standing relationships by both Comcast and Verizon lobbyists with Senate members of both parties will likely mean the committee is merely going thru the motions on doing anything to halt this deal.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Cohen is also big time DEM fundraiser. You think Dem controlled Senate is going to get in the way. Enjoy the show.
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
|reply to FFH |
Right, decision not to get into wireless.
So spectrum should revert back to the taxpayer. Use it or lose it. Not grab it, sit it, sell it to entrenched player.
We all knew this was going to happen, the FCC rules were so weak and left this huge loophole--- deliberately. The way AT&T and Verizon wanted it.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
|reply to FFH |
The issue is though that when the original spectrum was sold, wasn't it sold with a certain level of requirements? Now that the sale has passed and Comcast holds it, they can easily decide to sell it to a party that was never intended to receive it in the first place. If that's true, then that alone should be a red flag to the FCC to deny this sale.
Comcast stated that they never intended to get into wireless... where does that come to play?