dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
45
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

silbaco

Premium Member

Comcast/Time Warner

People need to make up their minds. On one hand they say the merger will drive up prices, reduce competition, expand poor customer service, and slow innovation. On the other hand they think it will drive smaller competitors out of business? Higher priced/poor-service/non-competitive companies don't run competitors out of business. If anything they help smaller companies.

This merger shouldn't go through for a lot of reasons, but running smaller cable/fiber companies and telcos out of business isn't one of them.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Higher prices doesn't mean immediately higher prices. Initially, prices could drop but as fewer competitors remain because they cannot compete with the scope and scale of a larger entity, they are either bought out or exit the market. As competitors decrease, prices will rise and we'll have no way to know whether or not the price increases are necessary or even fair.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

If they haven't lowered prices already, chances are they are never going to.

firephoto
Truth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

firephoto to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
If the media content creator also owns the media content delivery system then that media empire controls prices and access to media that drives prices up for customers of other providers. There is no one or the other.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

tshirt to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Initially, prices could drop but as fewer competitors remain because they cannot compete with the scope and scale of a larger entity...

So even though bigger is more efficient you are suggesting that RESPONSIBLE consumers should continue to pay more for lesser services from the uncompetitive smaller providers to keep them in the mix?

Hasn't happened for booksellers=amazon
Hasn't happened for retailers=Costco, walmart, amazon
Hasn't happened for search engines=Google
Hasn't happened for oil companies, home builders, HMO's, automakers, railroads, etc.
Hasn't happened for Telco's.

Why do you think it will happen to one cable company trying to compete with the other telecom players?

Will consumers act in their own interest?
or continue to expect some gov't regulatory body to rescue them?(from their own group behavior) With all the usual failings of most gov't rescues, most likely.
MOST people want... NOW, FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER,.
But as a group move towards the lowest common denominator of CHEAPER, SOON, good enough.

and then whine "save me daddy" to the gov't, and whine some more about whatever that results in
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

said by tshirt:

said by rradina:

Initially, prices could drop but as fewer competitors remain because they cannot compete with the scope and scale of a larger entity...

So even though bigger is more efficient you are suggesting that RESPONSIBLE consumers should continue to pay more for lesser services from the uncompetitive smaller providers to keep them in the mix?

Hasn't happened for booksellers=amazon
Hasn't happened for retailers=Costco, walmart, amazon
Hasn't happened for search engines=Google
Hasn't happened for oil companies, home builders, HMO's, automakers, railroads, etc.
Hasn't happened for Telco's.

Why do you think it will happen to one cable company trying to compete with the other telecom players?

Will consumers act in their own interest?
or continue to expect some gov't regulatory body to rescue them?(from their own group behavior) With all the usual failings of most gov't rescues, most likely.
MOST people want... NOW, FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER,.
But as a group move towards the lowest common denominator of CHEAPER, SOON, good enough.

and then whine "save me daddy" to the gov't, and whine some more about whatever that results in

So you'd be okay with all the cable companies merging into a single nationwide cable company, a la Ma Bell?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
You put a lot of words in my mouth. Silbaco suggested folks logic was flawed. I simply provided a potential reality in which that's not necessarily true.

In the early 80s I worked for a local hardware store where Wal-Mart built a nearby super center. One day I struck up a conversation with the electrical department manager who seemed frustrated. He told me that Wal-Mart was selling 75W GE light bulbs for less than his cost. A lot of other businesses in that town closed because they simply couldn't compete. Now Wal-Mart is pretty much all that remains. Who knows whether or not their prices are fair because they are pretty much the only game in town.

Regarding a larger entity being more efficient, who knows if that's true? Wal-Mart was more diversified than the hardware store. Who is to say they didn't sell those bulbs as a loss-leader and make up those margins elsewhere? Are customer's really saving money?

With respect to this merger, it really has no impact on consumer competitive choice because TWC and Comcast don't really compete for each other's customers.

So far I haven't seen any altruistic monopolies. Perhaps Comcast will be the first?
rradina

rradina to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
Do they have to lower prices or is it possible for them to eat cost increases a region with more competition because they make plenty of profit in another region?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to sonicmerlin

Premium Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

So you'd be okay with all the cable companies merging into a single nationwide cable company, a la Ma Bell?

I think once you have one wire, under one company nationwide that is the point to consider a buy out/splitting content/ISP services from delivery call it what you like. the things people lose sight of is the phone company(s) provided incredibly reliable consistent services 24/7/365 to a degree we can hardly comprehend today. operators always answered promptly and stayed on the line until whatever problem was handled.
was it expensive? yes, until you see what the current stuff costs in time and aggravation and recognize all the other thing (largely DoD) they did with your dime at the gov't orders.
tshirt

1 edit

tshirt to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Regarding a larger entity being more efficient, who knows if that's true? Wal-Mart was more diversified than the hardware store. Who is to say they didn't sell those bulbs as a loss-leader and make up those margins elsewhere? Are customer's really saving money?

And that's my point most customer know they are killing off the local butcher when the shop Costco or walmart, and same the electronics store etc, etc and what the end result will be but they continue to each look at their own short term interest, instead of the longer term effect. Little guy can't stay open with no sales, just as 10s local ISP's are now one or 2 regional or national player.
At this point punishing the only player in town just adds costs eating up any gains made in consolidations. the time to act was 10 years ago.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

So because we didn't act 10 years ago, we just let it slide?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
"If anything they help smaller companies"

I work for such a company. Please show me how these mega huge competitors help me. Seems there are hell bent on putting us out of business.
battleop

battleop to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
Consumers are as greedy as the companies they bitch about. Wal-Mart customers are just as responsible as Wal-Mart is for running so many mom and pop stores out of business.
battleop

battleop to rradina

Member

to rradina
"Wal-Mart was more diversified than the hardware store. Who is to say they didn't sell those bulbs as a loss-leader and make up those margins elsewhere? Are customer's really saving money?"

I think it's pretty well known at they do this. I'd you loose 20 cents on a light bulb but make up that 20 cents on 3 other items you are not loosing anything.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

So because we didn't act 10 years ago, we just let it slide?

YOU, as a group, DID act 10 years ago, voting cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. and here we are.
Going back is very hard and likely to be very expensive IF it is even possible.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to rradina

Member

to rradina
what competitors? GF? LOL
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
why not? you basically only have 2 cell phone companies? why having 1 or 2 cable companies are any different?
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
and who is going to buy that one cable and install it? the feds? hardly! but it might be doable and if a co-op or another non-profit was formed to do just that- it could work.
ITGeeks

ITGeeks to rradina

Member

to rradina
WM does that with ALL of their suppliers - they tell them all - if you don't give it to us for X we'll go else where. The same as Amazon, but yet people still support them.

And your hardware store owner was working for WM when owning the store?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 edit

rradina to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
So capitalism fails because monopolies develop and that is hard to fix. Did Sherman have it all wrong?
rradina

rradina to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
said by ITGeeks:

And your hardware store owner was working for WM when owning the store?

The hardware store was owned by a mid-sized chain under the Ace Hardware banner. The electrical department manager did not own the store. I'm not sure what the question is or how to answer it.
rradina

rradina to ITGeeks

Member

to ITGeeks
What's GF?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to ITGeeks

Premium Member

to ITGeeks
said by ITGeeks:

and who is going to buy that one cable and install it? the feds? hardly! but it might be doable and if a co-op or another non-profit was formed to do just that- it could work.

I don't think anyone could afford to buy it, but it could become a regulated (utility-like) carrier at that point with the deliever end separate (and well compensated) from the ISP/CATV/content and other services end.
tshirt

tshirt to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

So capitalism fails because monopolies develop and that is hard to fix. Did Sherman have it all wrong?

I think it is premature to ASSUME that Comcast/TWC is a monopoly, or that they are/intend to act in an anti-competitive manner.
In this case consumers have voted with their dollar to put them in the position they are in. (just as google is the largest search engine, USERS made the choice) and the other big telecom players CHOOSING not to compete.

If you have 2 grocery chains in one area and one shuts down it does not mean the other acted illegally.
I would worry more about the cross sales agreements between the Verizon wireless and Comcast than I do with this merger.
Ending or at least examining that closely is something that would make sense either as part of the merger terms or parallel to that. It is like your hardware store handing you the walmart ad when you walk in.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Just because a corporation attains a monopoly without apparent illegal practices doesn't mean it will be benevolent. Wintel was not the only personal computer when Microsoft lost its case.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

tshirt

Premium Member

said by rradina:

...corporation ...benevolent...

That's probably too high a standard for any business to pass.
You do illustrate the problem...people seem to expect that this/any merger should only be allowed somehow create "consumer nirvana"
but the laws only intend to prevent a holocaust, not the "potential for abuse" which would really eliminate ANY deal.
It is fine to expect them to agree to have some publicly visible canaries as part of the terms.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

I disagree because this isn't about the last grocery store. The FCC denied ATTs TMO purchase because it claimed competition would be reduced. A reduction of competition doesn't guarantee abuse any more than a circumstantial monopoly is not benevolent. Is it just me or does this seem like they used "potential for abuse" to deny?

Consumer nirvana isn't fair. Corporations bring ill-will upon themselves and once they lose the public's trust, it's generally impossible for them to ever be trusted again. (I doubt I will buy a GM car -- EVER.)

Consumers cheered Wal-Mart when they showed us how bad Sears and K-Mart had become. Sears and K-Mart didn't want to or couldn't adequately respond and now they are a shadow of their former greatness. However, Wal-Mart has since lost much of the public's good will. I would argue not so much for running other businesses out of town but for their labor and building practices. Leveraging part time workers so they don't have to pay benefits. Sketchy overtime practices. Taking advantage of TDD and TIFF taxes to pay for their expansion. Granted, they are entitled to exploit every loop hole in the law just as much as Apple and Microsoft do with keeping profits off-shore to limit tax liability. That doesn't mean doing so doesn't affect their image and impact consumer satisfaction. We also shouldn't dismiss cable companies are among the most disliked businesses.