DOJ, FCC to Approve Verizon Cable Deal Albeit With Location, Duration Conditions As had been expected, both the Department of Justice and the FCC today stated they'd be approving Verizon's massive spectrum-sharing and co-marketing arrangement with the cable industry. Also as expected, conditions will be placed on the deal restricting the locations where cross-promotions can be offered and the duration of the arrangement. The spectrum sale can proceed, provided that Verizon adheres to promises to sell a significant chunk of spectrum to T-Mobile. Those promises were made by Verizon lawyers to get the deal approved, and it appears that they worked exactly as intended. While neither agency offered up a list of specific conditions yet, both did take time to release pages upon pages of statements collectively patting themselves on the back, claiming that the conditions they placed will protect consumers from anti-competitive action by the combined companies. "By limiting the scope and duration of the commercial agreements among Verizon and the cable companies while at the same time allowing Verizon and T-Mobile to proceed with their spectrum acquisitions, the department has provided the right remedy for competition and consumers," Joseph Wayland, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the departments antitrust division, said in a statement. "The Antitrust Division's enforcement action ensures that robust competition between Verizon and the cable companies continues now and in the future as technological change alters the telecommunications landscape," Wayland added. That's highly unlikely, since Verizon was barely competing with cable operators at this point to begin with, and what competition that exists between the companies is in sharp decline. Verizon has already been moving away from caring a whit about landline services, and as we've been exploring has been intentionally driving DSL users to cable. Consumer advocates and competitors had been concerned that as the cable industry and Verizon grow even closer, there will be a reduction in the already borderline-feeble attempt to compete on the landline service front. FCC boss Julius Genachowksi was equally gushing about his agency's approval of the deal, issuing a statement that approval of the deal would "promote the public interest and benefit consumers." "By advancing U.S. leadership in 4G LTE deployment, the transaction marks another step in our effort to promote the U.S. innovation economy and make state-of-the-art broadband available to more people in more places," said the FCC boss. Previous leaks have suggested the conditions will put a five year cap on the deal (which means nothing, since it can be renegotiated) and that is prohibits cable companies and Verizon from cross-promoting services in FiOS areas. Neither really does much to protect consumers (especially DSL users) from high prices, or smaller competitors from the combined market power of cable and Verizon. The problem, as we've been discussing, is that with AT&T and Verizon giving up on landline broadband, cable operators are quickly taking over, and are building a monopoly on the United States broadband market with or without this deal. The deal just adds icing to the cake for Verizon, allowing them to go back into DSL markets they gave up on in order to sell those users more expensive and capped LTE services. Traditionally the FCC has paid empty lip service to caring about these growing competitive problems, so we look forward to seeing exactly what is in these conditions that changes that paradigm.
|
 MadnessLike a flea circus at a dog show join:2000-01-05 Quincy, MA kudos:1 | :þ Did we not see that coming??  | |
|  | | hmm
typo ?
"allowing them to go back into DSL markets they gave up on in order to sell those users more expensive DSL services"
should read " allowing them to go back into DSL markets they gave up on in order to sell those users more expensive 4G services" ?
Great all but cements my future of moving on out of this country once my contract is up with my current employer. who wants to be owned by corporations. -- "It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: hmm I don't know. Who is owned by corporations? | |
|
 mech1164I'll Be Back join:2001-11-19 Lodi, NJ | Yep To quote Spaceballs. "Oh S*&^ there goes the Planet"
Nothing like being bought and sold by Govt. It's the best Govt money can buy and here is the proof. | |
|  |  | | Re: Yep How long before Comcast turns there caps back on now that this got approved ? | |
|  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Yep Huh? They were turned off? | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Yep oh im sorry they were "not enforced" if you logged into your web portal to check them. | |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| The big push has been.. ...wireless, wireless, wireless, and this gets that done, including big help for T-Mo*. As far as wireline, FTTH is over budget in many areas and cable is the next best thing.
My son will be SO happy, his new T-mo galaxy blaze 4g* gets little to no 4g at home, because of T-Mo limited towers and spectrum, this should let them finish the array.
*it switches to the home WiFi (something the virgin mobile phone he tried first wouldn't do) so he still gets all he needs at home, and once over the hill towards the city and at work he gets awesome service. | |
|  | | Danger Will Robinson So we're going from overpriced DSL vs. overpriced cable to just even more over-priced cable, with overpriced LTE bundled in. Great news! (for cable) | |
|  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Danger Will Robinson You'll still have DSL...if you currently have it. I don't understand what people thinks this agreement changes. | |
|
 BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | So better cable squat on the spectrum? Yes that is so much better. Big picture people. See it. Sigh.  | |
|  |  | | Re: So better cable squat on the spectrum? Yeah brainiac, clearly the takeaway here is that people wanted cable to squat on that spectrum. You're such a big picture thinker. | |
|  |  antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP join:2001-03-25 United State kudos:4 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by BF69:Yes that is so much better. Big picture people. See it. Sigh.  And cable's big HD picture quality isn't that good compared to OTA and satellite feeds! | |
|
 kingdome74Emotionally UnavailablePremium join:2002-03-27 Syracuse, NY kudos:2 | Yay! Another reason for Verizon raising their rates. Too bad because their ruinous pricings are going to kill them in the long run. | |
|  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Yay! said by kingdome74: Too bad because their ruinous pricings are going to kill them in the long run. Really!?? more people seem to signup for wireless everyday with V and T being 2 of the top carriers. In reality they seemed to have judged the market pretty well, profitable prices but low enough to keep the network near capacity. | |
|  |  Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT | kingdome74, I like your avatar. Would love to see a larger version of it.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT | Re: Yay! Thank you.  | |
|  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 1 edit | Re: Yay! I'm curious about the name since I actual know where the kingdome was, and wasted more then a few days there both before and after opening day. | |
|  |  |  |  |  kingdome74Emotionally UnavailablePremium join:2002-03-27 Syracuse, NY kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Yay! I was in the military for 4 years and when I got out my best bud and I went out drinking. I hadn't seen him in a couple of years and I had gained a little weight. So we're pounding down some beers and he looks over and patted my stomach and said" there's the Kingdome". I think it might have just been built. This was in 1980 so it was pretty close to then. Anyway that name stuck and whenever I go back home that's what I'm called or Domer. The 74 is the number of my favorite football player Merlin Olsen. -- If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans - Woody Allen
| |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium join:2001-08-25 Kendall, FL kudos:3 1 edit | Curious.. Historically speaking, has the government approved more mergers/arrangements between mega corporations closer to election times? | |
|  IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| If the DOJ was really doing its job If the DOJ was really doing its job, Verizon would be required to upgrade all of its markets to FiOS and be prohibited from divesting any of it's landline business and possibly be required to buy back divested markets. I bet Verizon would walk away from the deal if those conditions were a requirement. -- I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town). | |
|  |  axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job Government should tell companies *not* to do bad things. I disagree with government telling businesses they must spend money on certain things, and go after certain markets and customers.
What if Verizon says they are going bankrupt and can't pay their workers, do we force the managers and employees to work without pay? Extreme example, but there are some things government should not do. | |
|  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| And under what existing regulation could you force any privately owned business to invest many billions they do not have and likely could not borrow for those purposes as a condition of expanding a seperate PARTNERSHIP they also own PART of ????
while your at it make all cattle ranchers give away prime beef to everyone, and exxon can give free gas to fill our free chevies.
Of course all of these companies would walk away from such diadvantages. the DOJ's job is not to kill deals, it is to examine them for deficiencies and can only REQUEST conditions/agreement in cases where it is most likely to result in an illegal practice with the assumption that the parties intend to act legally. In this case the FCC has push the spectrum owner to move forward and either use the spectrum for mobile or trade/sell to someone who will. in this case we have the cableco's release spectrum they have decided not to develop, whcih will be bought /split/traded to allow both verizon and T-mo plenty of new spectrum in useable blocks with the intention of rapid rolling out more wireless services which meets the FCC's request. a win for everyone.
seperately we have the 2 largest wireline telcos admitting that the wirelines are no longer affordable to maintain and currently ubiquitous FTTH is not economically viable so the are perparing with their wireless partners to provide wireless service at first outside their wireline areas, that could (if permited) meet their wireline/safety net obligations within their wireline areas as well as quickly rolling out LTE wireless broadband to MANY more areas.
None of this is perfect* but remember PERFECTION is the enemy of GOOD.
we could quickly have pretty GOOD wireless coverage for many, or we can insist on PERFECTION, and watch nothing at all happen for many years. | |
|  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job ...so, I guess having the choice between ridiculously capped LTE, cable service, FIOS (in very select markets), muni FTTH (in very select markets), or slow dsl service should be the alternative?
I don't even comprehend why you think taking one step forward and two steps back is a good idea. Even though upgrading areas to FTTH would be costly, long term the profits are there. At least, that's what I've researched and read thus far. I have limited knowledge based on wireless, and I do know that those limits are reached faster than wireline infrastructure. So sure, cheaper now, but what about later? -- "We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must". ---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
|  |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job said by The Limit:...so, I guess having the choice between ridiculously capped LTE, cable service, FIOS (in very select markets), muni FTTH (in very select markets), or slow dsl service should be the alternative?
I'm saying you have no choice unless you can convience V or T that putting money into FTTH everywhere is better for their stockholders longterm interest than putting some of that into LTE networks. and I think the time is passed when you as a bystander can yell "I WANT xxxx, NOW" and expect to be listened to, now that the descion is made, your only voice would be by becoming a stockholder and convincing many/most other stockholders that running from fiber IS the big mistake.
V and T's wireline obligations are to provide dialtone service, not broadband. if you want to increase that obligation expect to pay a much higher share of the price of providing it. | |
|  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job You assume that I have stock options like that available at my disposal, not to mention I'm not exactly rolling in the dough either as I wrap up the chapter that is college education. Believe me, if I had the money, I would have already started my own local ISP so that people could have options. I've done a ton of reading, and I know what it takes and how many hours I would be working.
Being a stockholder isn't financially viable at this point in time. -- "We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must". ---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
|  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | And if that's the case, then I'll pay more knowing that broadband service is guaranteed and regulated like a utility, if that's what you are assuming. I'm sure many here wouldn't be opposed to it, but I feel like that's a slippery slope there. Why charge oodles more? What's the point? I mean, at some point in time, it's going to be "if you expect ::insert random reason here::, then pay up!" I'm glad the power industry didn't devolve into this (for the most part at least). -- "We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must". ---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job said by The Limit:And if that's the case, then I'll pay more knowing that broadband service is guaranteed and regulated like a utility, if that's what you are assuming. And that's ok too (but if you thought a few shares of stock were expensive....... this could really scare you) BUT be realistic what the risks and the costs and obligations YOU and ALL your neighbor must first learn about then agree on, then elect a body to administer it, who must, then find a reputable build to design , build and run it. all that takes a lot of time and money out before SOMETIME down the road you begin to see broadband. to do this on a county, state or national level you'll have to add in to your plan ways to serve and pay for both the simple and realitivily cheap urban and suburban market as well as the truely rural, and all the different consitiuancies rich and poor, those determined to have the uber connection as well as those who only get one email a week.
Utility service also imply EVERY dwelling must be served and therefore be responsible for their connection cost( even if financed by your public utility over many years) very hard to convince SOME rate payers who currently struggle with mortgage and property taxes to add $1000's to their debt load. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job Ok, so for a rough estimate, lets say that the average cost to run FTTH to my house would be $5000, which is conservative. Finance that over a period of 10 years.
That's roughly $42 a month. Ok, so the infrastructure is there. Now focus on support and maintenance costs. I'm not sure how much to add, but it can't be much more. Just a guess, add something like $25 per user per month. That's roughly $67 a month. These figures are to purely break even. Add like $10-15 per user per month. That still comes out to be around $82 per month. That's with profit included.
I'm still a newb at these things, but people are willing to pay top dollar for wireless service. Some (and I'm sure MANY) are willing to pay this price to provide service to the home.
And remember, that's if said user doesn't have the money upfront for infrastructure costs. Eliminate that, and you come out cheaper than what most ISPs charge. It's a win for the customer and for the business the way I see it. -- "We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must". ---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job BTW you forgot to actually add the financing costs in there, so on a 30 year loan with full colateral (like a mortgage) you can expect to pay 2-5 to 3 times the cost over that time. since you are an unknown, with no assets, and what you are building may or maynot have resale value I would guess around the same sort of cost for your shorter term. $42*3=$126 or $82*3=$246 so a fixed wireless or cable plan* doesn't look all that bad anymore for a zero risk, month to month user.
*using comcast cap and potential overages as a model here | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job Ah yea, that's right. Financial backing may be a problem when starting out with no money unfortunately. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: If the DOJ was really doing its job Hahaha. I like your style. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
 | | Why Bother? If the default answer is going to be approval, why even have regulators if they're not going to do their job?
As I've said numerous times, government is the only one who can fix this, because the companies won't do it themselves, that's for sure. | |
|  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Why Bother? What job didn't the regulators accomplish? Honest question, but there seems to be a lot of disgust that something wasn't done about this deal. The deal doesn't change the competitive landscape, so I'm truly confused as to why people view it so negatively. Or is just because It's Verizon and a handful of MSOs that the default response is hatred? | |
|
 Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| +4 years, I told ya so! Wirless is not going to be this big profit making machine they're expecting.. when you sell a product that commoditizes similar to the way gasoline is sold in this country, on the consumption and commoditization models supply and demand become disconnected to the pricing models. This has ways of exploding into very bad ROI.
The blow won't be as bad, since Verizon and AT&T plan on dumping the union labor force anyway... so there will be hundreds of millions of dollars saved axing middle class jobs in favor of 3rd party contractors who pay slave wages(aka minimum) and no benefits.
Did I mention those who buy data on the consumption gouging model are fools? Yep, you are! | |
|  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: +4 years, I told ya so! Dumping? Oh really. VZ and AT&T have like a combined 50 million landlines to still maintain, and almost 10million FiOS /Uverse customers. You think people can just walk in, and start doing this work, as if its topping off a Big Mac?. Wake up, these are skilled jobs, and its not easy work. | |
|  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | said by tmc8080:Wirless is not going to be this big profit making machine they're expecting. Seems to be working well so far. What changes? When does this business model break down and for what legitimate reason? | |
|
 tmh @comcastbusiness.net | Anything that gives T-mo bandwidth works for me. WooHoo! | |
|  Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| cable wins in USA... ...I told you so also that DSL or fiber connectivity is very limited in the geographical areas. more cable are wired available over the USA right there. have a nice day that i proved i'm right  | |
|  DominokatHiPremium join:2002-08-06 Boothbay, ME kudos:2 | Lobbying money... ...pays off again. Money really is the root of all evil. | |
|  McBane join:2008-08-22 Plano, TX | FCC/DoJ owned by corps Corps run America, it's like the early 1900s all over again with these corporate monopolies. Funny because I thought Obama was going to do something about that... They seem more in bed with the gov now than ever.  | |
|  |  japPremium join:2003-08-10 038xx | Re: FCC/DoJ owned by corps said by McBane:Funny because I thought Obama was going to do something about that... Trends in corp rule are well beyond the reach of a single administration. It'll get reversed by a citizen/cultural level up-well of pressure on courts, legislative, campaign reform, restoring agency autonomy, and the banking/finance sector.
IMO we're flirting with civil unrest before any substantive changes occur. Too many people making money off the brokenness. We'll continue this way until the disruptive profit train sputters and people are rewarded for fixing rather than breaking. It's anchored in finance. We have a ways to go yet, me thinks. | |
|  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | So why should this deal have been disapproved? | |
|
 | | There real conditions... ....probably involve the starting salaries for various DOJ and FCC employees looking for employment at Verizon or Comast. | |
|  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Who's in charge here? "By advancing U.S. leadership in 4G LTE deployment, the transaction marks another step in our effort to promote the U.S. innovation economy and make state-of-the-art broadband available to more people in more places," said the FCC boss.(Genachowski)
Unbelievably, these comments sound like they're coming from a spokesman for the VZ/Cable consortium rather than the head of a federal regulatory commission. Has it really come to this? Has Big Red and Big Cable gained so much influence that they not only get all they want but the head of the FCC kow-tows to them publicly with these embarrassing comments? Rather, the FCC and the DOJ should be ashamed of themselves for taking their eyes off the preservation of competition and the true long range development of communications in this country in exchange for the comparatively short term profits of a handful of influential corporations. Disgusting! | |
|  |  | | Re: Who's in charge here? Has anyone asked if Tmobile volunteered to represent the cable companies ? One has to wonder why the more logical partner was skipped over.. | |
|
 | | Can't win.. If I had posted that VZ's unions (IBEW & CWA) had been warning about this deal - all the haters would have posted how unions suck, members make too much money, leadership is corrupt, blah, blah, blah.
This deal is going to be great - wait and see!. I've got my FiOS and a job - for a little while longer - then I'll have to cut way back (or probably be on some sort of government assistance program). After all, who'll hire a 50 something electrician like me, later? I hope the stores I used to frequent won't miss my business when I no longer have cash to spend there. Once the telecom sector is union-free, all the non-union workers (that's you guys - working for CATV companies) can watch their wages & benefits stagnate or even shrink. So long - middle class! I have to wonder if indentured servitude is the final step in the master plan?? | |
|
 | |
|
|