dslreports logo
How a Faster Broadband Definition Could Hurt Comcast Merger

FCC boss Tom Wheeler has been talking a lot lately about raising the standard definition of broadband to at least 10 Mbps (for government-subsidized rural options) and 25 Mbps for everybody else. He's also been talking about how when you look at speeds of 25 Mbps higher there's little to no competition -- as most DSL providers struggle to offer that speed in any volume.

"Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice at 25 Mbps," recently complained Wheeler. "That includes almost 20 percent who have no option at all at those speeds."

Bloomberg notes how raising that speed definition could be problematic for the review of Comcast's $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable:

quote:
Comcast’s potential market share under Wheeler’s revised broadband definition would flirt with a boundary line that may cause more scrutiny by antitrust regulators, said Diana Moss, vice president and economist at the American Antitrust Institute, a Washington-based group that opposes the deal.

“Once you get above 50 percent you’re really talking about a firm that has a majority of the market and would have the incentive to act like a dominant firm” and repress competition, Moss said.
Comcast has been trying to argue that they face so much competition on all fronts, there's no way they could get away with anti-competitive behavior. But once you begin to realize most DSL providers provide no real meaningful competition at all (and in fact are backing out of many markets they don't want to upgrade), you begin to see how letting one company further dominate so much of the residential broadband market becomes highly problematic (especially when that company is very interested in usage caps and overages).
view:
topics flat nest 
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

1 recommendation

tpkatl

Member

AT&T U-verse would not qualify as broadband if this were the case

Where I live, U-Verse maxes out at 18mbps (because I am more than 3000 feet from the VRAD and it's copper). [Of course, that's because AT&T took the cheap and crappy route and didn't do fiber-to-the-home].

So under Wheeler's rules, my one and only choice is Comcast. No competition for people who want > 18 mbps.

What does this mean?

1) AT&T will pull all the strings to get Wheeler's proposals derailed. Because if Wheeler gets his way, around 80% of U-verse suddenly becomes second class crap. AT&T pays millions to lobbyists to prevent this sort of thing.

2) AT&T won't spend a cent to improve U-Verse service to people like me. They won't ever upgrade copper-based last mile customers, because it would cost too much and customers don't count for anything.

Bottom line: Even though common sense is that Wheeler SHOULD make this pronouncement, the fact is that AT&T will play politics and shoot it down.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

fg8578

Member

Moving the goal posts

True, as speeds go up, so does Comcast's market share.

But to change the definition of broadband in the middle of a merger review strikes me as moving the goal posts. Comcast would probably sue if the FCC denied the merger on such a basis. It's not their fault they don't have many competitors at 25mbps and higher. It's all in how you define it, which is why they should leave it alone for the purposes of this merger or risk judicial review.

For example, their market share at 1Gbps looks pretty small.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

1 recommendation

Packeteers

Premium Member

Re: Moving the goal posts

I'd say just the opposite - moving the goal posts in the middle of the game is a great way to expose comcast+twcable as far too dominant a owner to be allowed to merge. under the new broadband definitions comcast+twcable would probably hold >50% market share. This way the FCC could pass the ball to the DOJ who has far more power to kill the merger on dominant market share fair practice antitrust concerns.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: Moving the goal posts

said by Packeteers:

I'd say just the opposite - moving the goal posts in the middle of the game is a great way to expose comcast+twcable as far too dominant a owner to be allowed to merge. under the new broadband definitions comcast+twcable would probably hold >50% market share. This way the FCC could pass the ball to the DOJ who has far more power to kill the merger on dominant market share fair practice antitrust concerns.

So I guess you'd be OK with your dentist changing the price he charges for a filling, as he is halfway into drilling away your cavity?

Because he just discovered you got a promotion at work, so obviously conditions have changed, which justify moving the goal posts?

OpTiC
Premium Member
join:2014-03-08
West Covina, CA

OpTiC to fg8578

Premium Member

to fg8578
It their fault. For example Frontier is too lazy to upgrade their shietty dsl and you're saying it's not their fault.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: Moving the goal posts

said by OpTiC :

It their fault. For example Frontier is too lazy to upgrade their shietty dsl and you're saying it's not their fault.

Where did I say that? Care to quote me on that? I said the FCC should not move the goal posts by changing the definition of "broadband" in the middle of a merger review. I also said DSL has less bandwidth than cable modem (which of course if true).
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA

quisp65

Member

Isn't the problem really us?

Aren't these monopolies/duopolies present because our local governments don't allow other carriers in place? Running new fiber/cable throughout our towns and cities causes lots of destruction and many rules and regulations prevent new deployment.

To improve this people offer the solution to make them utilities, but can't there be less restrictive and more creative solutions were we make it easier for providers to deploy and compete? I am of the opinion we should try this first before we even consider going down the utility road.
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

1 recommendation

tpkatl

Member

Re: Isn't the problem really us?

In an ideal world, you're right.

But the way that almost all of the franchise agreements were written (15-20 years ago), the cable companies pretty much bought the politicians (and have made sure that they stay bought). Meaning that the moment a local government wants to expand competition, AT&T or COmcast or Verizon will sue the hell out of the city or county. (Examples: CHattanooga and others).

If there were a fair, level playing field, I might agree with you.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Isn't the problem really us?

Tax funded muni's are not exactly on a fair, level playing field.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to quisp65

MVM

to quisp65
said by quisp65:

Aren't these monopolies/duopolies present because our local governments don't allow other carriers in place?

At least here in the South S. F. Bay Area, no such local policy exists. ATTBI was overbuilding Comcast at the turn of the Century. In the North S. F. Bay Area, Sonic.net has deployed fiber in Sebastopol, and is working on fiber in San Francisco's Western Addition.

Cable Guy
@131.156.181.x

Cable Guy to quisp65

Anon

to quisp65
No, local governments do not restrict the number of providers. That has not been the case in a long time. In fact, most local governments want competition as much as their residents do. It is the industry that doesn't want competition that would affect their ginormous profits!

Monopolies and duopolies are caused by the cost of having to build side-by-side networks to compete for consumers, which is just ridiculous. It would be far better to have one high speed provider to the home that any/all cable and Internet providers can get access to and compete. There needs to be a utility situation if we are going to have real competition in the U.S.
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA

quisp65

Member

Re: Isn't the problem really us?

I worded my paragraph badly. I sort of meant the economics along with the regulations imposed by local governments produce the outcome of restricting local providers. I do see the waste of going through the effort of deploying multiple fiber cables through the city when it can be handled by one. I just don't have faith in governments or any other one entity in achieving this adequately. Thus the dilemma I guess and I can see how reasonable people can disagree.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

snow crash

This merger might as well go as far as full monopoly status across the country. I mean, why did we break up the phone company in the first place? They've only re-assembled themselves for the most party anyway.

Eventually, it'd be nice to see a more complete description of broadband to include provisions for the "prime directive" (neutrality), as well as less capping.

All this posturing on speed, while ignoring two other very fundamentally important aspects is a disservice to everyone.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: snow crash

said by amungus:

I mean, why did we break up the phone company in the first place? They've only re-assembled themselves for the most party anyway.

In case you haven't noticed, people are dropping their wireline phone service as fast as they can, in favor of wireless.

So while I agree the wireline monopoly has basically reassembled itself, who cares? AT&T sold off its Connecticut wireline business and I'm sure they'd be happy to dump even more of it on Frontier or another company stupid enough to buy it.

It's the wireless companies we should keep an eye on; they were never subject to the federal anti-trust case.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: snow crash

said by fg8578:

It's the wireless companies we should keep an eye on; they were never subject to the federal anti-trust case.

Oh? Isn't Verizon a former "Baby Bell"?

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

1 edit

fg8578

Member

Re: snow crash

said by NormanS:

Oh? Isn't Verizon a former "Baby Bell"?

Yes VZ wireline was a Baby Bell, but VZ wireless was never part of AT&T so AT&T was not required to divest itself of the Bell cellular companies. In other words, they were never subject to the anti-trust case, like I said earlier. You can read the terms of the anti-trust decision here:

»web.archive.org/web/2006 ··· cree.pdf

You can see it applies to local telecommunications service; wireless is never mentioned. In other words, the break-up of the Bell System applied to the wireline network, not the wireless operations.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

Why punish Comcast for ...

....providing above average service speeds?

This points out how much better cable is compared to DSL.

Seems ironic that the push is to block them from continuing to expand and thrive when they are providing the desirable speeds across vast areas, and proving the market to other cable co's, showing it is worthwhile to invest and push the envelope.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

2 recommendations

Flyonthewall

Anon

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

I think it simply points out was was stated, that DSL isn't being managed properly by ISPs, that for the most part they simply want customer to pay for what they are provided, and never upgrade, or simply walk away when they have no options but to repair (ala Sandy). It does not say Cable is superior, because if fiber lines were laid then they'd be able to increase speeds, maybe not into the 100mb/s area, but certainly 50 would be doable.

This isn't about them expanding, because as far as I am aware they aren't laying down new lines anywhere to great effect. This is about them merging into a huge corporation that gives them a huge market dominance, regardless of what other companies do, without having to actually BUY those lines directly, or deploy into those areas. This is like 2 small families marrying and suddenly there's a class sized amount of kids living next to you tearing up your neighborhood at all hours of the day. Of course they'll have far more impact, how can they not? The issue is that they probably shouldn't be allowed to merge the ISP part with the broadcast part, as those two should be in competition.

neill6705
join:2014-08-09

1 recommendation

neill6705

Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

It isn't that DSL isn't being managed properly, it's that it just doesn't have the capacity. Phone lines were designed for just that - POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), which uses an extremely small amount of bandwidth. It wasn't designed for today's broadband speeds and is a very poor medium for it. We should be using fiber, but telcos keep using band aids like vectoring to avoid the costs of new equipment, trenching, etc.

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

firephoto

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

Yet the Plain Old Telephone Service has had 2 decades to invest in fiber optic cabling to eventually replace copper lines and they haven't except when it comes to long haul interconnects. With fiber they can see more customers per mile, they can offer greater services and more reliable services, yet they don't.

Instead they take the money and funnel it into investors and executives while planning out their own wireless networks or the ones of their close partners which they have bought more control over the market acceptable prices due to no actual competition.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by firephoto:

Yet the Plain Old Telephone Service has had 2 decades to invest in fiber optic cabling to eventually replace copper lines and they haven't except when it comes to long haul interconnects. With fiber they can see more customers per mile, they can offer greater services and more reliable services, yet they don't.

Easy for you to say when you're telling someone else how to spend their money.

In metro markets the incumbent cable provider has 70% or more of the customers. A telco fiber build might capture the remaining 30% but there's no business case in that, especially if they have to build out to 100% of a market before they get their first paying customer. Who in their right mind would do that? If it were as easy as you think, why aren't there more companies like google overbuilding right now?

The reason they aren't is because it is expensive and there is no assurance they will capture enough of the market to make it financially worthwhile.

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

1 recommendation

firephoto

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by fg8578:

Easy for you to say when you're telling someone else how to spend their money.

Except when I and others wanted to spend our own money the telephone company lobbied the state to make it against the law for public utilities to provide internet services to end users because apparently it's okay when a private business tells the public what they can do.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by firephoto:

Except when I and others wanted to spend our own money the telephone company lobbied the state to make it against the law for public utilities to provide internet services to end users because apparently it's okay when a private business tells the public what they can do.

And you can do the same.

AT&T never told you how to spend your money. They lobbied and passed a law; only the government has the power to tell you how to spend your money; a private corporation has no such power.

But you have the same right they do -- lobby your legislators and pass a law telling AT&T how to spend its money.

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

tshirt to Flyonthewall

Premium Member

to Flyonthewall
said by Flyonthewall :

This isn't about them expanding, because as far as I am aware they aren't laying down new lines anywhere to great effe

But that MIGHT be the next step, Comcast/CableINC had previously suggested wanting to expand which lead to the 30% rule (which we now know had no legal basis) If one tenth the effort trying repeatly to prevent them from serving more was instead focused on helping them, we would see more and more coverage.
Of course below a certain density NO provider can afford to wire but fairly contigious areas of 30 or more homes per mile can meet the cable threshold* and SHOULD be wired ASAP.

*local geography, economics, politics, and the likelihood of near future development can change the exact #'s needed
given Google like conditions would likely bring very fast cable broadband to lots of places that don't qualify for anything now.

Cabe Guy
@50.240.133.x

Cabe Guy

Anon

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

Why doesn't Comcast just compete with Time Warner? For the cost of buying them out they go in and compete with them toe to toe. Except cable doesn't compete. They stay in their monopoly/duopoly area and rake in huge profits by not having competition!

We need a good, old-fashioned, universal service provider to the home instead of larger mono/duopolies! That is why the rest of the world has faster & cheaper broadband then the U.S. They understand that is the only way to get competition.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by Cabe Guy :

Why doesn't Comcast just compete with Time Warner?

Because
A} TWC no longer wants to compete with ANYONE, they choose to sell to the highest bidder.
B} direct overbuilding of cable on cable is rare and not considered profitable...Unless you, and all your neighbors would be willing to pay twice as much to one just to have a choice

As noted, direct wired competition is becoming rarer as less than 50% market share won't pay the bills, too much churn and downward price pressure to be an attractive investment.
said by Cabe Guy :

We need a good, old-fashioned, universal service provider to the home instead of larger mono/duopolies!

Find a way to pay for the build and it might fly, Taxes don't pay for what we spend now, let alone new infrastructure.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to Flyonthewall

Member

to Flyonthewall
said by Flyonthewall :

I think it simply points out was was stated, that DSL isn't being managed properly by ISPs, that for the most part they simply want customer to pay for what they are provided, and never upgrade, or simply walk away when they have no options but to repair (ala Sandy).

DSL was subject to line-sharing before 2005.

Cable modem service never was. Why should the telco upgrade their network if they had to share it, all while the dominant player (cable) didn't have to? Once cable had an insurmountable lead, the FCC decided to unshackle DSL from the sharing requirement. If you had a choice between a fire hose (cable) vs. a soda straw (DSL) which would you choose?

And why make the soda straw share its narrow bandwidth, while the fire hose gets off scott-free?

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

Yes, I do agree with the corporations that it is unfair to make them share what they have built, unless they want to wholesale their network to extend their reach. What is also unfair is prohibiting communities from wiring themselves with the intention of sharing that network, or letting anyone else wire. The solution is not forcing corporations to share their network assets. The solution is gutting current regulations that stick us with 1 cable company and 1 telephone company that does not want us on DSL and treats us as such, trying to push us into overly capped and overpriced wireless. Let others build. Better yet, make like Sweden, one of the fastest and cheapest countries for broadband(was there years ago and was paying about $21 US for uncapped 100 mbit symmetrical when 100 mbit was almost unheard of in the US at any price(even on the download side, let alone symmetrical)), and build a government owned network that allows any provider access and allows them to compete on price and service packages.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by Selenia:

make like Sweden, one of the fastest and cheapest countries for broadband(was there years ago and was paying about $21 US for uncapped 100 mbit

You know Sweden was able to build that and other things by having a 49% income tax(now lowered to 40% to keep some high end jobs from leaving) and also adds a 25%+ VAT to the price of the service.
Neither rate will ever fly here.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

But that tax comes with free medical care and overall lower cost of living, including broadband for us techies. It seems like a fair trade if you think about it.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

OK now you just have to convince 350 million more to commit to change how EVERYTHING in the US works.
I'll check back in 20 years or so, if I'm still breathing.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to Selenia

Member

to Selenia
said by Selenia:

What is also unfair is prohibiting communities from wiring themselves with the intention of sharing that network, or letting anyone else wire.

No private corporation has the power to do this. A state may prevent a city from building a network, but a mere ISP has no such control over a city.

Admittedly, ISPs lobbied state legislatures to pass such restrictive laws, but you and your city government have just as much of a right to lobby state legislators to reverse those laws, or to ask the FCC to pre-empt those laws (although I think such pre-emption is unconstitutional, you nonetheless have a right to lobby for that position).

By the way, do you know if any of the muni-networks actually share their last mile with multiple third-party ISPs? I don't think any of them do, although I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm mistaken.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

Not sure if any of them do quite yet, but it does seem to be the end goal once they get built out enough. The government doesn't want to run an ISP forever but the networks need to get built first before leasing it to others.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

1 recommendation

IowaCowboy to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
Comcast has awesome products like the X1 DVR system but their customer service is the worst of the worst. Even the in home techs are the worst, they don't fix anything. They offer no explanation why my internet keeps dropping out and they will not offer any support other than it's your computer (hint: devices work OK when connected to my Verizon Wireless mobile hotspot). It's like they train their reps to deny their equipment is faulty even when it's faulty.

If I could afford to hire an attorney and a network engineer to independently analyze the faulty connection, I'd take them to court to get them to fix the service I'm paying for under the state's consumer protection laws. In Massachusetts, we have a law called implied warranty of merchantability (this applies to all consumer transactions) where the service/goods you're paying for has to work as advertised. DirecTV/Dish have been dragged into state court by the Mass AG over unfair and deceptive practices so these "national" providers are not entirely exempt from state regulation. They may be exempt from regulation over pricing and product offerings but not over consumer protection (for example, if a tech damages my house I can sue the provider in state court for repair costs.

Comcast may be providing above average speeds but if the connection isn't reliable then is as good as no connection.

They need to step up to the plate and support their customers and lose the "it's not our problem" attitude. Maybe if they provided generic Wi-Fi support but not specific to each router, maybe customers would hate the company less. Maybe if they could rule out Wi-Fi issues, then customers would be happier. No wonder they are America's # 2 hated company behind Bank of America.

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

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by IowaCowboy:

implied warranty of merchantability

That's actually in the US code and common law through out much of the world.

Yes, Comcast needs to fix their CS systems, you may remember they recently made a VP of CS but he hasn't had time to fix much yet.

Adding reasonable CS requirements as a condition of the merger sounds more appropriate then some of the wild stuff some have suggested.
As noted being "hated" is not reasonable grounds for denial of any sale, specific violations of existing law as a corporate practice or failure of /lack of regulation as the only remedy might lead to modified terms, but would only if no reasonable remedy can be found would it be denied.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: Why punish Comcast for ...

said by tshirt:

As noted being "hated" is not reasonable grounds for denial of any sale, specific violations of existing law as a corporate practice or failure of /lack of regulation as the only remedy might lead to modified terms, but would only if no reasonable remedy can be found would it be denied.

It is very reasonable. A big question when it comes to merging these companies, as Tom Wheeler has been asking(I am hoping he's not all bark, no bite) is whether the union of these companies serves the public interest(answer is no). Once upon a time before corporate money fed our politicians, this would have been easily denied on these grounds. Mainly because politicians are supposed to work for us and look out for our best interests. When corporate donations came into play, that concept went the way of the dodo, hence the name "Corporate States of America". Who says they have to breaking any laws/regulations for it to be against the public interest. Well, the public has spoken, let's see if Wheeler bites(would be something if we had a man of his word in the FCC).

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Merger

Comcast is not going to get the merger. Too many negatives in their world starting with the worst corporation in the world.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

It is not Comcast's fault they provide speeds above 10mbps

Really, its the fault of the telephone ILEC's for not keeping up and providing meaningful competition outside of their cherry picked areas. They let their ancient infrastructure age even more.

I have the "choice" of Comcast at speeds of 25mbps or higher (up to 150mbps) while Verizon only offers 3-7mbps DSL (estimated max is 5mbps, I only ever got 3mbps) at a slightly lower price point. Once you add in TV service, VZ is not cheaper and presents a poor value in comparison to the entry level Comcast triple plays...

I have the wonderful option of holding my breath for FIOS that is required to be built by franchise, but I have been waiting for over 7 years now. It probably wont happen until the end of the decade when the franchise renewal is slated.

Unfortunately, Comcast HSI is actually a good product in this market. It works as advertised and has good uptime.

So, Comcast knows they have me by the neck, and that I am negotiating from a position of weakness regarding price. The merger does not change this situation one bit.

Comcastic! :/

PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA

PaulHikeS2

Member

Re: It is not Comcast's fault they provide speeds above 10mbps

said by Zenit_IIfx:

Unfortunately, Comcast HSI is actually a good product in this market. It works as advertised and has good uptime.

So, Comcast knows they have me by the neck, and that I am negotiating from a position of weakness regarding price. The merger does not change this situation one bit.

Comcastic! :/

Not sure why this would be considered unfortunate. And I would imagine for the overwhelming majority, it DOES work as advertised and has good uptime. Otherwise, I can't imagine them being in business as I personally don't subscribe to and pay for products that have poor uptime or otherwise don't work as advertised.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Re: It is not Comcast's fault they provide speeds above 10mbps

I guess I worded that poorly - what I meant by that is that Comcast knows its the only game in town that actually does a decent job at HSI, and it prices its services and provides technical support of a horrible level accordingly.

If Comcast in most of its markets had at least 1 major competitor that actually tried to achieve parity in a serving area of equal size to the Comcast system footprint, we would see much better customer support and pricing out of Comcast.

The merger I feel is a moot point - we should be pointing the sticks and fire at the ILEC's for failing their promises and duties as the carriers of last resort.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

3 edits

1 recommendation

FactChecker

Premium Member

More stats...

Click for full size
As others have said, Comcast does have some of the fastest speeds for an ISP. While FiOS does clock in higher, "FiOS" is really a different broadband tech/product.... not really Verizon as an ISP.

»www.speedtest.net/isp/comcast

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Wheeler is right.

The last standard definition of broadband that I remember reading was written by Cox, and used by the 3rd tier companies they sold their small rural America markets to. The de facto standard according to Cox was a 28.8 dial-up modem. At that point in time I had not seen one of those in use for 8 years.

AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, Frontier, and some others are FCC licensed telephone companies that sell us services that have no regulation or oversight: VOIP, Cable, Internet, and satellite.

I have no idea what the price is for channels today. In 1992, with the exception of sports, paid movie services such as HBO, Showtime, etc., and the big 5 TV stations that included WGN and KTLA the other channels were either OTA or 25 to 50 cents each. I paid $25 and had all the channels I normally watched. I heard news from Germany, listened to live music from the Caribbean, and watched Canadian programing. I had the big dish.

If AT&T has the juice to give a town 6/.5 mbps, it absolutely can give it 10/1 whether it wants to or not. But it is not going to improve speed outside of the town itself. It can't; it's the nature of DSL/ADSL. None to telephone companies will bring FTTH or FTTN to small towns in the middle of cornfields. I personally don't see where DISH or DTV satellite 2.5 is any better or faster that 6/1. But satellite can deliver where others cannot or will not.

I believe the solution is to remove all impediments that prevent real competition. FCC tried it before in the 90s and failed because FCC could not or would not enforce it.

•••

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

The merger won't be a shoo-in

The Re/code site has an article listing five broad reasons why the merger may either be killed or heavily conditioned:

Five Reasons Why Critics of Comcast’s Time Warner Cable Deal Are Feeling Hopeful
By Amy Schatz, Re/code - October 26, 2014
»recode.net/2014/10/26/fi ··· hopeful/

Also: »www.bidnessetc.com/28058 ··· mpleted/