Wall Street Is Dreaming Of Megamergers Under Trump -- Including A Verizon-Comcast Super Union
from the ill-communication dept
We've been discussing how despite all of the "populist" rhetoric on the Trump campaign trail, the President Elect has nominated several cozy telecom industry insiders to guide his telecom policy and select a new FCC boss. Both Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark Jamison have lobbied and worked for large ISPs, spending most of the last decade vehemently fighting against any and every consumer reform in telecom. Both have made it abundantly clear they not only want to roll back net neutrality and new broadband privacy rules passed under current boss Tom Wheeler, but they want to dismantle the FCC entirely.With every indication that the government will be significantly more friendly to telecom giants in the new year, Wall Street has quickly gotten to work giddily daydreaming about mergers that were previously unthinkable in the space. Most commonly that involves predictions that Sprint will finally merge with T-Mobile (blocked under the current FCC because it would have reduced overall wireless competitors), or that Comcast and Charter will try to buy either Sprint or T-Mobile as part of a broader cable industry attempt to push into wireless.
But in a research note to investors this week, UBS analyst John Hodulik dreamed notably larger, arguing that the incoming Trump administration could possibly even allow a merger between telecom giants Comcast and Verizon:
"Densification of wireless networks required to meet the needs of video-centric subscribers increases synergies of cable-wireless combinations and provides the springboard for 5G-based services," he proclaims. "A roll-back of Title II re-classification could further increase incentives for cable," he adds, casually citing the likely dismantling of net neutrality and the FCC under Trump.While a Comcast Verizon merger may create "significant synergies" in the eyes of Wall Street, it could be downright fatal for broadband consumers. Verizon FiOS is among the only real competition Comcast sees along the east coast; so much so that the region is the only part of the country Comcast is afraid to expand its unnecessary usage caps into for fear of competitive repercussions. Eliminating that competition not only would result in caps and higher prices, but less motivation than ever for Comcast to improve its abysmal customer service.
He put forth a number of models that include Dish fusing with T-Mobile or other variations. But he noted that a Comcast or Charter merger with Verizon would create "significant synergies" and "integrated products" while being "accretive to revenue and EBITDA growth."
Now it's entirely possible that Verizon and Comcast don't want to merge, but it's clear that Wall Street sees a huge new wave of consolidation looming for the already uncompetitive broadband industry all the same. Since Trump's telecom advisors don't believe telecom monopolies exist, believe that regulatory oversight of said nonexistent monopolies should be virtually nonexistent, and can't even acknowledge that the sector's competitive shortcomings are real -- what could possibly go wrong?
Trump, of course raged, against megamergers on the campaign trail to drum up populist support, not only claiming he'd block AT&T's $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, but claiming he'd somehow dismantle the already merged Comcast NBC Universal. Based on his telecom advisors' own words and policy positions, there's virtually no chance of either actually happening. In fact, Wall Street, Trump's own advisors, and most of the telecom sector clearly expect the exact opposite.
Between the Trump "populists" realizing they've been taken for a ride, and the net neutrality activists annoyed at the demolition of broadly-popular net neutrality rules and other broadband consumer protections, we're looking at quite a storm of megamerger dysfunction in the new year.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, broadband, competition, doj, megamergers, monopolies, wall street
Companies: comcast, ubs, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Choices are hard
Having to decide between being ripped off by Company A or being ripped off by Company B is hard, a totally unnecessary hassle for customers. Mergers between already massive companies are therefor absolutely pro-customer as they remove yet another road-block between US customers and their 'Best In The World' internet service, and as such should absolutely be allowed.
It's all about how best to serve the public after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choices are hard
This is such a great value! We have the best, state of the art technologies and highly skilled personnel specifically trained in how to decide which arm of our great corporation (ahem) *serves* you.
And the best news is you don't have to do a thing! Because our extremely efficient processes and procedures can give you this value at extremely competitive rates! For the low low price of 6.94 a month you automatically take advantage of this great value whenever you get any of our most popular packages! All the choice of our many many copies of seriously underrated programming packages without any of the hassle of actual choice!
What a great time to be alive!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choices are hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Merge all US corporations together
Antiquated words like "Citizen" can be replaced with "Employee".
Voting in the new corporate democracy will be made easier. Employees can turn their votes in to their direct manager.
Just imagine! It will be wonderful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Merge all US corporations together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
I think you have that backwards.... they actually ensure it.
What is the best way to get a confused teenager to do what you want? Direct commands or some reverse psychology?
If you want Oligarchy, then by all means keep going socialist. And while I do actually subscribe to some socialist ideas, its general tenants only lead to suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
I'm confused. reverse psychology in this case would mean that the people are doing exactly what they're told not to do (in this case move toward socialism). Yet, they are moving the other way. What was your point?
"its general tenants only lead to suicide"
Assuming you mean "tenets", so do the ones that underlie pure capitalism, communism or feudalism. Which is why most successful societies manage to combine them to some degree. Unless you're at the top, having a little socialism in your society is rather necessary, among all the other ideas. But, oligarchy is never good, unless you happen to be one of the guys in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
The worst part of that is that the people gladly join in because each of them believe that the corporate wolf is "their" wolf and therefore won't devour them. Now we've got a progressive/liberal authoritarian corporate wolf and an alt-right authoritarian corporate wolf (ideology or religion may vary) and both of them are hungry.
We need to remind our conservative friends and neighbours of what traditional values actually are, and to remind our progressive/liberal friends that all authoritarianism is illiberal and therefore bad for society in order to win them over to common sense — and the middle ground America so desperately sees.
As it is, the only winners of the culture wars are the wolves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
That would appear to be part of the problem. Some people don't want to "share the wealth" because one day it will be *their* wealth and they don't want to share their own stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Merge all US corporations together
It's often the ones who are struggling close to the breadline, not the well-off "I'm all right, Jack!" types, too. They believe they are holding the line against the enemy. I've pointed out that they're not likely to be rewarded for their altrusim, i.e. taking one for the neoliberal team, but they persist. You can't get through to the True Believers. They block out dissent on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Merge all US corporations together
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Merge all US corporations together
Motion Picture Association of | America, Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There. Fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer!
If it is taken from you that makes you a victim not a consumer, regardless of what you were given in return!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consumer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What "Consumer" REALLY means, to corporations…
given, at prices, quantities and qualities defined solely
by executives for the sake of quarterly profits.
This makes "Consumer" the product sold to shareholders,
by those executives, in exchange for multimillion-dollar
salaries and "performance bonuses".
"Consumer" has no human rights or status anymore. To beg
for what little it may have it is denied access to human courts
and must settle for rigged, corporate arbitration panels who
routinely prefer to rule for their corporate paymasters.
"Consumer" has been redefined into a code word for a mere function
of trade, owned and operated for profit only; thus discarded as soon
as each unit or class of units becomes "less profitable".
This explains, for example, what happens to many DSL "consumers." ;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What "Consumer" REALLY means, to corporations…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What "Consumer" REALLY means, to corporations…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...
How quaint.
I'm pretty sure her "closed door" position on mega mergers was "go for it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...
Here is the difference between Trump and Hillary.
Trump is more honest about what he wants to do.
Hillary will whisper lies into your ears while waving her hands behind her back enabling it on the down low!
I hate to be the one to tell you that Hillary is every bit the fucking Businessperson that Trump is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
When it comes to Trump and Hillary, we only continued pulverizing the bank that was already broken.
The only choice they had was corruption or fucking corruption... and America just chose good old corruption. But is is clear you seem all sorts of butt hurt over Trump winning... and even though I did not vote for him... let me laugh in your face over it! Enjoy because you help bring him into power even though you probably cannot imagine how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
You accuse me of drinking the flavor aid, and yet you honestly believe this after he's gone back on just about every campaign promise so far and he's not even in office yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
He's manipulated a lot of people to sell the image of what he promised. The question is what happens when he's expected to deliver (especially since he can't just bankrupt the country and reap the personal rewards like he's done with many of his other business ventures)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
the opposite of closed honesty?
I suppose one could claim he is honestly losing his mind and this explains his outrageous behavior and waffling on issues but that is just an excuse, does he really change his mind that quickly, does he easily lose his place and forget what he just said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
Don't mind me. I'm just experimenting to see if I get flagged as abusive for quoting your own words back to you as if you honestly believe that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
That said, it in no way implies that Donald is an honest person... just more honest than Hillary.
Both are clearly lying cur dogs... one happens to be less so in my opinion. Sure Trump might catch up now that he is in politics, but I can only comment on what I have seen so far. If Trump does become worse then I will be having a change of mind on that front, but it has to happen first.
Anything that thinks they can predict who will be more honest than the other in the future is getting too big for their britches, right now, I can only say who is at this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
However, if by 'honest' you mean 'doesn't lie' then you could compare all the utternces of two approximately 70-year-olds over the last 50 years... and I suspect the answer would actually be rather different given that Trump was flagged up as lying vastly more just over the course of the campaign, let alone in his past too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
Until he gets elected. Then he start to backtrack on everything he promised that wasn't really achievable while ranting at actors for exercising their free speech and embarrassing the country in front of the world stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
Hillary said she hates big business. That IS a lie because her history makes it clear she is pro big business.
But that is just one item. Should we start a tally of lies to see who wins? Hillary has a much longer history of it so chances are we cannot discover all of Trumps lies so he gets the benefit of the doubt at this time. There just happens to be more provable lies on Hillary's side than Donald's.
Judge a person by their actions... NOT BY THEIR WORDS! If you only judge by words then you don't know who the true liar is... and I am not just talking about facts they get wrong or intentionally get wrong with their mouths.
The stories I hear about how Hillary treats people are worse than the stories I hear about how Trump treats people.
Hillary's history is fare more treacherous than Donald's. But I cannot make anyone believe it, it is up to you to decide. It is entirely possible that Trump is more of a liar than Clinton, but history does not show it... and I am sure we are about to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
2. March 29: Trump lies that Wisconsin’s effective unemployment rate is 20%, saying, ""What? Is it 20 percent? Effective or regular? I mean just -- effective unemployment rate, 20 percent. Hey, this is out of the big book." According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The U-3 official unemployment rate in Wisconsin was 4.6 percent in 2015; Wisconsin’s U-6 rate for 2015 was 8.3 percent.
3. March 29: Told Sean Hannity, “You know, I look at what’s happening in Wisconsin with the numbers, the job numbers, the trade numbers, how it’s a stagnant economy, how they owe $2.2 billion in terms of their budget.” As Factcheck.org reported, Wisconsin’s general fund is currently projected to have a positive balance when its current two-year budget cycle ends next year, according to an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts.
4. March 29: Trump alleged that when Michelle Fields "found out that there was a security camera, and that they had her on tape, all of a sudden that story changed." Absolutely untrue.
5. March 29: Trump said the Secret Service was worried about Fields, alleging, "She went through the Secret Service, she had a pen in her hand, which Service Service is not liking because they don't know what it is, whether it's a little bomb…” As Katie Pavlich of Townhall noted, “All reporters at campaign events, like regular attendees, go through Secret Service security before being allowed into a venue. The security is thorough, with a back check, wanding and a metal detector walk through. Fields wasn't carrying a knife, she was carrying a pen and if the Secret Service thought it was dangerous, they would have taken it from her at the security checkpoint before entering the room.”
6. March 27: Trump claims Cruz bought the rights to the ad featuring a nude Melania Trump: Debunked.
7. March 26: Trump lies, "There’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we (American businesses) go into China, whereas when China sells to us there’s no tax." China’s tariffs are higher than those imposed by the United States, but the Chinese exporters are taxed when they sell in the United States.
8. March 23: Trump accuses Cruz of coordinating with Super PAC in its ad featuring a nude Melania Trump. Tweeting, “Lyin' Ted Cruz denied that he had anything to do with the G.Q. model photo post of Melania. That's why we call him Lyin' Ted!” Debunked.
9. March 21: Trump lies, "Out of 67 counties (in Florida), I won 66, which is unprecedented. It's never happened before." Nope. In 2004, John Kerry won all 67 counties for the Democrats; in 2000, Al Gore won all 67 for the Democrats and. George W. Bush won all 67 for Republicans. In 1996, Bob Dole took 66 of 67 counties for the GOP primary and the 67th was a tie between Dole and Pat Buchanan in Washington County.
10. March 19: Trump said the 2016 federal omnibus spending bill "funds illegal immigrants coming in and through your border, right through Phoenix." Nope. The omnibus bill does not fund undocumented immigrants "coming in and through" the border; it funds the very agency tasked with keeping undocumented immigrants out, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
11. March 17: Trump on Fox News denied that he ever accused President George W. Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “I didn’t say lie. I said he may have lied.” That’s false. Trump said in a February that Bush “lied.”
12. March 13: Trump states that the man who rushed the stage in Dayton, Ohio, "had chatter about ISIS, or with ISIS" in his social media posts. Trump was fooled by a hoax video; the claim is ludicrous.
13. March 11: Lying about Cruz’s count of the states he had had won: “Wasn’t that funny last night when Cruz said, ‘I’m the only one that can beat Donald Trump. I have demonstrated that I can beat him. I won five states.’” Cruz correctly stated he won eight states, not five.
14. March 10: Trump, the expert economist: "GDP was zero essentially for the last two quarters." GDP grew at an annual rate of 1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, and 2 percent in the third quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
15. March 10: Trump claims Michelle Fields made up the story about being grabbed by Corey Lewandowski, blustering, "This was, in my opinion, made up. Everybody said nothing happened. Perhaps she made the story up. I think that's what happened."
16. March 9: “Eight weeks ago, they signed a budget that is so bad. It funds ISIS.” As POLITICO noted, “The omnibus spending bill, passed in December, is not strictly a budget, and it’s not clear what part of it Trump thinks gives money to ISIS.”
There is more. Would you like more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
I said...
"Judge a person by their actions... NOT BY THEIR WORDS! If you only judge by words then you don't know who the true liar is... and I am not just talking about facts they get wrong or intentionally get wrong with their mouths."
I am not even going to try to calculate who lies more with their words on facts and errata, that just becomes a race on who can find more. This makes it clear that both candidates are readily willing to lie about just plain data.
I want the tally on the lies where Trump says is pro-big business but his actions show they are not.
I want the tally where Hillary says she is for the little guy while importing more little guys and making the current little guys even smaller and suffer more instead of actually helping them!
That is the difference. Both of those machine spew data lies at a rate that is not worth evaluating, I considering them equal liars than the other which only leave room for a debate on how lies better and I am not sure who could win that crown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
"Judge a person by their actions... NOT BY THEIR WORDS!"
"I want the tally where Hillary says"
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Hillary's lies?
...And those lies would be "bigly" lies. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Hillary's lies?
I want the ones that really count in the context of they said they are for something but performed actions against or just failed to live up to their words on it.
If I had a penny for every lie, con, deception these two have uttered or participated in I would have the money to run for president and beat them both... if I could survive the assassination attempts by big business and little socialist crackpots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about Hillary's lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
A wolf is a wolf. Neither of the wolves deserves defending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
I think this is the more honest version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And...
I am far less sure about Hillary's game based on her past.
I am far more certain about what Trump is going to do and so are the markets apparently which is why we are seeing a swell. However, that still does not diminish any concern, because while I know what Trump is going to do, it is still hard to know how the rest of the economy will react in the long term.
So I rate honesty of the two like so.
Hillary creates uncertainty with her politics, I am also uncertain of that outcome.
Trump, I am pretty certain of his politics, I am just uncertain of that outcome.
That means Trump is more trustworthy or in your words (less untrustworthy) at this time for better or worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How pavlovian
Article: 'Something bad might/will/is happening under the Trump administration/campaign/group'.
AC: 'Who cares about that, Clinton would have been just as bad!'
It doesn't matter what might have happened under the Clinton administration because she's not the one who's going to be president. It's irrelevant what she might have done/allowed, while it's very relevant what Trump might/will do/allow, because, and I note this again for emphasis, he's the one that's going to be president.
The election is over, stop focusing on what Clinton might have done and start focusing on what Trump is doing or is likely to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How pavlovian
But yes, we do need to focus on Trump and get out of this baloney and realize that all sides are against us regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How pavlovian
No. It implies nothing of the sort. If "Under Trump" is to be contrasted with anything, it is in contrast to "under the current administration" or "under Obama".
Despite what many seem to present, the "republican vs. democrat" distinction does not apply to everything.
Just because this article expresses disagreement with what the market seems to be predicting for Trump's future actions does not mean there is any implied connection to what Hillary might have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How pavlovian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How pavlovian
When he does it sure, but until then speculation is fair game for all involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How pavlovian
Because he will have the power to follow through, while Clinton won't. Clinton might have been better, she might have been worse, but since she's not going to be the president it doesn't matter in the slightest what she might have done, because it's not going to happen either way, which differs from Trump in that he will have the ability to affect things in significant ways.
The election is over, and with it the importance of what Clinton might have done, while what Trump might do is now all the more important because he, unlike her, is going to be in a position where 'mights' can turn into 'is'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...
Thad is pointing out the obvious in an attempt to add nothing of merit to the conversation. The point was specifically about how the article was written implying that somehow Trump is changing these things when there is no such proof. And if you are going to raise things to a shrill in that fashion then it makes people think you have a subversive agenda. And when you do that on the heels of the election, then you get the idea.
Not to blame TD operators themselves directly, but many of the TD readers are pro-Hillary in their behaviors, and this for better or worse does lend to the perception of TD as being pro-Hillary. There is always a correlation between these things as birds of a feather tend to flock together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And...
Interesting bit of projection.
And my point is that no, the article is not written to imply anything at all about Clinton, does not even mention Clinton, and you're full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...
The major difference is that they would govern poorly in different ways.
Given the choice, I would rather have someone sane and level headed in office, even if I like neither choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bias
What the fuck does this mean? Why are you singling out the "populists" they are NOT the only people involved in the election. This is starting to stink of bias where there is a constant media push to turn the word dirty like they have others.
"With every indication that the government will be significantly more friendly to telecom giants in the new year, Wall Street has quickly gotten to work giddily daydreaming about mergers that were previously unthinkable in the space."
What drugs have you been on? The government was ALREADY too friendly with industry giants have you been asleep for the past few decades? Significantly is either gross ignorance, negligent, or a bald face sensationalizing! None of this was unthinkable, we have been discussing these things on TD for a long time now.
Why are you even complaining? Just now figuring out that regulatory Agencies are not all they are cracked up to be? Remember they are the source of your problems while many ignorantly believe they are the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bias
What drugs have you been on? The government was ALREADY too friendly with industry giants have you been asleep for the past few decades?
Yes, we certainly agree.
And now what little progress was actually getting made is about to be amputated at the neck.
Hence the 'Significantly more friendly' bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bias
Hence the 'Significantly more friendly' bit."
Based on what evidence. The Sprint T-Mobile merger was already in pay before the election. They were already more confident that it would work regardless of who got into power.
While I do not disagree that Trump's words make it clear he is likely to support it more, it is my belief that those are nothing more than words. Hillary is good at pay lip services to minorities to make them feel better while doing nothing for them anyways. The Disney IT situation happened under her party's watch and they did shit about it.
They constantly talk about being pro-this and pro-that but no results. If words are all you need to have to show "Significantly more friendly" then I am afraid you have not watch enough marketplace activity to know the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, Clinton would have done the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trumpalo Trolls?
And here I thought the anti-Udall trolls that swarmed in 2014 were bad, and probably financed by the IC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trumpalo Trolls?
Nothing new is happening in my book, the FCC specifically negotiated more loop holes for the industry and wrote even worse rules disguised as good ones that many ate up for some reason.
The destruction of the FCC is a good thing because it can be used as a warning to the other Agencies. If you make yourself irrelevant by pandering to those you should be stiff arming instead you might fall to the way side and lose your job in the fallout. The FCC has made it clear that there are no unreasonable monopolies in the industry therefore why should Trump not take their words for it? Right? They are no longer useful... in other words so lets just abolish them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trumpalo Trolls?
If you want shrill, get a WMD or Red State article and change around all Republican/Democrat references and imagine a Hillary Presidency, and then you'll see shrill.
Pointing out in an article that a hard-fought battle barely being won (in the relatively neutral perspective of this blog) is potentially about to be gutted by known opponents of that progress is just normal reporting.
Honestly, is every article that doesn't go "Trump is my bestest homie who can do no wrong and Shrillary should be in prison/dead/on Mars" whiny, shrill or being a sore loser? Get real, snowflake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He should have been tarred, feathered, and run out of economics on a rail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make American Corporations Great Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another tiresome article
In other words, author obsesses over Trump, gins up a story from nothing and then uses it to slam the source of his obsession.
Pathetic excuse for journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another tiresome comment
Another commenter ragging on Techdirt based on strawmen of nonexistent partisan bias solely because an article contains the word "Trump".
In other words, commenter obsesses over Trump, gins up an anti-Trump bias from nothing and uses it so slam an article just for mentioning the name of the source of his obsession.
Pathetic excuse for media criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another tiresome article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another tiresome article
The continued attempt to dismiss groups in this way only makes you look like a tool and a drives a wedge between you and them. If you want to bitch, go ahead, but add substance to it instead of saying, oh... they are projecting, or you are stuck in the past, or other passive aggressive quips that add nothing to the subject at hand.
You only reveal that your head is as far up your own ass as the pro Trumpers are up theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another tiresome article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another tiresome article
So when is Obama scheduling his massive gun grab? On Jan 19th, right after declaring himself Dictator-for-Life using Martial Law and simultaneously handing the country over to the UN One World Gub'mint (tm)?
There's gonna be an awful lot of melted Trump snowflakes over the next four year. The next four months even!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another tiresome article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Community Broadband Brings in Business (residential)
Broadband eats into the bottom line. States counties and cities that want to bring in business could incentivize using community broadband options for SOHO, and homes that are budding into small business.
There's the pro ISP version Verizon/Comcast that medium and large business could afford.
Then there's the one for the rest - community broadband that's actually affordable.
Sure using it would forgo having the free streams of content within larger walled garden ISPs, but that's a net neutrality issue which is another topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least there is some good news -- Trump had a lot fewer mega-donors and political rainmakers on his side compared to either Clinton or Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True, and he's also said he would block the AT&T/Time Warner merger and even suggested that he'd break up Comcast. Maybe he will end up being tough on corporate mergers. Maybe.
But his (or, more likely, Steve Bannon's) cabinet and regulator picks so far have not been encouraging. They don't suggest he's interested in any checks on predatory corporations.
We don't know for sure what's going to happen. It's best to be wary, and ready to apply pressure where possible. A massive online campaign convinced the FCC (headed by a telecom lobbyist, no less) to pass net neutrality (even if it sure looks like it's not going to stick around in the next administration). Public pressure can make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They may be dreaming but...
There were several very large mega-mergers of tech and communication corporations with media corporations under the Bill Clinton administration. It was Bill's crowning achievement while serving as POTUS. I doubt anything during Trump administration will hold a candle to these.
And alternatively Trump does not seem to be such a pushover in allowing these large mega-mergers.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-trump-merger-attitude-20161109-story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...eh. Probably not though. Blah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump is Now
And When He Finally Steps up and takes the Oath of Office, Its His Actions that mean anything.
Anyone Who Wants to Campaign for Election Day 2016 is living in the past, Trump Now Has the Opportunity to live up to his election promises, I think he should be encouraged to live up to them, and be reminded gently but determinedly when he falls short of the expectations he has raised.
So When we speculate on the outcome of events based on the actual actions of the man, we are using the best available evidence Trump can provide, who he picks to implement his policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump is Now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]