With The Death Of Net Neutrality & NBC Merger Conditions, Comcast Is Free To Misbehave
from the a-storm's-a'-comin' dept
Comcast has been having some massive "success" on the lobbying and policy front of late. Its lobbyists have successfully dismantled both net neutrality and privacy rules at the FCC. They've killed efforts to bring competition to the cable box. They've also successfully convinced Ajit Pai's FCC to effectively neuter its authority over lumbering telecom monopolies, kicking all remaining authority over to an FTC that's ill-equipped to actually hold Comcast accountable. The company has also been pushing hard to prevent states from being able to protect broadband and TV consumers either.
Given Comcast's quickly growing monopoly over fixed-line broadband, combined with its growing international footprint in media, it shouldn't be hard to see how we're building a perfect vacuum of limited accountability for one of the more anti-competitive companies in America. With neither competition nor even modest regulatory oversight to constrain it, it's not speculation to note that there's every indication that the Comcast everybody loves to hate is poised to become notably more obnoxious with little constraining its less ethical tendencies.
Comcast's dream scenario of no competition, and paltry state and federal oversight will soon get another gift in the expiration of the merger conditions affixed to the company's 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal. Conditions such as offering discounted broadband, promises to avoid hamstringing Hulu's competitive potential (Comcast is a co-owner), and restrictions on Comcast's treatment of smaller video programmers and distributors will all soon evaporate. Sure, the government let Comcast ignore many of these with no real punishment, but many of them still helped keep Comcast's worst habits in check.
For its part, the DOJ fired off a memo to Comcast last week stating that while the conditions expired, it would still be keeping an eye on Comcast for any potential anti-competitive behavior:
"The department retains jurisdiction to enforce the antitrust laws and takes its obligations seriously,” Makan Delrahim, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, wrote in the letter obtained by Bloomberg. “We would appreciate your cooperation in keeping us informed by providing the department with any plans you may have to change your policies or practices involving video programming and distribution.”
Yes, Comcast, do let us know in writing if you intend to behave anti-competitively.
Of course antitrust enforcement in this country isn't what it used to be. The powers that helped the government break up the ma bell monopoly have been largely eroded after decades of lobbying. And the DOJ's latest attempt to hold vertically-integrated powerhouses like AT&T in check recently fell flat on its face, thanks to said erosions locking DOJ lawyers into very specific confines of economic theory, and a comically-terrible misreading of AT&T's anti-competitive potential (especially in the wake of the death of net neutrality) by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon.
In short, thanks to Comcast lobbying you've got no net neutrality, a crippled and beholden FCC, potentially-handcuffed states (depending on how well the ISPs and Ajit Pai's pre-emption gambit goes), and little-to-no competition in broadband (especially at faster speeds). And while Comcast will likely try and behave on the net neutrality front until the looming court case is settled, it shouldn't be hard to see how this growing competition and accountability vacuum is, sooner or later, only likely to make America's least liked company more obnoxious than ever.
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: competition, doj, fcc, merger conditions, net neutrality
Companies: comcast, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sure, it's advertised that they're free to misbehave but once you add up all below-the-line fees the actual price jumps up quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
Ajit Pai is coming for you, Bodey. Once Silicon Valley is done, you're next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
Otherwise it's so much hot air that edifies no one.
If you're a parody of something, I'd recommend stopping, since it's ... not entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
"draw your attention away from the elephant in the room"
Is it pink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bodey McBodeface lies, rides again!
Google has issues. They are not the same as those of the likes of Comcast. Get the DOJ or some relevant agency to write a letter to Google about some real issue. Pretty sure it would be covered here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
First there's false use of "Richard Bennett" screen name to apparently try to discredit that person. I don't understand why snowflake Bode isn't condemning that, after his LONG series whining someone falsely made comments in his name on FCC site. -- Anyway, though as noted, the real account hasn't shown up since... (quick look up via my own maniacal list) August 30th, someone still believes it's worthwhile to attack in advance.
That someone apparently believes is doing the site a favor with this stupidity. It's so frequent (with rather obscure reference) that is definitely a regular. -- Also note that this stupidity is never "hidden", so it's fully approved by "the community", a lack of response moving the site toward MORE stupid, especially by commenting at it:
2 is apparently random noob still in the "please do better" stage who can't tell that's what passes for "satire" here. 3 is a true maniac, currently the most prolix commenter, though still short of most comments with only 15,000. He's closing in on the record without adding any interest. If average 6 minutes on site per comment (many are long), that's roughly 1500 hours JUST commenting here on Techdirt. There's only 200 x 8 hours in normal work-year, so this maniac has spent nearly a nearly year "working" here! WHO pays him? Does his employer know what he's actually doing on company time? (IF SO, then potentially liable!) 4 is clearly another regular, and takes a shot too. 5 is another ankle-biter, rather confusing, and oddly mis-spelling "Karl".So now we have a chain of drivel -- to which I happily add facts and snark -- which is what passes for comments here.
Five regulars clearly total up to nothing, yet they'll censor MY comments! -- As this one will prove yet again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
....so you decided to add more useless comments to increase the ratio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
Richard Bennett insisted that it doesn't matter if the comment was made using the real or fake name; it's the idea that counts.
And frankly, the ridiculous namecalling and lack of substantiated points makes me inclined to believe this is the real Dick.
But what a surprise to see you cocksucking for Comcast the corporation with Dick. And by a surprise, I mean no fucking duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
The name calling is irrelevant... it's the lack of substance that is the constant problem. And this place is devoid of any substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
Instead you work at blocking my IP addresses just so Bodey can have his say. Disgusting. Question Comcast at your own peril, and that of your wallets. Oh, right. Pirates don't pay for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
Is this like a fixer or is it actual work where real damage is repaired and what kind of damage? Hard drives that crap out? Bad NIC? What are you controlling and why would I not touch it? Is your employer really that bad?
I am not a pirate and I do not think that "net neutrality and Section 230 are the universal solution" for anything. Why would you claim such when you know nothing?
Why yes - I am blocking your IP addr right now - lol
Wait, is this the fake Richard Bennett?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
It's really sad that you keep a list of when people login. Please seek mental help or a doctor who performs euthanasia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stats on Typical Techdirt: HALF the comments entirely useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
the crux of all conflict... some like the idea while others do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Pareto principle has always existed in any society, no matter how far left, right, liberal, conservative, or other <insert politic> it goes.
The ignorant masses are always ruled by the knowing few. If you are poor by the age 40, there is a substantial chance that you are a member of the ignorant mass. If you are in the top 20% there is a substantial chance that you are a member of the knowing few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- This is not correct. In fact it may be completely opposite in that the ignorant are now in the wht hse and the "knowing" are being attacked.
"If you are poor by the age 40, there is a substantial chance that you are a member of the ignorant mass"
- I have met several veterans who are definitely not ignorant and yet they are part of the growing segment of society referred to as poor. Your claim is both ignorant and arrogant.
"If you are in the top 20% there is a substantial chance that you are a member of the knowing few."
- Complete bullshit. Many in the 1% are grossly ignorant as evidenced in the news, have you not been reading any?
Such typical stereotypes are all too plentiful and it seems to be getting even more ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is totally correct, your or my opinions are not what is important... that is just what the data shows, you are free to hate it... it only makes you wrong.
"- I have met several veterans who are definitely not ignorant and yet they are part of the growing segment of society referred to as poor. Your claim is both ignorant and arrogant."
I said "substantial chance", obviously there is room for exceptions and exceptions are not disproof of the rule and to imply that this is such only shows your ignorance. My "claims" are not claims, it's just data and facts. You are are the arrogant and ignorant one.
"- Complete bullshit. Many in the 1% are grossly ignorant as evidenced in the news, have you not been reading any?"
The only person full of the bullshit is you. Again, I remind you that exceptions are no disproof of the rule. You are just a victim of over representation where the idiots get most of the attention. I have met more than enough of both sides. Even though my on opinions do not count the data still does.
"Such typical stereotypes are all too plentiful and it seems to be getting even more ridiculous."
There are stereotypes for a reason, the real travesty are those like you confusing people with a few exceptions and baseless rhetoric because they have been educated to be wrong so they can feel falsely superior. You can be as ridiculous as you want... these facts will not be changing as they have existed for centuries of recorded history. Leading to... the Pareto Principle in the first place.
And it does not only apply to riches and wealth either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many exceptions are needed in order to question "the rule"? How are exceptions needed before saying it is no longer considered to be "a rule"?
It's just another isolated incident, no worries, nothing to see here, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have not provided proof that any of what you say is true. Given that and that we do not see any evidence of your claims, why should we believe what you say to be true if you do not provide evidence to support your claims?
To all of your points and claims, I say:
[CITATION NEEDED]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because I use big Words, and also because I eat paint "chips", you mus Acknowledge my obvious Genius. I bet "you" don't even know what a Pareto IS.
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Dseres!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HOW MANY HERE..?
Water, sewer, Trash, Electric, and a few others..
The prices remained Constant and HARDLY ever went up in value..
Then some Oddball Gov. decided it was better to PRIVATIZE IT..
Saying that it wouldnt be any worse..
But as with ANY CORP..THEY WANT PROFIT, and MORE profit..
But understand something..
WHO BUILT THE INFRASTRUCTURE?? The GOV. BUILT IT..
In the Electrical business WHERE do they get all that power?? WHO maintains the system??
Who keeps the POLES UP?? Those Poles that are over 30+ years old..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTC
is IF/WHEN the FTC decides to do something..
Like:
REQUIRE that the adverts they have TELL THE TRUTH..
REQUIRE them to meet up with CONTRACTS they have and match the Speeds they said they would make.\
MAKE a REAL map of Cellphone access
A real map of Internet speeds..
The FTC may not be able to regulate much, but they CAN REQUIRE TRUTH IN ADVERTS.. TRUTH in contracts.. Adherence to CONTRACTS..
They can also be Sued Thru the FTC..by anyone with a complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]