Comcast-NBC merger

tonyb

So I'm sittin' here, thumbing through my just received copy of HT mag, and behold, I see a short article on the FCC setting conditions for this merger. The FCC wants comcast to make internet service available to 2.5 million low income housholds for....$10 a month, and have to sell them computers for...$150. I know where my comcast bill will be heading.....North. I guess corporations are now held at gun point to hand out entitlements. WTF ??

txcoastal1

Exactly.....WTF
Cable TV is not a necessity...We just went digital which doubled standard TV chnls, We were lucky to have a TV when I was a kid and were fine with 3 chnls. lets promote for lazy **** and lets get fatter....wooo-F**king--hooo

bobman1235

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Cable TV is not a necessity

It's Internet they're being forced to provide cheaply, not cable TV. And in this world, the Internet is becoming a "necessity" if you want to be a functional member of society. It would be nice that if you get some sort of subsidized Internet, the content on it is filtered to only Monster.com or something


I have to agree that this seems like a silly ruling. On its face it's supposed to be "punishing" Comcast for edging closer to being a monopoly, but in reality the only people that are going to notice anything are the paying customers.

tonyb

Have to disagree with ya there pal. I don't see the internet as a necessity. Food,clothing,shelter, those are necessities,not internet service, computers, TV's, cell phones, and the like.
How did we ever survive without electonic gadgets ?

Jstas

There's more that came out of the ruling. Comcast's fee struture is supposed to stay the same so their plans to go to a "per use" billing scheme was effectively squashed by the merger rules. Also, that low-income access stuff, you have to qualify to get it and you don't apply to Comcast. You get it through a government application and the program is partially funded by governmental money to help offset costs. Comcast is just the provider.

There is alot more to the ruling. Maybe fees go up, maybe they don't. The 2.5 million low income assistance people aren't a very large portion of Comcast's customer base anyway. Probably about 10%. With the added revenue of a major broadcasting network coming under the umbrella, the costs should be offset.

A major clause in the ruling though is this:

The FCC also required Comcast to offer broadband Internet access as a stand-alone service at "reasonable prices" and with "sufficient bandwidth" so customers can choose to watch video online without having to also subscribe to cable television.

In other words, if you want to buy broadband access but not the TV access, Comcast has to offer a broadband service of sufficient performance to be able to watch streaming video. So you don't have to pay for TV that you are watching on the Internet anyway. That's a big deal and will help push the market in a more positive, consumer-oriented direction rather than taking these massive steps backwards with "Pay per use" pricing schemes that we abandoned in 1995.

In addition, Comcast has to offer online content to ther distributors not under their umbrella as a fair market thing.

Overall, I think this ruling is positive and it was thought out pretty well. Comcast doesn't have much leeway to find reason to increase fees for full-paying customers. I guess we'll see what happens though.

BTW, here's an article on the merger: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/01/the_federal_communications_com_8.html

There are probably more detailed ones around as well as the actual deposition from the court proceedings.

PolkClyde

tonyb wrote: »

Have to disagree with ya there pal. I don't see the internet as a necessity. Food,clothing,shelter, those are necessities,not internet service, computers, TV's, cell phones, and the like.
How did we ever survive without electonic gadgets ?

Mr. Tonyb, you know we need the internet to make it in this world,what's wrong with you,my brother... I need my computer,TV... That's all BS Mr. Tony. I drop comcast,I can live without the internet, and half of the time,I don't know where my cell phone is.. that's true.

bobman1235

tonyb wrote: »

Have to disagree with ya there pal. I don't see the internet as a necessity. Food,clothing,shelter, those are necessities,not internet service, computers, TV's, cell phones, and the like.
How did we ever survive without electonic gadgets ?

That's irrelevant and stupid logic, "pal". We're not talking about SURVIVAL, we're talking about being a normal and functioning member of society. I love this game where we all pretend the world hasn't changed in 300 years.

It's all that "teach a man to fish" idea. If there is someone who is poor (assuming, for a minute, that they are so because of circumstances beyond their control, not because they're lazy / fat / alcoholic / whatever, as that is an argument for another day), would you rather society feed them a steady influx of food, clothing, and shelter for 80 years until they die, or would you rather we give them the tools (Internet service, maybe?) to provide for themselves?

I knwo this is all pie-in-the-sky idealism, but at least it's trying something other than just the retarded "let's give people food stamps and welfare for life" mentality.

ryanjoachim

Jstas wrote: »

There's more that came out of the ruling. Comcast's fee struture is supposed to stay the same so their plans to go to a "per use" billing scheme was effectively squashed by the merger rules. Also, that low-income access stuff, you have to qualify to get it and you don't apply to Comcast. You get it through a government application and the program is partially funded by governmental money to help offset costs. Comcast is just the provider.

There is alot more to the ruling. Maybe fees go up, maybe they don't. The 2.5 million low income assistance people aren't a very large portion of Comcast's customer base anyway. Probably about 10%. With the added revenue of a major broadcasting network coming under the umbrella, the costs should be offset.

A major clause in the ruling though is this:



In other words, if you want to buy broadband access but not the TV access, Comcast has to offer a broadband service of sufficient performance to be able to watch streaming video. So you don't have to pay for TV that you are watching on the Internet anyway. That's a big deal and will help push the market in a more positive, consumer-oriented direction rather than taking these massive steps backwards with "Pay per use" pricing schemes that we abandoned in 1995.

In addition, Comcast has to offer online content to ther distributors not under their umbrella as a fair market thing.

Overall, I think this ruling is positive and it was thought out pretty well. Comcast doesn't have much leeway to find reason to increase fees for full-paying customers. I guess we'll see what happens though.

BTW, here's an article on the merger: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/01/the_federal_communications_com_8.html

There are probably more detailed ones around as well as the actual deposition from the court proceedings.

Thanks for the great info.

I just found out that I'll be losing my FIOS by the beginning of next year. Frontier bought Verizon's FIOS service, with the understanding that they would continue to support and expand. Now, a little over 2 years later, they're shutting it down.

Looks like I'll be stuck with Comcast again, although if they stick to these rules, I might not hate it so much.

cokewithvanilla

tonyb wrote: »

So I'm sittin' here, thumbing through my just received copy of HT mag, and behold, I see a short article on the FCC setting conditions for this merger. The FCC wants comcast to make internet service available to 2.5 million low income housholds for....$10 a month, and have to sell them computers for...$150. I know where my comcast bill will be heading.....North. I guess corporations are now held at gun point to hand out entitlements. WTF ??

That's the biggest BS I've heard in a while. Why don't we just make P.F. Changs offer free food to everyone who makes under x dollar a year, or require Gucci to provide handbags?

I mean, seriously, if poverty does not have any downsides, what will be the point of getting out of it? Already, we give them enough food money to feed 3 families so that they can sell their food stamps and buy crack, rims, and electronics. Now we have to give them internet and computers?

Demiurge

bobman1235 wrote: »

It's Internet they're being forced to provide cheaply, not cable TV. And in this world, the Internet is becoming a "necessity" if you want to be a functional member of society. It would be nice that if you get some sort of subsidized Internet, the content on it is filtered to only Monster.com or something

I have to agree that this seems like a silly ruling. On its face it's supposed to be "punishing" Comcast for edging closer to being a monopoly, but in reality the only people that are going to notice anything are the paying customers.

Try a library.

disneyjoe7

Section 8 it.

Why force a company to provide a service cheaply? Does a owner for a rent apartment reduce his rent value for poor people? No the Government support it, not that I agree 100% but, if Internet is something they need (don't agree either) then it should be supported by the Government.

zombie boy 2000

This has got to be the single most miserable forum on the planet. Seriously. Does everyone just wait for one "sky is falling" thread to run out of steam just to start a new one a few minutes later?

Oh... that's right. We at Club Polk have all the answers. The rest of the world just needs to get off our lawn.

Demiurge

If we stopped we wouldn't have room for our resident crybaby.

Jstas

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

This has got to be the single most miserable forum on the planet. Seriously. Does everyone just wait for one "sky is falling" thread to run out of steam just to start a new one a few minutes later?

Oh... that's right. We at Club Polk have all the answers. The rest of the world just needs to get off our lawn.

WINNING!




Truer words have ne'er been spoken, my friend.

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

That's irrelevant and stupid logic, "pal". We're not talking about SURVIVAL, we're talking about being a normal and functioning member of society. I love this game where we all pretend the world hasn't changed in 300 years.

It's all that "teach a man to fish" idea. If there is someone who is poor (assuming, for a minute, that they are so because of circumstances beyond their control, not because they're lazy / fat / alcoholic / whatever, as that is an argument for another day), would you rather society feed them a steady influx of food, clothing, and shelter for 80 years until they die, or would you rather we give them the tools (Internet service, maybe?) to provide for themselves?

I knwo this is all pie-in-the-sky idealism, but at least it's trying something other than just the retarded "let's give people food stamps and welfare for life" mentality.

Never said to give them freebies for life "pal". Being a normal functional member of society is by choice, you can be poor and rise up out of it without one drop of entitlements. The tools you need to rise up out of poverty come from within, not the world wide web.There is a difference between a hand up,and a hand out. If you haven't figured that out yet, then I can't help ya there.

tonyb

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

This has got to be the single most miserable forum on the planet. Seriously. Does everyone just wait for one "sky is falling" thread to run out of steam just to start a new one a few minutes later?

Oh... that's right. We at Club Polk have all the answers. The rest of the world just needs to get off our lawn.

Sorry dude, failed to catch that part we said " the sky was falling". Maybe you can point it out for us. Having a discussion on anything thats not peachy keen in your book is deemed sky falling material ? Feel free to start your own "the sky is falling" thread, like auto recalls. How corporate mergers and entitlements fall into that catagory is beside me, but if you think so, it must be true.

zombie boy 2000

You must be the life of the party wherever you go. I can just see the rainbows and unicorns shooting out of your **** on your morning commute to Marshmallow Land.

bobman1235

I thought I made it clear from my first post that I don't agree with this decision, I'm just defending the mentality of the FCC if not this particular decision. I definitely don't like the fact that they're stepping on private business.

Then again, taking a few bucks off internet service isn't the end of the Goddamn world.

obieone

I would have figured having to pay for MSNBC would have been punishment enough

ryanjoachim

bobman1235 wrote: »

I definitely don't like the fact that they're stepping on private business.

Then again, taking a few bucks off internet service isn't the end of the Goddamn world.

I'm all for keeping government out of big business, when said business is fair to their customers.

Comcast, for the most part, doesn't fall under that category. And I seriously doubt they won't find a way to flex their new "muscle" and force other companies to play ball their way if they want to use any of NBC's materials.

LessisNevermore

Shot in the dark here......maybe the gov't is trying to get internet into poor homes with children-whose school work often requires research on the web?
Maybe jobs or transportation are an issue for getting to the library for some.(thus the qual. process)

Comcast will write off the difference in the $10 rates. I wasn't aware that Comcast was in the computer selling business. (still wouldn't buy from them)

Even though (to some here) corporations can and have never done wrong by anyone, ever......Uncle Sam might be giving them an incentive to do something good, though I'm sure it was already on their agenda.

Or it could just be as it appears, the gov't. saying, "OK, you can have your monopoly, but you're gonna do something for us first".

cokewithvanilla

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Shot in the dark here......maybe the gov't is trying to get internet into poor homes with children-whose school work often requires research on the web?
Maybe jobs or transportation are an issue for getting to the library for some.(thus the qual. process)

Comcast will write off the difference in the $10 rates. I wasn't aware that Comcast was in the computer selling business. (still wouldn't buy from them)

Even though (to some here) corporations can and have never done wrong by anyone, ever......Uncle Sam might be giving them an incentive to do something good, though I'm sure it was already on their agenda.

Or it could just be as it appears, the gov't. saying, "OK, you can have your monopoly, but you're gonna do something for us first".

Schools that require you to do work on the internet provide computers in a computer lab. I wasn't required to have a computer until 3rd year of college. I find it hard to believe that they are making it a requirement in public schools.

Write off? Someone ends up paying for it.

By 'us', who do you mean? They aren't doing anything for me. I have to pay 50+ just to have internet... if they are worried about a monopoly, they would be regulating prices... not giving handouts to the poor.

LessisNevermore

cokewithvanilla wrote: »

Schools that require you to do work on the internet provide computers in a computer lab. I wasn't required to have a computer until 3rd year of college. I find it hard to believe that they are making it a requirement in public schools.

Write off? Someone ends up paying for it.

By 'us', who do you mean? They aren't doing anything for me. I have to pay 50+ just to have internet... if they are worried about a monopoly, they would be regulating prices... not giving handouts to the poor.

I was just throwing it out there. I'm sure all schools are funded and equipped equally, and operate in exactly the same way. The kids I've talked to, have obviously duped me. Hell of it is, their parents backed up this lie. Curses!:eek::rolleyes:

Yes, kids are routinely assigned homework that requires internet in my neck of the woods, and even some of the rural schools as far back as 10 years ago. Those were middle school students.

Someone....yes, and it will all come directly from your bank account, all of it.:rolleyes:

Go back, read the OP, then come back about the regulated prices. ($10 ring a bell?) lol

Back to your regularly scheduled (non-political) misery.

Polkersince85

They are hellbent on getting the kids online. Must be nice to have these luxuries.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/tec?guid=20110308/bc9e8018-d167-42d1-9471-96aa607851f6

wayne3burk

Comcast? we aint got no stinking comcast where we live...

But the hosed the hell outa hulu after the merger was announced...

And i don't think we need any more rupert murdocks in the 24 hour news cycle business....

one Rupert is enough.

But i dont think GE was bringing any good things to light either for that matter....

now all comcast needs to do is buy the NEW YORK TIMES and the trifecta will be feet accomplished....

just my 7 cents wurt

-- wayne --

bobman1235

Jesus Christ people, it's not 1982 anymore, computers are part of school nowadays. Just because you didn't "need one" until college doesn't mean kids TODAY don't need one. THe world changes fast. You think public libraries are gonna be around in 15 years? I wouldn't hold my breath.

cokewithvanilla

LessisNevermore wrote: »

I was just throwing it out there. I'm sure all schools are funded and equipped equally, and operate in exactly the same way. The kids I've talked to, have obviously duped me. Hell of it is, their parents backed up this lie. Curses!:eek::rolleyes:

Yes, kids are routinely assigned homework that requires internet in my neck of the woods, and even some of the rural schools as far back as 10 years ago. Those were middle school students.

Someone....yes, and it will all come directly from your bank account, all of it.:rolleyes:

Go back, read the OP, then come back about the regulated prices. ($10 ring a bell?) lol

Back to your regularly scheduled (non-political) misery.

when I said regulated prices, I meant as in prices for everyone. That 10 dollar thing is a handout, it has nothing to do with a monopoly.

Yes, I was often assigned work that was best conducted on the internet, however, as I said... the schools provide computers. I've never heard of a school that requires you to have a computer at home. Sure, it might be convenient to have, but most public schools that are assigning internet research, or whatever, have a computer lab. A teacher might take a poll of the class and ask if they all have internet, and if it's so, assign something on the internet.

And you're saying that the poorest people are being required to have internet at home by public schools? Yeah, right. I bet if you ask any of those parents that are backing up the stories, that the school has a computer lab. I could be wrong though, there could be schools that require this, but certainly not the ones being helped by the handout.

Oh, and when I said someone has to pay, I mean either the government (which means our tax dollars), or the company, or the end customers (like, the ones who don't get a handout).... I am not saying I am paying it all, I am saying it isn't just "written off" into space and magically no one pays.

jcandy

South Korea already claims the world?s fastest Internet connections ? the fastest globally by far ? but that is hardly good enough for the government here. Choi Gwang-gi is overseeing South Korea's plan to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second by the end of next year. By the end of 2012, South Korea intends to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second. That would be a tenfold increase from the already blazing national standard and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States.

Korean scientists who visit San Diego laugh/complain about our internet. Besides CEO salaries and inmate populations, what exactly is the US number one in these days?

cokewithvanilla

jcandy wrote: »

Korean scientists who visit San Diego laugh/complain about our internet. Besides CEO salaries and inmate populations, what exactly is the US number one in these days?

very good point. everyone wants to 'return to the good old days' when america was number one... but the problem is, the only reason we were ever number one is that we lacked industrialized competition from much of the world.

Next time we decide to bomb the crap out of a country, let's not rebuild it better than our own, kay?

ryanjoachim

bobman1235 wrote: »

Jesus Christ people, it's not 1982 anymore, computers are part of school nowadays. Just because you didn't "need one" until college doesn't mean kids TODAY don't need one. THe world changes fast. You think public libraries are gonna be around in 15 years? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Exactly this.

kevhed72

jcandy wrote: »

South Korea already claims the world?s fastest Internet connections ? the fastest globally by far ? but that is hardly good enough for the government here. Choi Gwang-gi is overseeing South Korea's plan to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second by the end of next year. By the end of 2012, South Korea intends to connect every home in the country to the Internet at one gigabit per second. That would be a tenfold increase from the already blazing national standard and more than 200 times as fast as the average household setup in the United States.

Korean scientists who visit San Diego laugh/complain about our internet. Besides CEO salaries and inmate populations, what exactly is the US number one in these days?

We are the number one producer and exporter of.......(drumroll please)
SCRAP PAPER!