Comcast saying stupid stuff in press

[Rinaun]

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...s-opposition-to-time-warner-cable-transaction

article in question

THE GEM:
"There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast."

Wow.

I'm seriously shocked that a Comcast rep would use that line in a press article. Comcast is two steps away from cult mentality: keep drinking that kool-aid Comcast, you're totally not robbing America blind for cable & internet services.....

TLDR, has anyone noticed how stupid comcast is getting lately with this merger? I've heard everything from they are champions of the internet to them merging would give everyone free candy and a pony. I think the lobbying on this merger is incredibly strong right now.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

We really need to divorce service providers from content providers. IMO, there is an inherent conflict of interest on the part of Comcast and every other cable company when they provide internet service AND content. It is in their best interest to throw up roadblocks to services like Netflix, Amazon Video, etc.

There just isn't enough competition IMO and this merger will mean increased prices and even less competition. It can't go through.

 

[CPA]

What I find funny is that Netflix is challenging the merger because they are worried about rate increases on providers, such as themselves, yet, just this morning, announced a rate increase on new subscribers.

 

[z1ggy]

What I find funny is that Netflix is challenging the merger because they are worried about rate increases on providers, such as themselves, yet, just this morning, announced a rate increase on new subscribers.

Good times.

I stupidly agreed to a 2 year contract w Comcast to lower by bill about 60 bucks a month. Wish I had just canceled completely and gone the internet only with hulu/TV antennae route. I only watch like 5 channels on TV, yet I'm paying for 100's. I hate cable providers.

 

[DesiPower]

Whaccha gonna do bitch

 

[Rinaun]

What I find funny is that Netflix is challenging the merger because they are worried about rate increases on providers, such as themselves, yet, just this morning, announced a rate increase on new subscribers.

They have to increase costs because they are paying Comcast right now for access to Comcast's network. That's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: nope, I'm right: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/23/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-comcast-20140224

We really need to divorce service providers from content providers. IMO, there is an inherent conflict of interest on the part of Comcast and every other cable company when they provide internet service AND content. It is in their best interest to throw up roadblocks to services like Netflix, Amazon Video, etc.

There just isn't enough competition IMO and this merger will mean increased prices and even less competition. It can't go through.

This is a great argument and I agree, but this doesn't solve the monopoly that some providers have on assets such as lines already in place. Local regulations and permits needed for a new provider to become established keeps 99% of entrepreneurs from starting a competitor to ATT, Comcast, or Time Warner/Charter. The argument of having competition is dead and null because it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to start up as a provider without just reselling another providers bandwidth through their physical assets. Examples? Look at Google; they aren't doing huge cities like New York or even Mountain View for a reason. They are looking at the easy, low-hanging fruit cities in order to eventually take on bigger cities, such as San Jose and their own HQ, Mountain View.

 

[Wonderful Pork]

They have to increase costs because they are paying Comcast right now for access to Comcast's network. That's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

Netflix has seen substantial increases in the costs it has to pay for licensing content, Starz for example was at $30M/year and then asked for $200M/year - I believe Netflix subsequently dropped that content. Paying Comcast certainly doesn't help either.

In any case, increasing $12 per YEAR is nothing, I've had my cable bills jump $12/MONTH year to year, and have to waste a couple hours calling in and haggling.

My wife & I really enjoy the Netflix original shows (House of Cards & Orange is the new Black), and I like being able to watch random stuff when I want, so we have both Netflix & Prime.

If anything I'd like to drop cable TV, but doing so only decrease my bill by like $20/month, plus I get no sports/news/etc. IMHO, Right now cable companies are keeping subscribers due to apathy, I'd imagine something like Aereo will come in and disrupt that (can pay $10/month and stream OTA sports or whatever), which is when bandwidth caps will be permanently implemented to keep their revenue.

There really is a huge conflict of interest having the content & services provided by the same companies.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This is a great argument and I agree, but this doesn't solve the monopoly that some providers have on assets such as lines already in place. Local regulations and permits needed for a new provider to become established keeps 99% of entrepreneurs from starting a competitor to ATT, Comcast, or Time Warner/Charter. The argument of having competition is dead and null because it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to start up as a provider without just reselling another providers bandwidth through their physical assets. Examples? Look at Google; they aren't doing huge cities like New York or even Mountain View for a reason. They are looking at the easy, low-hanging fruit cities in order to eventually take on bigger cities, such as San Jose and their own HQ, Mountain View.

Exactly. I may be wrong, but I don't believe cable rates are subject to approval by regulatory boards either, correct? That will eventually have to happen. If we're going to grant these guys monopolies, we need to treat them like a utility and regulate them because we know they're going to nickel and dime everyone to death.

I will say this for Comcast -- when I had them at my old house, at least they would periodically bump my internet speed for no additional cost. Bright House doesn't do anything like that at all and are steadily increasing their prices on everything.

 

[Virge_]

My wife & I really enjoy the Netflix original shows (House of Cards & Orange is the new Black), and I like being able to watch random stuff when I want, so we have both Netflix & Prime.

Part of the biggest problem is that people still call network paid-theater "news". Real news really only comes from the internet anymore.

 

[Newell Steamer]

It's OK, because they can do whatever they want.

Things like this are just a blatant Fuck You, to all it's paying customers.

Enjoy it, America.

 

[drinkmorejava]

They have to increase costs because they are paying Comcast right now for access to Comcast's network. That's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: nope, I'm right: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/23/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-comcast-20140224

I haven't seen any data (except pure speculation in news articles) that says that Comcast is charging Netflix a higher fee than what Cogent charged Netflix for costs + markup. If anything, I bet the increase is marginal. I imagine there will be some additional colocating costs for Netflix, but they've also been moving toward this for years anyway.

However, Netflix throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at new content and higher licensing fees will definitely increase costs.

 

[Kadarin]

I'm guessing the government will allow the Comcast/TW merger to go through because they would love one point of control (of information) to manipulate. The press releases are just PR fluff.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I'm guessing the government will allow the Comcast/TW merger to go through because they would love one point of control (of information) to manipulate. The press releases are just PR fluff.

This does not make much sense,.. because the tin foil hat wearers make it sound like the NSA is all powerful and all reaching. So, there is no need for "one point of control".

Which is it; are they all powerful, or rather limited??

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

The USA is an oligopoly. Till that changes, we are all screwed.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This does not make much sense,.. because the tin foil hat wearers make it sound like the NSA is all powerful and all reaching. So, there is no need for "one point of control".

Which is it; are they all powerful, or rather limited??

Have you been living under a rock? Either way, anything that makes it easier will be looked at as a bonus.

 

[zinfamous]

They have to increase costs because they are paying Comcast right now for access to Comcast's network. That's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: nope, I'm right: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/23/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-comcast-20140224

The licensing fees they pay to Networks have increased substantially, as well. This is why they haven't had Starz content for over a year now.

The Networks, at the time, were all to happy to essentially give that stuff away as a streaming service, because they were too old and stupid (the execs) to understand that it really did have value--they were and largely remain focused on DVD sales.

Netflix was smarter, and did very well with cheap licenses for a few years.

 

[mrjminer]

Netflix has seen substantial increases in the costs it has to pay for licensing content, Starz for example was at $30M/year and then asked for $200M/year - I believe Netflix subsequently dropped that content. Paying Comcast certainly doesn't help either.

In any case, increasing $12 per YEAR is nothing, I've had my cable bills jump $12/MONTH year to year, and have to waste a couple hours calling in and haggling.

My wife & I really enjoy the Netflix original shows (House of Cards & Orange is the new Black), and I like being able to watch random stuff when I want, so we have both Netflix & Prime.

If anything I'd like to drop cable TV, but doing so only decrease my bill by like $20/month, plus I get no sports/news/etc. IMHO, Right now cable companies are keeping subscribers due to apathy, I'd imagine something like Aereo will come in and disrupt that (can pay $10/month and stream OTA sports or whatever), which is when bandwidth caps will be permanently implemented to keep their revenue.

There really is a huge conflict of interest having the content & services provided by the same companies.

Oh yea, it was fucking foreseeable too. Thank the massive amounts of paid off government officials for ignoring the obvious.

Anyways, I wouldn't have a problem paying $30 a month for Netflix if they were able to use it to secure new content from providers (not just like use it all to make their own internet TV, I mean).

I definitely get my money's worth out of my streaming subscription, and I think they have done as good a job as could be expected with how much content providers are trying to stiff them on everything under the sun. I think if their subscription went up to a level where I'd expect a lot of more frequent new content or better old content, even if it rotated, you'd probably see the same exact things they have now because the providers would just jack their cost up accordingly

 

[Sonikku]

It's interesting that there seems to be such wide universal consensus that what Comcast and Time Warner are doing is bad despite the considerable ease with which they are skating around all the political and watch dog organizations that were supposedly put in place to curtail such behavior.

 

[Rinaun]

I think if their subscription went up to a level where I'd expect a lot of more frequent new content or better old content, even if it rotated, you'd probably see the same exact things they have now because the providers would just jack their cost up accordingly

That's the issue for me, though. I don't use any of my cable content (140/mo with DVR) and yet it's 3-4x more expensive than my internet package (40/mo). If what you described happened, then speeds would have to increase or else people would be calling it robbery. I'd welcome netflix killing cable, but that won't solve the fact that Comcast has an obvious monopoly on physical assets and wants to grow that portfolio.

Thinking deeply about the situation, it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. I don't think regulation is the answer in terms of regulating Comcast, but I think that if someone wants to start another provider, they should have a clear way to make their own network setup. For example, I don't know the rules on utilities using telephone poles: would any provider be able to use them? Do they pay the electrical companies? I think if those poles in which the lines become connected were city-owned, a lot could be fixed just by setting up a regulatory council in regards to access for new start-ups to set up physical infra-structuring needed, rather than piggyback off of Comcast and get reamed reselling their coaxial connection.

 

[ImpulsE69]

What we are headed to is eventually the same price for Netflix as cable. Seriously.

 

[Rinaun]

It's interesting that there seems to be such wide universal consensus that what Comcast and Time Warner are doing is bad despite the considerable ease with which they are skating around all the political and watch dog organizations that were supposedly put in place to curtail such behavior.

This is because nobody has a fucking clue what is going on. I chose this topic to speak about during a class IN SAN JOSE COMMUNITY COLLEGE (that's kinda the heart of silicon valley) and around 80% of the class had no fucking idea what I was talking about. I told them who their senators were and most didn't even know that, nor do I think they took my advice to contact their senators regarding this issue. People don't give a fuck about anything until shit hits the fan, then its always "why did X think this was a good idea, govt is supposed to be there to avoid this shit who let this merger go through". Never blame yourself for not standing up, blame the system because "that's what we pay it for". The system itself can't be crippled or tied up with lobbyist money, no sir.