2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFCC may approve Time Warner Merger -- This is an example of Bernie's issues hitting home.
The FCC may be about to approve another awful merger -- Charter’s $90 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. If it goes through it will make the Monopolization of the Media and Internet even worse.
Bernie Sanders has been fighting against this crap for years. Clinton's husband and the rest of the Centrist New Democrats paved the way for the monopolization of media. This is EXACTLY WHY why we need Democrats who are on our side....Not beholden to industry and its lobbyists like Tom Wheeler who was a lobbyist before being appointed to head the FCC by President Obama.
This is why I NEVER feel like our interests are being served by a Democratic Party that is so closely tied to the industries they are supposed to be regulating.
This Matters!
(Below is public domain so posting in full)
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2016/03/16/fcc-chairman-wheeler-set-approve-disastrous-cable-merger-heres-why-we-need-stop-him
Late last night the Wall Street Journal reported that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is moving toward approving Charter’s $90 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.
He’ll still need to put the deal to a vote — which means there’s time to influence the outcome if you act fast.
Here are the reasons you should pick up the phone now and tell the FCC to block the merger.
Already steep prices will go through the roof, forcing families around the country to make hard choices about basic necessities. Charter is taking on huge debt just to make this deal happen. The additional burden works out to about $1,142 for the average customer, just in new debt. It would saddle the post-merger Charter with an incredible $66 billion in debt, including $27 billion created just to close this deal. To repay that, and to satisfy its investors, Charter would have to raise its prices substantially — squeezing captive customers and forcing some offline.
To make matters worse, Charter’s entry-level broadband prices are already much higher than Time Warner Cable’s entry-level $15 tier. The closest thing that Charter has to this price is a higher-speed package that starts at $40 per month as a promotional rate, then increases to $50 per month in year two, and to $60 after year two. And this merger means higher prices for everyone: Charter’s expanded market power would lead to price hikes on top of these already steep rates. Price increases would hit low-income people the hardest, including those in communities of color who are on the wrong side of the digital divide and who make up a large percentage of the population in places like New York City, Los Angeles and other big cities these cable companies serve.
These price increases would make getting online impossible for way too many people. In a world where Internet access is essential, that’s unconscionable. A recent Pew Research Center report found that home broadband adoption rates dropped from 70 percent of U.S. adults in 2013 to 67 percent in 2015. The numbers are even more dismal for communities of color: Adoption plummeted from 62 percent to 54 percent for Black households and from 56 percent to 50 percent for Latino homes. Pew found that price was the primary reason for this decline.
Broadband is too expensive yet it’s undeniable that people need it. If this merger goes through, more people will be forced to the wrong side of the digital divide. This chasm affects people’s day-to-day lives and increases inequity in a society in which every gap between the haves and have-nots is growing wider.
Together Charter and Comcast would have unprecedented control over our cable and Internet connections, erasing competition and choice for most homes in the country. If the merger goes through, just two Internet service providers, Charter and Comcast, would control nearly two-thirds of the nation’s high-speed Internet subscribers. In 90 percent of its expanded territory, Charter would face no fiber-to-the-home broadband competition from companies like Verizon FiOS or Google Fiber. In more than half of Charter’s territory, Charter customers would have no other option at all for bundled broadband and video services. That means Charter would have unfettered ability to increase prices in its broadband monopoly territories. This lack of competition and choice would leave homes across the country at the mercy of two cable companies known for high prices and terrible customer service.
Charter would rather burn money to pay for this deal than help more people get online at affordable rates. For the amount of new debt Charter is taking on to close this deal, it could literally rebuild the entire Time Warner Cable network from the ground up with money to spare. Better yet, it could bring future-proof fiber-optic broadband to 40 million new homes.
Put another way, for the amount of new debt that Charter is taking on for this transaction, it could cover an area three times larger than its existing footprint, and 1.25 times as large as Time Warner Cable’s. Building new networks in more cities would increase competition and lower prices so that families with kids, people looking for work, and others struggling to make ends meet could get online. But this $27 billion in new debt — taken out of captive Charter customers’ wallets — isn’t going to be used to build anything; it’s merely a payoff to Time Warner Cable’s shareholders and its CEO Rob Marcus, who gets a $100 million golden parachute as his reward.
The FCC says it wants competition — and key leaders have spoken out about the need for more choices — so why would the agency approve this takeover? In 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, “meaningful competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking and Americans need more competitive choices for faster and better Internet connections.” In 2016, Wheeler admitted that he “has not done enough” to encourage competition between cable giants. Moreover, President Obama has noted that “In too many places across America, some big companies are doing everything they can to keep out competitors.”
There is no real support from Congress for this merger — and senators from both parties, including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, are expressing concerns about it and speaking out against it.
This deal is all about Charter controlling and cutting off your online video options to protect its pay-TV cash cow. People are tired of paying for cable. They want and need their broadband access, with all of the opportunities and choices the Internet brings them. But millions of people have cut the cord on cable TV, giving up bloated lineups full of channels they don’t watch and don’t want to pay for anymore.
This makes cable companies like Charter angry. And when they get angry, they have ways to make you pay. Don’t listen to Charter’s promises that it won’t violate some of the Net Neutrality rules or stick you with data caps — for now. Charter would have all kinds of tools to keep you paying for its own cable TV and online video packages, making it harder for you to switch and watch Netflix, Amazon and all the other online video options that are out there.
No conditions can mitigate this deal’s many harms. It isn’t in the public interest. Despite Charter’s promises that it’ll improve diverse programming and offer low-cost broadband to some families, such merger conditions have historically been difficult to implement and impossible to enforce. Even if they were enforceable, these limited commitments would fail to off-set this merger’s serious harms. And none of these benefits depend on this merger. Charter pretends it can offer good service and obey the law only if it gets the merger, but that’s simply not true. In short, no conditions can make this deal OK.
Monopoly power is crushing people: It means fewer choices, higher prices, no accountability and no competition.That’s why we’re fighting this deal.
We’re fighting because we need an Internet that’s open, affordable and competitive. We need a platform that supports independent journalism; provides space for everyone to speak, listen and share; and puts people at the center instead of big corporations. Time and time again hated companies like Charter and Comcast have proven that they can’t be trusted — and they have every incentive to clamp down on our digital future. All these big companies care about is their bottom line — they don’t care about regular people who depend on the Internet.
Free Press and our allies have already delivered more than 300,000 petitions to the FCC, and thousands of people have bombarded the commissioners with phone calls. We’ve made formal legal filings at the FCC opposing the merger, we’ve met with members of Congress — and senators from both parties are speaking out.
The case against this terrible merger is clear. It should be blocked, plain and simple. But if these news reports are true, that’s not what Chairman Wheeler is getting ready to do.
A decision on this takeover could come any day now. Call FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the other commissioners. Tell them to stand again with the people who use the Internet, not the cable companies that want to control it. Tell them to promote choice, protect competition and block this deal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Armstead
(47,803 posts)MEET THE MEN BEHIND MEGA CABLE
The roles of media mogul Dr. John Malone and Charter CEO Tom Rutledge in the proposed merger of Charter and Time Warner Cable are cause for significant concern.
DR. JOHN MALONE: Post-merger, Malone would represent Mega Cable’s largest shareholder, while continuing to own major stakes in various programmers, including Starz, Discovery Communications and Lionsgate. This dual position of power is worrisome particularly considering Malone’s often-stated desire to promote collaboration rather than competition among cable giants.
Remarkably, even with the pending transaction, Malone still made clear his intentions in a panel discussion hosted by the Aspen Institute. First, the mogul describes his approach to managing his various cable-and-broadband assets by saying, “I try to coordinate their behavior, if I can” (found at timestamp 06:25), echoing precisely the widespread concern that the merger would give Charter and other major cable entities the ability and incentive to coordinate efforts to decrease competition and raise prices for consumers.
Then, when asked how he would operate absent the watchful eye of the DOJ/FCC, Malone concedes his instinct would be to “get together with Comcast and have a common random access platform” (found at timestamp 21:40). Finally, he goes on to outline his ideal vision for the cable marketplace, one in which Charter and Comcast consolidate their content and operate “off of one technical platform,” thus creating a singular, universal cable system that could be used by “all of our brethren in the cable industry” (found at timestamp 22:25). That is, Malone’s core vision continues to be a marketplace premised upon collaboration and cooperation among dominant cable providers rather than one of competition that would drive innovation, lower prices and consumer choice.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We have gotten to this sorry state because the New Democrats collaborated with it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Apart from the presidential election, do you think these kinds of mergers are good for America?
Do you think they should be sailing through under Democratic administrations?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, from a consumer's perspective, the provider of the actual cable link and the provider of the cable box should be different companies. Cable boxes are some of the most backward pieces of equipment out there, if there was a standard protocol and anyone could build a box and plug it into the cable signal, they would instantly become much better, and there would be open source alternatives, and all that. They're only still around because the cable companies have monopolies.
So, yeah, you have a point. On the other hand, compared to the difference between Hillary and Trump, this is trivial.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes Trump and te GOP are awful.
But seeing year afterr year and decade after decade of this kind of crap is exactly why so many of are frustrated and fed up.
This is one example of what the Democrats have condoned and even advanced for years.At some point we also have to start demanding that the Democrats stop participating in the transformation of the United States into a Corporate Colony.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)political system. But there are a huge number of places where he oversimplifies things.
As long as we're talking honestly here:
--Dodd Frank was a very significant piece of financial legislation, which Bernie supporters pretty much ignore
--Free Trade Agreements at most account for a small fraction of the increase in income inequality and loss of manufacturing jobs. And this is obvious, because the trend started way before NAFTA or PNTR or any of that.
--Hillary Clinton is, and has always been, well to the left of Bill Clinton, and probably slightly to the left of Obama
--For all the talk about the glory days of JFK and LBJ, the Vietnam war was far, far bigger than all the "warmongering" that people accuse Hillary of supporting
Moreover, and this is the most important thing: by far the biggest reason that Obama hasn't had more progressive accomplishments is GOP obstructionism. It's not even close. Sure, you can pick a few places where Obama wasn't far enough left, but here are just a few things that would have happened if not for the GOP
--ACA would be near-universal, and with a public option and full medicaid expansion, would actually resemble some European systems pretty closely
--The minimum wage would be signficantly higher
--We'd have a comprehensive climate policy, done through law, not just through executive actions
--The stimulus would have been much larger, and millions of people wouldn't have gone through prolonged unemployment
--Taxes on the wealthy would be higher
--A large jobs and infrastructure bill with high-speed rail would have passed
--etc.
The central dishonesty of the Bernie followers is comparing what Obama actually got through congress with proposals that Bernie has made that won't go anywhere. If you look at what Obama tried for and couldn't get passed, it's awesomely progressive. Even what he did get through is pretty darn transformational.
So, sure, there are a few areas where he could have done better, but overall, if we get another 4 years of Obama-style presidency, I would be thrilled.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
onenote
(42,688 posts)Nothing in the 1996 Act addressed or changed the standard of review that governs a merger between multichannel video programming distributors.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)These companies are all so interlocked these days that the tentacles of 1996 deregulation these days affects almost anything to do with electrons.
And all of the other avoiding and undercutting of overall anti-trust regulations are also the product of the policies of Clinton and his fellow centrists, with the help of the GOP.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)As a Charter subscriber, it will only improve my choices and service.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You think the owners are going to take that out of their pockets?.. No bubba....You're gonna get to pay for it.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Anti-competitive, pro monopoly conservative Democrats amaze me.
(But thanks for the kicks for the OP.)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You ended that for me long ago.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But thank you again for the additional
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)a third way of thinking..........evolving into a New Democrat!!!!! Don't worry Moderate Republicans there is still a party for you to join!!!!!!
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)Democrats don't support monopolies. The newspeak in some of the threads is blowing my mind.
I'm back on DU after 10 years and it's beyond belief to see so many good little doggies cheering on their corporate masters, and barking out Repub talking points, seriously wtf happened?
So many "Thank you sir may I have another's" jumping through hoops to claim up is down.
There are no words......
-Ava-
