# FCC OKs AT&T Broadband-Comcast merger



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

Who'd of thunk it?


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

What a shock...


----------



## kornkid81 (Jun 11, 2002)

oh theres a complete shocker


----------



## kornkid81 (Jun 11, 2002)

and whats even funnier is that AT&T serves almost all of los angeles and surronding areas, while comcast picks up the rest, to the desert. So even if moved to another city i would still have the same cable company no matter what...gee what a choice


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

But one DBS company is sooo bad. More likely Charlie didn't bribe those guys with enough $$$!


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

What still surprises me is that this merger is getting approved, yet the Dish/DirecTV merger is denied. The combined subscriber base for AT&T Broadband/Comcast exceeds DirecTV & Dish, even if you include people who have combined subscriptions. 

At least I can see how the DirecTV/Dish merger would benefit subscribers. How does a AT&T/Comcast benefit those subscribers? To make matters worse, some of the cable channels are produced by Comcast, and we can see how they can withhold channels. Thanks to a loophole, one RSN is unavailable to certain subscribers.


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

Now two companies that suck will be one big company that sucks. AT&T serves our area - a suburban city of over 100,000 people and we still have no digital cable and no cable internet service.


----------



## timf (Apr 21, 2002)

I'm not sure why people are surprised that this merger was approved. It's a completely different situation than the D*/E* merger. Combining AT&T and Comcast does not reduce competition in any markets, since each serves separate areas. A DBS merger would eliminate competition in areas with no cable service, as the single DBS provider would be the only option. There are other differences as well, but this is the biggest one.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Since cables are already [government protected] monopolies in their respective franchise areas, there is no reduction in competition for cable subs.

Imagine world peace. Imagine one nationwide cable system. :eek2:


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

Now , how lame is the FCC . Very lame . If they will let cable companies do as pleased and not satelight companies . Then , the FCC is in need of a firing . If , I was running the country 1st jobs would be a #1 issue . second by health care . then total cleaning goverment . That means useless goverment . Gone . history . ados .


----------



## BrettR (Apr 24, 2002)

FCC was partially split, 3 in favor, 1 against the Comcast AT&T merger.



> _Originally posted by Nick _
> *Since cables are already [government protected] monopolies in their respective franchise areas, there is no reduction in competition for cable subs.
> *


There is reduction for program providers and diversity. If Comcast AT&T refuses to carry a basic cable channel, that would be injurious to the channel trying to reach a subscriber base.

The benefits of Comcast AT&T merger is the company will offer telephony, digital cable, and high speed internet to more homes.

But as for programming selection diversity,
FCC will just reassert mustcarry as the solution, so a 12 KW 
station that will only be able to reach 0.5% of the nation's HH that is investing all their money in upgrading to digital (not in programming) will be expected to provide diversity in programming. 

The small cable company in Allentown (45 miles north of Philly) , 
Click here to see their lineup

offers more channels from more program providers than Comcast does in any part of the Philadelphia market. Except they only get 1 PBS. But looking at cable network selections, Service Electric offers more than what Comcast would.

The only programming I dont see Service Electric offering that they should is NBA League Pass. But, they do have high speed internet and HDTV and bundling of services which is cheaper than Comcast here.


----------



## BrettR (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by SParker _
> *But one DBS company is sooo bad. More likely Charlie didn't bribe those guys with enough $$$! *


Comcast sponsored the Republican Convention in Philly few years ago.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Why does it matter? You guys still have 3 choices. DirecTV, Dish and Cable... Doesn't change a thing.


----------



## belsokar (Jul 2, 2002)

"...Why does it matter?..."

I just don't understand why cable is held to a different standard than satellite...I have never lived anywhere where I had a choice between 2 cable companies...so why should I be expected to have a choice between 2 satellite companies? Some say rural areas end up losing their choices...well, when I live in an area where for whatever reason I can't get satellite, I am down to once choice as well, CABLE!!! and its a crappy choice at that...the reason cable companies are not held to the same standards is money, plain and simple...money gets the right people in the right positions....to allow or disallow whatever will help your own monopoly...its corruption at its worst...the very organization that is supposed to protect the consumer ends up protecting the monopoly that cable has held for many decades...its bull****, and the best I can do is stick to satellite no matter what...and hope that over time, my friends, family, coworkers, etc will all see the benefits of this medium and shift the balance of power...


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But cable is already a monopoly... It doesn't change anything... :shrug:


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Charlie did not Kiss FCC and FTC butt properly. :shrug:


----------



## markh (Mar 24, 2002)

Excuse me, but with the AT&T-Comcast merger, don't you lose the possibillity of one of those companies moving into the other's area? If for example Comcast's service is so bad in a city that they get fed up and toss them out, there is one less competitor to replace them. I'm not sure if that ever happens in larger cities, but in smaller towns around here it does once in a while.

I agree with Chris, Charlie did not deliver proper butt kissing or fill the proper pockets with cash to get the merger done. Cable was terrified of a combined ED*. The only non-competitve thing about it was that cable couldn't have competed against them.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by markh _
> *Excuse me, but with the AT&T-Comcast merger, don't you lose the possibillity of one of those companies moving into the other's area? *


Those days are long gone. Even without this merger there isn't much choice with these mega cable companies. I'd like to see cities take back their cable systems and offer the service themselves much like sewer, water or gas...


----------

