Aa
Comcast/ TimeWarner merger will create monopoly on media
Former FCC Commissioner Warns About Comcast-Time Warner Merger, "Mindless" Media Consolidation
Comcast has announced plans to buy Time Warner Cable at a cost of more than $45 billion in stock. The takeover would allow Comcast to provide cable service to a third of American households and give it a virtual monopoly in 19 of the 20 largest media markets. While Comcast has claimed the deal will be "pro-consumer," the group Free Press warns the deal would be a "disaster" for consumers. Analysts predict Comcast will launch a lobbying blitz similar to when it won approval to take over NBCUniversal in 2011. Comcast has already hired FCCCommissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who signed off on its NBCdeal. We speak to another former FCC commissioner, Michael Copps. He now leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.
TRANSCRIPT
@ http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/17/former_fcc_commissioner_warns_about_comcast
Comcast has announced plans to buy Time Warner Cable at a cost of more than $45 billion in stock. The takeover would allow Comcast to provide cable service to a third of American households and give it a virtual monopoly in 19 of the 20 largest media markets. While Comcast has claimed the deal will be "pro-consumer," the group Free Press warns the deal would be a "disaster" for consumers. Analysts predict Comcast will launch a lobbying blitz similar to when it won approval to take over NBCUniversal in 2011. Comcast has already hired FCCCommissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, who signed off on its NBCdeal. We speak to another former FCC commissioner, Michael Copps. He now leads the Media and Democracy Reform Initiative at Common Cause.
TRANSCRIPT
@ http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/17/former_fcc_commissioner_warns_about_comcast
Web control has begun. I got this when trying to look at a site.
Oops! Google Chrome could not find fivethirtyeight.com
Try reloading: fivethirtyeight.com
Oops! Google Chrome could not find fivethirtyeight.com
Try reloading: fivethirtyeight.com
How net neutrality affects you and 4 reasons why you should care
Heinan Landa, Contributing Writer
Mar 11, 2014, 2:00pm EDT
You’ve probably heard about “net neutrality” and have wondered why you should care. Yes, you should care – but for reasons that may be different than you think.
First, the basics:
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data on the Internet equally – not charging differently based on user, content, site, platform or application. This is what makes the Internet great – we are free to decide what content we create, access or share with others.
Under the rules of net neutrality, it’s an even playing field. ISPs can't charge you different rates or change the speed of your Internet depending on what you happen to be doing at that moment. Likewise, they can’t dictate access and speed to companies delivering content to us over the web.
However, in mid-January, in a case brought by Verizon, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules. The ruling allows Internet providers to impose fees on companies that drive lots of Internet traffic (like Netflix) to ensure streaming, fast, and uninterrupted delivery.
Four reasons why you should care:
1. We will lose control of the Internet
ISPs will control the content we see. Your broadband service could be tiered, just like your cable TV service. For the platinum package, you could have access to everything the Internet has to offer and be guaranteed a certain quality. But, at a lower price point your access and quality could be compromised. It gives ISPs the power to impair or improve your access to a website depending on how it benefits them.
2. ISPs are now in the middle – and that puts us in the middle
Traditionally, the content provider (anyone with a website) posted content, and we accessed it. ISPs simply provided the Internet (the delivery medium) just like a phone line. This latest ruling inserts ISPs as active participants in the middle of this relationship.
3. Free market competition is no more
Start-ups and smaller businesses won’t be able to pay the fees ISPs will charge to show their content. The Internet will start to be “sponsored” and the haves will get more access to Internet users than the have-nots. This could prevent the next Google from getting off the ground. Innovation will be stifled because start-ups and small and medium sized businesses (SMBs) will be at a disadvantage before they even get out of the gates. Consumers will suffer because this means less access to new services. The ability of most businesses to compete with the giants is torn to shreds.
4. A positive resolution is uncertain
As of February 19, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said that instead of appealing the Verizon ruling, it will attempt to craft new rules that prevent ISPs from charging companies like Netflix to reach consumers at the highest speeds. However, the rules will not be completed until late spring or early summer.
Now, ISPs can strike deals with content providers to ensure premium delivery. Already, Netflix must pay Comcast directly to ensure superior streaming to subscribers. Netflix could be forced to pass along any extra charges to consumers. If Netflix refuses to make similar deals with other Internet providers, they can now legally “punish” Netflix by limiting loading speeds. It puts us in the middle of disputes between large companies over service fees.
SEE ALSO: Why you shouldn't freak out (too much) about the Netflix-Comcast deal
From Comcast's (and other ISPs) point of view, they are spending more time and money to support providers running large streaming websites (like Netflix) and people who are using certain Internet applications that require more bandwidth and higher quality of service. And they want to be paid for it.
This idea certainly has some merit, but only in an environment where there is significantly more competition. Where I live, home Internet service is monopolized by Comcast and Verizon, making competition between the two laughable at best. Without competition OR net neutrality, consumers and small businesses will suffer.
What does it all mean?
Well, it’s not good. It introduces an economic content filter of sorts, breaking the essential premise of the Internet (level access for everyone).
As an executive, do you want someone between you and your customers? As an Internet user, do you want limited access to content? Although the FCC seems to be in response mode, will they be in time?
We don’t yet know what the net effect of all of this will be, but this ruling – and the aftermath – could change our relationship with the Internet (and those who provide content over the Internet) into the foreseeable future. Are you worried?
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/technology/2014/03/how-net-neutrality-affects-you-and-4-reasons-why.html?page=all
Heinan Landa, Contributing Writer
Mar 11, 2014, 2:00pm EDT
You’ve probably heard about “net neutrality” and have wondered why you should care. Yes, you should care – but for reasons that may be different than you think.
First, the basics:
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data on the Internet equally – not charging differently based on user, content, site, platform or application. This is what makes the Internet great – we are free to decide what content we create, access or share with others.
Under the rules of net neutrality, it’s an even playing field. ISPs can't charge you different rates or change the speed of your Internet depending on what you happen to be doing at that moment. Likewise, they can’t dictate access and speed to companies delivering content to us over the web.
However, in mid-January, in a case brought by Verizon, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules. The ruling allows Internet providers to impose fees on companies that drive lots of Internet traffic (like Netflix) to ensure streaming, fast, and uninterrupted delivery.
Four reasons why you should care:
1. We will lose control of the Internet
ISPs will control the content we see. Your broadband service could be tiered, just like your cable TV service. For the platinum package, you could have access to everything the Internet has to offer and be guaranteed a certain quality. But, at a lower price point your access and quality could be compromised. It gives ISPs the power to impair or improve your access to a website depending on how it benefits them.
2. ISPs are now in the middle – and that puts us in the middle
Traditionally, the content provider (anyone with a website) posted content, and we accessed it. ISPs simply provided the Internet (the delivery medium) just like a phone line. This latest ruling inserts ISPs as active participants in the middle of this relationship.
3. Free market competition is no more
Start-ups and smaller businesses won’t be able to pay the fees ISPs will charge to show their content. The Internet will start to be “sponsored” and the haves will get more access to Internet users than the have-nots. This could prevent the next Google from getting off the ground. Innovation will be stifled because start-ups and small and medium sized businesses (SMBs) will be at a disadvantage before they even get out of the gates. Consumers will suffer because this means less access to new services. The ability of most businesses to compete with the giants is torn to shreds.
4. A positive resolution is uncertain
As of February 19, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said that instead of appealing the Verizon ruling, it will attempt to craft new rules that prevent ISPs from charging companies like Netflix to reach consumers at the highest speeds. However, the rules will not be completed until late spring or early summer.
Now, ISPs can strike deals with content providers to ensure premium delivery. Already, Netflix must pay Comcast directly to ensure superior streaming to subscribers. Netflix could be forced to pass along any extra charges to consumers. If Netflix refuses to make similar deals with other Internet providers, they can now legally “punish” Netflix by limiting loading speeds. It puts us in the middle of disputes between large companies over service fees.
SEE ALSO: Why you shouldn't freak out (too much) about the Netflix-Comcast deal
From Comcast's (and other ISPs) point of view, they are spending more time and money to support providers running large streaming websites (like Netflix) and people who are using certain Internet applications that require more bandwidth and higher quality of service. And they want to be paid for it.
This idea certainly has some merit, but only in an environment where there is significantly more competition. Where I live, home Internet service is monopolized by Comcast and Verizon, making competition between the two laughable at best. Without competition OR net neutrality, consumers and small businesses will suffer.
What does it all mean?
Well, it’s not good. It introduces an economic content filter of sorts, breaking the essential premise of the Internet (level access for everyone).
As an executive, do you want someone between you and your customers? As an Internet user, do you want limited access to content? Although the FCC seems to be in response mode, will they be in time?
We don’t yet know what the net effect of all of this will be, but this ruling – and the aftermath – could change our relationship with the Internet (and those who provide content over the Internet) into the foreseeable future. Are you worried?
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/technology/2014/03/how-net-neutrality-affects-you-and-4-reasons-why.html?page=all
Yes, but Obama didn't begin this~ ( and I'm not at all happy that he's continued to make things even worse)
9-11 was a great opportunity to erode our freedoms while calling it protection.
9-11 was a great opportunity to erode our freedoms while calling it protection.
Why the Comcast-Time Warner Deal Is Far More Dangerous Than You Think
Part 2
Breaking the Internet Backbone
That is just one of the ways Comcast could gain leverage in this new world of communications and programming. One thing often overlooked in the internet game — because it happens behind the scenes, in the arcane world of network switches and routers — is the vital role of internet infrastructure companies like Level 3. If Comcast merges with Time Warner, the new behemoth would have added control over its relationship with these providers.
Whereas Comcast runs internet connections to homes, a company like Level 3 runs the networks at the core of the internet. It’s a symbiotic relationship that delivers content to the world’s consumers. In acquiring Time Warner Cable, Comcast would be in a stronger position to negotiate the deals that govern the exchange of traffic with companies like Level 3, giving it even more power to dictate if and when certain traffic is treated differently.
Similar issues bubbled to the surface in recent years when Comcast fought a very public battle with Level 3 over its “peering” relationship with the company. At the heart of the matter was the massive amounts of video from companies like Netflix that Level 3 was sending over Comcast’s network without paying a fee.
These types of relationships are complicated, but the bottom line here it that we could be inching toward a world in which the core of the internet rests in the hands of just a few large companies. “The worry is that we have fewer and fewer interconnection points among networks,” says Griffin. “We not quite sure how this is going to go, but this could push things even further in that direction.”
Comcast, the NFL Channel
Control of content. Net Neutrality. Internet backbone traffic. Although these things effect the content we see on our devices and the price we pay for it, they aren’t something people spend much time thinking about. But what about professional football? That might get people’s attention.
If Comcast and Time Warner Cable merge, the company could be in a position to negotiate directly with Big Sports for access to games. In other words, it could go straight to the NFL to negotiate for live football games, rather than going through a TV channel like ESPN. This gives Comcast added power over the likes of Disney, which owns ESPN, and other companies that run TV networks. But it could also change the television landscape in other ways.
In short, it could lead to more situations where particular content is only available to people who pay for cable television. What consumers really want is a world in which all content is available on all the devices, from TVs to PCs, tablets, and phones. But in many cases, cable providers and TV channels are ensuring that you can only watch their content online if you pay for a cable connection. NBC’s coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games is a case in point.
In a world where Comcast merges with Time Warner and has yet more power to control content, this situation may only worsen, says John Bergmayer, another senior staff attorney with Public Knowledge. “What if the NFL made an online product that was only available to customers of certain internet service providers?” he says. “That’s really not that different from things we’re already seeing, where there’s online content but you have to verify you’re a cable subscribers before you can assess it. It’s a way of tying the internet to cable TV.”
As it stands, Bergmayer says, the Federal Communications Commission is — with rare exceptions — no longer enforcing old rules that would force cable companies to share sports packages and other content with competitors. “Those rules worked against any cable company that wanted exclusive,” he says, “but they have largely been sunsetted.”
To wit, regulators couldn’t stop a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable from, say, walling off access to certain NFL games unless they changed the existing regulatory rules. But Bergmayer says there’s an easier way to deal with the issue. “The best way forward,” he explains, “is to just prevent anticompetitive mergers.”
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/comcasts-45bn-time-warner-buy-change-everything/
Part 2
Breaking the Internet Backbone
That is just one of the ways Comcast could gain leverage in this new world of communications and programming. One thing often overlooked in the internet game — because it happens behind the scenes, in the arcane world of network switches and routers — is the vital role of internet infrastructure companies like Level 3. If Comcast merges with Time Warner, the new behemoth would have added control over its relationship with these providers.
Whereas Comcast runs internet connections to homes, a company like Level 3 runs the networks at the core of the internet. It’s a symbiotic relationship that delivers content to the world’s consumers. In acquiring Time Warner Cable, Comcast would be in a stronger position to negotiate the deals that govern the exchange of traffic with companies like Level 3, giving it even more power to dictate if and when certain traffic is treated differently.
Similar issues bubbled to the surface in recent years when Comcast fought a very public battle with Level 3 over its “peering” relationship with the company. At the heart of the matter was the massive amounts of video from companies like Netflix that Level 3 was sending over Comcast’s network without paying a fee.
These types of relationships are complicated, but the bottom line here it that we could be inching toward a world in which the core of the internet rests in the hands of just a few large companies. “The worry is that we have fewer and fewer interconnection points among networks,” says Griffin. “We not quite sure how this is going to go, but this could push things even further in that direction.”
Comcast, the NFL Channel
Control of content. Net Neutrality. Internet backbone traffic. Although these things effect the content we see on our devices and the price we pay for it, they aren’t something people spend much time thinking about. But what about professional football? That might get people’s attention.
If Comcast and Time Warner Cable merge, the company could be in a position to negotiate directly with Big Sports for access to games. In other words, it could go straight to the NFL to negotiate for live football games, rather than going through a TV channel like ESPN. This gives Comcast added power over the likes of Disney, which owns ESPN, and other companies that run TV networks. But it could also change the television landscape in other ways.
In short, it could lead to more situations where particular content is only available to people who pay for cable television. What consumers really want is a world in which all content is available on all the devices, from TVs to PCs, tablets, and phones. But in many cases, cable providers and TV channels are ensuring that you can only watch their content online if you pay for a cable connection. NBC’s coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games is a case in point.
In a world where Comcast merges with Time Warner and has yet more power to control content, this situation may only worsen, says John Bergmayer, another senior staff attorney with Public Knowledge. “What if the NFL made an online product that was only available to customers of certain internet service providers?” he says. “That’s really not that different from things we’re already seeing, where there’s online content but you have to verify you’re a cable subscribers before you can assess it. It’s a way of tying the internet to cable TV.”
As it stands, Bergmayer says, the Federal Communications Commission is — with rare exceptions — no longer enforcing old rules that would force cable companies to share sports packages and other content with competitors. “Those rules worked against any cable company that wanted exclusive,” he says, “but they have largely been sunsetted.”
To wit, regulators couldn’t stop a combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable from, say, walling off access to certain NFL games unless they changed the existing regulatory rules. But Bergmayer says there’s an easier way to deal with the issue. “The best way forward,” he explains, “is to just prevent anticompetitive mergers.”
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/comcasts-45bn-time-warner-buy-change-everything/
Why the Comcast-Time Warner Deal Is Far More Dangerous Than You Think
Part 1
The Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal is bigger than you think.
In agreeing to pay $45 billion for Time Warner Cable, Comcast hopes to create not only an enormous cable TV provider, but the largest broadband internet provider in the United States and a company that controls about half of all “triple play” services, which bundle cable TV and broadband alongside internet-based telephone connections.
And that only begins to describe the magnitude of the deal.
If approved by federal regulators, the merger would reverberate through myriad markets beyond the cable TV, commercial broadband, and telephone industries. The deal could impact satellite TV, television programmers like ESPN and Fox, online video providers like Netflix and YouTube, and the massive networks at the very heart of the internet.
Announced this morning, the pact certainly makes sense for Comcast — already the nation’s largest cable provider — giving it far more power to compete in the rapidly changing communications world. The company expects to close the deal by the end of year. But because it affects so many industries, the merger of the nation’s two biggest cable outfits is sure to receive intense scrutiny from regulators. The government may even block the deal, as it did with the proposed merger between wireless phone service providers AT&T and T-Mobile in 2011.
Many public advocates oppose the proposed merger, saying it would ultimately mean consumers pay more money for both their communication services and their everyday entertainment. “We think a Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger would give Comcast unprecedented gatekeeper power–both on the content side and the user side–in a variety of communications markets,” says Jodie Griffin, senior staff attorney for Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that believes in open access to media. “The FCC and the anti-trust authorities need to block it.”
Others argue that regulatory policies and market forces already exist to keep the combined company in check, that Comcast-Time Warner would still have key incentives to improve its infrastructure and drive down prices. “Any merger of this size deserves close scrutiny, but…there’s real competition for Comcast from providers with other platforms,” says Randolph May, the president of the Free State Foundation, a think tank that specializes in communication issues. “I think that things will remain competitive, because of telephone companies and satellite TV providers and wireless companies as well as other cable companies.”
But the issues go far beyond whether consumers have access to other types of services. Most importantly, this merger would give Comcast added leverage in its relationships with television channels, content providers such as Netflix, and the companies that operate the infrastructure underpinning the internet. That could shift the balance in the battle over net neutrality, which seeks to prevent companies like Comcast from discriminating against traffic from providers like Netflix, and it could create a world in which there are even more walls dividing what and how you view content online.
Comcast, the TV Channel
This isn’t the first time Comcast has tried to navigate such waters. It has already acquired NBCUniversal, the major TV channel and movie producer. Regulators spent about a year scrutinizing the deal, and ultimately placed some restrictions on the combined company.
Since merging with NBC, Comcast not only offers TV and internet service, it provides all sorts of content for those services. It could give preferential treatment to NBC channels and content, or decline to share that content with competing services. But in negotiating with regulators, Comcast agreed to share its programming with other providers and to follow the FCC’s open internet rules, which require internet service providers to, in most cases, treat all traffic equally.
On one level, this appears to bode well for a Comcast-Time Warner merger, as it suggests regulators could enforce similar rules across a combined company. But the FCC open internet rules — aka net neutrality — were recently struck down by a federal court, and it seems a provider like Comcast can now discriminate against traffic as it sees fit, asking companies like Netflix, for example, to pay extra in order to have its content delivered at high speed. Comcast has said it will honor its agreement with the FCC, but this issue is hardly cut and dry.
The fact that Comcast owns NBC only makes the Time Warner deal more complicated, according to Sarah Morris, the policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute. “It underscores the integrated nature of the industry and the potential harms that might result,” she says.
One of the big losers could be the Netflixes and the YouTubes. As Jodie Griffin of Public Knowledge notes, with Time Warner Cable under its belt, Comcast would have even more power to squeeze money from online video companies. “Netflix is in the unenviable position of needing to find ways to get a whole lot of data over these networks to users who are asking for it,” she says. “As Comcast acquires more subscribers, it have more leverage against the content companies.”
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/comcasts-45bn-time-warner-buy-change-everything/
(continued)
Part 1
The Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal is bigger than you think.
In agreeing to pay $45 billion for Time Warner Cable, Comcast hopes to create not only an enormous cable TV provider, but the largest broadband internet provider in the United States and a company that controls about half of all “triple play” services, which bundle cable TV and broadband alongside internet-based telephone connections.
And that only begins to describe the magnitude of the deal.
If approved by federal regulators, the merger would reverberate through myriad markets beyond the cable TV, commercial broadband, and telephone industries. The deal could impact satellite TV, television programmers like ESPN and Fox, online video providers like Netflix and YouTube, and the massive networks at the very heart of the internet.
Announced this morning, the pact certainly makes sense for Comcast — already the nation’s largest cable provider — giving it far more power to compete in the rapidly changing communications world. The company expects to close the deal by the end of year. But because it affects so many industries, the merger of the nation’s two biggest cable outfits is sure to receive intense scrutiny from regulators. The government may even block the deal, as it did with the proposed merger between wireless phone service providers AT&T and T-Mobile in 2011.
Many public advocates oppose the proposed merger, saying it would ultimately mean consumers pay more money for both their communication services and their everyday entertainment. “We think a Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger would give Comcast unprecedented gatekeeper power–both on the content side and the user side–in a variety of communications markets,” says Jodie Griffin, senior staff attorney for Public Knowledge, an advocacy group that believes in open access to media. “The FCC and the anti-trust authorities need to block it.”
Others argue that regulatory policies and market forces already exist to keep the combined company in check, that Comcast-Time Warner would still have key incentives to improve its infrastructure and drive down prices. “Any merger of this size deserves close scrutiny, but…there’s real competition for Comcast from providers with other platforms,” says Randolph May, the president of the Free State Foundation, a think tank that specializes in communication issues. “I think that things will remain competitive, because of telephone companies and satellite TV providers and wireless companies as well as other cable companies.”
But the issues go far beyond whether consumers have access to other types of services. Most importantly, this merger would give Comcast added leverage in its relationships with television channels, content providers such as Netflix, and the companies that operate the infrastructure underpinning the internet. That could shift the balance in the battle over net neutrality, which seeks to prevent companies like Comcast from discriminating against traffic from providers like Netflix, and it could create a world in which there are even more walls dividing what and how you view content online.
Comcast, the TV Channel
This isn’t the first time Comcast has tried to navigate such waters. It has already acquired NBCUniversal, the major TV channel and movie producer. Regulators spent about a year scrutinizing the deal, and ultimately placed some restrictions on the combined company.
Since merging with NBC, Comcast not only offers TV and internet service, it provides all sorts of content for those services. It could give preferential treatment to NBC channels and content, or decline to share that content with competing services. But in negotiating with regulators, Comcast agreed to share its programming with other providers and to follow the FCC’s open internet rules, which require internet service providers to, in most cases, treat all traffic equally.
On one level, this appears to bode well for a Comcast-Time Warner merger, as it suggests regulators could enforce similar rules across a combined company. But the FCC open internet rules — aka net neutrality — were recently struck down by a federal court, and it seems a provider like Comcast can now discriminate against traffic as it sees fit, asking companies like Netflix, for example, to pay extra in order to have its content delivered at high speed. Comcast has said it will honor its agreement with the FCC, but this issue is hardly cut and dry.
The fact that Comcast owns NBC only makes the Time Warner deal more complicated, according to Sarah Morris, the policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute. “It underscores the integrated nature of the industry and the potential harms that might result,” she says.
One of the big losers could be the Netflixes and the YouTubes. As Jodie Griffin of Public Knowledge notes, with Time Warner Cable under its belt, Comcast would have even more power to squeeze money from online video companies. “Netflix is in the unenviable position of needing to find ways to get a whole lot of data over these networks to users who are asking for it,” she says. “As Comcast acquires more subscribers, it have more leverage against the content companies.”
http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/comcasts-45bn-time-warner-buy-change-everything/
(continued)
Comcast's mega-merger changes more than your TV
By now you know last week's big cable news: giant Comcast (CMCSA) is acquiring lesser giant Time Warner Cable (TWC) in a $45 billion stock deal. It will add about 11 million new subscribers to Comcast's current cache of 22 million customers. The combined base represents more than a third of all cable subscribers in the U.S. But there's more to the story than just TV service.
First and foremost, the merger will reshape the broadband landscape in the U.S. Since Comcast and Time Warner Cable don't have overlapping markets, this will dramatically increase Comcast's reach into new cities across the country. With those additional subscribers, Comcast will have new power to negotiate with companies like streaming-video service Netflix (NFLX), which currently accounts for between a third and a half of all the network traffic in the country.
It should also help Comcast build a defense against rival broadband providers like Verizon's (VZ) FiOS and Dish Network (DISH), which operate within Comcast's territories and compete directly against it.
How will this affect consumers? In the short term, Time Warner Cable customers should expect to see changes to their service that mirror how Comcast operates. For example, Comcast currently imposes data caps (around 300 GB per month) on residential customers. Time Warner Cable doesn't, but a post-merger Time Warner Cable will likely match that cap, degrading service to existing customers.
This is akin to the blackout power that cable companies have today for TV broadcasts. When operators and content providers can't reach licensing agreements, the cable companies can remove certain content or even entire channels. This happened last year, for example, when Time Warner Cable blocked CBS (CBS) for several months. A larger cable operator with broader national reach will only increase this kind of leverage, both for TV and Internet service.
Longer term, fewer major players in broadband and TV mean fewer customers for hardware manufacturers selling routers and set-top boxes directly to cable companies -- and that's likely to mean higher prices passed on to consumers in a few years.
Here's another important element of the deal few people are talking about: The cable companies' Wi-Fi networks. Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have built out their own network of Wi-Fi hotspots in major cities around the U.S. Interestingly, they've also partnered with other cable providers (notably, Cox Communications) on a project called CableWiFi, which operates about 200,000 hotspots today. Subscribers to any of the cable company members get free access to any hotspot in the network.
What's notable is that Comcast has recently started leveraging its customers' routers as publicly accessible hotspots (though strangers can't access the customers' personal Wi-Fi networks). With the merger, that means Comcast will be able to build out this unique residential hotspot network using Time Warner Cable customers as well. The legality of this is still largely untested.
Do consumers have options? Not many: It's really up to the feds if this merger will go through, and the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have a history of being relatively insensitive to consumer feedback on issues like this. If you live in a region where you have cable competition, you can investigate alternatives to Comcast or Time Warner Cable.
Another, more realistic option: Cut the cord entirely. If you're concerned about the rising costs and fewer innovations in TV service, it's entirely possible to eliminate your cable and rely on the Internet to get your entertainment using devices like Google Chromecast, Apple TV and Roku. Unfortunately, that's a bit of a Catch-22 because you'll likely rely on a cable provider for the Internet service to take advantage of those gadgets.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/comcasts-time-warner-cable-merger-changes-your-internet/
By now you know last week's big cable news: giant Comcast (CMCSA) is acquiring lesser giant Time Warner Cable (TWC) in a $45 billion stock deal. It will add about 11 million new subscribers to Comcast's current cache of 22 million customers. The combined base represents more than a third of all cable subscribers in the U.S. But there's more to the story than just TV service.
First and foremost, the merger will reshape the broadband landscape in the U.S. Since Comcast and Time Warner Cable don't have overlapping markets, this will dramatically increase Comcast's reach into new cities across the country. With those additional subscribers, Comcast will have new power to negotiate with companies like streaming-video service Netflix (NFLX), which currently accounts for between a third and a half of all the network traffic in the country.
It should also help Comcast build a defense against rival broadband providers like Verizon's (VZ) FiOS and Dish Network (DISH), which operate within Comcast's territories and compete directly against it.
How will this affect consumers? In the short term, Time Warner Cable customers should expect to see changes to their service that mirror how Comcast operates. For example, Comcast currently imposes data caps (around 300 GB per month) on residential customers. Time Warner Cable doesn't, but a post-merger Time Warner Cable will likely match that cap, degrading service to existing customers.
This is akin to the blackout power that cable companies have today for TV broadcasts. When operators and content providers can't reach licensing agreements, the cable companies can remove certain content or even entire channels. This happened last year, for example, when Time Warner Cable blocked CBS (CBS) for several months. A larger cable operator with broader national reach will only increase this kind of leverage, both for TV and Internet service.
Longer term, fewer major players in broadband and TV mean fewer customers for hardware manufacturers selling routers and set-top boxes directly to cable companies -- and that's likely to mean higher prices passed on to consumers in a few years.
Here's another important element of the deal few people are talking about: The cable companies' Wi-Fi networks. Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have built out their own network of Wi-Fi hotspots in major cities around the U.S. Interestingly, they've also partnered with other cable providers (notably, Cox Communications) on a project called CableWiFi, which operates about 200,000 hotspots today. Subscribers to any of the cable company members get free access to any hotspot in the network.
What's notable is that Comcast has recently started leveraging its customers' routers as publicly accessible hotspots (though strangers can't access the customers' personal Wi-Fi networks). With the merger, that means Comcast will be able to build out this unique residential hotspot network using Time Warner Cable customers as well. The legality of this is still largely untested.
Do consumers have options? Not many: It's really up to the feds if this merger will go through, and the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have a history of being relatively insensitive to consumer feedback on issues like this. If you live in a region where you have cable competition, you can investigate alternatives to Comcast or Time Warner Cable.
Another, more realistic option: Cut the cord entirely. If you're concerned about the rising costs and fewer innovations in TV service, it's entirely possible to eliminate your cable and rely on the Internet to get your entertainment using devices like Google Chromecast, Apple TV and Roku. Unfortunately, that's a bit of a Catch-22 because you'll likely rely on a cable provider for the Internet service to take advantage of those gadgets.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/comcasts-time-warner-cable-merger-changes-your-internet/
No Mike, please show it to me. You can't because you speak with ego and not facts.
Where I live, they do not have cable access as yet as not enuff houses in my area to make it profitable. So I have dish satelite. Yes it requires a two year contract but the first year I pay like 30.00 a month and it doubles the second year but the practice is to switch it out the second year to a competitor and you can get it for about 20.00 or 30.00 from them as well and they pay the termination fee for buy out of the contract.
Every time it rains, gone is the signal......Lots of people have gone to live streaming or netflix for 10.00 bucks a month but no local channels with that.
My guess is they will end up regulating everything and that includes the internet to control things like live streaming from competitors.
I long for the days of a old antenna on top of the house.
Every time it rains, gone is the signal......Lots of people have gone to live streaming or netflix for 10.00 bucks a month but no local channels with that.
My guess is they will end up regulating everything and that includes the internet to control things like live streaming from competitors.
I long for the days of a old antenna on top of the house.
"to try to make people believe he's trying to preserve freedom, when in fact, he's trying to take freedom away."
Isn't Obama giving the masses the freedom (heavy handedly trying to force private enterprises involvement) to get a newgovernment "myIRA" (lol)
In which "the accounts will solely invest in government savings bonds. They will also be backed by the U.S. government, meaning that savers can never lose their principal investment."--never lose their money but make almost nothing on interest while financing the massive US debt.
He's a con artist,apparently not content with just the huge profits the government is making on their seizure of fannie and freddie..--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-21/fannie-mae-to-pay-u-s-7-2-bln-after-quarterly-profit.html
Isn't Obama giving the masses the freedom (heavy handedly trying to force private enterprises involvement) to get a newgovernment "myIRA" (lol)
In which "the accounts will solely invest in government savings bonds. They will also be backed by the U.S. government, meaning that savers can never lose their principal investment."--never lose their money but make almost nothing on interest while financing the massive US debt.
He's a con artist,apparently not content with just the huge profits the government is making on their seizure of fannie and freddie..--
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-21/fannie-mae-to-pay-u-s-7-2-bln-after-quarterly-profit.html
"The easiest way to manipulate people is to let them think they are free when in fact, they are not." I've read that this is an Obama tactic -- to try to make people believe he's trying to preserve freedom, when in fact, he's trying to take freedom away.
If only something being against the constitution stopped the ugliness being done to the American public we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.
The easiest way to manipulate people is to let them think they are free when in fact, they are not.
The easiest way to manipulate people is to let them think they are free when in fact, they are not.
Your dementia seems to be rearing its ugly head again.
So what people from the right do you hear saying all of that?
All I hear from the right are:
They're trying to take our guns?
They're spying on us and recording meta-data of our communications.
They're trying to redistribute our wealth.
And blah blah blah blah.
But they'd never allow someone to curtail or regulate or over-price our internet access. No way!?????
They're trying to take our guns?
They're spying on us and recording meta-data of our communications.
They're trying to redistribute our wealth.
And blah blah blah blah.
But they'd never allow someone to curtail or regulate or over-price our internet access. No way!?????
The people, if the government tried then it would go against the Constitution. Business wise another company would start up and make billions from the profits that everyone would switch to them if it was tried.
Iran and Venezulela are not free countries like America.
Iran and Venezulela are not free countries like America.
Who's going to stop them?
I am not saying that in tech terms it can't be done. In freedom terms it can't be done.
Yes indeed, it can be done.
Yes, the faster speeds we pay for make surfing the internet much faster.
If you think they can't control the internet, you might want to take a look at the following article about Venezuela.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20140221/DAC3LQ480.html
Internet a crucial Venezuela battleground
Feb 21, 9:05 AM (ET)
By FRANK BAJAK
LIMA, Peru (AP) - The battle for Venezuela is being fought as vigorously online as in the streets, with authorities cutting off the Internet to a clash-torn university city and blocking selected websites and a "walkie-talkie" service widely used by protesters.
A local TV reporter in San Cristobal, capital of the western border state of Tachira, said Thursday night that she could hear gunshots as tear-gas-firing police broke up protests just as they had the night before when Internet service was cut.
"We're still without Internet. And some people don't have water or electricity either," said the reporter, Beatriz Font.
San Cristobal, home to one private and three public universities, is where the current wave of anti-government demonstrations began on Feb. 2, the fiercest unrest since President Hugo Chavez died last March.
Later Thursday, the U.S. company Zello told The Associated Press that Venezuela's state-run telecoms company, CANTV, had just blocked access to the push-to-talk "walkie-talkie" app for smart phones and computers that has been a hugely popular organizing tool for protesters from Egypt to Ukraine.
Zello supports up to 600 users on a single channel, and company CEO Bill Moore said it became the No. 1 app in Ukraine on Thursday for both the iOS and Android operating systems. In one day this week, Zello reported more than 150,000 downloads in Venezuela.
Some believe Venezuela's information war, which escalated last week as the government blocked images on Twitter after violence in Caracas claimed three lives, is only just beginning. The protesters are fed up with a catalog of woes that include rampant inflation, food shortages and one of the world's highest murder rates.
The socialist government cemented its near-monopoly on broadcast media Chavez's 14-year-rule, and social media have been crucial for young opposition activists as they organize and exchange information on deaths, injuries and arrests.
Net-savvy activists reported a serious nationwide degradation Thursday in Internet service provided by CANTV, which handles about 90 percent of the country's traffic.
They said websites including NTN24.com, run by the eponymous Colombia-based regional news network, and pastebin.com, bulletin boards that cyberactivists use to anonymously share information, were being blocked.
President Nicolas Maduro had ordered NTN24 removed from air last week after it broadcast video of a student killed by a gunshot to the head in Caracas.
U.S.-based company Renesys, a top analyzer of global Internet traffic, confirmed the website blocking and service degradation, but said it could not determine if CANTV was decreasing bandwidth.
"I certainly don't know from our data if it is deliberate, although given the context, it seems plausible," said Renesys researcher Doug Madory.
Venezuela's traffic to its close ally Cuba over the ALBA-1 undersea cable, meanwhile, appeared unaffected, he said.
Programmer and cyberactivist Jose Luis Rivas, who is from San Cristobal but did give his location fearing persecution, said the Internet went out in most of the city of 600,000 about midnight Wednesday.
All across Venezuela since protests accelerated last week, activists have posted online YouTube videos of riot police and national guard breaking them up. Sometimes, the security forces are accompanied by pistol-packing motorcycle gangs of Chavista loyalists that the opposition also blames for killings and other abuses.
Rivas said that on Wednesday night, before the Internet went out in San Cristobal, people were live-streaming video of a crackdown by security forces.
Cutting the Internet deprived people of their only access to uncensored information and Rivas said people told him "they felt fear because they were no longer informed."
Government officials have not commented on the Internet outage and did not respond to Associated Press queries on either it or the service degradation and website blocking.
Spokespeople for Conatel, the government telecommunications regulator, and the Ministry of Information, said they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Conatel's director, William Castillo, tweeted Thursday that social networks were being "invaded by cybercriminals who are attacking accounts and manipulating information."
Information Minister Delcy Rodriguez used Twitter complain that they were being used to incite "coup-directed violence and create anguish."
Hacktivists have been attacking government websites from abroad, rendering many unreachable with denial-of-service attacks, or data-packet floods.
Images, meanwhile, have been available on Twitter since last week's brief outage. Company spokesman Nu Wexler said Thursday that measures which he did not specify were taken to "ensure continuity of service." Twitter also continued to tweet a workaround that lets users in Venezuela to receive tweets on their cellphones via text message.
Venezuela has been blocking websites that track the black market rate for the country's currency for months, and for a number of weeks that knocked out access to the popular Web address-shortening application Bitly.
Venezuelans who want to reach such sites have had to use proxy services, which have long been employed by people in China and Iran to circumvent government censorship.
The international director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Danny O'Brien, said he thought the Venezuelan net censorship has been "somewhat haphazard and arbitrary."
Nearly half Venezuela's population relies on government-controlled media as its sole information source, the rest on the Internet.
But cutting off Internet is not smart political strategy, said O'Brien.
"I think the important lesson people should learn from these Internet blackouts is that they just throw fuel on the flames of civil unrest," he said.
---
Frank Bajak on Twitter: http://twitter.com/fbajak
If you think they can't control the internet, you might want to take a look at the following article about Venezuela.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20140221/DAC3LQ480.html
Internet a crucial Venezuela battleground
Feb 21, 9:05 AM (ET)
By FRANK BAJAK
LIMA, Peru (AP) - The battle for Venezuela is being fought as vigorously online as in the streets, with authorities cutting off the Internet to a clash-torn university city and blocking selected websites and a "walkie-talkie" service widely used by protesters.
A local TV reporter in San Cristobal, capital of the western border state of Tachira, said Thursday night that she could hear gunshots as tear-gas-firing police broke up protests just as they had the night before when Internet service was cut.
"We're still without Internet. And some people don't have water or electricity either," said the reporter, Beatriz Font.
San Cristobal, home to one private and three public universities, is where the current wave of anti-government demonstrations began on Feb. 2, the fiercest unrest since President Hugo Chavez died last March.
Later Thursday, the U.S. company Zello told The Associated Press that Venezuela's state-run telecoms company, CANTV, had just blocked access to the push-to-talk "walkie-talkie" app for smart phones and computers that has been a hugely popular organizing tool for protesters from Egypt to Ukraine.
Zello supports up to 600 users on a single channel, and company CEO Bill Moore said it became the No. 1 app in Ukraine on Thursday for both the iOS and Android operating systems. In one day this week, Zello reported more than 150,000 downloads in Venezuela.
Some believe Venezuela's information war, which escalated last week as the government blocked images on Twitter after violence in Caracas claimed three lives, is only just beginning. The protesters are fed up with a catalog of woes that include rampant inflation, food shortages and one of the world's highest murder rates.
The socialist government cemented its near-monopoly on broadcast media Chavez's 14-year-rule, and social media have been crucial for young opposition activists as they organize and exchange information on deaths, injuries and arrests.
Net-savvy activists reported a serious nationwide degradation Thursday in Internet service provided by CANTV, which handles about 90 percent of the country's traffic.
They said websites including NTN24.com, run by the eponymous Colombia-based regional news network, and pastebin.com, bulletin boards that cyberactivists use to anonymously share information, were being blocked.
President Nicolas Maduro had ordered NTN24 removed from air last week after it broadcast video of a student killed by a gunshot to the head in Caracas.
U.S.-based company Renesys, a top analyzer of global Internet traffic, confirmed the website blocking and service degradation, but said it could not determine if CANTV was decreasing bandwidth.
"I certainly don't know from our data if it is deliberate, although given the context, it seems plausible," said Renesys researcher Doug Madory.
Venezuela's traffic to its close ally Cuba over the ALBA-1 undersea cable, meanwhile, appeared unaffected, he said.
Programmer and cyberactivist Jose Luis Rivas, who is from San Cristobal but did give his location fearing persecution, said the Internet went out in most of the city of 600,000 about midnight Wednesday.
All across Venezuela since protests accelerated last week, activists have posted online YouTube videos of riot police and national guard breaking them up. Sometimes, the security forces are accompanied by pistol-packing motorcycle gangs of Chavista loyalists that the opposition also blames for killings and other abuses.
Rivas said that on Wednesday night, before the Internet went out in San Cristobal, people were live-streaming video of a crackdown by security forces.
Cutting the Internet deprived people of their only access to uncensored information and Rivas said people told him "they felt fear because they were no longer informed."
Government officials have not commented on the Internet outage and did not respond to Associated Press queries on either it or the service degradation and website blocking.
Spokespeople for Conatel, the government telecommunications regulator, and the Ministry of Information, said they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Conatel's director, William Castillo, tweeted Thursday that social networks were being "invaded by cybercriminals who are attacking accounts and manipulating information."
Information Minister Delcy Rodriguez used Twitter complain that they were being used to incite "coup-directed violence and create anguish."
Hacktivists have been attacking government websites from abroad, rendering many unreachable with denial-of-service attacks, or data-packet floods.
Images, meanwhile, have been available on Twitter since last week's brief outage. Company spokesman Nu Wexler said Thursday that measures which he did not specify were taken to "ensure continuity of service." Twitter also continued to tweet a workaround that lets users in Venezuela to receive tweets on their cellphones via text message.
Venezuela has been blocking websites that track the black market rate for the country's currency for months, and for a number of weeks that knocked out access to the popular Web address-shortening application Bitly.
Venezuelans who want to reach such sites have had to use proxy services, which have long been employed by people in China and Iran to circumvent government censorship.
The international director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Danny O'Brien, said he thought the Venezuelan net censorship has been "somewhat haphazard and arbitrary."
Nearly half Venezuela's population relies on government-controlled media as its sole information source, the rest on the Internet.
But cutting off Internet is not smart political strategy, said O'Brien.
"I think the important lesson people should learn from these Internet blackouts is that they just throw fuel on the flames of civil unrest," he said.
---
Frank Bajak on Twitter: http://twitter.com/fbajak
Yes I have seen that, but it has nothing to with limiting websites. But also the speed is mainly for faster downloads of large files, doesn't do much for normal internet usage.
Vance, in all honesty, They do already have packages that are speed packages. You pay more for more speed.
Dial up is old technology...has nothing to do with a company limiting your speed.
"Can they limit your access speed? "
"And that has to do with limiting sites how? "
Ever try watching Netflix on dial-up?
That's an extreme example, but you get the idea.
"And that has to do with limiting sites how? "
Ever try watching Netflix on dial-up?
That's an extreme example, but you get the idea.
If most of what's newsworthy is being determined by one company, does it really matter who much internet speed we have, or how many cable channels?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
