Does the fact that the two largest Cable/Media/Internet Monopolists are merging bother you?

[Armstead]

Simple question.

Comcast is seeking to absorb Time Warner Cable. Comcast is already a huge and dominant media player that is about the largest cable/internet provider in addition to owning NBC/Universal (which in turn own NBC and many cable chnnels) and numerous otehr media holdings. It is already far too big for comfort. Time Warner is also one of the largest cable/Internet media companies owning a large number of cable systems, networks and otehr media holdings.

The combined size and strength of these two merged corporations is truly frightening. This Monster Comcast Monopoly will have a lock on our communications systems, from content to distribution and delivery. It will have unprecedented power to drive the public dialogue, determine what is "entertainment" and what we pay for it all.

It is especially awful as it coincides with the FCC's plan to kill Net Neutrality.

If the Government allows these two actions, the concept of "Freedom of Speech" will have to be amnended to "Freedom of Speech that Comcast Approves."

Do you give a shit? Does our government give a shit?

The silence is deafening.

[rocktivity]

1. Well, who do you THINK would be talking about it?

Comcast? Their subsidiaries at NBC and MSNBC? Time Warner? Their subsidiaries at CNN? ABC, CBS and Fox aren't going to complain -- between following suit ad getting more ad dollars, it's a no-lose situation! So they'll just slip it in quietly just in time for the next presidential election. Taking the Internet away from us "little people" would be their dream come true.


rocktivity

[Armstead]

2. I know, but the Internet is a way around the Wall (at least for now)

[snot]

7. Sorry; but this response is OVER. Have you been paying any attention at all?

When are we going to start trying to get AHEAD of the game, instead of waiting until it's too late?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024873230
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101692723
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101693144

My main question is: how could anyone who appreciates what the internet has made possible since 1990 fail to recognize that TPTB have been working hard since at least 1994 to bring it to heel? And are now on the brink of success.

They told us flat-out that's what they were doing. Where were you on May 15, 2014?

I realize I shouldn't be so negative if I want to motivate people. It's never too late for you to add your help, and do some good.

But I am frustrated over having rung various alarm bells for years, and watching our power to resist erode; and still, most DU'er's remain distracted.

The internets are all but dead. Read the pending FCC "fast lane" rule changes; read the leaked info re- the TPP; WAKE the f*** UP!

[Armstead]

21. Your screen name is very accurate

Smart ass, I have been paying attention and posting about this from the git go trying to raise awareness of it (Too much for some.) and I have plastered my Facebook page and signed petitions, etc.

I understand and share your frustration about this, but being needlessly snide for no reason does not help advance anything.

[snot]

24. Apologies for the tone, but if you too are concerned about these issues,

why make soothing noises in a thread that's trying to sound a much-needed alarm?

[Armstead]

26. I'm not mking soothing tones

"Do you give a shit? Does our government give a shit? The silence is deafening."

Not exactly soothing, IMO.

Heated debate okay. But I don't think it's necessary to start out by insulting posters personally for no reason.

[snot]

39. Goodness, Armstead;

I do apologize. I only now noticed you were the one who make the OP.

[onenote]

17. Time Warner Cable is totally separate from Time Warner Inc.

I also oppose the merger, but it doesn't help when those opposing it misstate the facts. Time Warner Inc and Time Warner Cable became totally separate companies for five years. They have totally separate management and Time Warner Cable is only able to use the Time Warner name because it obtained a license from Time Warner Inc. to do so. Time Warner Cable is the second largest owner of cable systems, which is reason enough to challenge the merger. But it does not have any ownership relationship with CNN or the other programming networks owned by Time Warner Inc.

[Armstead]

25. I said TWC owns cable networks, which is true

[onenote]

36. I was responding to the post (not yours) that said TWC owned CNN

But for the record, you referred to "cable systems, networks and other media holdings. The statement that Time Warner Cable owns "networks" -- if you are referring to their distribution facilities -- is correct. However, within the communications industry, when one refers both to cable systems and to "networks" one is generally understood to be referring separatley to distribution facilities (cable systems) and cable programming services (networks or channels). Time Warner Cable has ownership interest in a number of local cable channels and a small number of regional programming services. Compared to Comcast or to most broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC), TWC is not particularly vertically-integrated. The concern with the merger is largely a concern relating to the combination of the two largest terrestrial distribution networks.

[Armstead]

40. I agree but their ownership is not insignificant

For example, among otehr things they own sports networks. Nit high on my own priority list, but still for sports fans it's another form of leverage.

[snot]

35. Ownership isn't the only factor.

Wayne H. Pace, former Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of Time Warner Inc., is on the board of Time Warner Cable; and their may be other, less-obvious connections.

[defacto7]

3. I give a major shit about it.

But I have to ask... what do you mean by government? What government? I don't see one.

[SamKnause]

6. The 99% don't have a representative government,

but the 1% have the best government representation their money could buy.

Sickening and infuriating isn't it ???????

[RKP5637]

30. Exactly, well said! The majority of us do not have a government. If you can stick a few million

in some politicians back pocket, that will buy you a piece of the government. This is USA, Inc. Citizens are just disgruntled employees and disposable. Any not seeing what's going on, well, I've give up on them. And R=D=I when it comes to big money. So many just do not get that, so many just do not get what's going on now in USA, Inc. If citizens would stop wandering around in tribes fighting this one or that one we could get someplace, but far too many fall for the propaganda designed to keep us all divided. Damn, I wish people would get a clue.

[Armstead]

27. There's a government. Just not very good one....

[dencol]

4. Hopefully we'll have mesh networks in the future

We'd all connect to each other wirelessly. Firechat is an awesome first start. Basically, each device would serve as a link in the chain. Right now, it's not practical in the United States because it's not dense enough, but I understand the mesh networks work well in 3rd would countries, particularly during uprisings. They can shut off the cell phone networks, but as long as you're within bluetooth range of other phones, you can all connect and coordinate.

[SamKnause]

5. It bothers me.

I give a shit.

The U.S. government does not give a shit.

It is obvious because of the people they appoint.

The "Supreme Court" is so out of touch they said we have many choices.

It is apparent the "Supreme Court" does not understand the definition of a monopoly.

Corruption is chipping away at the very soul of the U.S.

[MADem]

8. Silence? I've seen a zillion threads on the topic.

It's not like it hasn't been discussed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025047887

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024966351

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024966773

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101692723

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017191035

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017196261

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Use the search function before you start calling out people wholesale for not giving a shit.

[Cha]

12. Mahalo, MADem.

[MADem]

13. How you doin'!!!!

[Armstead]

29. It was a subject du jour a month or two ago. Since then...

it's fallen off the radar on DU and many otehr places. I just felt it was important to reinject it into the conversation here.

This is the summer that will make a big difference. But we're arguing about 2016.

It's an unfortunate pattern. The Powerful encounter some opposition, they put up a complicated wall of delay until it drops off the radar and then sneaks through.

By the way does it bother you? Does the fact that the FCC, FTC and (some) members of Congress and President Obama have been publicly silent cause you any concern?

[betterdemsonly]

32. This question should be the source of a new post

That is the way to keep a subject on the radar.

[MADem]

41. In the last few weeks there have been several posts on the topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025096882
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017200485
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025149253


The way to rally people to the barricades isn't to call them a bunch of lazy loser shits who aren't doing enough. There's a way to motivate people, and there's a way to turn them off.

Just saying.

And your last "you lousy bums" paragraph is exactly the sort of accusatory, nasty, you-aren't-doing-enough-look-at-me-how-much-I-care-and-no-one-else-does "tone" that makes people want to, well, dismiss you entirely. It doesn't even deserve a response. It's rude and dumb to play that game. It's not "tough love"---it is disrespectful. It doesn't bring allies to your cause and it creates an atmosphere of division and resentment.

If you don't INTEND to come off like a didactic, superior scold, I am telling you that IS how you're coming across. You can actually create enthusiasm with exhortation and positivity and a problem-solving approach. It works way better than telling everyone how "lacking" they are and accusing them--like you just did me--of not being "concerned."

Finally, we're Democrats. We're smart people. We can talk about this subject, Hobby Lobby, 2014 AND 2016. In sum, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's not helpful for you to "talk down" to me or anyone else--unless your goal is to piss people off and turn them AWAY from this cause.

[Armstead]

42. Whatever.....

"Civility is a two-way street. Take that lesson aboard, yourself."

[MADem]

43. Take that lesson before you start lecturing others.

You can't seem to help but be rude.

That's on you, don't try to put it on me for pointing it out.

[Armstead]

46. "Please pay attention to Net Neutrality and Comcast."

Better? I'm sure that'd help keep the issue alive.

Forgive me for venting frustration about an issue I happen to think is important. Something no one else ever does on DU. And, of course you're never rude or negative here.

[MADem]

53. Look, I wasn't the person who accused others, without even bothering to read the

previous threads on the topic, of 'not giving a shit.' YOU were.

There's a middle ground between Screw You and Please May I Have Another.

When I am "rude" here, I'm being very specific with my aim. I don't stand up and accuse all and sundry of being inferior layabouts who don't care about important issues of the day.

So that boat ain't floatin' either.

[TeamPooka]

9. K&R!

[delrem]

10. Huh, there's still more than two?

Truly, I don't give a shit how tightly the MIC/MSM merges into one thing, because it isn't going to change. How can it get worse than this?

[Armstead]

31. It can get much worse in many ways.

[hughee99]

11. I always find it funny that in such mergers, the companies tout how they'll be able to provide

better products and or lower costs, and yet quality usually drops and prices usually go up. Just once I'd like to see some regulator hold them to their claims of improved quality or lower prices.

[Armstead]

33. Personally I'd like to see regulators --and politicians -- "just say no" to these awful mega mergers

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[Enthusiast]

15. This merger should be prohibited.

[reddread]

16. remember when deregulation was a Bushco Republican thing?

30 years of ever increasing hardcore information warfare against the American people.
damn you, Ralph Nader!

[nolabels]

28. Media Consolidation -- brought to you by Reagan and Clinton

It has been predicted

Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:19 PM PST
Media Consolidation -- brought to you by Reagan and Clinton



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/18/439135/-Media-Consolidation-brought-to-you-by-Reagan-and-Clinton#

[Armstead]

34. That's th next step -- Murdoch and Comcast merge

[brooklynite]

18. Tell us, then...what have YOU done?

Submitted a complaint to the FCC?

Contacted your House members and Senators to take action?

Or is your role limited to complaining about others in a blog post?

[Armstead]

37. All of the above butthead, and more

Posting on DU n taking otehr steps are not mutually exlusive

[brooklynite]

50. ...and if you'd included that point in your OP, it might have had more impact.

[Armstead]

51. You have a point there

[The2ndWheel]

19. E pluribus unum

[betterdemsonly]

20. Obama appointed the guys that are killing net

neutrality. If he cares about it, why did he do that? It is also the democrats Obama appointed that are pushing this! All obvious industry shills.

“Barack Obama was crystal clear during the 2008 campaign about his commitment to ensuring equal treatment of all online content over American broadband lines,” Haley Sweetland Edwards wrote forTIME on Friday. “But on Thursday, the president made no public statement when three Democrats he appointed to the FCC voted to move forward with a plan to allow broadband carriers to provide an exclusive ‘fast lane’ to commercial companies that pay extra fees to get their content transmitted online.”

Instead, Edwards acknowledged, White House press secretary Jay Carney offered a brief statement reiterating the president’s promise.

Obama, Carney wrote, “has made clear since he was a candidate that he strongly supports net neutrality and an open Internet. As he has said, the Internet’s incredible equality – of data, content and access to the consumer – is what has powered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for once-tiny sites like eBay or Amazon to compete with brick and mortar behemoths”

Indeed, in 2010 the president’s chief technology officer wrote on the White House’s blog that“President Obama is strongly committed to net neutrality in order to keep an open Internet that fosters investment, innovation, consumer choice and free speech.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/05/20/the-fcc-obama-look-to-turn-the-screw-on-internet-freedom/


No doubt Hillary will give us more of the same shit.

[LWolf]

22. Simple answer:

Yes. It bothers me. Yes. I give a shit.

[maced666]

23. Nope! I stream all my TV content now...

Piggyback friends Netflix - use moms cable login info for ESPN/History channel/etc. content....
My cable Internet bill is over 100 dollars cheaper than my old everything bill.
Four months running, never going back.

[Armstead]

38. It isnt just cable. Owning Internet service is part of this package

[KamaAina]

44. Very much so.

[conservaphobe]

45. No, I think it will expedite the cord cutting trend.

And have other unintended blowback that will benefit consumers in the long run.

[Armstead]

47. I must differ. After-the-Fact blowback does no good.

Whenever we have had these watershed moments in the past, blowback after the fact is ineffective compared to undo the entrenched power that has been accumulated.

i.e. Too Big to Fail Banks and financial deregulation, Previous Mega Mergers in every industry, the takeover of radio and TV broadcasting by Clear Channel and and few otehr Corporate Monopolists, etc.

[conservaphobe]

48. All that is true as well.

Ultimately, the best outcome would result from them NOT being able to merge.

[Armstead]

49. That's the point. This does not have to happen

It is an impending, but completely avoidable disaster, if the administrative branch and Congress stood up against it and started enforcing anti-trust laws.

[historylovr]

52. Yes. Yes, it does bother me. K & R

The government doesn't seem to give a shit though. As long as the people in it get their payola, it's all good. For the rest of us, not so much. But what can we do other than write, call, leave public comments, that we don't want this?

[hunter]

54. I don't do business with Comcast.

And I recommend the same to all.

Comcast didn't stop bothering me until I told them I was going to apply a winch to their underground cable and remove them from my property. I assured them I would return any cable I pulled out and pay for any damaged connectors.

Their cowardly phone person in some far distant land removed me from their database as "moved" to non Comcast land.

Now I just throw all Comcast mailings addressed to "Resident" in the recycling bin and politely tell any sales people who show up at my door, "No, no, no, thank you."

My internet is a grandfathered alarm line, good enough for better-than-VHS-tape video.

I still use a VHS tape player. VHS tapes are a dollar in the thrift stores. Movies almost free. I consider my naked copper wire pair internet video very high magic. I used to log onto the internet with a 300 baud modem, back in 1979.

AT&T thinks I'm a loon too but they don't molest me. I suspect there is a "Do Not Call, Crazy!!!" Post-It note in the local exchange box and the AT&T database. I always get real humans to talk to whenever I have problems.