May 08, 2014

Louis Gohmert Grills Comcast Lawyer: Is Comcast Blocking Glenn Beck's Purchase of a Cable Network in Order to Keep Him Off the Air Until After the 2014 Elections?
— Ace

He begins his question by noting Beck was interested in buying Al Gore's failed network, Current. Al Gore preferred a different suitor -- the Al Jazeera network -- but only if Comcast would agree to keep the network in its channel line-up.

Comcast agreed to swap Current for Al Jazeera, and Al Gore was able to get a huge payday (consisting of oil money) for his massive failure.

Beck didn't get that channel, obviously.

Now Beck is attempting to buy another failed network. He would like, as Al Gore and Al Jazeera wanted, for Comcast to keep this network on its channel line-up, just as they agreed to let Al Jazeera move into the old Current swap without any complications.

Representative Gohmert reads an email to Comcast's lawyer, who is on the Hill, I imagine, to argue in favor of Comcast's intended mega-merger with Time Warner, for which they need government blessing.

The email -- apparently written to Beck's people from the network he seeks to inquire -- states that he (representing the network) wants to sell to Beck, but that Comcast will refuse to allow a channel swap because they want to keep Beck off the air and do not want Beck influencing voter opinions.

The ailing network apparently owes Comcast $20 million (I'm guessing for unpaid subscriber fees or whatever, but I don't know). Beck has agreed to pay those fees to Comcast, so Comcast would get the $20 million owed from the deal.

But for some reason Comcast refuses to do the deal. The lawyer claims that the network is not designated by Comcast to be a "news and commentary" network and ergo Comcast is within its rights to refuse to allow the swap.

There are several layers of bullshit here. The first one is that a company controls its own alleged internal policies -- they make their policies, and they routinely approve deviations from stated policy.

The Comcast lawyer is attempting to claim that Comcast's hands are tied here-- we've got this policy, you see.

But that's bullshit -- unless Comcast can show that it has never deviated from some alleged policy of refusing such variances in the past.

I'd like to see this lawyer grilled on this point: Obviously the Current-for-Al-Jazeera swap was not automatic, and required some kind of variance/permission from Comcast, as the sale was predicated on presecuring Comcast's blessing before the actual sale went through.

So if they permitted a variance there, why not here? A company cannot simply claim "This is our policy" when they often vary their own policy. They cannot claim policy binds them when it does no such thing.

They need to explain why they permitted the Current-for-Al-Jazeera swap, but are now claiming "It's our policyyyyy" when Glenn Beck proposes an unnamed-network-for-Blaze swap.

The "it's our policyyyyyy" dodge is generally dishonest, offered just as a Shut Up answer to someone. If Comcast has ever altered its policies to accommodate any other sale-and-swap in the past, it cannot simply claim "it's our policyyyy" now, as if that binds them absolutely.

They need to explain why in one case they enforce the policy and in another case apparently find there's some wiggle room in it.

Comcast, by the way, owns MSNBC and MSNBC's child corporation, the little-watched alleged entertainment venture NBC.

Incidentally: For those who say this is a "business decision" which cannot be further scrutinized: Well, just about everything about a cable company is a government creation, starting with the local government's awarding of cable rights to the company.

When you're essentially a creature of government, which government grants you what is either a true local monopoly (in many cases) or a oligopoly, you're not entirely free to let your political freak flag fly. As a creature of government, you cannot engage in viewpoint-discrimination that the government itself (which creates you) cannot engage in.

Furthermore, of course, Comcast is now on the Hill asking for government latitude in a merger with anti-trust implications.

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Comcast?

Posted by: Charles Gibson at May 08, 2014 11:24 AM (Ngvd+)

2 >>but that Comcast will refuse to allow a channel swap because they want to keep Beck off the air and do not want Beck influencing voter opinions. They put that in writing? Go get 'em!

Posted by: Lizzy at May 08, 2014 11:24 AM (8zTpe)

3 Gohmert might just be the best member oif the House.  He oughta be the Speaker.

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 11:24 AM (eEBON)

4 If anyone has any idea what network is in play here, please do illuminate.

Posted by: Andrew X at May 08, 2014 11:25 AM (r/Dlx)

5 Comcast bought the Democrats so nothing will come of this. And have I mentioned that Comcast is evil? Because they are.

Posted by: joncelli at May 08, 2014 11:25 AM (RD7QR)

6 Gohmert threatening Comcast? Popcorn, lawn chair, some assembly required. Let's hope Gomert can fuck with them and threaten to kill their Time Warner merger.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 08, 2014 11:25 AM (zVFRW)

7 SHUT UP! U H8RS!

Posted by: Liberals for the First Amendment at May 08, 2014 11:26 AM (N7QgG)

8 Let's hope Gomert can fuck with them and threaten to kill their Time Warner merger. Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at May 08, 2014 03:25 PM (zVFRW) DOJ is in charge of antitrust enforcement. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 08, 2014 11:26 AM (DrWcr)

9 Please tell me Gohmert (and his tenacity) is going to be involved in the Benghazi investigation.

Posted by: ɹəƨᴉɯ əʇɐɥ at May 08, 2014 11:26 AM (FXTmE)

10 Ofcourse it's fucking bullshit. 

Posted by: EC at May 08, 2014 11:27 AM (GQ8sn)

11 They're just afraid that Beck is going to BOIL ANOTHER LIVE FROG ON TV!!!!! Oh wait, the frog was made of rubber? BECK HATES NATURE!

Posted by: zombie at May 08, 2014 11:27 AM (mizYg)

12 Haw's that Al Jizz deal working out, btw? Have they eclipsed MSNBC viewership, yet?

Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 11:27 AM (Ngvd+)

13 Oooh, the delicate genius has a policy.

Posted by: George Costanza at May 08, 2014 11:27 AM (dQoSM)

14 I'm so sick of the incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the media.

Posted by: Y-not at May 08, 2014 11:28 AM (zDsvJ)

15

My experience has been pretty extensive in watching organizations citing policy or "The Rules" when they don't want to do something, but when they do want to do something, (usually, rewarding cronies or relatives) "The Rules" go out the window.

 

Posted by: West at May 08, 2014 11:28 AM (1Rgee)

16 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:29 AM (PYAXX)

17 Re: Comcast: Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:29 AM (PYAXX)

18

Well, wouldn't Al Jazeera and Current both be considered "news and commentary?"

 

I kind of see Comcast's point here...cable providers like to group similar channels together, so if you're channel surfing you can see all the kids channels one right after another.  Same with home shopping, oldies, sports, and so on. 

 

I don't know what channel Glenn Beck is trying to buy, but let's say it's a show that airs game show reruns and Beck is changing the format to news/talk.  It wouldn't be grouped with the news channels but with the nostalgia genre channels.

 

It's kind of lame to say their own policies tie their hands, yes, but this at least explains it. 

Posted by: @JohnTant at May 08, 2014 11:29 AM (PFy0L)

19 It takes one hell of a lot of money to run a scam on 200 million people.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 11:29 AM (ZkzmI)

20 What the video doesn't show was Gohmert having to wait 93 minutes on hold waiting for a response from the Comcast lawyer.

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 11:30 AM (eEBON)

21 19 It takes one hell of a lot of money to run a scam on 200 million people.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 03:29 PM (ZkzmI)


They'll print more...

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at May 08, 2014 11:30 AM (AC0lD)

22 Comcast's official policy document: ... 17. No cuss words on TV and no titties, unless it's HBO, which is OK. 18. Get Xfinity for 6 months for only $99! 19. NO WINGNUTZ ALLOWED ON AIR! ...

Posted by: zombie at May 08, 2014 11:30 AM (mizYg)

23 To ask the question is to answer it.

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (QupBk)

24 Let's hope Gomert can fuck with them and threaten to kill their Time Warner merger. I *think* he can permanently delay it (which is distinct, but not different, from actually killing it). I *believe* (and I could be way wrong here) that he can put a hold on needed vote/legislation/resolution/whatever that would okay the merger- and it just can never be voted on until he lifts the hold.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (PYAXX)

25 Of what business is it to the government whether Comcast agrees or not?

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (gmeXX)

26 Comcast owner, Roberts, is Obama's golfing buddy. My brother, further right wing than myself, continues to pay Comcast over $300 a month to watch sports. Try to tell that Comcast is a huge funded of Obamacare?

Posted by: Myron at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (ENrON)

27 >>20 What the video doesn't show was Gohmert having to wait 93 minutes on hold waiting for a response from the Comcast lawyer. Thread-winner! Please go around to the dumpster at the end of the alley for your winnings, Countrysquire.

Posted by: Y-not at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (zDsvJ)

28

My experience has been pretty extensive in watching organizations citing policy or "The Rules" when they don't want to do something, but when they do want to do something, (usually, rewarding cronies or relatives)"The Rules" go out the window.

Posted by: West at May 08, 2014 03:28 PM (1Rgee)

 

 

That is because we are smarterer and better than you redneck inbred hill-billies.  Rules are for you peasants.

Posted by: Liberals Everywhere at May 08, 2014 11:31 AM (N7QgG)

29 If I'm a Comcast stockholder, I want to know why the company is turning down good money over politics. I doubt Comcast is registered as some kind of public benefit mixed interest company - they're bound to act in the best bottom line interests of the company otherwise. Stockholder suit ?

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 11:32 AM (7i0fA)

30 Oh come on. Democrats screwing with elections. Manipulating the flow of facts and opinions. Impossible.

Posted by: eman at May 08, 2014 11:33 AM (EWsrI)

31 are the goats here?

Posted by: Achmed Mohhammed at May 08, 2014 11:33 AM (q+zA9)

32 Comcastntrol

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 08, 2014 11:34 AM (IXrOn)

33 Why is Congress getting involved in this decision?

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:34 AM (gmeXX)

34 Ugh. I hate the "because it's our policy" dodge. That's just another way of saying "because we said so". The obvious exception is when a lower level employee uses this justification, because he/she is not the one in a position to make such decisions- they are following policy set by their employer, as they're supposed to. It's annoying as hell when someone (usually a government bureaucrat, like school principal) who is in the position to set policy gives the "it's policy" dodge though.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 08, 2014 11:34 AM (SY2Kh)

35 Rules are for closers.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (jJ3HS)

36 Of what business is it to the government whether Comcast agrees or not? Comcast is getting hoist by its own petard. They have very strenuously objected to de-regulation measures (which would prevent this hearing in the first place). Now, they want to merge with Time-Warner (which would make them the biggest cable provider in the Nation). So, in theory, I agree- it's not the government's business. Except that the government has said "hey we have regulatory authority to make sure there are no monopolies" and Comcast has regularly supported that position. Given that, it is well within the government's purview to suggest that, maybe, keeping a specific network off the air _until after an election_ might possibly be evidence of monopolistic practices.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (PYAXX)

37 If they are so smart, and they are so right, why are they always so afraid of conservatives?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (IXrOn)

38 Why is Congress getting involved in this decision? Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 03:34 PM (gmeXX) the 1941 revision of the commerce clause

Posted by: Achmed Mohhammed at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (q+zA9)

39

And this will be a story on which network news cast?

 

If they do not broadcast a story about it, did it ever happen?

Posted by: rd at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (N7QgG)

40 Talk about your average, every day, unholy alliances - Comcast/Leftist Government would have to rank right up there.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 08, 2014 11:35 AM (BZAd3)

41 This is the kind of shit that keeps conservatives out of the media.  And now the FEC and the FCC are going after what few conservative things are out there.  Like the internet and talk radio.


We are now the 50s era Soviet Union.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at May 08, 2014 11:36 AM (T2V/1)

42 Comcast spokesman: Congressman, we have evidence that Mr. Beck voted for a Republican. And not just once.

Posted by: eman at May 08, 2014 11:36 AM (EWsrI)

43 So I guess Kerry is being funded somehow by Islamic Interests too? Can we please stop with this frigging nonsense that religion has nothing to do with it?!!

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 08, 2014 11:36 AM (XyM/Y)

44 I'd love to see the Republicans go after the Comcast merger.  It's basically win-win: Comcast gives the DNC billions in free value from MSNBC and NBC News, and everyone hates cable companies.

Weirdly, Al Franken is the only Senator of either party to make any noise about it.

Posted by: Ian S. at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (B/VB5)

45 #43 Sorry, Wrong thread.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (XyM/Y)

46 Ace - everything you said in your incidentally added is true. I still have to ask of what business is it to the government. We should be moving away from Cable monopoly, not using it as a reason to look into decisions we do not like. That will only encourage the continuation of monopolies.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (gmeXX)

47 I know!  Why don't we complain to the FEC?

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (JtwS4)

48 41 - wheres my trabant? My Lada?

Posted by: OK, thanks, bye at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (RPDkq)

49 Of what business is it to the government whether Comcast agrees or not? Because they need FCC approval for a proposed merger with Time Warner. One could argue that they shouldn't need said approval, but the fact is that they do.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 08, 2014 11:37 AM (SY2Kh)

50 on an unrelated note, does anyone have a copy of the Path to 9-11?

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:38 AM (FQLT3)

51 The cable industry is fascism at it's finest. Hitler would have loved it.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 11:38 AM (0FSuD)

52 Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood. I would love to see Comcast blown apart and its infrastructure divvied up among what competitors are left. Oh, and give its executives a public flogging.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at May 08, 2014 11:38 AM (vd7A8)

53 I should have saved my DVR recording of it back in the day.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:38 AM (FQLT3)

54 #43 Sorry, Wrong thread. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 08, 2014 03:37 PM (XyM/Y) That fits pretty much everywhere.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (BZAd3)

55 >>>The ailing network apparently owes Comcast $20 million (I'm guessing for unpaid subscriber fees or whatever, but I don't know). Beck has agreed to pay those fees to Comcast, so Comcast would get the $20 million owed from the deal.<<<



Oh, and it's very impressive how far Glenn and his "empire" have grown.

Fingers crossed for him to somehow cow Comcast -- would love to be able to watch Dana Loesch on the Blaze channel -- mmmmm.

Posted by: ɹəƨᴉɯ əʇɐɥ at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (FXTmE)

56 >>It's kind of lame to say their own policies tie their hands, yes, but this at least explains it. But if they think Comcast would agree to do the deal after the elections that kind of blows a hole in their policy.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (g1DWB)

57

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 03:32 PM (7i0fA)

 

Call the Comcast shareholder services, and ask. 

Better yet, send them a letter too.  And cc your lawyer!

 

Posted by: rd at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (N7QgG)

58 And, Comcast has enough deep pockets and ties that even if they knew they would lose, they would dive right into the court system to hold this up for years to come. Filth.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (IXrOn)

59

either a true local monopoly (in many cases) or a polyopoly, you're not entirely free to let your political freak flag fly.

 

Have I gone out of use?

Posted by: Oligopoly at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (JtwS4)

60 No-go because our friend, Barky, is a "just the tip" kind of guy, but Beck is a straight on PIV rapist...

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (jJ3HS)

61 Congressman, we have evidence that Mr. Beck voted for a Republican. And not just once. Posted by: eman at May 08, 2014 03:36 PM (EWsrI) I would be surprised. He votes for wacko tea party people, aka Brannon.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (0FSuD)

62 They're just afraid that Beck is going to BOIL ANOTHER LIVE FROG ON TV!!!!!
Oh wait, the frog was made of rubber?
BECK HATES NATURE!
Posted by: zombie at May 08, 2014 03:27 PM (mizYg)
Whoops there goes another rubber tree.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (27KaM)

63 Given that, it is well within the government's purview to suggest that, maybe, keeping a specific network off the air _until after an election_ might possibly be evidence of monopolistic practices. ----- Sometimes you have to stand on principal. Maybe this is not one of those times. But it makes it a lot harder to convince people of your point when you use the same tools.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (gmeXX)

64

This is why controlling a single house of Congress matters, even if you have to have squishes in your party - the control of committees.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - #incensed by the #imbecility at #Outrage Outlet at May 08, 2014 11:39 AM (hLRSq)

65 >>>Comcastntrol

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 08, 2014 03:34 PM (IXrOn)<<<


Commiecast?

Posted by: ɹəƨᴉɯ əʇɐɥ at May 08, 2014 11:40 AM (FXTmE)

66 on an unrelated note, does anyone have a copy of the Path to 9-11? Part 1 and 2 are on bittorrent.

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 11:40 AM (QupBk)

67 Paging Flatbush Joe...

Posted by: LadyS at May 08, 2014 11:40 AM (5dip8)

68 What's all the fuss? I'm a shoe-in in 2014.

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at May 08, 2014 11:41 AM (Dwehj)

69 Re "When you're essentially a creature of government, which government grants you what is either a true local monopoly (in many cases) or a polyopoly, you're not entirely free to let your political freak flag fly. As a creature of government, you cannot engage in viewpoint-discrimination that the government itself (which creates you) cannot engage in." Is a little too close to "you didn't build that" for me. I know there is lots of gubmint support but I would always err on the side of letting an ungrateful bastard engage in "viewpoint discrimination" vs inviting gubmint to sit on the editorial board, enforce "fairness doctrines" etc. Not to say that there may not be remedies, but the argument of "government support" seems the weakest (and most dangerous) to me.

Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 11:41 AM (HEo6y)

70 I would be surprised. He votes for wacko tea party people, aka Brannon. Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 03:39 PM (0FSuD) ******* Your Country Club RINO won. Give it a rest.

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at May 08, 2014 11:41 AM (ojnk6)

71 Because they need FCC approval for a proposed merger with Time Warner. One could argue that they shouldn't need said approval, but the fact is that they do. ----- Which they are going to get. I think this is pointless and unprincipled. Not that it is unimportant. Maybe Gohmert can get something out of it. We'll see.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:41 AM (gmeXX)

72 We should be moving away from Cable monopoly Even if we did that. Let's say Congress deregulated cable today, the Senate concurred tomorrow, and the SCOAMT signed the new law on Monday. What then? We still have a few regional monopolies because the government started them out that way. Other companies can't move in, even if they wanted to, because they can't afford to lay their own cable, and even when they can, they're not allowed to do so. On those few occasions where someone has the desire, wherewithal, and permission to lay their own cable, you're still talking years to do so, giving the current cable companies (which will be down to 2, I think, if the merger goes through) to push through all kinds of agreements with their content providers that will cripple any new network. We never should have regulated in the first place. Competition was always better. But given that monopolies were granted, there's no good way back.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:42 AM (PYAXX)

73

25 Of what business is it to the government whether Comcast agrees or not?

 

If the business is using its power to tamper with an Election...then, that business is tampering with the government.

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 11:42 AM (l/M30)

74 Comcast agreed to swap Current for Al Jazeera, and Al Gore was able to get a huge payday (consisting of oil money) for his massive failure. A payday he wanted complete before the tax hikes kicked in: From Daily Caller quoting the NYT: From the New York Times: Al Jazeera did not disclose the purchase price, but people with direct knowledge of the deal pegged it at around $500 million, indicating a $100 million payout for Mr. Gore, who owned 20 percent of Current. Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But the deal was not signed until Wednesday.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 08, 2014 11:42 AM (v0/PR)

75 this is a strange story. It's almost as if...the GOP is attempting to protect part of its donor,voter,pundit, and nascent politician base. That can't be right. Doing so would only drive moderates from the GOP.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (FQLT3)

76 on an unrelated note, does anyone have a copy of the Path to 9-11?

Everyone knows fire can't melt steel.

Posted by: Coach Pete Carroll, Troofer at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (Dwehj)

77

 >>>>As a creature of government, you cannot engage in viewpoint-discrimination...

 

 

HA!

Posted by: Lois Lerner at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (9TK8E)

78 The best thing about gohmert? He drives jharles cohnson insane

Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (pR5YY)

79

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 03:37 PM (gmeXX)

 

The difficulty in what you suggest is the wires.  A cable company has to have access to the utility poles to hang the wire and there is only so much space on the poles for additional attachments.  There are set distances between the power lines and telephone cables and tv cables and that has to be maintained for safety.  In this cable is a natural monopoly in an area, and being a natural monopoly it ends up being regulated.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - #incensed by the #imbecility at #Outrage Outlet at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (hLRSq)

80 @70 When Brannon endorses Tillis, I'll be fine. Now? He's still being an asshole.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 11:43 AM (0FSuD)

81 If I was a Comcast shareholder I would be PISSED about them apparently deciding to piss away $20M or whatever the amount was over their chairman's political views.

That seems like a pretty clear violation of his fiduciary responsibilities.

Posted by: Hedley Lamar at May 08, 2014 11:44 AM (SPaCH)

82 78 The best thing about gohmert? He drives jharles cohnson insane Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 08, 2014 03:43 PM (pR5YY) That's not a drive, it's a putt.

Posted by: Tami [/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 08, 2014 11:44 AM (v0/PR)

83 Based on Gohmert's last comment when his time expired, which kinda sounded like a threat, he has more info about this.

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 11:44 AM (eEBON)

84 If the business is using its power to tamper with an Election...then, that business is tampering with the government. ----- We should not equate a business not airing a viewpoint with tampering with an election. They are not the same thing.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:44 AM (gmeXX)

85 If a company is being awarded exclusive rights to a geographic area as a natural monopoly, they are obliged to act as a public entity, in other words, entry to all.  A restaurant can server whatever they like and I am free to choose another restaurant, but if I want cable (I personally    don't)     and I have but one choice, that provider has an obligation to not discriminate in their program selection.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 11:45 AM (ZkzmI)

86

Ace - everything you said in your incidentally added is true. I still have to ask of what business is it to the government. We should be moving away from Cable monopoly, not using it as a reason to look into decisions we do not like. That will only encourage the continuation of monopolies.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 03:37 PM (gmeXX)

 

It is called Lawfare / Monkeywrenching / hoisting them on their own petard.

Use their own rules and policies against them.  If the whole thing becomes too painful, then everyone will agree to eleiminate the government policies and government interference. 

 

Conservatives have practiced what amounts to unilateral disarmament when dealing with liberal statists and socialist government policies. 

Posted by: Alinsky Still Rules at May 08, 2014 11:45 AM (N7QgG)

87 We'll get right on this.

Posted by: FCC, DOJ, FEC at May 08, 2014 11:45 AM (l3vZN)

88 I have a copy, joeindc. Quality isn't the greatest but I have it. I think I it off of a torrent at some point.

Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at May 08, 2014 11:45 AM (/8qpd)

89 78 The best thing about gohmert? He drives jharles cohnson insane Posted by: Navycopjoe at May 08, 2014 03:43 PM (pR5YY) Short drive for that seat sniffer...

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ at May 08, 2014 11:45 AM (jJ3HS)

90 Another great thing about Gohmert is that he continues to work to oust Boehner as speaker.

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 11:46 AM (eEBON)

91 My experience has been pretty extensive in watching organizations citing policy or "The Rules" when they don't want to do something, but when they do want to do something, (usually, rewarding cronies or relatives)"The Rules" go out the window. Posted by: West at May 08, 2014 03:28 PM (1Rgee) So, Calvinball.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 08, 2014 11:46 AM (TIIx5)

92 Yeah, Beck is so influential and stuff. Better keep him off the air. That Washington rally was sure a humdinger of a game changer.

Posted by: Citizen X at May 08, 2014 11:47 AM (7ObY1)

93 You would have to be pretty ignorant to believe that their would be no interest in a channel put out by Beck. He is a rock star on the right. People would tune in. Comcast should be ecstatic to convert a channel that can't even pay their carry fees into one that its viewers are already looking for. After all, people don't have to sign up for Comcast. To the extent that people do sign up, it is because Comcast has channels that its subscribers want to watch.

Of course, nobody needs to explain any of that to Comcast. They know their business. They are also aware that in addition to collecting subscriber fees, they also need to keep government officials happy. And the ones they need to keep the most happy are the ones that can have the biggest impact on their bottom line.

Say, those officials that are going to be making that decision on whether or not to green light Comcast's merger, which side of the aisle are they on?

If only there was some word that could be used to describe this kind of relationship between government and corporations.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 11:47 AM (IN7k+)

94 So, Calvinball. Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 08, 2014 03:46 PM (TIIx5) Calvinball is an example of bed-rock stability compared to a company "policy" which suddenly becomes inconvenient.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:47 AM (PYAXX)

95

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 03:45 PM (ZkzmI)

 

I don't disagree with that, and it appears neither does Rep. Gohmert.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - #incensed by the #imbecility at #Outrage Outlet at May 08, 2014 11:48 AM (hLRSq)

96 Maybe they don't have enough GOLD commercials for Beck

Posted by: The Jackhole at May 08, 2014 11:48 AM (nTgAI)

97 84 If the business is using its power to tamper with an Election...then, that business is tampering with the government. ----- We should not equate a business not airing a viewpoint with tampering with an election. They are not the same thing. Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 03:44 PM (gmeXX) Um, no.

Posted by: eman at May 08, 2014 11:48 AM (EWsrI)

98 >>>I know there is lots of gubmint support but I would always err on the side of letting an ungrateful bastard engage in "viewpoint discrimination" vs inviting gubmint to sit on the editorial board, enforce "fairness doctrines" etc. this situation is analogous to a local phone company deciding it doesn't want to permit Get Out the Vote calls from the Republican party or its candidates. When you're granted the right and power by the local government to carry the phone lines, it is required that you treat all paying customers alike.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 11:48 AM (/FnUH)

99 that's odd that Beck would want to have a cable channel. ONly 7% of reporters are conservatives. Surely he wouldn't want to interfere with that monopoly.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:49 AM (FQLT3)

100 Conservatives have practiced what amounts to unilateral disarmament when dealing with liberal statists and socialist government policies. ---- No, republicans have. Not conservatives. You know what else republicans have practiced - crony capitalism and other abuses of government that serve them even when they criticize dems for doing the same. Maybe this will turn into something. I just don't think it is the government's place and I'd rather see conservative legislatures stick up for pro-market forces. I'd be more in favor of an approval of the deal if it was accompanied with a la carte packaging.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:49 AM (gmeXX)

101 Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 03:45 PM (ZkzmI) Good point.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:49 AM (PYAXX)

102 Quietly make it clear through the back channels and cocktail party talk that Comcast executives should purchase lodging in Washington rather than rent, make volume deals with their attorneys and brush up on their testimony presentations. Nothing helps adjust someone's attitude like telling them you are going to make their lives a living hell for at least the foreseeable future.

Posted by: jwest at May 08, 2014 11:49 AM (u2a4R)

103 Imagine if a phone or cable company, when bidding for the right to carry signals into a local municipality, stated up-front: "We intend to discriminate politically and will do so if we get this contract." They wouldn't say that, and if they did, they wouldn't get the contract in most cases.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 11:50 AM (/FnUH)

104 Re 98 Is there more than one cable channel?

Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 11:51 AM (HEo6y)

105

We've got this policy, you see...

Well, we've never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat.

Posted by: Jerry Lundegaard, Comcast attorney at May 08, 2014 11:51 AM (eEBON)

106

If only there was some word that could be used to describe this kind of relationship between government and corporations.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 03:47 PM (IN7k+)

 

Business as usual

Posted by: rd at May 08, 2014 11:51 AM (N7QgG)

107 Thank God I have Dish. Of course Beck is in a higher tier of programming than I want to pay, but at least we could get him if we shelled out. Al Jazeera is included in our package though.

Posted by: Iblis at May 08, 2014 11:51 AM (9221z)

108 Just convince comcast that not allowing beck to purchase the network would be considered a downgrade in service. They will act like that is a complete impossibility that absolutely in no way can happen.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 11:52 AM (rHy8i)

109

I am so glad I pay zero money to comcast.

 

Antenna's ftw!

Posted by: Lea at May 08, 2014 11:52 AM (lIU4e)

110 It's the same reason the NFL wouldn't let Limbaugh buy or be part of a group to buy a team. It's a club. Conservatives aren't part of it. So you ain't getting in. If government knew what Fox News would become I doubt they would have let Murdoch create a news network.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 08, 2014 11:52 AM (8tAEF)

111 Hedley - exactly what I was thinking above. I'm don't think there's any exemption for media companies re: duty of corporation to maximize stockholder profits as Job One. Beck's offering to take a losing channel off their balance sheet, pay its debts to the company and has a successful network to put in its place. I believe media companies who obviously put politics over profits in reality avoid putting that in writing for just that reason. I don't do investment law so I could be full of shit on this, anyone who knows otherwise set me straight plz

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 11:53 AM (7i0fA)

112 In continued snarkiness, I note that this story is another in a continuing disturbing trend of conservative organizations, get this, fighting back. Why, just today, a vicious secret illegal abuse of the power of the state prosecutor's office in Wisconsin was stopped. And it was being used against conservatives. Can you believe that? Need I remind you wingnuts that the Bush family decided in the late 1980's that Reagan's distasteful practice of "fighting back" and "communicating conservative values" was a bit too much for their Wasp blood. So, of course, they unilaterally surrendered to the left, you can see this in the 2008 election cycle in which Bush the W decided that the economic crisis caused by Fannie Mae et al., was actually his fault. So, come on. There's no good reason to let there be a new conservative outlet, let alone stopping the vicious harassment of GOP donors, voters, nascent politicians, and pundits.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:53 AM (FQLT3)

113 Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 03:51 PM (HEo6y) What does that have to do with anything? If there are 1,000,000 channels- the cable company still has the responsibility to carry anyone (upto their set channel limit) who can pay the fee. What if there are 1000 MSNBCs and 0 Fox News Channels? Does the fact that there are "1000 channels" change anything? Put another way- if you go into a bar and the only drink they have is sherry (but they have 1000 varieties!) do have any choice in what you're drinking there?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 11:54 AM (PYAXX)

114 I'm a loser baby. So why don't you kill me?

Posted by: Beck at May 08, 2014 11:55 AM (27KaM)

115

Beck's offering to take a losing channel off their balance sheet, pay its debts to the company and has a successful network to put in its place. I believe media companies who obviously put politics over profits in reality avoid putting that in writing for just that reason.

 

----

 

See ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN as     examples.  They are losing market share and millions of dollars, because agenda is more important than   profit.  Besides, when things get bad enough, they are sure to get a bailout.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 11:55 AM (ZkzmI)

116 Gohmert should tell Comcast that the hearings will start sometime between 8 am and 5pm.

Then don't show up and ask them to reschedule.

Repeat until Comcast gives up.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at May 08, 2014 11:55 AM (JmGFJ)

117 The new Beck album is really good.

Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 11:56 AM (Ngvd+)

118 It'd be pretty sweet if Beck was buying out Logo.

Posted by: --- at May 08, 2014 11:56 AM (MMC8r)

119 I hate to be a stickler for style, but shouldn't Michelle's sign read, "#Dude Bring Back Our Girls"?

Posted by: WalrusRex at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (XUKZU)

120 Not that I give a shit about Glenn Beck, but choosing Al Jazeera over a conservative network because they might influence people? Highly disturbing.

Posted by: Lea at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (lIU4e)

121 Imagine if a phone or cable company, when bidding for the right to carry signals into a local municipality, stated up-front: "We intend to discriminate politically and will do so if we get this contract." They wouldn't say that, and if they did, they wouldn't get the contract in most cases. Posted by: ace *********** This is naive. There are Democrat Senators on the record demanding that the IRS stop Tea Party groups. The same Senators stopped Path to 9-11 from being released on DVD or ever shown again. Instapundit has a story on colleges being given zampolits by the AG. I am sure there's more of the same. See e.g., the unilateral surrender of the GOP on all matters related to PR and so on and so forth.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (FQLT3)

122 The "it's our policyyyyyy" dodge is generally dishonest, offered just as a Shut Up answer to someone. If Comcast has ever altered its policies to accommodate any other sale-and-swap in the past, it cannot simply claim "it's our policyyyy" now, as if that binds them absolutely.

I would be sympathetic to this argument if (and only if) they have been completely faithful to the policy. Especially with large, heavily regulated companies, a lot of effort usually has gone into the creation of their policies. They have lawyers review them, they make certain representations to government and the public on how they will operate, etc.

If at the time that they acquired a franchise for a certain area, they made representations about the kind of service they would be providing - a certain kind of mix in the channels that would be available for the residents to sign up for - they have to be concerned about just shuffling things around willy-nilly.

But, as you point out, it needs to be established whether or not they have been 100% faithful to their own policy. And given that it isn't unheard of for a channel to go tits up, they must have some flex in what they can do when that occurs.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (IN7k+)

123 Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 03:56 PM (Ngvd+) he's a scientologist ...... born into it.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (u8GsB)

124

There were precedents set with Telephone Companies that, I would think, apply to Cable Companies as well...

 

When the various Bell companies had telephone monopolies, they were ordered to allow other companies to come into their areas and use the wiring and cables that the Bell companies had laid down.

 

The Bell companies were also ordered to allow people to take their existing phone numbers to another phone service.

This was called phone number portability.

 

People have been known to sell their phone numbers, to other customers who desired their number.

What those phone numbers are used for, is not up to the Phone Company.

 

A cable channel is a customer of Cable Company which carries it.

So, I would think that the cable channel could be sold like a phone number...without the Cable Channel having any say in what the content was, as long as it wasn't used for some illegal activity.

 

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 11:57 AM (l/M30)

125 Look I'm not happy about this either. My point is that the analogy to the phone lines is a bit off, as this is more like an oligopoly than a true monopoly (yes, it is about carriers and not channels). But the main point I'm throwing out there is that if you are seeking a government "remedy" to alleged "viewpoint discrimination" you may well end up in a worse situation, like the old "Fairness Doctrine" which more often than not convinces a media outlet not to carry ANY "political" content for fear of the dread charge of Discrimination. I basically agree with an earlier poster that this should never have been as closely regulated as it is now, and there are no good ways to unravel this, but more involvement of government is probably not the best way to go.

Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 11:58 AM (HEo6y)

126
We will answer your questions sometime between noon and 5 pm next Tuesday.

Posted by: Comcast at May 08, 2014 11:58 AM (hJauc)

127 See ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN as examples. They are losing market share and millions of dollars, because agenda is more important than profit. ----- If so, and I'd probably agree, that is a benefit. Usually money wins out. Maybe Beck sees what the rest of us sees, there is room for another conservative media outlet, and he is going to cash on it. We could expect that others will follow eventually.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 11:58 AM (gmeXX)

128 Fuckin Koch Brothers!!!

Posted by: Gigantic Assed Angry Klingon Woman at May 08, 2014 11:58 AM (i0wGQ)

129

@94 Of course, nobody needs to explain any of that to Comcast. They know their business. They are also aware that in addition to collecting subscriber fees, they also need to keep government officials happy. And the ones they need to keep the most happy are the ones that can have the biggest impact on their bottom line.

---------------------

 

This might also be related to the regulations that the FCC commissioner complained certain FCC members were attempting to push through.  Specifically, if Comcast can delay Beck for long enough, then they might be able to get him classified as a blogger under the new regulations, which would affect his rights under the FCC idea that the commissioner was complaining about.  But if Beck can get this done before the end of the year (when the commissioner's term expires...), then he'd be on the air, and it would be harder to argue that he was "only" a blogger.

 

Posted by: junior at May 08, 2014 11:59 AM (UWFpX)

130 Vashta - that's why I'm kinda wishy-washy on whether I'm right about stockholders having grounds to sue them. It's endemic in media. That said, those companies avoid outright declarations that they're acting for politics not profitability. That could be to preserve the shabby fiction of "objectivity" but it might also be to avoid stockholders suing them for taking investors money and tanking the company over losing ventures like MSNBC and the NYT.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 11:59 AM (7i0fA)

131 I'm gonna look and see if I can get onto FiOS. The only reason I pay Comcast for TV is because it's CHEAPER to have TV AND internet than internet alone. If I can get FiOS for about the same price, Comcast can suck a sausage.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 11:59 AM (WhJf8)

132 Beck can be scary. Comcast is scary. One would think this would be a marriage made in heaven.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at May 08, 2014 12:00 PM (BZAd3)

133 Where is my favorite goat? I'm not interested in one of the Nigerian school girls, they want the equivalnt of $12USD, each! can you imagine?

Posted by: Achmed Mohhammed at May 08, 2014 12:00 PM (q+zA9)

134 I basically agree with an earlier poster that this should never have been as closely regulated as it is now, and there are no good ways to unravel this, but more involvement of government is probably not the best way to go. ----- That is how I feel. I might feel differently if I thought Gohmert would actually accomplish something, but I don't think he will.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:01 PM (gmeXX)

135 >>When you're essentially a creature of government, which government grants you what is either a true local monopoly (in many cases) or a oligopoly, you're not entirely free to let your political freak flag fly. As a creature of government, you cannot engage in viewpoint-discrimination that the government itself (which creates you) cannot engage in.<< This is very wrong. Elizabeth Warren wrong. The fact that transmissions have to be restricted in order to be useful has nothing to do with the operation, the origination, or the content of owners. Taking your logic further, as liberals do, Hobby Lobby doesn't really "own" anything, it just has been granted the opportunity to manage the birth control of its employees and state and local sales taxes, in exchange for whatever profit is left over. And if it won't exercise this privilege responsibly, it must die.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:01 PM (5xmd7)

136 Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 03:58 PM (HEo6y) Except this isn't "more involvement of government." This is the normal level. It wouldn't even be a question except that Comcast and Time-Warner want to merge. That would leave Comcast 2.0 and (I think) Charter as the last two national cable companies. That is- Comcast is asking the US Government for permission to increase it's %share in the oligopolic arrangement which exists for US Cable providers. It is therefore only just that the US Government point out that Comcast should be required to allow diversity of viewpoint to be carried on their network.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:01 PM (PYAXX)

137 Beck getting a channel would be a game changer. So it's never going to happen, sadly.

Posted by: Kreplach at May 08, 2014 12:02 PM (8tAEF)

138 Big Business is not a friend to conservatives, but many in the GOP still seem to think so,

  They may have been an ally in the 1920's, but Big Business and Big Government have been joined at the hip for a while.

Republicans should torpedo this merger and should make life miserable for all media companies.  After all, "monopolies are bad, isn't that right left-wing media owners"?

 A little populism from the GOP would go a long way in establishing credibility with voters.

Posted by: McAdams at May 08, 2014 12:02 PM (R980K)

139 Posted by: NYC Parent at May 08, 2014 03:58 PM (HEo6y) Screw that. Use the tools the left uses to string the bastards up.

Posted by: GMan at May 08, 2014 12:02 PM (sxq57)

140 People who work in Media = Liberal Democrats = Hate us. Media=Enemy, people.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:02 PM (bb5+k)

141

But the main point I'm throwing out there is that if you are seeking a government "remedy" to alleged "viewpoint discrimination" you may well end up in a worse situation,

 

----

 

Cable is essentially a utility, since it relies on wires.  Same as     land line telephone, water, electricity and natural gas.  It is impractical to run multiple lines to every house, so there is a natural monopoly.  This is one of the few areas that government should be involved in.  The key is to insist upon    every customer being treated the same.  I can currently choose my electricity supplier, but the line charge will always come   from the company that maintains the physical line    to my house.  What if that company chose to not service customers of a certain color or religion  or political affiliation?

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 12:02 PM (ZkzmI)

142 We've got this policy, you see... Well, we've never done this before. But seeing as it's special circumstances and all, he says I can knock a hundred dollars off that Trucoat. I had a routine blood test through my Dr's office. I do it every year. Every other time they called me to give me a rundown. This time they decided they needed an appointment and it's "against policy" to discuss over the phone. Retail and Dr.'s offices are the worst for the "it's policy" argument. Did I ever sign a piece of paperwork that agreed to your lame Office Manager's random policies?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:03 PM (WhJf8)

143 See ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN as examples. They are losing market share and millions of dollars, because agenda is more important than profit. And because their parent companies can use the loss to offset their profitable business sectors and avoid paying federal taxes. Ho-hum.

Posted by: HR stuck at work and the vending machine is out of Cheetos at May 08, 2014 12:03 PM (/kI1Q)

144 "more involvement of government is probably not the best way to go." I'm torn on that. Using the other guy's black hat tactics costs you moral standing and cred with potentially reachable voters but fighting in the other guy's arena without using all the weapons at hand is a good way to lose every fight.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 12:03 PM (7i0fA)

145 >>>This is very wrong. Elizabeth Warren wrong. The fact that transmissions have to be restricted in order to be useful has nothing to do with the operation, the origination, or the content of owners. Taking your logic further, as liberals do, Hobby Lobby doesn't really "own" anything, it just has been granted the opportunity to manage the birth control of its employees and state and local sales taxes, in exchange for whatever profit is left over. And if it won't exercise this privilege responsibly, it must die. rolls eyes

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 12:04 PM (/FnUH)

146 If the business is using its power to tamper with an Election...then, that business is tampering with the government. Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 03:42 PM (l/M30) It consists of illegal campaign contributions in kind. I keep saying the media people give Democrats the equivalent of a billion dollars a year in lopsided coverage.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:04 PM (bb5+k)

147 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. it's boring.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 12:04 PM (/FnUH)

148 I had a routine blood test through my Dr's office. I do it every year. Every other time they called me to give me a rundown. This time they decided they needed an appointment and it's "against policy" to discuss over the phone. Wasn't there some sort of federal legislation involving doctors and electronic records and billing codes that took effect Jan 1? O_o

Posted by: HR stuck at work and the vending machine is out of Cheetos at May 08, 2014 12:04 PM (/kI1Q)

149 That is- Comcast is asking the US Government for permission to increase it's %share in the oligopolic arrangement which exists for US Cable providers. It is therefore only just that the US Government point out that Comcast should be required to allow diversity of viewpoint to be carried on their network. ----- Can those subscribers not get Dish/DirecTV/Internet or over the air broadcasting? To the extent they were given monopolistic cable control in certain locales, it was local government that did so. They are no asking the US government for persmission, the US government has told them that must get permission. Very different.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:05 PM (gmeXX)

150 The follow up question would have been "Has Comcast ever in the past, agreed to keep a networks access as a condition of third party network sale even though the programming format has changed?"

Posted by: WisRich at May 08, 2014 12:06 PM (hdpay)

151 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. Longbows!

Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 12:06 PM (Ngvd+)

152 Caltrops

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 12:07 PM (QupBk)

153 >>>Cable is essentially a utility, since it relies on wires. Same as land line telephone, water, electricity and natural gas. It is impractical to run multiple lines to every house, so there is a natural monopoly. This is one of the few areas that government should be involved in. The key is to insist upon every customer being treated the same. I can currently choose my electricity supplier, but the line charge will always come from the company that maintains the physical line to my house. What if that company chose to not service customers of a certain color or religion or political affiliation? exactly. Some guys just can't add any facts into their ideology. cable companies are granted a partial or full monopoly by the local government. You can't have a cable company without government involvement -- you need, for example, a law permitting you various easements for laying you cable line. Etc. but whatever.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 12:07 PM (/FnUH)

154 It consists of illegal campaign contributions in kind. I keep saying the media people give Democrats the equivalent of a billion dollars a year in lopsided coverage. ---- I hope we never make that argument. It implies that some campaign contributions should be illegal.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:07 PM (gmeXX)

155 85 If a company is being awarded exclusive rights to a geographic area as a natural monopoly, they are obliged to act as a public entity, in other words, entry to all. A restaurant can server whatever they like and I am free to choose another restaurant, but if I want cable (I personally don't) and I have but one choice, that provider has an obligation to not discriminate in their program selection. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 03:45 PM (ZkzmI) I have been saying for years that we need to shove affirmative action up their asses and break it off inside them. We shoulda been filing lawsuits alleging discrimination against creed, and we should have been threatening their licenses until they balanced out their employment status with at least 50% conservatives in their employee.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:07 PM (bb5+k)

156 The fact that transmissions have to be restricted in order to be useful has nothing to do with the operation, the origination, or the content of owners. Huh? That doesn't even make sense. See most of Vashta's posts. If only one company (for a variety of reasons, many of them practical) *can* provide a given service, then there is a difference between that (natural monopoly) doing a thing and one of a number of competitors doing the same thing.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:07 PM (PYAXX)

157 Adam Corolla's pirate ship is the way to go for cons. If they won't let us in through the legacy door, we can use technology to get around them. I hope. But still, that the libs have successfully made conservative ideas mindcrimes and verboten, why should we trust the GOP to protect the rest of us. That is, why can't we praise and reward leaders that are at least trying to keep the Obama junta from achieving full control?

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 12:08 PM (FQLT3)

158 91 My experience has been pretty extensive in watching organizations citing policy or "The Rules" when they don't want to do something, but when they do want to do something, (usually, rewarding cronies or relatives)"The Rules" go out the window. Posted by: West at May 08, 2014 03:28 PM (1Rgee) Poll tax.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:08 PM (bb5+k)

159 >>>Can those subscribers not get Dish/DirecTV/Internet or over the air broadcasting? To the extent they were given monopolistic cable control in certain locales, it was local government that did so. only homeowners with a decent sized bit of property can get Dish. renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway.

Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 12:08 PM (/FnUH)

160 Adam Corolla's pirate ship is the way to go for cons. If they won't let us in through the legacy door, we can use technology to get around them. They will set up jammers, like Cuba.

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 12:08 PM (QupBk)

161 I like Louie Gohmert. He is a lawyer too, and a former judge. He will be hard to spin.

Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 12:09 PM (xWW96)

162 cable companies are granted a partial or full monopoly by the local government. ---- I'm not sure why that means the federal government should get involved. Look these are all the same reasons given for why Congress was able to haul in the baseball players over steroids. How did we like that.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:09 PM (gmeXX)

163 I have been saying for years that we need to shove affirmative action up their asses and break it off inside them. Could yoo wowl it awound a wittle, fwirst?

Posted by: Barney Frank at May 08, 2014 12:09 PM (Ngvd+)

164 There are some people who have been trying to kill cable bundling for decades. But that is one of the powers granted to then. Sort of like, I guess, baseball getting an anti-trust exemption. The point is, we're forced to subsidize MTv and ESPN whether we want to or not.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 12:09 PM (FQLT3)

165 Way off-topic.  Has anyone or know of somebody who has actually talked with a human rep of the SSA over the phone recently?

Local office I have the reps extension and have been leaving voice mails with return call info to no avail.

The national 800 no. 772 1213 used to be able to get somebody live.  Not anymore.  All the dot guv sites are wat the puck?

Over 30?  Logan's Run for you.
Over 60? Soylent Green... this way please.

Posted by: Last Tom Servo at May 08, 2014 12:10 PM (NWsPY)

166 if Comcast is a public utility then they probably have say on what gets carried on channels only to the extant the law permits them say. In other words, their "policies" only exist to make sure the company's is complying with the law. So please explain how that works in this instance, Mr. Comcast lawyer

Posted by: MTF at May 08, 2014 12:10 PM (+fuKQ)

167 Nothing helps adjust someone's attitude like telling them you are going to make their lives a living hell for at least the foreseeable future. Posted by: jwest at May 08, 2014 03:49 PM (u2a4R) They bring a gun, we are stupid for bringing a knife. They want to use the force of government against us? I can think of no better way of dissuading them from that mindset than by using the force of government against them.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:11 PM (bb5+k)

168 The point is, we're forced to subsidize MTv and ESPN whether we want to or not.

So get rid  of it. Three years. Don't miss it a bit.

Posted by: tu3031 at May 08, 2014 12:11 PM (i0wGQ)

169 renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway. ---- I presume you mean by the building (either because of building rules or blockage)? I see dishes in apartments all the time - granted those with balconies (I'm in Texas), which probably do not exist in great numbers in NYC.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:11 PM (gmeXX)

170 What was that movie with Michael Pollard where they flew a nuclear powered B29 for decades broadcasting a pirate signal?

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 12:11 PM (QupBk)

171 128 Fuckin Koch Brothers!!! Posted by: Gigantic Assed Angry Klingon Woman at May 08, 2014 03:58 PM (i0wGQ Mmmmm. My fantasy.

Posted by: Searchlight Strangler at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (fWAjv)

172 It is a proper function of responsible government and business to keep crazies off the televisions. Beck was too much of a right wing paranoid conspiracy but and liar for Faux Noise.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (jJHMW)

173 We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced for what we did in your mouth. It's our policy.

Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (VhqUZ)

174 A little populism from the GOP would go a long way in establishing credibility with voters. Agreed. The party can't counter the oft-repeated "Republicans only care about corporations and the rich" criticism when they so frequently act like it. That doesn't imply they need to abandon conservative principles, especially when there's debate over what those principles even are. We can't survive as a superpower that hires foreigners to do the remaining jobs that haven't been shipped overseas.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (SY2Kh)

175 renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway. Many apartments in Texas can and do. They have a clamp that fits in the railing. As long as their balcony faces the correct direction.

Posted by: rickb223 at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (SGAri)

176 >>>>renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway. That's not necessarily true ace. Many of the apartment complexes I've rented from you have been able to get dish instead of cable.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (rHy8i)

177 Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 04:05 PM (gmeXX) Many of them cannot get Dish/DirectTV, and last I checked I can't get HBO on OTA broadcasts. So... yeah, monopoly. The local governments only picked which of a handful of providers (and that number has gone down) they gave local monopolies to. The FCC (for, again, practical reasons at the time) are the ones who initially restricted broadcast wavelengths such that only a limited number of providers *could* exist. As for "asking the government's permission..." I would agree with you except that Comcast has been such a big opponent of deregulation. They fought tooth-and-nail to have Dish & DirecTV handled the same way they are. Whenever someone starts talking about deregulation, Comcast is one of the first companies to start talking about how evil it would be, and how competition would provide less choice and higher prices. So... no. Comcast is being hoist by their own petard, and I have no qualms about it at all.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (PYAXX)

178

Posted by: weft cut-loop at May 08, 2014 03:55 PM (JmGFJ)

 

TW!

Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at May 08, 2014 12:12 PM (HBAcW)

179 Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 04:11 PM (QupBk) The American Way

Posted by: Searchlight Strangler at May 08, 2014 12:13 PM (fWAjv)

180 What was that movie with Michael Pollard where they flew a nuclear powered B29 for decades broadcasting a pirate signal? I'm certain you're just making that up.

Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2014 12:13 PM (VhqUZ)

181 There are some people who have been trying to kill cable bundling for decades. But that is one of the powers granted to then. Sort of like, I guess, baseball getting an anti-trust exemption. ---- Exactly. If we want to make a populist argument we should try to get unbundling in exchange for this merger.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:13 PM (gmeXX)

182 off pedosock

Posted by: RWC at May 08, 2014 12:13 PM (fWAjv)

183 Comcast is basically the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party at this point.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:13 PM (ZPrif)

184 Every time Comcast appears on the Hill and testifies I would hope the GOP is seeding the record by asking questions related to what I hope will be a massive investigation of their propaganda efforts on behalf of the Democrat party by the Justice Department, once somebody other than a Fascist Progressive (but, as Ace says, I repeat myself) is in charge. Indictment is the best revenge.

Posted by: MTF at May 08, 2014 12:14 PM (+fuKQ)

185 only homeowners with a decent sized bit of property can get Dish. renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway. A typical restriction to dish around here is that you can't attach the thing to your property. You can't screw a bracket into the wall for example. Renters usually get around that restriction by using a non-permanent way of setting up the dish. IE a pole in a cement-filled bucket to hold up the dish. The only problem then is to have a view of the correct part of the sky. Unless you're talking about those enormous eight foot dishes.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:14 PM (WhJf8)

186

Many apartment complexes will not let you put up a dish. My Daugher's apartments won't, for example. So Ace is right on that too, in many inatances.

One reason I fucking hate apartments. One of  a multitude of reasons I hate them.

Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 12:15 PM (xWW96)

187 Many of them cannot get Dish/DirectTV, and last I checked I can't get HBO on OTA broadcasts. So... yeah, monopoly. ---- Then move to a building that allows this. My idea of a monopoly must be a little different. I'm sorry you can't get HBO, but I don't see why the federal government should be in the business of making sure that everyone can get HBO. I don't feel sorry for Comcast. THis is politics. But I don't have to like it.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:15 PM (gmeXX)

188 The American Way alternate title Riders of the Storm

Posted by: RWC at May 08, 2014 12:16 PM (fWAjv)

189 I hope we never make that argument. It implies that some campaign contributions should be illegal. No. It admits the reality that some campaign contributions are illegal.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:16 PM (PYAXX)

190 Remember, Comcast owns MSNBC and NBC News.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:16 PM (ZPrif)

191 One reason I fucking hate apartments. Don't forget the crack smoking cock roaches.

Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 12:16 PM (QupBk)

192 Renters can get a dish, but the complex will make it such a pain in the ass it isn't worth it.

Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2014 12:16 PM (VhqUZ)

193 I ditched comcast 20 years ago for Direct TV. I haven't missed them for a pico second.

Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 12:17 PM (xWW96)

194 switch to verizon

Posted by: avi at May 08, 2014 12:17 PM (p/izY)

195 Don't know if it is still the case, but there was a federal law that said you had the right to put up an antenna (or dish) to receive a TV signal, no matter where you lived.

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 12:17 PM (eEBON)

196 What if that company chose to not service customers of a certain color or religion or political affiliation? Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 04:02 PM (ZkzmI) That comment ought to have won the thread.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:18 PM (bb5+k)

197 Unless you're talking about those enormous eight foot dishes. Those are the State Flower of Wyoming.

Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 12:18 PM (Ngvd+)

198 Don't forget the crack smoking cock roaches. My inlaws were paying $600/month for an apartment in an area where $900/month gets you a really nice apartment. Police raids, neighbors on meth, and a couple of knife fights pushed them out.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:19 PM (WhJf8)

199 aye let it be exclaimed and well known that Comcast sucks balls and no one should ever use them, even as they try rebranding their shitty service as xfiniity or whatever.

Posted by: joeindc44 at May 08, 2014 12:19 PM (FQLT3)

200 Personally, I think antitrust should spit up Comcast and Time-Warner and force them to own either the pipes or the content. Same thing Feds did when they broke up the Hollywood Studio System. Comcast abuses their monopoly every day to favor Comcast-owned channels vs, for example, Fox Channels. Comcast refuses to put the Fox Sports channels next to the "sports bloc" of channels with ESPN, ESPN2, and Comcast-owned NBC Sports. Comcast refuses to put Fox Business next to the news channels like CNN, FoxNews and Comcast-owned MSNBC.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:19 PM (ZPrif)

201

The way that Cable Companies bundle their channels is essentially forcing people to buy products that they don't want.

 

What if grocery stores did this?

Or clothing stores?

I use these examples because food and clothing are basic necessities.

 

When Cable Companies were hauled into Congress back in the 90's and asked about this...they said:

 

"If we allowed people to pick and choose which channels they wanted, then there are a lot of channels that would go out of business."

 

So...the Cable Companies admitted that they were fostering the survival of the channels that they 'approved' of.

 

Cable Companies live in fear of having to provide 'A La Carte' cable service.

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 12:20 PM (l/M30)

202 I got me a Obamadish

Posted by: Peggy Joseph at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (8ZskC)

203 Those are the State Flower of Wyoming. I only ever knew one person who had one of those. Anytime they wanted to change the channel it took about five minutes to move the thing. I guess you could watch other channels without moving the dish, but the one we wanted to watch always required a move.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (WhJf8)

204 Comcast refuses to put Fox Business next to the news channels like CNN, FoxNews and Comcast-owned MSNBC. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 04:19 PM (ZPrif) ****** That is not true, at least here in GA. Fox is right in the middle of that channel block.

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (ojnk6)

205 Personally, I think antitrust should spit up Comcast and Time-Warner and force them to own either the pipes or the content. Same thing Feds did when they broke up the Hollywood Studio System. See, I'd be good with this, too. Like the breakup of Ma Bell, or (here in TX) of TXU (when TX deregulated the energy market).

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (PYAXX)

206 170, that was Riders Of The Storm with Dennis Hopper. And I only know this because they were antiwar veterans sabotaging a RetugliKKKan.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (jJHMW)

207 From the FCC's site:

In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules for Over-the-Air-Reception Devices (“OTARD” rules). The OTARD rules protect a property owner or tenant’s right to install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites (DBS), broadband radio services (formerly referred to as multichannel multipoint distribution services or MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS). However, there are exceptions to the OTARD rules, including provisions for safety and preservation of historic areas.

The FCC later amended the OTARD rules to apply to rental property where the renter has exclusive use of an area, and to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals.

http://tinyurl.com/7vsouxq

Posted by: Countrysquire at May 08, 2014 12:21 PM (eEBON)

208 Someone at the beginning of this thread mentioned that this  plus  threatening  the merger with Time/Warner might  be a bug   and,  whether or not one likes Beck or not, this could be, at least, a good beginning at breaking up the  incestuous relationship between the media and this regime.  I agree.   Gomert's on sound principle here. 

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (g+d/y)

209 The way that Cable Companies bundle their channels is essentially forcing people to buy products that they don't want. ---- I'd make that the focus of this hearing and would condition my recommendation on that issue.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (gmeXX)

210 The monopoly owner of the dumb pipes should not be able to own content abuse their monopoly to favor their content. With movies you can either own movies or theater chains. You can own the content or the distribution. And cable monopolies are much more dominant than theater chains. Of course, the Studio antitrust laws were from a time when many American towns only had one theater.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (ZPrif)

211 "A little populism from the GOP would go a long way in establishing credibility with voters. " "Agreed. The party can't counter the oft-repeated "Republicans only care about corporations and the rich" criticism when they so frequently act like it. " VDH wrote a piece on that after Nov 2012 that was spot-on. If we don't start appealing to the "working class," we're toast - and it's the income level that matters more than white black Asian etc... Romney lost 80% of the vote of people making <50k regardless of race. We used to call those Reagan Democrats.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (7i0fA)

212 The way that Cable Companies bundle their channels is essentially forcing people to buy products that they don't want. Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 04:20 PM (l/M30) We should try doing healthcare like this.

Posted by: RWC at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (fWAjv)

213 I guess you could watch other channels without moving the dish, but the one we wanted to watch always required a move. Movies?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (PYAXX)

214 I'm torn on that. Using the other guy's black hat tactics costs you moral standing and cred with potentially reachable voters but fighting in the other guy's arena without using all the weapons at hand is a good way to lose every fight. Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at May 08, 2014 04:03 PM (7i0fA) I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government---that nation---of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. --Abraham Lincoln--

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (bb5+k)

215 Michael Savage is on right now -- the Left is making a move to restrict radio only in what they do politically.

The Left Never Stops.

Posted by: Beverly at May 08, 2014 12:22 PM (tQSsw)

216

wheatie

Speaking of "A La Carte"....

http://tinyurl.com/8wrcqco

Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 12:23 PM (xWW96)

217 Yeah -- if you're paying in the 600 range for an apartment.......life will be "interesting".

Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2014 12:23 PM (VhqUZ)

218 Posted by: bonhomme at May 08, 2014 04:21 PM (WhJf Oh, yeah. "That's on Telstar 3"

Posted by: garrett at May 08, 2014 12:23 PM (Ngvd+)

219 Comcast won't even carry Fox Sports 2. Or Blaze TV. Or MavTV (motorsports).

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:23 PM (ZPrif)

220 “OTARD” rules What about TFG again?

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at May 08, 2014 12:23 PM (PYAXX)

221 147 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. it's boring. Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 04:04 PM (/FnUH) The "Perfect" is often the enemy of the "good."

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:24 PM (bb5+k)

222 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. here goat, goat, goat....

Posted by: Achmed Mohhammed at May 08, 2014 12:24 PM (q+zA9)

223 >>rolls eyes Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 04:04 PM (/FnUH)< Well that settles the issue of your machismo, but not the argument at hand. And since you hang with Allahpundit, it's actually sort of scary. MINE does not become OURS just because the government shoves its hand up my ass and keeps it there for 100 years, and then pretends government keeps me from falling over. >>Cable is essentially a utility, since it relies on wires. Same as land line telephone, water, electricity and natural gas. It is impractical to run multiple lines to every house, so there is a natural monopoly. This is one of the few areas that government should be involved in.<< This is completely backwards. If I broadcast at 1500 megacycles at 50,000 watts, I will reach a certain number of listeners with my programming. If someone else is at 1498 megacycles with similar signal strength, the consumer gets gibberish. And if somebody had the money to come along later and hit us with 250,000 watts at 1499, we're drowned out entirely. That is why the government can regulate broadcast media and not print or landline. There can be 15000 newsletters in town but not 15000 radio stations. There is nothing impossible, or really impractical, about running multiple wires to homes. Didn't they do that in your town with DSL? The reason local monopolies are in place is that corporate media convinced a federal court, in the late 1990s, that each of them competes with global conglomerates, so, they really have to be allowed to dominate several states in order to survive. It isn't a technical necessity at all.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:25 PM (5xmd7)

224 Yeah -- if you're paying in the 600 range for an apartment.......life will be "interesting". Yep. Still, in their area $900/month gets you a primo, beautiful place.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:26 PM (WhJf8)

225 I hope we never make that argument. It implies that some campaign contributions should be illegal. Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 04:07 PM (gmeXX) Not arguing that campaign contributions should be illegal. Am arguing that non-reported or covert campaign contributions should be illegal, especially when coming from communication monopolists.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:26 PM (bb5+k)

226 My friends, we can work with Comcast. And there is no need for a-la-carte cable before we vote to approve this merger.

Posted by: john mccain at May 08, 2014 12:26 PM (VDovR)

227 Movies? I don't even remember. I think we just had to satellite-hop just to switch from sports to comedy.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/s][/i][/b][/s] at May 08, 2014 12:27 PM (WhJf8)

228 "196 What if that company chose to not service customers of a certain color or religion or political affiliation? Posted by: Vashta Nerada at May 08, 2014 04:02 PM (ZkzmI) " That's forbidden only because of the Civil Rights Act which forbids that to all businesses. It has nothing to do with the equities of that particular industry.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:27 PM (5xmd7)

229 Comcast will do everything the Democrats want, at least until the merger passes.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:28 PM (ZPrif)

230 I'm not sure why that means the federal government should get involved. Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 04:09 PM (gmeXX) Anti-Trust laws.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:28 PM (bb5+k)

231

212...Posted by: RWC at May 08, 2014 04:22 PM (fWAjv)

 

Heh.

I knew someone would see the correlation to ObamaCare, RWC.

 

And you're right.

 

ObamaCare is bundling healthcare insurance the same way that Cable Companies are bundling channels.

 

They both are forcing people to pay for products that they don't want...and will never use.

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 12:28 PM (l/M30)

232 226 My friends, we can work with Comcast. And there is no need for a-la-carte cable before we vote to approve this merger. Posted by: john mccain at May 08, 2014 04:26 PM (VDovR) Actually one of the only things that senile backstabbing asshole has gotten right in the last 20 years is that he is in favor of a la carte cable.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 12:28 PM (z/Ubi)

233 >>Some guys just can't add any facts into their ideology. cable companies are granted a partial or full monopoly by the local government. You can't have a cable company without government involvement -- you need, for example, a law permitting you various easements for laying you cable line. Etc. but whatever. Posted by: ace at May 08, 2014 04:07 PM (/FnUH)<< Go and read Elizabeth Warren's speeches about factories needing government roads, and government schools, and government currency, so, FAIR SHARE PAYBACK!!!

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:29 PM (5xmd7)

234 It is a proper function of responsible government and business to keep crazies off the televisions. Beck was too much of a right wing paranoid conspiracy but and liar for Faux Noise.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 08, 2014 04:12 PM (jJHMW)

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

Oh, hi, Mary.  What's up sweetcakes?   Is that a spider on your face?  Love the perfume you're wearing.

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2014 12:29 PM (g+d/y)

235 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. ----- If your ideology is correct, then why move off it. This hearing is not going to break up the Dem-Media relationship. I understand the need to make non-ideological decisions from time to time. I'm not sure using Glenn Beck as a poster child for viewpoint discrimination is the best way to do it though (regardless of how true it is). For better or worse he is a polarizing figure. If we are going to use this merger for our benefit, and I agree with a lot of posters here, the GOP could use some populism, then surely we can find something to argue for (such as a la carte pricing).

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:29 PM (gmeXX)

236 162 cable companies are granted a partial or full monopoly by the local government.

----

I'm not sure why that means the federal government should get involved.

Look these are all the same reasons given for why Congress was able to haul in the baseball players over steroids. How did we like that.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 04:09 PM (gmeXX)

++++

There are two different kind of monopoly concerns when it comes to Comcast. The first is the one that applies to virtually any cable company serving a local community. Almost always, the city will grant one company the right to run their lines through the city. This is for two basic reasons. The first is that it just isn't economical for multiple companies to run multiple sets of lines. The infrastructure (the plant) is very expensive to build and maintain. If multiple companies have to maintain multiple plants, but then split up the potential customers between them, they will have to charge much higher fees than if just one company had a monopoly and got all the customers to itself. The other reason is those lines that are being run, those telephone poles if the plant is aerial, those boxes one the ground if the plant is underground, they take up space and are thought of as ugly inconveniences by most people. And much of that plant is in the easement areas on people's property. If there had to be multiple companies with their multiple plants, now you have much more of this ugly inconveniences that most homeowners hate.

Besides the local monopoly issue, there is the federal issue. Federal anti-trust law looks skeptically at a situation where one company controls all of a particular kind of business across the country. This is the reason that Standard Oil and ATT were broken up. ATT is an especially good example for this conversation. It used to be that ATT controlled almost all the phone business across the country. They had the local business, the long distance business, they even restricted what equipment you could hook up to their lines, so you had to buy your phones from them. With the breakup, the long distance business was broken out, the phone equipment business was separated, and the local companies were separated into 7 "Baby Bells". Any particular customer still had only one choice for their local phone company, but since there were 7 mini monopolies instead of one big one, we still saw more innovation and something a little closer to a competitive market place.

The feds are interested in Comcast's merger plans because the cable industry has been consolidating. The concern it that we will end up with another ATT situation with the cable business, so the feds are required to look at their plans.


Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 12:29 PM (IN7k+)

237

I liked how Gohmert threw in the line about Gore's payday from oil / carbon based money.

 

I am sure that Comcast is not too eager about Beck not only because he supports true conservatives but he ALSO believes in God and even talks about him!

Posted by: Cheri at May 08, 2014 12:31 PM (G+Wff)

238

>>>Big Business is not a friend to conservatives, but many in the GOP still seem to think so,

 

Business, esp factories and early industry, were the natural seat for the Whigs. Thats why you see this traditional association at the higher echelons of the GOP, but it was never so for the base. Back in the day it was said a Democrat brought war, a Republican brought a recession.

Posted by: Bigby's Flappy Hands at May 08, 2014 12:31 PM (3ZtZW)

239 170 What was that movie with Michael Pollard where they flew a nuclear powered B29 for decades broadcasting a pirate signal? Posted by: toby928© at May 08, 2014 04:11 PM (QupBk) Don't know but it sounds like a movie I would like to see. Scratch that. A bit of bing-fu and the answer is "The American Way." 1986. Now I have something to look for.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:31 PM (bb5+k)

240 The network in the Gohmert clip that wants to sell to Beck is RL TV. So sayeth the lawyer-creature for Comcast.

Lawyer-creature claims that they can't slot Beck into RL's place because RL had a non-political content contract with Comcast, and Beck will be political. Say what?

So, supposedly, they won't allow themselves to have a new, popular network in their lineup because it carries different material? What am I missing here?

Posted by: Beverly at May 08, 2014 12:32 PM (tQSsw)

241

232...Actually one of the only things that senile backstabbing asshole has gotten right in the last 20 years is that he is in favor of a la carte cable.

 

Posted by: Buzzion

 

---------

 

Yeah.

I was amazed to see McCain onboard with that.

 

Hey, whatever happened to that Bill anyway?

Did he ever file it? Or did Hairy Reed not let him bring it up.

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 12:33 PM (l/M30)

242 My friends, we can work with Comcast. And there is no need for a-la-carte cable before we vote to approve this merger. Posted by: john mccain at May 08, 2014 04:26 PM (VDovR) McCain tried to pass legislation forcing cable companies to offer a la carte.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 08, 2014 12:33 PM (SY2Kh)

243 Gohmert might just be the best member oif the House. He oughta be the Speaker.

Please, don't tease me.

Posted by: Paladin at May 08, 2014 12:34 PM (4kpbt)

244 180 What was that movie with Michael Pollard where they flew a nuclear powered B29 for decades broadcasting a pirate signal?
I'm certain you're just making that up.
Posted by: eleven at May 08, 2014 04:13 PM (VhqUZ)
No. Here it is :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091853/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at May 08, 2014 12:34 PM (27KaM)

245 I understand that the federal governments involvement here is based on anti-trust (though I do not think it is in play here). But the posters are saying the government should get involved because Comcast has been granted a government monopoly but by the local governments.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:35 PM (gmeXX)

246 @153 ace, the monopoly is being eroded by ATT and their cable operations. Most city now have a free for all. Google is wiring some cities. Comcast's problem is their control of the broadband which is where TV etc is going. Think Netflicks. 20% of ALL broadband usage. I am not in favor of a cable operation that owns a network getting bigger. NBC just bought rights to Olympics. Guess who will pay for that? You with higher cable bills or PPV. What if Comcast decides they don't want CBS on their system? Reminds me of the old theater wars in the 20's and 30's. The studios owned theaters and would only show their shows. Federal government broke that up.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 12:35 PM (0FSuD)

247 @229 The CEO of Comcast is on Obamas jobs competetiveness council so I guess its a natural fit for a guy who heads a monopoly to be on panel that tries to create an environment conducive to competition. O.o

Posted by: Kreplach at May 08, 2014 12:36 PM (8tAEF)

248 When AT&T was broken up in 1984, MCI, Sprint, etc had no networks which would take billions to build The judge decreed that AT&T had to lease bandwidth to them Verizon and AT&T provide tv programming through DSL services. The time might come where people decide to tell Comcast to take their ever rising rates, piss poor customer service, and Big Brother attitude and shove their cables up their asses

Posted by: kbdabear at May 08, 2014 12:36 PM (aTXUx)

249 ot - sad weaselzippers is being attacke by google due to adsense someone ratted him out and/or he's being targeted due to ideology but, it's basically due to zip content to linked content ratio

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at May 08, 2014 12:36 PM (IXrOn)

250
Scratch that. A bit of bing-fu and the answer is "The American Way." 1986.
Now I have something to look for.
Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 04:31 PM (bb5+k)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6HnWLo4rt8


Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at May 08, 2014 12:36 PM (27KaM)

251 only homeowners with a decent sized bit of property can get Dish. renters can't, as they're typically forbidden to put the dish up, and oftentimes they wouldn't have a place to put it anyway. A typical restriction to dish around here is that you can't attach the thing to your property. You can't screw a bracket into the wall for example. Renters usually get around that restriction by using a non-permanent way of setting up the dish. IE a pole in a cement-filled bucket to hold up the dish. The only problem then is to have a view of the correct part of the sky. Unless you're talking about those enormous eight foot dishes. The HD dishes are bigger. But Dish & DirecTv have put more satelites up for better coverage. When we first got our house in Northern Westchester, we couldn't get DirecTv (our apartment landlord let us put up a dish) so we were stuck with Cablevision. Then a few years later we met an independent installer, and he had us up and running in no time. I've seen people in condos put it in the bushes and run the wire back.

Posted by: Iblis at May 08, 2014 12:36 PM (9221z)

252 Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2014 04:22 PM (g+d/y) Did you happen to see the conviction of Al Gerhart of the Sooner Tea Party? Looks like bullshit to me.

Posted by: D-Lamp at May 08, 2014 12:37 PM (bb5+k)

253 So Comcast is fighting to prevent a popular network from taking over an unpopular network that nobody watches? Clearly it makes business sense for Comcast to try and have as many popular channels as it can get. Yet here it's fighting to do the opposite. Why? Cause they need Democrats to approve the merger.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:37 PM (ZPrif)

254
There is nothing impossible, or really impractical, about running multiple wires to homes.

Posted by: Chris Balsz


Yes, there is. The easement. The only way to run wire is through the city property.

Didn't they do that in your town with DSL?

NOPE. DSL runs on existing copper lines from the phone company. And the fiber connex are strung beside it or they replace the original copper.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at May 08, 2014 12:37 PM (JmGFJ)

255 By all means get the Feral Gubmint involved. Everything they touch turns out so well.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 08, 2014 12:37 PM (32Ze2)

256

Dish and Direct TV both owe their success to Comcast. The last thing they want to see is for Comcast to change.

Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 12:38 PM (xWW96)

257 Lois Lerner Lerner’s Mindset Revealed: Lois Lerner, in response to a story sent to her regarding the complaint to the FEC against Crossroads GPS replies “Perhaps the FEC will save the day.” july 10 2012. so whether the idea is being coerced or by ideology at least we know where Durbin, Schumer, Levin, obama and holder stand on any outlet besides Their diologially owned outlet news.

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:38 PM (nqBYe)

258 Because they need FCC approval for a proposed merger with Time Warner. One could argue that they shouldn't need said approval, but the fact is that they do. ----- The Comcast lawyer is attempting to claim that Comcast's hands are tied here-- we've got this policy, you see. Comcast can't allow a company that it is doing business with to sell itself and pay Comcast millions because of business "Policy" and yet the very same regulator of Comcast, the FCC, that needs to approve the TW merger for Comcast has no problem re-interpreting not just Policy but an actual law all on its own to give itself powers it does not legally have. And I thought things could not become more twisted these days.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 08, 2014 12:39 PM (1ip6J)

259 I'm guessing the fact that I live in Texas has influenced my thinking on this, and not simply because Texas has been a deregulator, but mainly because here you basically can get whatever you want whether you live in an apartment or not. Comcast, Dish, Direct, U-verse. I suppose if I lived in NYC or another similar city where my options were more limited whether because of building rules or sight lines, I may think differently.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 12:39 PM (gmeXX)

260 OT, but Sean Penn is defending Venezuelan President Maduro's violence against his own people. From WeaselZippers: "In an interview with Al Jazeera, actor Sean Penn defended Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who’s government has led a bloody crackdown amid protests over shortages and political repression. Penn called Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez a 'great friend' and said that Venezuela’s president faces unrest over economic hardship much like President Barack Obama faced when he took office. 'President Maduro inherited a lot of the growing pains that were left, and the problems that came of a country largely forced into paranoia, largely forced into certain relationships that maybe are distasteful,' Penn said." Gee, I didn't know Bush was President of Venezuela when Chavez was suppose to be in charge--how else could you explain "Maduro inheriting" a bad situation from his predecessor?

Posted by: runningrn at May 08, 2014 12:40 PM (OfEk+)

261 sorry comment was marginally in line with nbs and affiliated owners.

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:40 PM (nqBYe)

262 Oops.  Missed that.  Haven't watched local news in awhile.

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2014 12:40 PM (g+d/y)

263 "5 sorry whatever some of you guys have a Little List of Simple Ideological Answers and no one is capable of getting you to move off of them. " I liked what Reagan said about simple answers. "Sometimes the answers are simple. Simple, but not easy." I like Reagan because he didn't let facts get in the way of his ideology. He let his ideology steamroller the facts. For instance: FACT: Iran is a hostile, anti-American power that inherited the largest navy in the Middle East. REAGAN: Not anymore, bitches! If the fact that local monopolies require we climb down from our purity throne and let government dictate content of media outlets, I say, smash the fact that local governments can grant cable monopolies.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:40 PM (5xmd7)

264 running? they are shamelss in their loyalty to despots. i think because they Like the idea of Owning people and their ideas. and fruits

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:42 PM (nqBYe)

265 >>Yes, there is. The easement. The only way to run wire is through the city property. ...NOPE. DSL runs on existing copper lines from the phone company. And the fiber connex are strung beside it or they replace the original copper. Posted by: weft cut-loop at May 08, 2014 04:37 PM (JmGFJ) Which is it? You need an easement to run wires in or you can piggyback the phone lines?

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 08, 2014 12:42 PM (5xmd7)

266 201 The way that Cable Companies bundle their channels is essentially forcing people to buy products that they don't want.

What if grocery stores did this?
Or clothing stores?
I use these examples because food and clothing are basic necessities.

When Cable Companies were hauled into Congress back in the 90's and asked about this...they said:

"If we allowed people to pick and choose which channels they wanted, then there are a lot of channels that would go out of business."

So...the Cable Companies admitted that they were fostering the survival of the channels that they 'approved' of.

Cable Companies live in fear of having to provide 'A La Carte' cable service.

Posted by: wheatie at May 08, 2014 04:20 PM (l/M30)

++++

The cable companies don't just pay fees to the owners of the channels they carry. They also must maintain the cable plant thoughout their coverage area. This plant is hugely expensive to build and maintain. They have to pay fees to whoever owns the poles they are on (usually the phone company, but sometimes the power company), they have to have technicians maintaining the plant (amplifiers wear out, wire connections become corroded, etc), they have to have CSRs (customer service representatives) answering the phones, and on and on.

If they were to allow you to sign up for just one channel, think how expensive it would have to be for them to have all that it place just so they can sell you that one channel. And let's say you neighbor wanted to do the same, but his one channel would be a different one than the one you chose. The only way it makes sense from a business point of view is that if they are selling you enough product to make it worth their while to have all that infrastructure in place. So, they put together a bundle. They try to make sure that included in the bundle are the channels that you want as well as the ones that all your neighbors want.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 12:42 PM (IN7k+)

267 "...but mainly because here you basically can get whatever you want whether you live in an apartment or not. Comcast, Dish, Direct, U-verse." Posted by: SH I live way out in the Hill Country and it is either Hughes, Dish or U-verse. Nothing else.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 08, 2014 12:42 PM (+YJ7p)

268 It's time for Corporate Justice: If a senile 80-year-old can stripped of his control of his NBA franchise ... ... the Owners (i.e., more than 5% of the stock), Board of Directors, Presidents, Vps and lawyers can be stripped of their control of COmcast. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Posted by: Guy Karate, Member, The League of Ugly Shirted Gentlemen at May 08, 2014 12:43 PM (FlRtG)

269 The way that Cable Companies bundle their channels is essentially forcing people to buy products that they don't want. What if grocery stores did this? Or clothing stores? I use these examples because food and clothing are basic necessities. or the american govt?

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:43 PM (nqBYe)

270 So Google is trying to shut down Weasel Zippers http://weaselzippers.us/185377-google-cracks-down-on-wz/#more-185377

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:43 PM (ZPrif)

271 There are lots of ways to run your lines over existing easements. Quest ran all it's long distance line down rail road easements.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 12:44 PM (0FSuD)

272 Michael White runs Direct TV. He's a republican donor.

Posted by: jwest at May 08, 2014 12:44 PM (u2a4R)

273 This is just Comcast's latest nonsensical stunt. They've already been in trouble for throttling Netflix on their lines. They must be really sure that this merger is in the bag...

Posted by: AC at May 08, 2014 12:44 PM (Cr4HZ)

274 running? they are shamelss in their loyalty to despots. i think because they Like the idea of Owning people and their ideas. and fruits Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 04:42 PM (nqBYe) *swoon*

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/b][/s][/u] at May 08, 2014 12:46 PM (yz6yg)

275 256 Dish and Direct TV both owe their success to Comcast. The last thing they want to see is for Comcast to change. Posted by: maddogg at May 08, 2014 04:38 PM (xWW96) Didn't dish and direct tv attempt to perform a merger several years ago? I believe they were stopped because of the claimed monopoly it would cause. That would be case of arguing that they aren't in competition with cable companies. And I'm sure right now comcast and time warner are arguing that they definitely are so a merger of their businesses totally isn't a monopoly.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 12:46 PM (z/Ubi)

276 @266 You simply don't understand how digital cable works. The computer can send to you whatever you order at no additional cost beside the original fixed cost. Your local cable sell packages now. You can buy basic or add HBO or Star, etc. There are lots of choices. De bundling would not kill cable, they would just have to have different pricing.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 12:48 PM (0FSuD)

277 Sean, i should have been pleasantery (sure that might be a word!) in my comment.

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:48 PM (nqBYe)

278 So Google is going to ban Weasel Zippers from adsense for not having enough "original content". Policy would ban almost all blogs and news aggregators. Selective enforcement for fun and profit.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:49 PM (ZPrif)

279 Didn't dish and direct tv attempt to perform a merger several years ago? I believe they were stopped because of the claimed monopoly it would cause. That would be case of arguing that they aren't in competition with cable companies. And I'm sure right now comcast and time warner are arguing that they definitely are so a merger of their businesses totally isn't a monopoly. Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 04:46 PM (z/Ubi) Yeah. Comcast/TW told Congress that they don't compete with each other now because they are not in the same geographical regions, therefore a merger would not create a monopoly. And they said it with a straight face.

Posted by: AC at May 08, 2014 12:49 PM (Cr4HZ)

280 If they were to allow you to sign up for just one channel, think how expensive it would have to be for them to have all that it place just so they can sell you that one channel. And let's say you neighbor wanted to do the same, but his one channel would be a different one than the one you chose. The only way it makes sense from a business point of view is that if they are selling you enough product to make it worth their while to have all that infrastructure in place. So, they put together a bundle. They try to make sure that included in the bundle are the channels that you want as well as the ones that all your neighbors want.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 04:42 PM (IN7k+)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

This could be corrected by seperating cable access and service.  Pay for the access  and then have various levels of service contracts  the customer could buy.

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2014 12:50 PM (g+d/y)

281 Zampolits = Soviet political officers.

See here: "Zampolits have come to America." Did anyone know about Bush doing this?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/o8fbfqv

This is like Nixon founding the EPA. (Yep, he did.)

Posted by: Beverly at May 08, 2014 12:51 PM (tQSsw)

282 more pleasant might have been appropriate but , i'm tired (just walked to the store and back for milk.)

Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 12:51 PM (nqBYe)

283 And Google News, of course, has zero original content.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 08, 2014 12:51 PM (ZPrif)

284 Nood Corgis.

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at May 08, 2014 12:51 PM (ojnk6)

285 Sean, i should have been pleasantery (sure that might be a word!) in my comment. Posted by: willow at May 08, 2014 04:48 PM (nqBYe) You're on a roll today. Go with it.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/b][/s][/u] at May 08, 2014 12:51 PM (yz6yg)

286 Comcast replies: http://youtu.be/HAo5GgaJmsA

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at May 08, 2014 12:52 PM (VvOZ5)

287 So Google is going to ban Weasel Zippers from adsense for not having enough "original content". And yet news.google.com has absolutely no original content. Huh. Go figure.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 08, 2014 12:52 PM (FG2mD)

288 245 I understand that the federal governments involvement here is based on anti-trust (though I do not think it is in play here). But the posters are saying the government should get involved because Comcast has been granted a government monopoly but by the local governments.

Posted by: SH at May 08, 2014 04:35 PM (gmeXX)

++++

What the other commenters are getting at is that because the cable company has a local monopoly, it just will not do for them to be able to refuse to carry certain channels because Comcast doesn't like their politics. The way we treat the phone companies is instructive. What if a local phone company decided not to provide services to certain groups because they didn't like the group's politics. We don't allow the phone companies to discriminate in that way. The phone companies are regulated as common carriers. As long as you pay your bills and you are not using the phone to run some kind of illegal enterprise, the phone company has to take your business. The argument the other commenters are making is that Comcast should be treated the same way.

The reason the feds come into it, is right this minute, Comcast is trying to do a merger and they want the federal government to let it go through. The undertone to all of this is that Comcast is worried that if they let Beck have his channel, he will do what he always does: exposed the corruptness of DC in general and Dems in particular. And that would make the feds looking at their merger unhappy.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 12:54 PM (IN7k+)

289 >>>>This could be corrected by seperating cable access and service. Pay for the access and then have various levels of service contracts the customer could buy. Or just make it that a la carte requires a cable box. Which having that allows you to receive separate channel packages from your neighbors. I've got two tvs but only one of them has a box. Wouldn't surprise me at all that I could have a lower bill with a la carte cable and paying the fee on two dvr cable boxes than I do currently. Shit I'm on time warner and they already have it that there are quite a few channels you can only receive with a cable box.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 12:54 PM (z/Ubi)

290 Everyone is too quick for me today.

Posted by: Daybrother at May 08, 2014 12:55 PM (43KGB)

291 271 There are lots of ways to run your lines over existing easements.

Quest ran all it's long distance line down rail road easements.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 04:44 PM (0FSuD)

++++

Which community has RR tracks running up to every home?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 12:56 PM (IN7k+)

292 Which community has RR tracks running up to every home? Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 04:56 PM (IN7k+) Tinkertown? Legoville?

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/b][/s][/u] at May 08, 2014 12:57 PM (yz6yg)

293 Which community has RR tracks running up to every home? Posted by: Anon Y. Mous We're working on that with high speed rail.

Posted by: California at May 08, 2014 12:59 PM (qCz/+)

294 276 @266

You simply don't understand how digital cable works. The computer can send to you whatever you order at no additional cost beside the original fixed cost. Your local cable sell packages now.

You can buy basic or add HBO or Star, etc. There are lots of choices. De bundling would not kill cable, they would just have to have different pricing.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 08, 2014 04:48 PM (0FSuD)

++++

And do their computers magically transmit the signal from the cable company into your home? As I understand it, there are wires that carry the signal from them to you. Those wires are expensive to build and maintain. Those costs have to be accounted for. If they are split up over 150 channels, it is a big difference from if the sale of 1 channel has to pick up the whole tab.

But, maybe I'm missing something. Explain it to me. How does the cable company pay for all that infrastructure if all its customers are only subscribing to a handful of channels each?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 01:02 PM (IN7k+)

295 >>>>But, maybe I'm missing something. Explain it to me. How does the cable company pay for all that infrastructure if all its customers are only subscribing to a handful of channels each? It's been that way for a while. You realize that you are getting the HD signal sent to your cable wires even if you aren't subscribing to be channels? You just need a hd box to unscramble the signal and know you are authorized to view.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 01:07 PM (z/Ubi)

296 295 >>>>But, maybe I'm missing something. Explain it to me. How does the cable company pay for all that infrastructure if all its customers are only subscribing to a handful of channels each?


It's been that way for a while. You realize that you are getting the HD signal sent to your cable wires even if you aren't subscribing to be channels? You just need a hd box to unscramble the signal and know you are authorized to view.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 05:07 PM (z/Ubi)

++++

It's been that way from the very beginning of the cable industry. They send all the channels everywhere, and then they use some form of technology to prevent you from getting the extra stuff. But, they have always required that everyone subscribe to a basic level of service. It is through the fees from that basic bundle of service that they pay for the lines going out to your house. If you want to add HBO, now or then, you pay more and then they do whatever the technology of the time requires of them to unblock it and let you have it.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 08, 2014 01:13 PM (IN7k+)

297 Beck should 'come out' as bisexual.


That would fix everything.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at May 08, 2014 01:17 PM (5ikDv)

298 AT&T is looking better to me if its just for the FU to Comcast. Anyone else have AT&T and how bad does it suck?

Posted by: Burt Toste at May 08, 2014 01:22 PM (xzZPy)

299 And if you look basic cable service is fairly low cost. Just looking at the bare bones cable only starter package it is $20 a month where I live. So arguably that $20 is enough for them to maintain service. Sounds like a good starting point to me.

Posted by: Buzzion at May 08, 2014 01:26 PM (z/Ubi)

300 ...... forcing you to buy something that you don't want. We talking about Comcast or Oboobiecare ?

Posted by: seamrog at May 08, 2014 02:04 PM (xNFIJ)

301 Cancel Comcast or Time/Warner and get Dish Network or DirecTV.  The sat services are not owned by lefties.

Posted by: Rusty Nail at May 08, 2014 10:33 PM (WtVhX)

302 What "facts" am I ignoring? "The cable companies exist because they are a government created monopoly" is an opinion, not a fact. They certainly didn't start out as a government monopoly, nor are Netflix or Amazon who use a different technology for practically the same service. "The cable companies benefit from local monopolies and any policy we propose has to accommodate and perpetuate that system" is an opinion, not a fact. Rejecting postulates isn't the same thing as ignoring facts for ideology. Further, "property" is a concept and "civic duty" is a concept. You cannot possibly discuss the two in an "ideology-free" environment, even if you wanted to. The orientation of rights and duties into a moral system, which is what you embark upon when you say "So and so OUGHT TO do this or that", is an example of an ideology. And, when you say property ownership is not an absolute, but a relative concept, moderated by utilitarian analysis of quality-of-life issues, allowing government to step in and tell people what to do with their property... you're not a free spirit transcending the conservative "property rights" fuddy-duddies. You are a communitarian. You're taking on the values and moral code of a contrary ideology.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at May 09, 2014 08:03 AM (5xmd7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled.
253kb generated in CPU 0.0939, elapsed 0.3207 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2835 seconds, 430 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 8676
  • Files: 129
  • Bytes: 187.8M
  • CPU Time: 7:27
  • Queries: 219305

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0