Six leading Democratic senators have written to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Justice (DoJ) asking them to reject the proposed $45.2 billion acquisition of Time Warner by Comcast.
In the two-page letter, signed by Senators Franken, Sanders, Markey, Wyden, Warren, and Blumenthal, the senators warn that "Comcast-TWC's unmatched power in the telecommunications industry would lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and poorer quality services for Americans."
Sources have told the Wall Street Journal that both the FCC and DoJ are not happy with the proposed merger, and that the FCC may hold a formal hearing into the deal soon. Bloomberg also reported that staff attorneys at the DoJ's antitrust division are prepared to recommend blocking the deal [autoplay video].
Related Stories
Comcast is reportedly backing out of its planned acquisition of Time Warner Cable. What's more, Comcast will not have to pay a breakup fee... unlike AT&T after its failed merger with T-Mobile US. Time Warner Cable CEO Rob Marcus will forgo $80 million due to the failure of the acquisition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2015, @04:55AM
both the FCC and DoJ are not happy with the proposed merger
You have to wonder whether they've been under-bribed or taken out by a competitive bribe. If it's the second, I wonder which company is behind it?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:21AM
(now that I think of it...) There's nothing else in the equation that isn't related with bribes? Or is this a false dilemma?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:34AM
So, if everyone that can stop it is against it I'm just going to go out on a limb and say yep: it's a done deal.</cynical>
Seriously though, why is it even getting to the stage where senators are weighing in? If the deal is so obviously bad to everyone who looks at it, what parliamentary tricks are TWC/Comcast pulling here to keep it moving?
(Score: 1) by similar_name on Wednesday April 22 2015, @06:26AM
You might find Meredith Baker [wikipedia.org] relevant.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Wednesday April 22 2015, @08:18AM
No, this is the warning shot across the bow, indicating they are displeased with the current 'offering' of TW and Comcast.
Time to sweeten the pot!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:14AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday April 22 2015, @05:29AM
No, given the context, I believe it's correct. They may have used "former" in its (less usual) meaning of "late/deceased" (as in: "the hearing is already dead... soon everybody will know").
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Funny) by similar_name on Wednesday April 22 2015, @06:28AM
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday April 22 2015, @06:38AM
Come again? A bit louder, please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday April 22 2015, @06:51AM
Come again? A bit louder, please?
That's what she said.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 22 2015, @06:47AM
Damn, thanks
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 22 2015, @07:13AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2015, @12:42PM
The merged company will have even more of a monopoly on the buy side, when negotiating for content and labor. That hardly matters when you're talking about ESPN, but think about an entrepreneur pitching a new science channel. If Comcast won't pay a reasonable price for it, maybe TWC will. But "Bugs Cast" could just say, "Take these crumbs or get out."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2015, @02:04PM
> think about an entrepreneur pitching a new science channel.
Or an entrepreneur pitching a new nutjob channel. [politico.com] So much irony there ... especially since the guy is still 100% against net neutrality.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by morgauxo on Wednesday April 22 2015, @01:13PM
I'd rather see them split along service lines than limited geographically. Most communities only get one cable company anyway. City councils want to limit the number of lines ran so that means we don't get competition. Limiting Comcast geographically isn't going to give anybody competition. It just means that some areas get one monopolist, other areas get another.
But... Comcast's ownership of media producers such as NBC/Universal and others.. that has GOT to go! By owning the content production AND the distribution they certainly have both the motivation and the means to "pick the winners"! I'm a little less sure how to implement this since they are using the same wires but I would like to see the TV and Internet sides split up too. Television has always been Comcast's bread and butter. Internet access is a competitor to that. Comcast is both motivated and has the means to slow down Internet development in order to keep milking the television cow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 22 2015, @03:38PM
Weird, it's just weird that both of my senators are against this. It seems as though there may be hope for my state yet.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 22 2015, @07:43PM
Comcast allegedly talked its fellow Hulu investors out of selling the TV streaming upstart to DirecTV or AT&T by insisting it could steer the web biz to financial triumph [theregister.co.uk]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]