 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Linklist
Re: FCCs removes rules forcing cable sell content to Sat &Telcos I'm not crazy about content prices but I really see no legal basis for the original rule. The government should never be allowed to compel a private interest to engage in business against its wishes.
The problem of course is another creation of government... who in their right mind thought that merging a content distributor like Comcast with a content creator like NBCU would be a good idea?
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to merge but how do you see this as a creation of government?!?! Do you somehow think that if government wasn't involved in the process at all they wouldn't have merged? This is clearly a creation of big business... not government.
Certainly there is a conflict of interest when distributors merge with/buy out content creators. This rule removal is anti-consumer as the conglomerates can now exploit this conflict of interest to hinder competition. The way to handle this is to restrict infrastructure companies (Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc.) to only providing a pipe, not allow the selling of content. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by CXM_Splicer:I agree that they shouldn't have been allowed to merge but how do you see this as a creation of government?!?! The government approved the merger. That is why I describe this as a creation of government. This merger would have been the ideal time to apply some anti-trust laws to protect consumers.
See? I'm not completely anti-government. 
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. |
|
| reply to pnh102
If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by biochemistry:If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own.
I believe this is wrong. Cable companies pay for right-of-way. They are not given it as a government grant. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to biochemistry
said by biochemistry:If they want access to government infrastructure, then they should be compelled to follow certain rules. Cable can't exist without running wires on property that they do not own.
What government infrastructure are you referring to?
Cable obtains most of its pole-attachment space from telco.
In Kansas City, the entity that "should be compelled to follow certain rules" is Google. They're the ones forcing TV customers to buy unwanted broadband; they're the ones accessing government infrastructure. |
|
