Charter Communications to acquire Cox Communications

[SEWIGuy]

To be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se.  There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.

It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.

Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.

And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?  I remember the fights over net neutrality.  I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet.  They are absolutely moving to control everything.  Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.

Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

[oscar]

Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.

And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?

Even if it isn't, that doesn't make it an antitrust law violation.

(speaking as a retired antitrust lawyer, though I never had anything to do with cable companies)

[vdeane]

To be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se.  There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.

It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.

Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.

And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?  I remember the fights over net neutrality.  I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet.  They are absolutely moving to control everything.  Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.

Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however.  They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders.  Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.

[SEWIGuy]

To be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se.  There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.

It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.

Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.

And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?  I remember the fights over net neutrality.  I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet.  They are absolutely moving to control everything.  Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.

Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however.  They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders.  Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.

You seem to be against something simply because it is large. If consumer prices aren't affected, and legitimate options are still available, I don't understand how simply a corporation getting larger is an anti-trust issue.

[kphoger]

If consumer prices aren't affected, ...

If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.

[kalvado]

If consumer prices aren't affected, ...

If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.

Why would they?

[kalvado]

. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

I don't know what is your experience location-wise, what I see locally are patches of competition in a sea of cable connections. Competition exists on paper, starlink and 5G are listed on FCC site as options. Price wise, once the cable company senses there is a viable alternative - prices drop like a rock on that street. Otherwise it's "another $5 increase"

[kphoger]

If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.

Why would they?

Charter's president/CEO has stated, "The first goal in operational integration will be to ensure that Spectrum customers and employees have the same experience between different footprints."  This means they'll work at making pricing and packaging uniform across the enterprise.  And Charter's Spectrum product bundles are generally known for being relatively inexpensive compared to their competition—notably Cox product bundles.  It may not happen that current Cox customers will see their bills drop, but I wouldn't be surprised if new customers in current Cox markets are offered lower-priced packages when signing up for Spectrum after the merger than they otherwise would have when signing up for Cox.

[kalvado]

If anything, I suspect prices in current Cox markets might actually go down because of the merger.

Why would they?

Charter's president/CEO has stated, "The first goal in operational integration will be to ensure that Spectrum customers and employees have the same experience between different footprints."  This means they'll work at making pricing and packaging uniform across the enterprise.  And Charter's Spectrum product bundles are generally known for being relatively inexpensive compared to their competition—notably Cox product bundles.  It may not happen that current Cox customers will see their bills drop, but I wouldn't be surprised if new customers in current Cox markets are offered lower-priced packages when signing up for Spectrum after the merger than they otherwise would have when signing up for Cox.

I am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..

[kphoger]

I am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..

Correct.  Our family currently has Cox service with internet only.  Our speed package is a grandfathered one (no longer available) at 250/20 Mbps down/up, and we rent a modem/router combo gateway.  The base package rate for our internet is $70 per month.  (Huh, interesting, I see now that we've had a campaign on our account since August to make the modem rental free.  I also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds.  I'll have to look into that.)

When I look at Charter packages in Lincoln (NE), their base package is only $30 per month.  When I compare packages for 500 Mbps down, it's $80 with Cox compared to $50 with Charter.

[kalvado]

I am not sure what cox pricing is, but looks like $50 monthly is their baseline. ..

Correct.  Our family currently has Cox service with internet only.  Our speed package is a grandfathered one (no longer available) at 250/20 Mbps down/up, and we rent a modem/router combo gateway.  The base package rate for our internet is $70 per month.  (Huh, interesting, I see now that we've had a campaign on our account since August to make the modem rental free.  I also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds.  I'll have to look into that.)

When I look at Charter packages in Lincoln (NE), their base package is only $30 per month.  When I compare packages for 500 Mbps down, it's $80 with Cox compared to $50 with Charter.

Well, we have $83 for 400/10 DOCSIS from Spectrum in a no-competition area... Good news is that modem is included, modem with router and wifi would be extra.  So when you say prices would be set by Charter....

[kphoger]

I also see now that we might be able to save money by switching to the lowest-priced currently offered package and still end up with faster speeds.  I'll have to look into that.

Scratch that.  I just attempted to do a service change on my own account, and the base rate for 300 Mbps populates at $70 per month.  The $50 rate must only be for new customers or something.

Well, we have $83 for 400/10 DOCSIS from Spectrum in a no-competition area... Good news is that modem is included, modem with router and wifi would be extra.  So when you say prices would be set by Charter....

The next step up from 300 with Cox is 500, and that runs $90 per month, and the gateway rental would be $15 on top.  But anyway, Charter's multi-service bundles are also considered to be more competitive than Cox's.

[SEWIGuy]

. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

I don't know what is your experience location-wise, what I see locally are patches of competition in a sea of cable connections. Competition exists on paper, starlink and 5G are listed on FCC site as options. Price wise, once the cable company senses there is a viable alternative - prices drop like a rock on that street. Otherwise it's "another $5 increase"

I have three legitimate options here. Mine is through the local cable company however. MediaCom. It's fine.

[Scott5114]

I signed up for Cox so long ago that I ended up somehow owning my own modem. The tech who came out to my house when we moved thought that was pretty cool, and he geeked out a little bit over my Latvian router too.

[vdeane]

To be fair, there's also the issue of bigger companies having more power/influence over the market, so mergers can be an issue even if they don't reduce competition per se.  There's a reason why Bell was broken up, after all.

It wasn't broken up because it was deemed too big. It was broken up because it controlled all long-distance, most local and all of the equipment that attached with the system. There was little to no room for competition in any of those areas.

Antitrust is about anti competitive behavior - not just size.

And letting the cable companies get to that point is a good idea?  I remember the fights over net neutrality.  I remember how cable companies sued cities that tried to set up their own broadband internet.  They are absolutely moving to control everything.  Honestly, given how cable and streaming compete, there's a case to be made that maybe cable companies shouldn't be ISPs, as they have an inherent market interest in the streaming companies not doing well.

Anti-competitive behavior is what's illegal. Merely getting to that point isn't. And there are multiple options in most communities for ISPs.

Any for-profit corporation that gets to that point is going to be that way, however.  They're legally obligated to maximize short-term gains to their shareholders.  Quite frankly, the interpretation of anti-trust law that anything goes as long as consumer prices aren't affected that we've used since Reagan needs to die.

You seem to be against something simply because it is large. If consumer prices aren't affected, and legitimate options are still available, I don't understand how simply a corporation getting larger is an anti-trust issue.

Around where I am, there are two options for proper broadband: Spectrum and Verizon FiOS.  And Verizon FiOS isn't available across a majority of the metro area (pretty much just Colonie, Guilderland, and maybe Bethlehem and Niskayuna).  Parts of Saratoga County have Greenlight, it's a bit of a crapshoot.  From what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.

And lets not even get started on satellite.  I won't touch anything Musk-related with a 10 mile pole, and HughesNet and 5G hotspots hardly count as broadband.  I'm pretty sure they're only considered "broadband competition" so that the government can pretend that the broadband market isn't a patchwork of local monopolies and duopolies.  And given that ISPs tend not to publish maps of their coverage (Greenlight used to but stopped for some reason), that only serves to obscure things further (you have to manually plug addresses into their sites to get quotes and/or click on locations in the FCC broadband map, which was thankfully still up last I checked).

And, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters.  I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc.  Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.

[kphoger]

I signed up for Cox so long ago that I ended up somehow owning my own modem. The tech who came out to my house when we moved thought that was pretty cool, and he geeked out a little bit over my Latvian router too.

Those modems were only ever for purchase, not rental.  When it comes to internet-only modems (as opposed to eMTAs), except for as part of government assistance programs, it's only modem/router combo gateways that have been available for rental.  I'm surprised your tech didn't know that.

[SEWIGuy]

And, like I said, I reject the Reagan interpretation of anti-trust where consumer prices are the only measurement that matters.  I would say that we need to go back to the older interpretation where many other factors were considered, including level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc.  Big business is the biggest driver on things like enshitification, deregulation, the erosion of good jobs, environmental issues, etc.

First, I think you have a poor understanding of anti-trust law. At no point have "level of service provided, employment conditions, lobbying power, etc." been used as evidence of violation of that law. (Other laws yes...but not antitrust laws.)

Second, "enshitification," "the erosion of good jobs," and "environmental issues" existed long prior to Reagan.

[kphoger]

From what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.

Do those non-FiOS areas tend to be older, poorer, more centrally located, etc?  It's easier to upgrade the plant or build out new plant in newer and less densely populated areas, and there's generally more financial incentive to do so in those areas too.

[kalvado]

5G hotspots hardly count as broadband. 

They are seemingly not that bad, although would have their issues. My strong impression is that a few years back there was a top brass administrative decision to push for wide range 5G instead of fiber deployment. Honestly speaking, it can make sense as a policy, especially for suburban areas. Building up utilities is expensive, base stations would be cheaper.   

[kalvado]

From what I've heard, Spectrum is actually decent in the areas that have FiOS or Greenlight coverage, but total garbage in the rest of the area.

Do those non-FiOS areas tend to be older, poorer, more centrally located, etc?  It's easier to upgrade the plant or build out new plant in newer and less densely populated areas, and there's generally more financial incentive to do so in those areas too.

Our suburb was on a map for a small-ish fiber provider (Greenlight @vdeane mentioned) . They were building up until credit rate became too high. I believe our street was marked as a 1Q25 deployment date in original planning. Area around the town hall got their service, with town hall getting a bribe free service (first connection in town) for swiftly processed permits.   
area isn't very old, median household income is a bit over 100k, mostly single-family or duplexes.  Same provider started the area deployment in a bit closer suburb with $130k household. verizon fios didn't have any plans for our neck of the woods.   
 

[kphoger]

To me, it's just common sense that, if one provider has good service in an area, then another provider is likely to have good service in the same area.  Not because of competition, but simply because the physical network is in better condition.  Newer mainlines, more likely to have underground utilities, newer-constructed houses with lines in better condition, etc, etc, etc.