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"