Reddit reviews Captive Audience

I completely agree re the NBC/Comcast merger. For what it's worth, Susan Crawford (author of the FT article) has a great book on Comcast, which discusses the NBC merger at length: Captive Audience. The writing is a bit clunky, but the substance is super important.

>The AT&T/T-Mobile merger feels like a comparable anti-trust issue. The #1 and #4 telecom carriers weren't allowed to merge. Here you have Comcast (#1) and Time Warner Cable (#2 cable provider in the US) in a similar market dynamic. Why is this any different?

I think the companies would argue (with a degree of accuracy) that AT&T and T-Mobile were clearly direct competitors -- in nearly all parts of the United States, consumers could choose between those two companies (and others, like Verizon). If those companies merged, there would be fewer competitors, and less direct competition, in the mobile telecommunications market.

The situation is a little different with cable, because Comcast and TWC don't directly compete in many markets. Rather, they have regional monopolies. The logic is that since they don't compete head-to-head as it is, the merger won't reduce competition.

The problem with that is that Comcast and TWC have allocated territories and customers (itself an antitrust violation), and have most likely agreed (tacitly if not expressly) not to encroach on each other's markets. In other words, the reason they do not currently compete head-to-head owes at least in part to prior anticompetitive agreements.

Overall I think this is a great first step to start to shake the cable companies. For too long they have directed what we watch, how we watch it, and how much it costs. This has resulted in windfall profits, while not creating simple customer service. The current regulatory environment doesn't leave any room for innovation. Innovation will drive cost down by creating competition. I hate that even though I don't watch any sports, a large portion of my cable bill goes to subsidize ESPN.

For an interesting, albeit dry, read check out Captive Audience.

> It was in the 1960s and it was done in an attempt to stifle cable providers and protect the existing broadcast networks.

Sorry no it was so the cable companies had to carry all the local channels. Also so they did not get free content. They have to pay for the content. no free rides.

Regulations opened up the telephone polls to the cable companies. The phone companies did not want them on their polls so they fought to keep them off. Regulations stopped that.

So no free stuff and they got access to the telephone polls. All regulations.

> But the cause of these companies becoming so huge today is largely from their interactions with local govts.

An example of bad regulations and laws. Yes those are out there like I have stated. It's called regulatory capture.

> But whats even cheaper than acquiring a competitor is getting in bed with the govt.

For Comcast to do that they have to get the government to agree to let them buy their competition. The US government use to stop many mergers from happening because it get too much market to very few companies. Until recently they stopped doing that.

> reducing competition in their industry through burdensome regulations that they design

Again you think all regulations are regulatory capture. They are not.

> I'm not saying that private companies aren't bad actors sometimes.

"Any company is going to want to be the biggest and control the most market share. Its not a bad thing to want to be the biggest and best in a competition." - you from an earlier comment.

So being the biggest is not being a bad actor? It's nice you put in the best in a competition but to be the real best one needs no competition. See the best is the company that makes the highest profits. It's not about customers. That's not what the free market is. It's about higher and higher profits. It's called the profit motive. It's not called the be the best motive. It's the profit motive. Removing competition does that.

The phone companies tried to do it to the cable companies by keeping them off their telephone polls and the cable companies try to do it by size. No new player can come in. If they do the cable companies just drop their price in that one area and unless that company can spend billions and take a loss most of that time they will lose.

Google is the one exception and that's because they are also content and they have to do it. If they do not and the cable companies are allowed to be unregulated they will also lose large amount of money to fast / slow lane. The cable companies will squeeze all content providers because they can. Don't like it consumer? Who cares. Go else where. Oh wait there is no real other choices.

Google knows that that's why they are rolling out their own cable.

AT&T stopped rolling out FIOS. It stopped about 2 years ago. Why? They where still making a profit but the cost was cutting into their profit. Profits where not high enough.

Here's a really good book on the subject.
"Captive Audience" It's by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_P._Crawford

She talks about the good and the bad. So she does cover regulatory capture but also rent seeking and monopoly.

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AMYGFXK/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o01_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

> People have a right to spend their money any way they wish. If a corporation spends money on politics, it better be in a way that benefits the shareholders or they're going to lose investors.

Ever heard of the term Maximizing Shareholder Value?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/

To do that companies need to minimize every other stakeholder. That means suppliers, the government (taxes), and the employees. I suspect you have a job where you get a pay check. Maximizing shareholder value says you are making too much money. Why? Money going into your pocket is money not going to the shareholders.

Also the customers need to be minimized they too are a stakeholder. monopolies can and do minimize customers because they can.

The value you get from the company cannot be maximized because that would not allow the shareholders value to be maximized.

I really hope you are a millionaire or better because otherwise you are not a shareholder. You are an employee. And you are screwing yourself.