Shared publicly  - 
 
PETITION: Stop the Comcast/Time Warner Cable Merger

I almost never ask people to share one of my links generously, but I do ask you to make this new petition at Whitehouse.gov widely known and available. Things will not change in the U.S. cable television industry until consumer voices are heard. Thanks!
194
123
Joe Cline's profile photoChris Robinson's profile photoGiri Chalasani's profile photoRobb Todd's profile photo
192 comments
 
I agree-not enough competition now.  They keep charging more and more
 
Having this petition on Whitehouse.gov is a bad idea.  You are going to lose thousands of signatures because people will not want to create yet another account on yet another website.  That is a shame because it is an important, vital issue.
 
+Nick Cooper Surely if people can make an account to deport Justin Bieber, we can hope people will do the same for this. 
 
This has antitrust written all over it, don't you think?
 
Stop crying to daddy Obama, you sorry sacks.  Take action on your own, people.  This White House petition crap is a sham just to make people feel like they have a voice.   
Don't like cable rates?  Stop paying for it!  Hit the cable companies where it hurts.  As long as people are willing to pay their prices, they will continue to raise them.  Stop begging the guberment to save your sorry asses.
 
+sean ryan The Executive branch of our government reviews such mergers, so it's hardly a moot point. I agree that voting with your bucks is the best way to say something, but for millions of consumers who want access to the content provided by cable companies, it's hardly that simple. This type of merger will only delay the move towards Web-first television services.
 
OMG...a double opt-in?  hahaha...okay, sorry.  I signed and reposted.
 
+John Blossom On the other hand this is one method known to get recognition. Referencing to the Justin Bieber deporting petition, the media did catch wind of it. Hopefully this can get enough backing to be noticed.
 
+Michael Amaral Exactly. For better or for worse, there is an amplification effect in the media which takes things like this petition to the forefront and creates discussion in media-sensitive circles. That's how it works...
 
+john durant Well, if it is, perhaps we should have some bailout money for Comcast. But they get that in the form of non-competes. Your donation-owned government at work...
 
Comcast is already to big. they control the price market on cable. This is why we have antitrust leg.
 
+sean ryan There is only ONE competitive Cable/ISP in my area. 
I would gladly forego cable.... but not the Internet. 
There are too few cable providers already! 
See also: Net Neutrality
 
Gorddammit. I thought I heard a blip about this on NPR this morning but hoped it was just my imagination (or waking nightmare). Guess it's true...BLARGH. Will sign and share this around, this has got to be where this monopoly stuff stops. Thanks +John Blossom.
 
+sean ryan Easy enough for you to say, but my job requires the internet connection that they provide, and if I simply decided not to pay them anymore, my service would be discontinued, and I would no longer be able to get my work done. AT&T does not service my street, and satellites are not permitted on my building making Time-Warner my only choice in providers.
 
IF THERE IS ONE WEAKNESS IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY  IT IS THE PROPENSITY TO ASSUME THAT ALL PEOPLES OF THE EARTH SHOULD ADOPT IT IS WE (MORE OR LESS) HAVE.:: RAMPANT CAPITALISM, HOVERING ON THE BRINK OF IMPERIALISM AND PROSELITISM, WE SEEM TO SUPPORT, "THE BIGGER THE BETTER". KEEP THEM DIVERSE.
 Carl Bauer, Clinical psychologist,  Ret.
 
Screw cable...  Stream your media content (Chromecast, Hulu, Netflix, etc.) Fight the power!
 
+Graham Tilley
Unfortunately, my cable company IS my ISP!


There is too little competition already
 
This seems very myopic or uninformed. There already is NO competition in the cable industry. Outside of some VERY major markets, only 1 cable (read, not dsl-based) company serves a specific area. At face value this merger and this petition are meaningless. We need cable companies to be driven to be consumer-focused, not dollar-focuses and it will take a rival emerging technology to do it - i.e., better infrastructure, wireless, something. 
 
I hate Time Warner. Useless and my only option. Glad to see them go.
 
+Steven Dyson They're generally regarded as inferior, but I am far from sure that this will help. It's about the benjamins, not your service.
 
+Gul Paryani That's the upshot of the petition - stopping the merger is only the first phase. Putting into practice forced competition is the next step.
 
Pointless Comcast will influence their
 way into allowing it to happen
 
One good thing if it is not stopped and goes through the higher costs they talk about in the petition may make those on cable that think the costs are too high jump ship and run to dish or  direct tv and if enough people do that maybe those companies will actually lower their prices for once instead of raising the prices year after year due to having to constantly negotiate some new deal to keep something they broadcast on the air  and raising their prices due to all the wheeling and dealing they do to keep  everything broadcasting they promise people when signing up. 

Seems every year they end up having to renegotiate some new deal with a popular channel or content provider that takes a while to settle on both sides. 

It's why many folks end up cutting the cord and dropping cable and satellite tv all together and why they made it harder to watch stuff like the olympics on line and other sports by making people use a password to a pay subscription tv service to be able to access it to keep too many people from cutting the cord completely really easily and without some rough times.
 
 How do Ted  Turner and Ruford Murdock  make out in this merger, if approved ?
 
Why petition against this? Whether time warner exists or not is not the fight! (although i would much rather they DONT exist).

True that the FCC needs to take back control and we should appoint Susan Crawford, etc... But going against this merger wont solve anything. Other than benefit those who profit in keeping them separate.
 
+Anubhav Shah Since consumers benefit from keeping them separate, perhaps this is a good thing. The meme the TWC service will improve automagically because of the merger is a myth - their equipment for services will stay in place indefinitely, esp. on the Internet side.
 
+Israel Kendall Cord cutting is good, but to hasten the process of making better choices available for cord cutters, please sign the petition...
Scott F
 
I agree that the monopoly needs to stop, but Obama is a Corporately owned schill that will protect the interests of big business and Wall St long before he'll protect the little guys and gals.
 
Do you realize that cable companies are territory based? That means that the merger has absolutely zero impact on competition as neither company was competing with each other anywhere in the entire country. Done deal after the govt does it's due diligence.
 
I would have signed this if it was kept to the topic of the merger. Bundling is an all-together different topic and should not have been brought into this.
 
Monopoly! No choice! Higher Rates!
K Fra
+
1
2
1
 
Just cut the cable and be done with them all.
 
I ditched cable months ago, but I cannot sever all ties because they provide my internet. I really have no other option for internet, particularly if I want to stream Netflix or Hulu +. I have signed the petition.
 
Signed and sealed. This crap MUST STOP!
 
This is equivalent to the Exxon Mobil merger and it will happen for the same reason.People are powerless!-until the next revolution!
 
What ever happened to breaking up  a monopoly.
 
+sean ryan
I did stop buying cable, but no effect on prices. Their profit margins are termed "comically high" by analysts, so they can afford significant decrease in customers. The prices, of course, are bolstered by the government (granted local monopoly, preventing competition, which they sue communities to protect). Given that the government makes it hard for competition to emerge, turning to the government on this case seems appropriate.
 
The real problem is the fact they are  both an ISP and a content provider.  As a condition of the merger they should be forced to choose.
 
+Michael Amaral W00t! The industry needs to know that consumers have had enough. The system has to change.
 
How are the cable company mergers ok, but the phone company mergers aren't?!
 
+Tim Morris When you ask a question like this, you have to think beyond one level. "How does this cause a monopoly?" The issue isn't that these two companies are competing with each other, they already used the same lobbyist groups in the first place. The issue is that it gives other providers less power to compete with them. For instance, If i own a percentage of 19 of the 20 markets (which would be the case of this merger) then it allows me to force a lower rate of purchase from the entertainment company. Because of the inordinate amount of subscribers I own I can demand any price I want out of the CBS/NBC etc. They cant afford to lose a 30 million person market. If I'm a smaller company and I demand a lower purchase price of entertainment from CBS/NBC I have absolutely no leverage. Because of this, My rates stay high as a small company. What's worse is the money saved from the new negotiated rate of Time Warner/Comcast doesn't have to reflect in the prices the consumer pays. Why? Because all i need to do is charge a similar price to the small company who has to pay MORE money to achieve the the same programming. Do you understand why this causes a monopoly yet? 
 
+Richard Gibbs Exactly. And the net result is that it makes the content providers more afraid to go on the Web to deliver content more directly to consumers.
 
Size, profits, and control are what make it a monopoly.  WIth this size merger it removes the competitive requirement and gives one company a large dominance in the marketplace.  I would agree if the merger created a new atmosphere where any cable company could set up an office and sell services in every marketplace to insure competitiveness rather than the current system that allows a company to lock out their competition are part of contractual agreement.  Over time it has become obvious that when any company is granted such control, they will eventually attempt to take advantage of their customers and when there is no logical 2nd choice, competition dies.
 
+Al Westerman Over-centralized control of media in the U.S. is one of the primary contributors to the weakening of our democratic institutions. Any more of this, and soon we'll all be hearing Sponge Bob Square Pants deliver the news.
 
These people own the government, they decide who buys what. The New Deal era was last time 'we the people' had a say in anything
 
holy crap government deregulated public utility say better competition look what that go us do you really think the government gives to shits to the wind what the public wants all they care about how much campaign money and lobbyist they can put in there pockets   
 
I live in Boston, and Comcast is the only game in town.  I pay 80 $$ a month for internet access only -- no phone, no TV.  Some competition, not less, is desperately needed in this market.
 
YOU ALL ENDORSE TIME WARNER - AN INTERNET COMPANY THAT PACKET SNIFFS ON AN HOURLY BASIS!!! LET THEM DIE FOR GOD's SAKE
B El
+
1
2
1
 
You can get a 500MBPS connection in Hong Kong for $30/mo

In Los Angeles you get 10MBPS for the same price.
 
But I don't live in Hong Kong or L.A.  Do they have lots of competing cable companies in those places?  Thirty dollars seems more reasonable than 80.
 
+Kristine Hudec Unfortunately your right,  the government has become not one for its people, but for itself. Its a much bigger issue than just this, but for this we just have to hope Google starts cranking out its Fiber services in more areas. In case you wern't aware they offer 5M/1M for free, you only pay a $300 install fee (which you can do $25/mo for 1yr) then just taxes. Or you can have a Gigia-bit connection for $70/mo
 
anything to get rid of Time-Warner is good!
 
I want the merger. Prices on cable TV have to do with what other media company's are charging for content. That is why your cable bill is so high. That actor you like getting $400,000 an episode then another $25,000 every time it re-airs, Who do you think is paying for that?  I larger media company can address that. If you want the government to step in have them look at the price High Speed internet. That is what needs to be addressed.
 
this is not a good idea at all. neither of them are to be trusted.
 
1,800 signatures and climbing rapidly now, about one every second. Rock it! 
 
+John Blossom you always have a choice.  Only the GOVERNMENT can STOP choices via force, which is what you are requesting. If they have the money and want to buy something, they should be able too.  
This force you are granting is no different than you trying to block me from buying a 5th car if I wanted to.  The car I buy would limit the cars on the lot you can pick from, but it is my money and the dealer is willing to sell it to me.  It is unbelievable how I see each day Americans willing to impose FORCE and govt rule onto others.
If you don't like it, DON'T SUPPORT IT!
B El
+
1
2
1
 
+karin jared You're so wrong its almost funny. We DON'T have a choice, which is why we are signing this petition. Maybe you should look up the definition of a monopoly.
 
+Brent Lau apparently you do not understand concepts.  Monopoly can only occur via FORCE.  Therefore, ONLY gov't can have or create a Monopoly.
There are many choices- don't have cable, I don't. choose another cable or ISP.  These two do not compete now, they have separate markets.  As others have stated only TWC or COM are in their area now- how is stopping this merger going to change this? I find it hard to believe that there are very many areas that do not have more than 1 ISP or cable provider any longer. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, CLEAR (sprint now), GOOGLE and so many more.
You cannot FORCE someone to CREATE a new company, so how do you think you can FORCE competition?  If you hate it that much don't buy it or start your own.
You are a strange sense of what CHOICE is.  I have choices and I made mine.  You have the same choice.
 
+karin jared 
If they have the money and want to buy something, they should be able too. Oooh, free markets, great idea. Can I buy your children? Healthy capitalism relies on well regulated markets.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Very different than AOL/TimeWarner merger, this is a same-industry extension vs. TW having hoped to "solve" the internet. Comcast knows that this buys them time and nothing more - it doesn't advance their changes for solving the Internet one step. TBH, they really don't want to solve it - they just want to choke it. See my blog post.
 
by definition alone- capitalism does not exist with GOVT regulations.
BTW, you cannot buy something that someone is not willing to sell, without FORCE that you endorse, that is.
 
Wow, It is interesting how common sense goes out the window. Slow down and have an independent thought for a second. Then lookup the definition of monoply. TWC and Comcast are not competitors. Let me repeat, they are not in competition with one another. This deal does not eleminate competition.  Silly kids!
 
These companies do not compete in any market...
 
+karin jared Don't waste your time. These people are clueless about competition, monopolies, free markets, government's role in capitalism etc. +John Blossom is just trying to get attention for himself by throwing out a half-cocked petition that makes zero sense as Comcast and Time Warner Cable DO NOT compete with each other.  
 
I'm blown away that someone would petition to stop this, especially since these two companies DO NOT have overlapping markets. You might choose between DirecTV or DISH, or between AT&T or Comcast, or even between Time Warner or Verizon FiOS. However, you NEVER choose between Time Warner or Comcast, they are not competing companies. Both companies are equally hated by their customers so the merger changes nothing. What it does do is provide a shift in leverage back to the Cable companies and If Comcast gets bigger they then have more power to tell the programmers, i.e ESPN, CBS, FOX, CNN, NFL, Disney etc to take a hike when they propose to raise prices of their content. I for one am getting tired of programmers continually raising prices of TV content, and the only way to stop that is be reducing the size of the markets and giving back control/leverage to the Cable company. This will also force other technology companies, AT&T, Verizon etc to bring better technologies forward to compete with Comcast... I see this merger as an ever so slight win for the consumer, as these two companies are not competitors in the same markets and will give more control to the cable company to fight against the ever so increasing costs of content.
 
+Shaker Cherukuri Not really, FCC prevents that in any meaningful way. But yes, they have some vertical integration already. Doesn't really benefit them on the cord cutting side though.
 
+Noah Bryant That's why it "looks" like a clean deal. But this means that Comcast can set prices in 40 percent of markets any way they want for Internet services and cable TV services, with zero more competition in those areas. So it's a merger of monopolies, giving consumers zero advantage.
 
Does Rod Gray mean that when Comcast and TimeWarner are one, we won't have to worry about either attempting to gain a portion of the other's market  --  by technological innovation or new regulation?
 
No, what my comment is based on is the fact that the title of this Petition is talking about "Stopping a merger that will zero out Competition". This merger has nothing to do with Competition period, they do not have any overlapping markets what so ever, not even the slightest bit. I agree that making Comcast bigger is scary, but I think they have better technology in the works, and have shown slightly more concern of their customers rights than what Time Warner shows. I've been a long time customer of both, and like Comcast better. And if the notion stands true that if Comcast has a larger customer base, say 30% or so of Americans using them for content then it also stands true that they have more power against the programmers. Saying that Comcast can raise prices 40% if the merger goes through is a complete farce. They can do that right this minute and merging with Time Warner does nothing in that respect to preventing or otherwise.. This merger so far looks like a ever so very slight win for the consumer, based on the fact that right this minute programmers like NFL set the prices of their content, not the cable companies. But when you have such a large customer base, programmers like NFL, CBS, Disney, etc will have a more difficult time of raising prices. Remember, Comcast does NOT set the prices of the content, the channel owners do that.
 
+Richard Gibbs Good point, however, some of us don't think TV when you say cable, we think ISP.  We hope TV will soon be lost in history.
 
I quite agree with the need for competition, but that isn't going to happen anyway until government gets out of the way.  We don't need local governments raising the bar for new ISP providers moving in.
 
We need more competition regardless of this merger. Google fiber everywhere. The entire cable TV industry is horrible and way overpriced.
 
+Rod Gray The deal has everything to do with competition - competition with the Internet. If Comcast can lock up the Internet in a broader scope, price it the way that they want to, meter it out the way that they want to, then they can prevent content migrating to the Internet too fast for them to manage and prevent already independent competitors like Netflix on the Web from growing through throttles, etc.
 
I'm not concerned with TV either.  I get all I can stand with rabbit ears.  If government were out of the way, there wouldn't be the infra-infra-structure to run the cable or to regulate the weekly digging up of the streets that Comcast does in my neighborhood.  There are a lot of truly public things essential to the profits of cable and other telecommunication companies, unless you would like to start paying private companies to walk and drive the streets.  That's been tried, and as soon as profits fell off, the companies stopped maintenance and gave up the enterprises.
 
The best way to show your displeasure is to stop buying from them.
 
+Randall Senn That's part of the equation. The other part is to demand more options, because unless you've got lots of good choices for Internet connectivity - and we don't - you really don't have a choice.
 
+Raz Mikhin They own it to the degree that people let them own it. We have much more power than you think. 
 
THIS AINT JUST COMCAST THIS IS THE MULTINATIONALS!  NBC GENERAL ELECTRIC and the rest of the cronies. They will by nature of business raise your rates. 
 
Just remember- the market is those that buy!!!! Again, if you are not buying, there is nothing to sell.  So, yes, if I was a cable company I would hike the prices up as much as the market would bare, why not?  If you are willing to pay it, then why not?  It is a service they are providing, they can charge what you will pay. If you do not like it, stop buying it.  
Funny, how Americans have turned into such a forceful people.  If we like it we try to control when it is produced by another.  That is crap.  The producer should get what they deserve.  Meaning if it is good and you are willing to pay it, they should make out like crazy,  If no one wants it, it does not make a dime.
Funny, I never heard peeps trying to get govt involvement when Beanie babies were hot,  also, they did not have competition.  There were selling .50 toys at over $100 a pop to grown adults, now they are worth...well $5, what they should be worth.  LOL
 
I shared it; and when I signed at the Gov site; they had me email it to my list I haven't done that in years.
 
+karin jared Of course they can hike their prices all they want, they're a monopoly in most places. It's all out of proportion to the value of the product.
 
AWESOME support everyone, thanks so much! 2550 signatures and counting!
 
Comcast owns NBC which is in bed with Obama.
 
I still don't get it. I'm currently 100 feet away from two famous stars. Everyone is going gaga over them and I'm sitting here reading this post. The reason you pay so much for entertainment is your ok with them making millions to star in a tv show or movie. You pay high cable bills because of the cost associated with creating the programs. Think of lost, that cast was making millions in the final season. You are paying for the content! Now look at the merger. Comcast who now has a larger subscriber base can tell the content providers we are going to pay that amount to carry your content. You also bitch when a cable company stands up for you ansdrefuses to carry (put your channel here). It is not the cable provider that says you can't have (put your Chanel here) in this lower teir group. It's the content provider. The cable company is trying to provide you the best content at a fair price. 10 years ago Disney threated to pull all it's stations including Espn from providers and send the signal ota. I'm all for that. In my humble opinion I don't understand why we have the cable companies in the first place. With the digital signal ota they can carry 6 Channels in high definition where they used to be able to send one signal standard definition. The merger will work in the favor for the two companies. If government wants to be involved then they could provide more Licensings with the airwaves for television. 
 
I still don't get it. I'm currently 100 feet away from two famous stars. Everyone is going gaga over them and I'm sitting here reading this post. The reason you pay so much for entertainment is your ok with them making millions to star in a tv show or movie. You pay high cable bills because of the cost associated with creating the programs. Think of lost, that cast was making millions in the final season. You are paying for the content! Now look at the merger. Comcast who now has a larger subscriber base can tell the content providers we are going to pay that amount to carry your content. You also bitch when a cable company stands up for you ansdrefuses to carry (put your channel here). It is not the cable provider that says you can't have (put your Chanel here) in this lower teir group. It's the content provider. The cable company is trying to provide you the best content at a fair price. 10 years ago Disney threated to pull all it's stations including Espn from providers and send the signal ota. I'm all for that. In my humble opinion I don't understand why we have the cable companies in the first place. With the digital signal ota they can carry 6 Channels in high definition where they used to be able to send one signal standard definition. The merger will work in the favor for the two companies. If government wants to be involved then they could provide more Licensings with the airwaves for television. 
 
i get it 2 bad companys no $ in comcast bank take warner$
 
Listen anyone who has TWC for cable would much rather have comcast.  Thank God comcast is buying them Comcast rocks.  if you don't like the deal get dish or directv but comcast is THE best cable MSO in the business. I know i am in the business (not with comcast).  BTW I have a dish.  it is currently out due to the storm.  my family in another state has comcast no issues.  protest something meaningful not one good company buying a not so good one to make it better.  I want the best TV/internet service with great customer service that would be comcast! anyone who does not like this deal doesn't understand the current state of this industry.  This is needed badly.  I don't need the government 'protecting' me from comcast. they can't even deliver the mail right the best thing that they can do is get out of the way.
 
no comcast dont deliver mail at all .yee.
 
Just remember the Time Warner AOL merger
Considered the worst merger in the history of the world
Nothing about this is good ( except to make the rich super rich)
 
Jeff Welch....the merger is going to allow comcast to raise its prices on the consumer since competition is being removed from the industry. And the net neutrality law being removed will force netflix and other providers to raise their fees since they have to pay more for bandwidth. It's a double win for comcast and you are blaming the actors. That's right you're in the industry so you'll benefit form the rest of us paying out the nose. 
 
3,000 have signed the petition now, thanks SO much for helping to get the word out, keep those signatures coming!
 
No brainer equals liberty, connectivity, and self-interest.
 
+Jeff Welch"The cable company is trying to provide you the best content at a fair price."

Jesus loves Jeff Welch.
 
Bret Hartman what gives you the impression I'm in the industry. I worked at Disney for 13 years and just recently started working for comcast. They just bought out a division of GE I work for. I have nothing to do with media in my position and could care less about tv service. I pulled the plug 7 years ago. With that I have a knowledge of both companies Disney mostly and Comcast I'm still learning. Hulu is owned by Disney and Comcast anyway. They also hold large stakes in netflix. The CEO of Netflix sits on the Disney board of directors. You are so worried about the price. If you don't buy it demand goes down. The market will adjust. You always have other options. Dish, direct tv. And ota programming. Here is what will happen now and I'll use me knowledge of the companies above. Disney contract will end and have to renegotiate with Comcast. Disney will say you are going to pay us $4.00 for every subscriber for abc. You will pay us $7.00 for every subscriber for ESPN. If you want espn 2 and 3 you will need to carry lifetime and put it in this package. If you want the Disney channel that 5.00 and you have to also carry abc family for $2.00 and put it in this teir package. Disney dx that's more money and you need to carry this and that channel. All owned by parent company Walt Disney world. Comcast now will have leverage to demand lower prices with a larger market share.

If your a sports guy would you want ESPN? Would you go to company x if it did not have Espn? Disney knows that. But Comcast has been building it's own sports network to compete. Espn made 33 billion in one year last time I looked. Who is paying for that. You because Disney forced it into the lower teir bracket. So you pay the 7 bucks a month even if you don't want it.

TWC costomers imeditly get a discount. They are now part of comcast that owns NBC so no negotiating needed. But you still will pay for the channels. But it can also be used to offset prices and drive down price. No one is forcing you to buy cable. You can live without it. And if you think Comcast is going to get rich off this then go buy stock in comcast instead of paying for cable. That's how the markets work. If they get rich so will you.


 
For comments supporting the merger: the fact that you use bullying, potty-mouth language speaks volumes. This merger is a bullying move, so one would expect that. The U.S. is a democracy, which means that laws made by the people determine what's right, not a bunch of thugs with bottomless pockets to get what they want. "Free markets" aren't free if we don't have real competition. Corporations are chartered by state governments - they get to make money because we allow them to. That's a good thing - until they decide to harm the people who allowed the corporations to serve them. Free markets are well regulated markets - and the cable industry is in sore need of reregulation. As pointed out, vastly better Internet services are available around the world for a fraction of the prices that we pay. Our bully system of markets makes us a weaker nation - and it shows.
 
+Kenneth Whetstone Don't count on this being blocked unless we push back. They obviously want to make this seem like a done deal to intimidate regulators. Now is the time to put the stake in the heart of this madness. We deserve better in this nation and we won't get it until we demand it.
 
+John Blossom a value is determined what is paid. My god a simple concept. If no one bought it, it would not have value. I happen to think it is worth zero, so I pay zero for it.
jb hann
+
1
2
1
 
Signed the petition but it looks as if the Comcast monopoly is going to happen anyways. 
 
+jb hann That's what they want you to think, it's a carefully orchestrated campaign. 
 
+John Slattery THanks for that, those rates are of course insanely bad for an insanely small amount of service. Any other nation in the world has to look at us and think, "What are these people doing?" These are NOT "free market" prices - they are monopoly prices.
 
I'm really reluctant to sign this petition..I  don't personally care about cable tv or cable subscriptions, bundles, or cable packages as the petition emphasizes. All I care about is a good internet connection, which these companies are not providing. My only option in my neighborhood is TWC or Earthlink (provided by TWC). 
 
+Matthew Dowell If you don't sign the petition, then you can be sure that the situation won't get better for Internet use. It's one of the main reasons for the merger - gives them more leverage to slow down the cord-cutting by manipulating Internet fees and failing to build out high-quality service at lower prices.
 
they are all in bed netflix mbites park place.
 
service is to much now i pay 180$ month CAR NOTE ¡
 
+alan BABCOCK Just think about that. That's a car payment for a pretty good ride. Or ten trips to the movies at first-run evening ticket prices. Worth it? Nah. We're just easy targets for media companies to make profits before releasing to less profitable global markets.
 
John Blossom if you don't like the price just leave. Why is that so hard to understand. If I believe the girl scout cookies are overpriced can I demand them to lower the price? Was it fair for Toyota to sell the FRS for 24 to 28 thousand when it was supposed to be sold for 16 to 20 thousand? I wanted to buy one. Because of the demand the price went up. I did not buy it.  The free market is like EBAY, you bid till what you think it is worth then you bid no higher. When everyone decides to stop paying the the cost will come down or they will go bankrupt. 
 
+Jeff Welch The problem with monopolies is there is no "market" it is a captive system where your only provider is Comcast. In my own neighborhood there are no competitors, it is just Time Warner Cable, or Earthlink (provided by Time Warner). If I depend on a hard line connection to run a business (server, tutoring business, website, service, app, ecetra..) from a home office, they can raise my price to as high as the equivalent wireless service would be, as there are no other alternatives in my neighborhood, this erosion of disposable income for broadband service is a new barrier of entry for 21st century entrepreneurship in the USA. Listen to this interview, it's one of the best I've heard on the subject.  http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272480919/when-it-comes-to-high-speed-internet-u-s-falling-way-behind 
 
+John Blossom This comment by +Jeff Welch  is exactly why this petition is poorly worded, the real issue here isn't about what kind of "cable package" you can get, or what kind of "programming" is offered, which is a consumer market (almost fully contained within Comcast), it's about the basic control of access and utilization of information infrastructure regardless of content, which would allow that choice (or freedom) to find and pay for the content itself at a fair market price.  
 
+Matthew Dowell +Jeff Welch I agree, and I noticed that fairly soon after I had posted the petition. Unfortunately once posted, I cannot change the wording. We can start a new one, and sometimes that can get new momentum, but since this is in the early phases, I am going to keep momentum on this one for now.
 
Matthew Dowell I agree with your statement on hard line connections. If you go back and read my first post I mentioned it. But the question then would be who owns and paid for that infrastructure in your neighborhood? If company X owns it then they provide the service. Would you be willing to let another company come in and lay another infrastructure after your neighborhood has been built? If congress passed a law saying that Bright-house (My Cable Company) now has to allow other company's to use there network would that be fair? Also don't you think that would drive up prices even higher. Comcast would now have to pay a fee on top of the service they provide for you being out side the network.  The problem is "We the People" did not lay the utilities so we have no say what a company do with their hard line networks. It sucks but that's the way it is. the only way to stop it don't buy the product. 

If the government laid the infrastructure then I would agree to a new law. Our only other option is to start our own cable company. We can work 20 years 10 hours a day. Pay yourself almost nothing and when we have it up and running we can allow other companies to come in and use it. I could also start my own cell phone company on the side and use other peoples property to make a business. No ground work needed Sprint will just have to allow me to use the network. Would that be fair? 

I don't agree with the prices I was paying for cable so I left. But I can get all the shows I want to watch off the internet. If I have to see a sporting game that is on cable I go out to a bar. However like you, I can not give up my internet access. I pay $55.00 a month for 10 megs of service. It kills me to write that check but I just don't want to give it up. One day the price will get to high and I will have to. When that happens and the people say no by dropping the service then the market will have to adjust. 
 
+Jeff Welch Hence Anti-trust legislation and the point of signing this petition, keeping competition alive.  

" I pay $55.00 a month for 10 megs of service. It kills me to write that check but I just don't want to give it up. "

You don't have to give it up Jeff, and crappy slow service doesn't have to be expensive, you just need to sign a petition and allow democracy and the free-market to do it's work.  It's not an anti-competitive or anti-market policy to break up a corporate (or governmental) monopoly (Read Friedrich Hayek Road to Surfdom, very good book). When AT&T was faced with anti-trust lawsuit United States vs. AT&T, they settled with the government to break up into smaller regional company's maintaining the private ownership (and profit) of maintaining and owning the system, but provided a new competitive environment that spurred significant competition and even greater "shared" profits between the separated carriers.  

This would be an optimal solution, but as these company's now have a monopoly on the tools of democracy, the press, the internet, and the money (in political campaign contributions). It would be hard to expect them to naturally relinquish their grip on that level of control without some sort of coercion (public outcry, and petition being one of them).  

 
 
Alan that was plan old coper wire. The new network is fiber. You might still have DSL with speeds of 3 Meg's depending on how close to the box your are. Any speeds above 3egs you are running off a fiber trunk line that was installed by your (most likly) cable company. You might also have a phone company in your area. Do they supply you high speed internet? Chances are they are not running on fiber or they to would offer tv. They should offer Internet Maybe even DSL. Why not call that company and try to have them make the investment in updating their network. Tell them what you would be willing to pay and see if they invest millions of their dollars to come into your market and take over. 
 
Mat if you sold ice cream at the mall you would ask for a non compete clause. You would not want me or anyone else opening a booth beside you selling the same product. Would you agree? Again it sucks. But government does not and should not get involved with Business no matter how big or small. You are being selfish. It's a product you want and asking the people who built it to sell their product for what you want. Again I'll tell the story... I was going to buy a Toyota FRS. I was all excited during the concept to do design process. This car was going to market for 16,000. I even had the sales guy holding the first one for me. Bucause the popularity of the car they had a larger demand and Toytoa raised the base price to 24,000, before shipping to the dealer. I decited not to buy the car after Toyota raised the price. They are getting still 24,000 because people are still buying them. Nothing changed with this car except for the price. Toyota still would have made the profit they were looking for at 16,000. Do we need the goveent to step in here to. No. I just did not buy the product. Is it right for an amusement park to have a coke machine and sell a 20 ounce coke for 5.00. Should the government step in here to.

A Cable company does not have millions of dollars invested, Try more like billions. TWC purchase price is 42 billion because their board and all the investors said ok. If you had money last week in TWC you would have made 10% on that money over the last two days. Hoot hoot right?

If you don't want to pay the price just disconnect. I don't want government in my business, my guns, or my bedroom. They should just protect and serve. And protecting you from paying more then you want to pay for something is not the Governments job.
 
his a welch Blossom do it 200$ a month to much.
 
6,192 signatures this morning, keep it coming!
 
Alan why is being a welch an issue? This is so simple and you don't get it. They own the network. It is their product. They are also having to pay huge fees to get content they do not own. They can charge what ever the market is willing to pay. If you don't want to pay for it then cancel. If a lot of people cancel then they will need to adjust to bring the rates to the price point people will be willing to pay. If you keep sending them a check then you agree to the price.

You can't tell someone what they have to sell there product for a certain price when they created it. What don't you get about that?

Imagin If you got an appraisal on your house for 180,000. All the other houses in the neighborhood were selling for 180,000. Now tomorrow Obama declares a presidential decree that no houses your size can sell over $100,000. Because we want to make affordable housing to everyone. Is that fair? Would you take that? This is no differnt. If the government laid the infant structure then the government could do what you were asking. They didn't so they have no say. 
 
+Jeff Welch I think that you're missing some key details in your argument. Yes, Comcast does buy a lot of content, and they don't make it easy for us NOT to buy it. They make the bundles larger by adding in fluff, and then jack up the fees. Content aggregators have been doing this for decades in the enterprise space, and it's a very poor return on investment. Even there, the content providers know that whatever ensured revenues that they get from such schemes are peanuts compared to what they can now get on the open Web for their content as an independent outlet. So please, we need feel zero sympathy for Comcast - they're trying to muscle out the Web as an independent distribution channel - hence their fees for Web access are ginormous compared to other nations where Internet access is not tied to the cable industry. Make the Web artificially expensive, and you prop up your monopoly access to quality content. Why can't we get ESPN or a cable news channel of our choice live on the Web? There's absolutely no technical reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. And more to the point, why doesn't the government require that choice?
 
+ John Blossom I have already broken this down for you in my other post.

"I think that you're missing some key details in your argument. Yes, Comcast does buy a lot of content, and they don't make it easy for us NOT to buy it. They make the bundles larger by adding in fluff, and then jack up the fees."
*** Go back and ready my Disney post. Providers force the other stations and the tier group in negotiations. 

"they're trying to muscle out the Web as an independent distribution channel."
* Part of the negotiations on the cable side. If you were paying billions of dollars a year to lock in ESPN wouldn't you want to make sure that Disney wasn't going to provide the content to anyone with a Xbox. Thats why you have to provide your login from your cable provider to access it on desktop boxes. 

"fees for Web access are ginormous compared to other nations where Internet access is not tied to the cable industry."
**** Please search the countries you are talking about. Most likely you will find the Government paid for the infrastructure. In this case, YES THE GOVERNMENT CAN CONTROL THE COST. +

"There's absolutely no technical reason why we shouldn't be able to do that. And more to the point, why doesn't the government require that choice?"
* Their is no technical reason why you could not watch all this content over the web. I have to agree with you there. And that is the Big issue. So what is the real question? Lets use the NFL as an example. It goes back to my first post here that a few people laughed at. Read this and think about it. 

How do you keep the NFL from demanding a multi-billion dollar deals every year with all the content providers. (abc, cbs, fox, ESPN, NBC, etc) Why is the NFL paying players millions of dollars a year? How does the NFL get away with it? This all drives up the cost of cable. We have to pay for it. Almost every team is given government substitutes and tax breaks on their property. That property is only used 15 days a year for football games. Wouldn't you agree if the NFL makes billions of dollars a year that they should not be getting money from the government? Please don't forget but every dollar the government spends is the money you and I are paying in taxes. The millions of dollars getting paid to the players from the NFL comes out of our cable bill. Why are we not telling the government to stop all substitutes. And our government keeps dishing out money to other business that are making content and selling it Providers. 

And more to the point, why doesn't the government require that choice?
** The government does not own the network or the content. You and I did not pay for any of it. Instead we charged Comcast, TWC, Brighthouse, and (your cable company) impound fees (taxes) so they could put down their network. It completely belongs to them. 

I agree with you that the prices being charged for broadband are ridiculous . Your never going to see lower cable cost. That is a fact. That is why I cut the cord. I have hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime in my house. 

So how do we get lower cost for broadband.
1. We can tell all the providers we are canceling and wont come back until we see prices for 20 megs down and 5 up for $9.99 a month. Then we have to cancel. 
2. You or I could build a better and cheaper broadband that does not require trillions to build.

Where and when do we need government to step in? When Providers decides to throttle speeds below what you are paying for when visiting competing sites. Example: Netfilx, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube. Government needs to come down hard on companies who are engaging in this practice. This is a great example of government protecting our rights. Lowering your bill is not the governments job. 
 
+Jeff Welch yes the fluff channels nobody watches+ the use of poles hard line that eletric comp. put up with bell that we already paid for +why not alacart?
 
+Jeff Welch Yeah, and the argument is just as weak here in my opinion, no offense. Cablecos and media companies want us to think that worthwhile entertainment is very scarce and worth lots of our hard-earned money. But it's like the DeBeers diamond cartel - there's an abundance of great content, but media marketing is there to persuade us otherside. If they though otherwise then the U.S. would be like South Korea and have Internet service 10x the typical American's services at $15/month.
 
But if we refuse to buy the product they have to adjust to get us back. If we keep paying that will never happen. But we are off topic. The government does not have the right to get involved. 
 
+Jeff Welch The government is the representative force of the people of The United States of America, and it has every right to get involved on their behalf. Corporations are not regents - they have no divine right to prevent competition and to manipulate the markets to keep us from choosing competitors. Corporations themselves are in fact creations of government, chartered by state governments to serve the interests of the people in exchange for certain human-like rights. Comcast and other cable operators have created a "can't win" economic scenario for cord-cutters, making it highly unattractive to unbundle (relatively) high-performance Internet from cable services.

Cable TV has been given far too broad leeway by the Federal Communications Commission by being allowed to treat the Internet as an "Information Service" rather than what the Internet really is by design - a "common carrier." Perhaps in the early days of the Internet this made sense, since the only widespread common carriers, the phone companies,were even more anti-competitive and antediluvian in their land-line Internet consumer services. But now we have the same scenario essentially - a vested interest doing its very best to keep the Internet from evolving at a pace that will make competitive services for Americans more accessible. Instead, billions go into lobbying and political campaigns to force up the prices of media and Internet access through artificial scarcity of bandwidth and choice. The real question of interference is why Comcast or any other company of its kind should have any right to interfere with the functions of a citizens' government.

In a real free market, we would have several Internet service providers without cable interests attached to them providing gigabit-scaled Internet access for the cost a today's few megabits. No cable company or phone company was even contemplating doing this until +Google Fiber forced the issue. That, in my mind, is real capitalism - government-regulated creative destruction that serves the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not the ones who happen to be on top at any given point in time.
 
i agree alacart no fluff then 1/2 price.
 
I signed it!  Right now I do not have to deal with crap bandwidth caps with Time Warner.  If Comcast buys them that will probably no longer be the case.  That is all the proof you need that this will reduce competition. Providers that also have content offerings always and bandwidth caps unfairly compete because their offers do not count against the caps.  Caps are always about profit and never about network congestion.
 
+alan BABCOCK Yep, this is just the beginning to get some initial momentum. I am targeting my senators and congressional rep on Twitter, consider that as a Monday activity...
 
I agree sombody has to pay for netflix fix that is the consumer more cash another 5 $. 
 
The #stopcomcast  story has legs in the media, but will people continue to respond to the need to speak out for change? You're the ones that can help people to be aware of it - I can only do so much. Keep on making people aware of the petition, share new stories, call your Congressional reps and Senators - it's time for productivity to get real in the U.S.
 
+John Blossom it was all about stringing netflix along for that cotent skip middle man for price
 
+james cole Unfortunately I didn't formulate the wording of the original petition as well as I could have and one cannot change it once it's posted. Sorry.
 
+alan BABCOCK The consumer pays plenty for Netflix already. It's a going concern. Cablecos underinvest on infrastructure intentionally because they're more interested in profit margins and they know that they can command them without effective competition.
 
Comcast is an abusive company and I do not support the merger. I have irrefutable proof that I will hold onto until the time is right. Comcast and TimeWarner will be the new Ma Bell. Privacy will go to hell, support will go overseas and to hell and prices will increase for less bandwidth. There will be no more checks and balances.
 
Interestingly AT&T just left the Connecticut marketplace for cable TV services, leaving most areas with only Verizon or Comcast as a choice with not all that much overlap (some Cablevision in southern CT). 
 
+sean ryan The problem is that there are no alternatives. There is a lack of competition in this industry, which is what the petition is all about.
 
There are alternatives, but the larger companies shut them down.

Clear was providing truly unlimited WiMax and growing their network. Some Sprint users even had WiMax radios in their phones prior to LTE.

Sprint bought Clear in the name of expansion. Then killed truly unlimited on everything but spottily covered phones which realistically can not compete with a true WiMax business or residential WiMax access point / gateway.

It seems that these companies all have agreements in the larger scheme to kill off smaller competition offering a better price or truly unlimited.
 
Their not seperate enteties, dont fool youself. They are already in a way one giant corporation.
 
+Shn Naser It's certainly a cartel, they coordinate non-competitive policies and lobbying.
 
The petition did not meet the target of 100,000 signatures, but I hope that people don't forget that net neutrality is far from a given. Powerful interests would rather tilt the deck.
 
Carol Martin
Please don't let them merge.  Everyone I know thinks Comcast is the worst company they have to deal with.  Their customer service is overseas and is really terrible....if you can get to them.  They have doubled their prices on both TV and internet in the past year and have made it impossible to use your vcr  and DVD recorders except for one show at a time as long as your tv is set to that channel.  They want everyone to subscribe to streaming.......and pay more money.  My cable bill went from $42 to $101 in two markets in the last year, and internet from $20 to $42 in the last year.  Where will it end if you let them become the only cable company?
 
I think that I will re-establish the petition now that people are beginning to see that nothing changes until we do...
 
Hmmm how about just exposing the ads being paid off to pass it. 
Add a comment...