
Only 30% of Americans Out of Comcast Reach After Deal - sharkweek
http://cabletv.com/blog/comcast-time-warner-buyout-data/
======
swasheck
Awesome. So glad that deregulation works to open the free market. I mean, if
you don't like it the. You can just get service from another provider, right?
What's that, you say? There aren't any other viable providers in my market? Go
on. Oh my. You mean, my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract
with Comcast. That doesn't feel very free or open.

~~~
benihana
> _my local municipality has a binding, perpetual contract with Comcast. That
> doesn 't feel very free or open._

Think about those sentences compared to your second sentence.

> _So glad that deregulation works to open the free market._

You set up a strawman about the free market in the beginning and then
contradict it at the end. The reason it doesn't feel free is because by
definition, it isn't.

~~~
_delirium
It's entirely possible for the same situation to happen in a free market, and
it does in some states. Replace "municipality" with "private corporation that
owns the common areas of the subdivision" (sometimes called "homeowners'
associations" or similar names). As long as there's a landowner that owns land
that's necessary to transit to run cable to a neighborhood, they can reach
exclusive deals with providers, because you can't dig up stuff without
permission of the landowner. And having lived in both "traditional
municipalities" and the new private-style non-municipalities in Texas, it's
not clear to me the latter result in markets that are freer in any meaningful
sense: in both cases the only real freedom you have against the organization
is to either try to change their policies through internal democracy
(municipal elections, board elections, etc.), or "vote with your feet" and
move to a different organization's territory.

~~~
jmccree
Our HOA fees cover providing internet access for every resident. I've found
the end-user "tech support" to be totally incompetent. (A call back 3 DAYS
after I submitting traceroutes showing my traffic was stuck in a routing loop
in their network, wherein the "tech support professional" asked me to try
rebooting my computer before even asking me if I was still having issues. I
hung up mid-script.)

However, when we had consistent outages and horrible service, I eventually
gathered enough evidence to give to the HOA of what the problem was, and when
the HOA contacted the ISP, they looped me into an email chain with their
account rep and we got immediate service. If we all had to choose Comcast or
ATT individually, neither would really care about individuals. But the HOA is
in a much larger bargaining position and our ISP cares about losing the whole
building.

From my experience and friends in the area, those in condo buildings with the
exclusive ISP arrangement tend to get better/faster service than those in
condos with the standard cable/telco choice. Since condo buildings are managed
by the residents who mostly use internet, usually enough percentage care about
the quality of internet access to hold the exclusive ISP accountable or
replace them. Of course in Apt buildings, mgmt just views internet as an
expense and it's a different scenario.

------
ericdykstra
The concerning part of this deal isn't ad reach or who has "access" to certain
markets.

TV is a luxury, and simply functions as entertainment for the vast majority of
Americans. More and more people are "cutting cable" than ever, deciding that
they'll find their entertainment somewhere else.

The concerning part is high-speed internet, which is coming close to a
necessity for many people to live and work, and it will only progressively
become more-so. Comcast is my only option for high-speed internet, and they
charge me too much for speeds that are too slow, but I have to pay it.

~~~
LandoCalrissian
I honestly can't see how someone could function without the internet in this
day and age. Even for minimum wage jobs you typically have to apply online.
Not to mention just finding those potential employers would be pretty arduous
without a connection . Asking someone making $7 an hour to pay $50 - $70 a
month for internet is unreasonable.

I don't know why it isn't treated as a utility at this point, since to have
any shot of upward monetary mobility it's essentially required. The answer of
course is to make providers common carriers, but money and political will make
that extremely challenging.

~~~
Shivetya
You would be surprised about how many people live just fine without the
internet. Radio, the paper, and TV are their sources of information. Job
fairs, government handouts, and more, are covered in many ways through those
three mediums.

Then add in the personal networks, friends and family, and ever present cell
phones. If anything their cell phones are far more important than the
internet.

Upward mobility is primarily an effect of self discipline and will power.
Internet and related are simply tools that help one get there but by no means
are not the limiting factor.

~~~
Karunamon
And you would be surprised how much of a shrinking segment that represents.
The trend is toward a more connected society and not having access to the
technology is quickly becoming a non-option.

Data is quickly becoming just another utility, along with power, water, and
climate control, and just as necessary.

------
pdkl95
A simple solution - if they want to act like a utility, treat them as such,
and _nationalize_ the monopoly.

(clarification: nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-
like; the content-production and other aspects of the business can be
preserved as they currently exist)

What happens after that has several options. It can be a publicly-owned
utility, or spun off as a heavily-regulated independent (private) corporation
under the PUC, to name a few possibilities. Such minutia is a secondary issue,
and open for debate.

Now that internet access has become a requirements for even basic things such
as _applying for a job_ , declaring the ISPs a "public utility" is long
overdue.

~~~
rayiner
Calling something essential then regulating it as a utility is a sure way to
disaster. Look at our other utilities: I don't know what about water with lead
in it, rolling brownouts, or crumbling bridges make you think treating
internet as a utility would be a good idea. It's a sure way to freeze capital
investment into improving the infrastructure.

Is this about making sure that poor people have access to the internet, or
subsidizing Netflix's business model? If it's the former, then Comcast is
irrelevant. Let's address the problem directly and subsidize cell phones with
HSPA+ level data access.

~~~
dba7dba
Weren't the cable companies initially treated sort of like utility, due to the
cost of laying the last mile cables? Isn't that why they were able to gain
virtual monopoly on different regions?

~~~
tsotha
Yes, they were, though I think it had more to do with people not wanting the
streets to be dug up every week by a different company.

I think most places will support more than one ISP, but it takes time and the
right economic environment to shell out the big bucks you need to challenge an
incumbent.

------
noxryan
Not that it adds much, but the maps must not take into account Comcast's other
holdings. The Upper Midwest is missing from that map which includes
Midcontinent Communications which is a jointly owned by Comcast.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midcontinent_Communications)

------
tolmasky
All in all this article seems to defend the deal more than anything.
Regardless of your beliefs on monopolies/regulation/whatever, it seems
particularly silly and irrelevant to use potential reach as a marker of
anything. 0% of Americans are "out of Apple's Reach", so what? That has
nothing to do with monopolies. You can have 99% of Americans outside your
reach and still be a monopoly in your area. You can have 0% of Americans Out
of your reach and be in a highly competitive space. The article seems to kind
of point this out by showing that its still the case that only 9% of Americans
"wouldn't have a choice". The actual interesting question is how that compares
to today. From what I've read there wasn't much overlap so its theoretically
not much different.

~~~
chucknelson
I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often
a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers
cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). I
think this will get better as things like FiOS and uVerse expand (hopefully),
but for right now many of us are "stuck" with a provider.

~~~
tsotha
>I think the "within reach" angle makes more sense here because there is often
a lack of choice for most Americans when they look at who offers
cable/internet in their area (e.g., only Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.).

Then let's measure what really matters - the number (or percentage) of people
who are served by Comcast _only_. My guess is between competing cable
companies, FIOS, and DSL it's a pretty small number and wouldn't generate any
clicks.

EDIT: Other people are saying 9% don't have other choices. But even then I'll
bet they're not include mobile phone companies, and everybody has access to
satellite.

~~~
dublinben
1\. Cable companies do not compete. They serve non-overlapping areas.

2\. FiOS has a very small footprint.

3\. DSL can barely be considered adequate anymore, and doesn't even meet the
FCC's definition of broadband.

4\. Wireless broadband has very low data caps, and high latency.

5\. Satellite internet (it can't even be considered broadband) has even lower
data caps, and even higher latency.

~~~
tsotha
>Cable companies do not compete. They serve non-overlapping areas.

Not true. In my area there are two cable companies that cover the whole city.

>FiOS has a very small footprint.

15 million households isn't a small footprint.

>DSL can barely be considered adequate anymore, and doesn't even meet the
FCC's definition of broadband.

Adequate for what? DSL is fine for streaming video.

>Wireless broadband has very low data caps, and high latency.

That's temporary. They're still building out the 4G networks. When they're
done they'll have to increase caps substantially to compete. And 4G has very
low latency.

>Satellite internet (it can't even be considered broadband) has even lower
data caps, and even higher latency.

Granted, satellite wouldn't be my first choice.

------
BlackDeath3
Is it just me, or is this headline a little confusing?

------
rayiner
70% of Americans now have Comcast as an option, but only 9% have Comcast as
their only terrestrial TV option.

~~~
dublinben
>over 90% of Americans will still have other wired choices for their TV
service

I live in a Comcast area. Can you explain what my alternative is? I've
certainly never known about one.

~~~
tsotha
Where I live we have Comcast and another cable provider, plus at least two DSL
companies, plus some kind of wireless company I haven't checked into, plus the
mobile phone companies (at least three).

I'm guessing you're rural.

~~~
dublinben
I'm not rural at all, but I still only have one cable provider. I was of the
belief that most of the country was in the same situation.

~~~
tsotha
9%. That's how many Comcast customers don't have other options.

------
dopamean
> Only 30% of Americans Out of Comcast Reach After Deal

This is a weird way to say this. "Only 30%" seems like kind of a large number
even in this context. I get the point but maybe it would have been more
effective to say that 70% of Americans can now be reached by Comcast.

~~~
revelation
It's even weirder because the missing 30% are not out of reach because Comcast
just didn't get to them yet, they are out of reach because Comcast doesn't
actively enter into competition with other providers. They have silently split
the market.

So the numbers really don't mean anything.

------
evo_9
Now would be a good time for Google to update us on their longterm plans for
their fiber rollout.

It's my one hope at this point since Google isn't someone Comcast can just buy
and of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity
to control something like our access to the internet.

So when will Google fiber hit Denver and beyond?

~~~
aaronem
> of course Google realizes the importance of not allowing a single entity to
> control something like our access to the internet

Unless Google _is_ that entity, of course.

------
mariuolo
Won't antitrust regulators oppose this?

~~~
icegreentea
Potentially... but not in isolation. The issue should not be that Comcast can
now reach 70% of Americans, the issue is how many Americans will then be left
with Comcast as their only option.

------
xaviorm
I believe Comcast can only service 30% of households in the US by FCC mandate.
As part of this deal it's likely they are going to have to sell off some
regions. Not have access to 70% of the US.

~~~
endianswap
That changed in 2009. [http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-
throws-out...](http://www.multichannel.com/content/updated-court-throws-out-
fccs-30-cable-subscriber-cap)

------
nfriedly
I'm in that 30 percent. As much as I hated Time Warner, Windstream is far
worse. Its okay during the day, but in the evenings speed and reliability just
goes to crap.

------
jhprks
Well, as long as comcast doesn't increase the bills and provide us with good
service and fast internet connection, why not just give them a break?

------
coldcode
Now.

~~~
ignostic
I'm pretty sure "after" means, "after the deal is approved." The FCC and DOJ
still have to weigh in.

