" /> Video: Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or Threat to Competition | Stop the Cap!

Home » Bright House »Comcast/Xfinity »Competition »Consumer News »Cox »Public Policy & Gov't »Time Warner Cable »Verizon »Video »Wireless Broadband » Currently Reading:

Video: Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or Threat to Competition

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Senate Hearing on Verizon-Comcast Deal 3-21-12.flv

This afternoon, the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing on the potential antitrust implications of a deal between Verizon and some of the nation’s largest cable companies that would deliver Verizon warehoused, unused wireless spectrum owned by four of the nation’s largest cable operators and open the door to Verizon Wireless pitching cable television subscriptions.  The hearing: “The Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or a Threat to Competition and Consumers?” lasts 2 hours, 23 minutes.


Currently there are 9 comments on this Article:

  1. Scott says:

    This is definitely a threat to competition, the playing field isn’t fair and the players are just dividing up the territories and services amongst themselves.

    Both AT&T Verizon knows that 4g service is the future as long as they pay politicians to keep the FCC’s hands off it, keep it unregulated, and charge through the nose with per-Gig fee’s and any other metered or tacked on charges they can think of.

    If that means giving up their landline broadband, even their fiber, so be-it.. the upside on their unregulated market vs a regulated one is so much greater for the ability to squeeze profits out of it.

    The 2nd problem is Wall St., wall street doesn’t want more than the 2 players AT&T and Verizon in the game, heck if it were up to them they’d prefer just 1 company owning the entire cellular market, but at least 2 makes it seem like there’s competition. As long as there’s a duopoly going matching each others pricing at the max consumers are willing to tolerate they can continue to maximize profits and returns for investors. I

    They have no interest or desire to invest in any other company besides those two, investing in Sprint, T-Mobile, or Cable Companies that have spectrum and need more capital investment would only increase competition, improve those services, and drive down cellular plan pricing to competitive prices to almost half of what Americans currently pay to AT&T/Verizon.

    Competition is bad for profits.

    The Cable Companies would be great triple-play competitors offering TV/Internet/Cellular, but faced with big players like AT&T and Verizon will billions to throw at attacking them in the market, it makes more sense for them to acquiesce to Verizon’s bullying taking a fat check for their spectrum and getting the assurance that Verizon will mutually agree to not compete with their Cable services. Verizon in return gets to concentrate fully on their 4g build-out with much higher ROI than landlines and Fiber would ever return to them.

    Essentially a win for all companies involved as their ‘exclusive’ markets are protected from competition with a gentlemans agreement, everyone gets paid, and everyone is guaranteed to make even more money in the future.

    Oh except consumers are guaranteed to pay more in the future…

  2. [...] Wednesday, executives from Verizon, Comcast, and various experts on anti-trust law and competition testified before a Senate committee to help decide the fate of a deal worth more than $3.6 billion that could reshape the face of [...]

  3. [...] Wednesday, executives from Verizon, Comcast, and various experts on anti-trust law and competition testified before a Senate committee to help decide the fate of a deal worth more than $3.6 billion that could reshape the face of [...]

  4. Tony says:

    C- Beneficial collaboration. 3 new MVNO’s enter the market that previously weren’t there and whom had no intention of launching their own networks before now. FiOS rollout is over. Verizon is actively selling arms of it. They’re done in that space. As an entire corporate entity (VZ Communications + VZ Wireless), their focus is very clearly on enterprise services with their hardline services (corporate) and wireless for retail. MVNO’s are often cheaper than the parent network, the caveat being you supply the device… easy to do with it being Verizon.

    So how isn’t this good? There’s going to be more service providers in wireless, where before this was going to remain unused space. There’s going to be another avenue to obtain TV and home TV service, where before the parent company had shelved, and even sold parts of, their similar service…


    • The problem with MVNO’s is the wholesale pricing and access rules set by their suppliers. They are both carefully calculated to ensure no reseller can challenge the parent provider. The prepaid space is where most MVNO’s seem to survive, but notice they are no real competitive threat to the companies that supply the service, and a lot of MVNOs not affiliated with Sprint, TMO, Verizon or AT&T are finding the market increasingly unprofitable.

      The real problem here frankly is Wall Street which absolutely loathes capital spending. If Verizon stood their ground more strongly over FiOS deployment, a lot more service areas would have fiber to the home service today, but investment in network upgrades always kills the stock price. Instead, we have talk of these “partnerships” which are really just reseller agreements that require no capital investment. Verizon pitching Comcast or Time Warner nets them a quick shot of $200 referral bonuses which look great on the quarterly financial report, but delivers nothing in the long term except the certainty the cable company will not get into the wireless space.

      These quick fixes remind me of the independent phone companies. Their “triple play” is most often phone, DSL, and reselling Dish or DirecTV.

      It’s the same phony competition Canada endures from prepaid MVNOs that are almost always owned and operated by the companies that provide the infrastructure. Consumers think they are choosing from competing providers when they actually are not.

      Canada has the right idea opening their market space up to foreign-owned providers who will front sufficient capital to build networks while domestic providers are scared away by investment banks and home grown investors.

      Mexico’s Carlos Slim, who owns Tracfone, is probably going to be the first foreigner to push into the U.S. market since Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile.

      I agree with your assessment the landline business is increasingly focused on enterprise customers and wireless for consumers (where the ARPU potential is enormous). But landline providers could still play an important part of the consumer market if they’d invest in their networks. Consumers will learn real fast wireless broadband will not replace wired service for years to come. It’s often slower, subject to more congestion, and resource-limited.

      I still have clueless people drop by here and tell me fiber to the home is dead because WiMAX is here. Seriously. Even providers in the city of Moscow consider WiMAX deader than Stalin and are hot-switching to LTE sometime this year.

      • Scott says:

        The other thing I hate with the MVNO’s is because they’re bound with their agreements to AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.. while they may announce a great innovative service plans with low pricing, or unlimited data.. at any point when it gets popular their provider simply changes terms on them requiring them to raise pricing, or drop unlimited and go with a metered per Gb at the same or higher price than the provider.

        We;ve got several new Cellular companies announcing service now too that are piggybacking on Sprint and their WiMax network for cellular.. and I totally agree that’s a deadend just based on limited coverage let alone all the other negatives.

        WiMax is just as dumb as the WiFi Access point deployment hype that preceded it by companies making huge buys of equipment to build out Wifi networks that never had the range, speeds, or transmission through obstructions necessary to be remotely useful outside a Starbucks. It’s never been the right technology, and never been the right time.

  5. Duffin says:

    I wanted to toss my monitor out of the window every single time Cohen claimed that they’d offered the spectrum to every other carrier. That’s such bull. You don’t think there would be a feeding frenzy for that spectrum? He really expects us to believe that only Verizon, the carrier with the most spectrum, was the only one who was interested in it? This is AT&T/T-Mobile all over again! Do they think we’re stupid or something? Yeah, of course it’s very convenient that there’s no public proof of these “offers” to other carriers. They should not be able to sell this to another company. If a company doesn’t want spectrum, which is a finite resource, they shouldn’t be allowed to sell it themselves, it should be required to go to public auction first and then the selling company can get some proceeds from whoever wins the bid at that point.

  6. [...] Wednesday, executives from Verizon, Comcast, and various experts on anti-trust law and competition testified before a Senate committee to help decide the fate of a deal worth more than $3.6 billion that could reshape the face of [...]

Search This Site:


Recent Comments:

  • Brandon Cravey: This company is a joke. I had a lady call me and ask me my speeds after I filed a complaint with consumer affairs. At the time my speeds were showing ...
  • shawn808: Isnt it wonderful that places we have bombed into the stone age have a better ISP pipe than America...
  • Paul Houle: Actually at my place close to Ithaca, NY, I get about 1.2Mb/s; I have two phone lines and two DSL lines (which Frontier won't pair-bond for some abs...
  • Gary in Michigan: Paul, I may be one of the "lucky" ones, but I am able to get 12Mb/s on Frontier in the thumb of Michigan....
  • innovate: It is Verizon's stupid decision to cut more jobs and eventually get out of internet business. You need to give your customers advanced, built-in WiFi ...
  • Michael Elling (@Infostack): Phil, 1) guess they ran into law of wireless gravity: http://bit.ly/ZRqwrG 2) Recent Wireless 20/20 analysis indicated 5yr TCO of wlx carriers i...
  • steph: Worked for me! I just negotiated U200 + 45 Mbps (up from 18) to $111 -- that's a $79 discount from what I was paying....
  • Web Stuff: @Allan, You must be a Charter service rep... I was able to use the link you provided to get the standard rate sheet, but then I tried just going to ...
  • Lee Cook: Frontier's mascot's name should be "Frank the Bullcrapalo" because that is what Frontier upsells. What they can deliver on paper is not what they can ...
  • Allan G: @Web Stuff - You can find standard rate prices by going here: http://connect.charter.com/ratecard Just choose your state and city, and click on the do...
  • Bob in Illinois: I'm part of the 17% that can only get 3Mbps(since 83% can get 6Mbps). My neighborhood is about to go 50% fiber with an outlier(non-cableco, non-telco...
  • Paul Houle: I don't know anybody who gets 12Mb/s on Frontier DSL. Even the gas station that is literally across the street from their POP gets only 8MB/s. Jus...

Your Account: