home

Comcast Announces Divestiture of Some Markets

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 12:36:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Comcast today announced that it will divest 3.9 million subscribers of Comcast and Time Warner to Charter Communications and a new spinoff company, after its planned acquisition of Time Warner.

Contrary to earlier reports, Comcast is holding onto Colorado. Most of the divestitures are in the Midwest and South and currently belong to Time Warner.

The changes would occur after approval of the Comcast-Time Warner deal, and are intended to increase the likelihood of the deal's approval.

< Poll: Coloradans Happy With Legalized Marijuana | More Details on Operation Gargoyle and Capturing El Chapo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Comcast Announces Divestiture of Some Markets | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Comcast Netflix and Net (non) Neutrality (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    If reports in the Wall Street Journal are correct, Obama's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas Wheeler, has proposed a new rule that is an explicit and blatant violation of this promise. [Net Neutrality] In fact, it permits and encourages exactly what Obama warned against: broadband carriers acting as gatekeepers and charging Web sites a payola payment to reach customers through a "fast lane."

    Late last night Wheeler released a statement accusing the Wall Street Journal of being "flat-out wrong." Yet the Washington Post has confirmed, based on inside sources, that the new rule gives broadband providers "the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers ... in a commercially reasonable matter." That's telecom-speak for payola payments, and a clear violation of Obama's promise.

    NYer

    After Netflix paid Comcast (payola) their declining download speed shot up like a rocket. Graph

    More from digby

    That chart that digby posted, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    showing the nexus between and among the FCC and the telecoms, is Exhibit A for Why Net Neutrality Is Poised To Be History.

    It seems to me that, more and more, these agencies that are supposed to be looking out for consumers and us little folk, keeping the playing fields even, etc., are being used to ensure the health and wealth of the industries they are supposed to be overseeing and regulating.

    What's the answer, though?  We have an insider network of people who cycle into government, out into the private sector and back into government, and there doesn't seem to be any room for anyone who isn't a member of one of these clubs.

    Parent

    MKS taught me... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    government protects the weak from the strong...are you saying you don't feel very protected Anne?

    If so, that makes two of us;)

    Parent

    Yeah, Sort of a Catch 22 (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    Many believe that the regulators should have experience in the field that they are regulating.

    One of the big criticisms of Obama during the campaign and after, was that he had no experience.

    Parent

    Believe it or not, I wasn't looking for (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    a discussion about Obama, mainly because I think this insider/revolving door situation is endemic, pretty nearly hard-wired into the system.

    But, let's talk about experience.  Yes, I think someone acting in a regulatory capacity needs knowledge of the industry or area they're regulating, but that knowledge can be obtained in a number of ways.  And, I think it's important to note that not everyone who has worked in a particular industry is predisposed to side with that industry against the interests of the people.

    Look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example.  I'd venture to guess there are a number of people within that organization, or affiliated with it, who have all the knowledge - and the requisite experience - necessary to serve in a regulatory capacity - but their perspective isn't particularly welcome within what has become a closed-loop system.

    And, more and more, I feel like those sitting in the Congress are spending too much time planning their post-legislative careers and working too hard not to take themselves out of contention for cushy, private-sector and lobbying jobs that they, too, end up not working very hard to represent the people's interests.


    Parent

    Just because the fox knows the ins (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    and outs of the henhouse doesn't mean he is the best candidate for protecting it - but that seems to be the argument we get all the time.

    I'm not suggesting people who have no knowledge of the workings of these industries should be put in charge - but I think a regulatory commission that is as stacked with industry-insiders as the FCC is, is comparable to a justice system where there are only prosecutors.

    Parent

    True, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    Obama's lack of experience is a little different.  Yes, he never managed anything, so his executive experience was lacking, but he also lacked any type of relationships with members of Congress, which has made it much more difficult to work with them - even members of his own party.

    And I guess as to the problem of getting "outsiders" with no industry experience to be in charge of these agencies - I point you to Exhibit A - Michael Brown, late of FEMA.  That worked well, didn't it?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    You are one of the commenters who decried Obama's lack of experience.

    Personally, I do not put much stock in that line of thinking.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    And I still think experience is important.  Mr. Obama is Exhibit A as to why that is so.

    Parent
    Depends on your experience of experience... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    Going into the '08 elections, he'd demonstrated plenty of experience and enthusiasm at rolling over for his real constituency, his big money backers.  Case in point, his vote against the Dayton amendment (to limit credit card interest rates at 30%) to the 2005 Bankruptcy bill.

    Parent
    "Many believe..." (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    Who are these "many" who believe that? Usually they appear to be the profit makers in the field to be regulated.

    Nice use of the passive voice, though. That way you don't have to own the thought that you expressed.

    Parent

    Give it a Rest SJ (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    I have no problem owning the things I say.

    Many believe that the regulators should have experience in the field that they are regulating....

    Personally, I do not put much stock in that line of thinking.

    And you may want to brush up on your grammar, particularly passive voice. The sentence could be better, but to start hurling insults that I am hiding my opinion or not owning things is say is absurd and a waste of time.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    Mr Patronizing, Sneering, Insulting squeaks feels he has been insulted.

    How very odd. I wouldn't have thought one who dishes so freely could have such thin skin. My apologies for hurting your feelings.

    But I do love how you "own" two comments that were not made together, and, moreover did not appear, at first blush ,to be discussing exactly the same thing.

    Here are the originals:

    Many believe that the regulators should have experience in the field that they are regulating.

    One of the big criticisms of Obama during the campaign and after, was that he had no experience.


    And second, separate comment:
    You are one of the commenters who decried Obama's lack of experience.

    Personally, I do not put much stock in that line of thinking.


    I agree with your conflated comments. The real ones? Well, they don't read the same.

    Nowhere did I say that you were "hiding" your opinion. I said that it was a nice use of the passive voice. Apparently it was a nice use of the passive voice because you don't agree with the view expressed. I say that now based on the conflated comment. But really who knows. And moreover, who really cares?

    Because, frankly, bringing Obama's experience level into a discussion about net neutrality was just a "verbal" Malatov cocktail thrown for no good reason. And shame on me for taking the bait.

    Parent

    I have no (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    confidence in the government, red or blue, acting in my interest against a powerful lobby.

    Remember when;

    Price fixing was illegal.
    We had a right to make a backup copy of anything.
    Monopolies were broken up.

    I still can't believe TW and Comcast is expected to fly, we have no real competition in the cable industry or internet providers, we effectively have a bunch of ranchers and we are the cows.

    Parent

    In rural areas it's really bad (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    Which is why Dish and Direct are so big. Or maybe the reverse who knows but cable very nearly doesn't exist here.  I would love to have cable that didn't drop out every time it rained.  But forget it.  There is one company that serves this area.  You cannot get HD.  You cannot even get a box.  It plugs right into the tv. No premiums, no payperview.  

    Parent
    Well I am thrilled to know that the (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:27:18 PM EST
    choice is having the FCC go for content control or the industry go for content control.

    I just wanna know, why do we need control??

    Parent

    Well I am thrilled to know that the (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    choice is having the FCC go for content control or the industry go for content control.

    I just wanna know, why do we need control??

    Parent

    As long as I still get softcore Showtime flix... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    ...I don't care what they do.

    Ahem.

    This has been a rainy days and mondays humor minute.

    LOL... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    Those films meant the world to my 13 year old self...but in the internet age, late night cable soft-core may as well be Rated G;)

    Parent
    Violence good, naked bodies bad (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    You wanna watch violence porn, you're good. Erotic porn, you're a freak. Oddball state of being.

    Parent
    It's our Puritan heritage (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    Mr. Zorba has always maintained that he would rather have young people watching sex than watching violence.
    This country has always been very strange about sex and the human body, while depictions of violence have never been subject to the condemnation that depictions of sex have.
    Go figure.

    Parent
    I am right there with you (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    I am always disgusted how flippantly TV and movie violence is injected into our daily lives, and yet sex is treated as something to fear, to hide. So ridiculous and cruel. Don't start me. Oh wait, you already kinda did. ;-)

    Parent
    You are going to get (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    An "R" or even "X" rating on a movie for sex, or even, shall I say, "inappropriate" language, way before you get such ratings for violence.

    Parent
    The rules are pretty (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    Hit or miss for both.  And some of them are completely stupid.  For example, did you ever notice "alien" blood is always blue or dayglo green or something? That's because of the blood rules.  Apparently if it ain't red it ain't blood.   When we were making Dinosaur - disney animations first and only PG13movie - we learned a lot bout what is required to get a PG13 rating.  One scene in particular, a fight scene, we had to redo it over and over taking away more and more blood until there was basically none to avoid a r rating.
    And the sex rules are also pretty fungible.  That same year, I think, the South Park movie came out and almost everyone thought it should have been NC17.  Ebert even wrot a column about it I think.

    Parent
    Go see Haunted House 2 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    I saw it last weekend when I was in LA visiting my sista from anotha mista. Marlon Wayans has a fully romantic relationship with a demonic little doll, as in a toy doll. There is one sex scene between he and the doll that, frankly, is so comically and pornographically out there that is sort of defies explanation. You have to see it to believe it, and I only wish, crude and rude aside, it were the rule and not the exception. Literally, my friend, get a good buzz on and see the movie.

    Parent
    the rule and not the exception... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    ...when it comes to violence being so accepted, that is.

    Parent
    And honestly... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    ...now that I think about it, I have no idea how that one human/doll sex scene alone didn't merit an NC17 based on the screwy criteria. I guess sex between humans and inanimate objects is safe, but sex between actual people is bad. In the end, the same lousy puritanical result.

    Parent
    There are indeed (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    Different rules for plastic.  That's one of he reasons the South Park was able to go where it did.  
    It shall be on the list.

    Parent
    Also on pushing the sexual envelope (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    Seen "This is the End".  The Seth Rogan movie with James Franco and lots of other people.  It's very funny and definitely pushes.  There is a recreation of the satanic rape scene from Rosemarys Baby with Jonah Hill as Rosemary that is one of the funniest things I have ever seen and has a couple of shots that seriously must have involved bribes to not get NC17.  

    Parent
    See Haunted House 2 (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    Saw it, and agree, but trust me, nothing compares to the sex scene between the doll and Marlon Wayans. At least IMO. Nothing. Me and my friend were crying our eyes out laughing.

    Parent
    Watch (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    THIS

    Parent
    Priceless (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    I'd say thanks, but that doesn't really seem the right word. Franks maybe. Ahem.

    Parent
    Off Topic, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:48:53 PM EST
    Where is an open thread?

    And, I don't understand why, when open threads are, obviously, the most frequented posts, they have to be limited to 200 comments?

    It's not a technical limitation as I don't know of any other site that has this cut-off.

    Maybe if one person wasn't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    making 40 to 50 of the comments in those Open Threads all by his lonesome, they'd be around a little longer for others to make use of.

    Parent
    Ahhhh (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    You missed me

    Parent
    Aw, Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    there you go assuming it's all about you.

    The way I look at it, for every giver, there's a taker. And, this I mean seriously, almost all the sniping that goes on here fits into the "takes two to tango" bag.

    I can't count how many times someone will throw out a hunk of "bait," and, I pray to myself, "no, please, no, please ignore him/her."

    Alas, like a Great Lakes Big Mouth Bass, someone will lunge at the bait, while everyone else thinks, "Oh, Crap! here we go again," at least for the next 15-20 posts."

    Maybe I'm wrong, but, what do I know?

    Parent

    Maybe we will discuss this in an open thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:09:04 PM EST
    Sometime.  With links.

    Parent
    It kind of IS a technical (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    limit. As well as a bit of arbitrary one. When there are too many comments on thread the site slows down considerably. I don't know if it's exactly 200 comments, although I don't think.

    In any case, the site has been coded to close a thread automatically when that threshold has been reached.

    It is possible that the 200 comment limit is one the reasons she would like to upgrade the site.

    And Open Threads are only there if they are deliberately created. Too bad a new one isn't automatically created when the old one gets shut down.

    Parent

    Naturally, I meant (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    "I don't think so".

    I don't know if it's exactly 200 comments, although I don't think.
    A bit of a different meaning in the two statements, LOL.

    Parent
    Aha, had a little Freudian slip, did we? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    lol

    But, I'm sure you're right about the mechanics. I'm not so sure about the "slowing down," though. Some of the other sites have hundreds, even thousands of posts, and, I don't notice a slowdown. I don't know how these things work so, maybe you're right.

    But, if you look over the posts these past few weeks, those that have a specific topic get a couple of comments (some, no comments) while the open threads get filled up right a way.

    I sure don't have the answer, just musing away.

    Parent

    Seems to sort of work (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    My only gripe is when something interesting gets posted close to the 200 cap, and by the time I read it the thread is closed.

    OTOH the interesting thing could be reposted in the next thread.

    Maybe consider always opening a new open thread when the last one closes? That seems the main kink to me is that sometimes it can be days between open threads.

    Parent

    You can still comment (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:23:32 PM EST
    on a closed thread, you just cannot reply directly to any previous comment.
    That's why some of the "closed" threads have more than 200 comments.

    Parent
    I was going to ask why that was (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:26:14 PM EST


    Parent
    You can go down to the bottom (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    of a "closed" thread, and you will still see the comment box all ready for your comment.
    Beats the heck out of me, though, why this is the case.
    And most people probably don't bother to peruse the closed threads, so they may not see your new comment, anyway.

    Parent
    Works, thanks (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 03:31:16 AM EST
    I made a reply on Friday thread, saying I am enjoying Barb Jungr's cover recordings of Dylan's work.

    Parent
    Comcast Announces Divestiture of Some Markets | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment