If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   If you think that the government will block the Comcast/Time Warner merger, think again: Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is an Obama fundraiser and golfing buddy   (forbes.com) divider line 89
    More: Obvious, CEO Brian, Obama, CEO, Comcast, Justice Department, mergers, UnitedHealth Group, Deputy Attorney General  
•       •       •

445 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:54 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-15 09:07:22 AM
And yet Al Franken, another democrat, is the one pushing to block the merger.
 
2014-04-15 09:41:15 AM
Brian Roberts is a turncoat Yankee!

/Not really.
//But he is a Yankee.
/// :(
 
2014-04-15 09:59:32 AM
I never thought that for a second.....
 
2014-04-15 10:48:16 AM
Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.
 
2014-04-15 11:01:31 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.


I heard he was the most liberal liberal who ever libbed a lib, not to mention a die-hard socialist and probably a communist as well.
 
2014-04-15 11:02:40 AM
This is assuming that they'd block it if that wasn't the case.
 
2014-04-15 11:25:19 AM
I already figured it wouldn't be blocked when I got a response from my Democratic congresscritter. In it, she outlined how the process to approve it would work. At no point did she reveal what her stance was.
 
2014-04-15 11:26:43 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.


No, he's not. That is a patently absurd statement.


Franken being the only one trying to block this just goes to show that there is a sliver of good in him after all. Kudos to him for this.
 
2014-04-15 11:27:54 AM

mod3072: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

I heard he was the most liberal liberal who ever libbed a lib, not to mention a die-hard socialist and probably a communist as well.


You forgot "Seecrit Muslin Gun-Grabber"... ah, hell, my heart just isn't in it today.  If this goes through, what's left television and internet media that isn't owned by either this monstrosity or Disney (which Comcast, in its titanic hubris, also sought to buy before being laughed off the field)?  Not bloody much.  How the hell is that even worth talking about?  Why not just scrub all the anti-trust laws and have us buy all our food from one enormous store owned by "Wal-Santo"?
 
2014-04-15 11:32:28 AM
Of course the government will approve the merger.  It would be approved no matter the President.  But before it gets approval the government will throw in a few hoops for them to jump through as window dressing to give the appearance of oversight.
 
2014-04-15 11:40:37 AM
I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.
 
2014-04-15 11:41:06 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.


Yet, the 'liberals' on Fark will fight tooth and nail to defend all of his actions.  Same with how they did for Clinton (ignoring NAFTA, China, Telecommunications Act of 96, free-speech zones, etc).

Funny how that works.
 
2014-04-15 11:42:46 AM

happydude45: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

No, he's not. That is a patently absurd statement.


Franken being the only one trying to block this just goes to show that there is a sliver of good in him after all. Kudos to him for this.


He is still in favor of the RIAA and movie industries having the power of the police and judges. He is just owned by different people than Obama. Obama is the biggest whore in the city. Franken is a lesser whore. He would only be a level 6 dick-sucker, while Obama is a level 19 Power Bottom.
 
2014-04-15 11:48:34 AM

Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.


I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.
 
2014-04-15 11:51:05 AM

Nemo's Brother: Franken is a lesser whore. He would only be a level 6 dick-sucker, while Obama is a level 19 Power Bottom.


I'm not one to perpetuate stereotypes, but once again we have a "Conservative" who is *extremely* preoccupied with homosexual male sex.
 
2014-04-15 11:52:21 AM

mod3072: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

I heard he was the most liberal liberal who ever libbed a lib, not to mention a die-hard socialist and probably a communist as well.


Liberal? No.  Socialist.  Duh, yeah, we all are to some degree.  Communist?  That would be Dreams From my Father BHO Sr., not Jr.   Whatever Obama is doesn't seem to be quite what he was.
 
2014-04-15 11:59:49 AM

Nemo's Brother: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

Yet, the 'liberals' on Fark will fight tooth and nail to defend all of his actions.  Same with how they did for Clinton (ignoring NAFTA, China, Telecommunications Act of 96, free-speech zones, etc).

Funny how that works.


He's still not a Republican, though, no matter how much the "both sides are the same so vote for Ralph Nader" crowd screams and yells.  He's pro-union, pro-choice, in favor of widened gun control measures, in favor of raising the minimum wage, pro-gay marriage, etc.  Calling him a Republican means you are either trolling or are willingly ignorant on his positions and those of the Republican Party (including the historical positions of the Republican Party).
 
2014-04-15 12:19:29 PM
I dumped Dish Network a few years ago. Comcrap is the cable company in this area, but I've never given them any business. The 19 channels I get with my over-the-air antenna are more than enough. My internet is with a locally based DSL provider. Since I don't have ANY kind of "cable TV", I doubt the merger will affect me at all.
 
2014-04-15 12:22:33 PM
Just attach a rider to repeal Obamacare.
 
2014-04-15 12:34:03 PM

albert71292: I dumped Dish Network a few years ago. Comcrap is the cable company in this area, but I've never given them any business. The 19 channels I get with my over-the-air antenna are more than enough. My internet is with a locally based DSL provider. Since I don't have ANY kind of "cable TV", I doubt the merger will affect me at all.


csb
 
2014-04-15 12:35:17 PM
And here I thought the FTC made that decision. I'm sure it would be no scandal what so ever if the president were to mandate that somehow.
 
2014-04-15 01:04:43 PM

Geotpf: Nemo's Brother: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

Yet, the 'liberals' on Fark will fight tooth and nail to defend all of his actions.  Same with how they did for Clinton (ignoring NAFTA, China, Telecommunications Act of 96, free-speech zones, etc).

Funny how that works.

He's still not a Republican, though, no matter how much the "both sides are the same so vote for Ralph Nader" crowd screams and yells.  He's pro-union, pro-choice, in favor of widened gun control measures, in favor of raising the minimum wage, pro-gay marriage, etc.  Calling him a Republican means you are either trolling or are willingly ignorant on his positions and those of the Republican Party (including the historical positions of the Republican Party).


I think the point that is being made is that outside of social issues, that is, in matters of economics and even to a large extent foreign policy, Obama and the democrats at large are indistinguishable from republicans. So we get gay marriage but mergers that create exactly the sort of trusts a certain famous republican busted are given blessings by both parties - and since the two parties have a stranglehold on power in the US, you can't easily "vote them out".

This is why I favor a system with proportional representation for the lower house. The two parties have a lock on power so any issue they agree on is very hard to oppose. Internal opponents like Franken actually serve as a way of keeping the vote of dissidents - their demands are never met except in very marginal ways, the party claims all their votes and then says "see, look how terrible the other side is, at least we throw you crumbs". The environmental movement was co-opted by the Democratic Party this way.
 
2014-04-15 01:09:51 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Welp, we're boned.
 
2014-04-15 01:30:35 PM

stpauler: And yet Al Franken, another democrat, is the one pushing to block the merger.


So the GOP get to either side with Obama's buddy's request and be seen as Obama lovers or side with a block against a business led by Al Franklin.

static4.businessinsider.com
 
2014-04-15 02:02:46 PM

Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.


Look for Netflix to pay them off (like they are already doing Comcast) and eventually it will get integrated into the tv service.  Hulu is owned by the big media companies already so the same will probably happen with them.

Kind of like how if you wanted to watch the ncaa games online, the olympics, or anything on ESPN you need a cable subscription.
 
2014-04-15 02:06:27 PM

adamatari: Geotpf: Nemo's Brother: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

Yet, the 'liberals' on Fark will fight tooth and nail to defend all of his actions.  Same with how they did for Clinton (ignoring NAFTA, China, Telecommunications Act of 96, free-speech zones, etc).

Funny how that works.

He's still not a Republican, though, no matter how much the "both sides are the same so vote for Ralph Nader" crowd screams and yells.  He's pro-union, pro-choice, in favor of widened gun control measures, in favor of raising the minimum wage, pro-gay marriage, etc.  Calling him a Republican means you are either trolling or are willingly ignorant on his positions and those of the Republican Party (including the historical positions of the Republican Party).

I think the point that is being made is that outside of social issues, that is, in matters of economics and even to a large extent foreign policy, Obama and the democrats at large are indistinguishable from republicans. So we get gay marriage but mergers that create exactly the sort of trusts a certain famous republican busted are given blessings by both parties - and since the two parties have a stranglehold on power in the US, you can't easily "vote them out".

This is why I favor a system with proportional representation for the lower house. The two parties have a lock on power so any issue they agree on is very hard to oppose. Internal opponents like Franken actually serve as a way of keeping the vote of dissidents - their demands are never met except in very marginal ways, the party claims all their votes and then says "see, look how terrible the other side is, at least we throw you crumbs". The environmental movement was co-opted by the Democratic Party this way.


It be interesting to see what happened if we went to some private voting standards for the congresscritters.  I don't really like the idea of them not having to stand behind their vote, but allowing them to vote for what they actually think is best and not having any way for lobbyist etc to verify their bribes are getting carried out seems pretty cool too.
 
2014-04-15 02:24:57 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.


Yeah. Obama is a "liberal" only for the easy stuff. Want to be openly gay in the military? Sign an executive order and it's done!

 Need a decent job? Yeah, well, that's alot harder. I'd have to fix the trade imbalance with China, I'd have to fix the inequality in wealth in this country, and I'd have to bring jobs back to the US. It's so hard, I won't even try. I won't even give meaningful lip service to it.

It's easy to be a 'liberal' on easy stuff. It's alot harder to actually fix broken things.

Obama has been the best pal Wall Street ever had.

/Yes, if you're gay in the military he's helped you out. I suppose.
//If you've been unemployed for a year, not so much. Even if you're gay or anything else.
///Yes, the republitard congress has been no help. But they couldn't stop Obama from making speeches to at least show he gives a shiat about the 99%.
 
2014-04-15 03:24:44 PM
I'm...I'm confused.  Is Forbes arguing against the merger and for consumers?

Also FTFA Attorney General Eric Holder, who runs the most blatantly politicized DOJ in history.

Sorry but that title is held by Ed Meese, narrowly edging out the Bush II DOJ
 
2014-04-15 03:57:59 PM
Industry has been pushing the government around for a long time and the Supreme Court seems to want to ensure it stays that way for the forseeable future.   In addition to dominating the cable market, they own NBC universal, the Golf Channel, E! and a bunch of other shiat.  Despite the fact it is very disconcerting to me that the primary objective of my cable company seems to be to keep hoarding more cash to buy other companies...suggesting they don't really give a crap about passing on savings to customers or ensuring customers get the best possible service, but only care about putting together enough capital for the next takeover.   Guess we can shiatcan Sherman Antitrust just like we shiatcanned Glass-Steagall.
 
2014-04-15 04:00:04 PM

runwiz: Of course the government will approve the merger.  It would be approved no matter the President.  But before it gets approval the government will throw in a few hoops for them to jump through as window dressing to give the appearance of oversight.


'Zactly.  It'll be "Oh please don't throw us into that there briar patch by making us make all kinds of promises that we'll ignore again!"
 
2014-04-15 04:08:44 PM

adamatari: I think the point that is being made is that outside of social issues, that is, in matters of economics and even to a large extent foreign policy, Obama and the democrats at large are indistinguishable from republicans. So we get gay marriage but mergers that create exactly the sort of trusts a certain famous republican busted are given blessings by both parties - and since the two parties have a stranglehold on power in the US, you can't easily "vote them out".


You're still 100% wrong.  Obama is in favor of a wide variety of worker protections (I even mentioned two specifically-unions and a higher minimum wage-which you completely ignored) that the Republicans are against.  Also, Obama's foreign policy is most definitely to the left of all Republicans other than ones whose last name is Paul.  His opponent was John "Bomb Iran" McCain, remember?  Yes, he's used drone strikes.  Yes, he doesn't want to eliminate the NSA.  But he pulled out of Iraq and is in the process of pulling out of Afghanistan; both McCain and Romney would have done neither.

Let me repeat: There is most certainly a large difference between Obama (or a generic Democrat) and a generic Republican on social, economic, and foreign policy issues.  Those who claim otherwise are deluded or trolling.
 
2014-04-15 04:10:28 PM

enemy of the state: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

Yeah. Obama is a "liberal" only for the easy stuff. Want to be openly gay in the military? Sign an executive order and it's done!

 Need a decent job? Yeah, well, that's alot harder. I'd have to fix the trade imbalance with China, I'd have to fix the inequality in wealth in this country, and I'd have to bring jobs back to the US. It's so hard, I won't even try. I won't even give meaningful lip service to it.

It's easy to be a 'liberal' on easy stuff. It's alot harder to actually fix broken things.


Because to pass laws, you need them to go through Congress first.  It's not within Obama's power to do what you want him to do with a Republican-controlled House.
 
2014-04-15 04:12:41 PM

NickelP: It be interesting to see what happened if we went to some private voting standards for the congresscritters.  I don't really like the idea of them not having to stand behind their vote, but allowing them to vote for what they actually think is best and not having any way for lobbyist etc to verify their bribes are getting carried out seems pretty cool too.


I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but any significant additional restrictions on Congressional voting and the like are almost certainly unconstitutional.
 
2014-04-15 04:36:09 PM

Geotpf: NickelP: It be interesting to see what happened if we went to some private voting standards for the congresscritters.  I don't really like the idea of them not having to stand behind their vote, but allowing them to vote for what they actually think is best and not having any way for lobbyist etc to verify their bribes are getting carried out seems pretty cool too.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but any significant additional restrictions on Congressional voting and the like are almost certainly unconstitutional.


I think what he's saying is, how different would members of Congress vote if nobody could see how they actually voted.  While an interesting thought the ability to deride your opponent on how they voted is pretty much the foundation of elections.  If it wasn't it would just be a fundraising, popularity contest.  Hey wait a minute...
 
2014-04-15 05:02:15 PM

King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.


Other than that whole Comcast having already come to a financial agreement with with Netflix to give them preferential bandwidth allocation throughout all of their networks. So yea, that aside, netflix will choked liked chokey chokerton from choketown.

/why yes, I am a comcast technician.
 
2014-04-15 05:05:55 PM

time is tight: King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

Other than that whole Comcast having already come to a financial agreement with with Netflix to give them preferential bandwidth allocation throughout all of their networks. So yea, that aside, netflix will choked liked chokey chokerton from choketown.

/why yes, I am a comcast technician.


Can you hook me up with Free HBO?
 
2014-04-15 07:21:37 PM

King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.


Because Comcast would much rather have you pay $100/mo for cable that $8/mo (split three ways) for Hulu?

And Comcast already has a data cap, which is essentially throttling such services, or at least forcing customers to throttle themselves so as not to hit that cap.
 
2014-04-15 07:37:42 PM

rugman11: King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

Because Comcast would much rather have you pay $100/mo for cable that $8/mo (split three ways) for Hulu?

And Comcast already has a data cap, which is essentially throttling such services, or at least forcing customers to throttle themselves so as not to hit that cap.


Give me half a break. If you're going past 500g per month, either A: you're an engineer dealing with Monsterous autocad files daily or B: some basement dwelling hump doing nothing but pirate bay and netflixing all day every day (and if that's the case....job, women, etc....see where I'm going here), or possibly C: you have more than 3 kids
 
2014-04-15 08:00:49 PM

time is tight: rugman11: King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

Because Comcast would much rather have you pay $100/mo for cable that $8/mo (split three ways) for Hulu?

And Comcast already has a data cap, which is essentially throttling such services, or at least forcing customers to throttle themselves so as not to hit that cap.

Give me half a break. If you're going past 500g per month, either A: you're an engineer dealing with Monsterous autocad files daily or B: some basement dwelling hump doing nothing but pirate bay and netflixing all day every day (and if that's the case....job, women, etc....see where I'm going here), or possibly C: you have more than 3 kids


I used to think that until we canceled our cable.  First, Comcast's data cap is 300 GB (or so my quick research shows).  The only plan with a 500GB+ cap costs $120/mo.  Second, our data cap (Cox) is 250GB and we blew by that last month (our first month without cable).  We went from averaging about 160GB/mo to using 311GB and the only thing that changed was switching from watching most of our television on cable/DVR to watching most of it on Hulu+.  At 2-3 GB/hr, streaming HD video racks up the data fast, especially if you watch as much television as we do (2-3 hrs/day, probably more on weekends).

We've already had to downgrade Netflix from HD to 480p, though the difference isn't hugely noticeable in my opinion.
 
2014-04-15 08:03:56 PM

time is tight: King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

Other than that whole Comcast having already come to a financial agreement with with Netflix to give them preferential bandwidth allocation throughout all of their networks. So yea, that aside, netflix will choked liked chokey chokerton from choketown.

/why yes, I am a comcast technician.


Yes, they came to a "financial agreement". The sort of "financial agreement" Paulie made with that restaurant owner in Goodfellas.

/Oh you want to use OUR Internet to stream to your customers, fark you, pay me. Oh you lost subscribers because we were throttling your bandwidth? Fark you, pay me. You had to raise your prices to cover our extortion? Fark you, pay me.
//You are proving my theory that there is someone on Fark who will defend anything no matter what it is
///cable company white knight to the rescue of the poor downtrodden cable monopolies
 
2014-04-15 08:35:07 PM

PreMortem: And here I thought the FTC made that decision. I'm sure it would be no scandal what so ever if the president were to mandate that somehow.


So Obama isn't the guy who just appointed one of the cable industry's biggest lobbyists to head the FTC?

Oh, wait.

He is exactly the guy who just did that.
 
2014-04-15 08:41:59 PM

Nemo's Brother: Marcus Aurelius: Obama is what we used to call a "Republican" back before we lost our shiat.

Yet, the 'liberals' on Fark will fight tooth and nail to defend all of his actions.  Same with how they did for Clinton (ignoring NAFTA, China, Telecommunications Act of 96, free-speech zones, etc).

Funny how that works.


You are confusing "liberals" with Democratic party shills.

Matt Taibbi is extremely liberal. He was on a program called Democracy Now which could be described as "to the left of Lenin" decrying the fact that both Bush Jr. and Sr. were much harder on corporate criminals than Obama.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was tougher on corporate America, President Obama or President Bush?

MATT TAIBBI: Oh, Bush, hands down. And this is an important point to make, because if you go back to the early 2000s, think about all these high-profile cases: Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen. All of these companies were swept up by the Bush Justice Department. And what's interesting about this is that you can see a progression. If you go back to the savings and loan crisis in the late '80s, which was an enormous fraud problem, but it paled in comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, we put about 800 people in jail during-in the aftermath of that crisis. You fast-forward 10 or 15 years to the accounting scandals, like Enron and Alelphia and Tyco, we went after the heads of some of those companies. It wasn't as vigorous as the S&L prosecutions, but we at least did it. At least George Bush recognized the symbolic importance of showing ordinary Americans that justice is blind, right?

Fast-forward again to the next big crisis, and how many people have we got-have we actually put in jail? Zero. And this was a crisis that was much huger in scope than the S&L crisis or the accounting crisis. I mean, it wiped out 40 percent of the world's wealth, and nobody went to jail, so that we're now in a place where we don't even recognize the importance of keeping up appearances when it comes to making things look equal.


Party shills defend Obama no matter what. Liberals do not.
 
2014-04-15 09:11:33 PM

BullBearMS: PreMortem: And here I thought the FTC made that decision. I'm sure it would be no scandal what so ever if the president were to mandate that somehow.

So Obama isn't the guy who just appointed one of the cable industry's biggest lobbyists to head the FTC?

Oh, wait.

He is exactly the guy who just did that.


And do you have any proof, let alone any hint of a whiff of a rumor that there was collaboration on this FTC decision? No you don't. Take off your tin foil hat, stay away from infowars and try to base your opinions on facts. Based on your logic, Obama ordered Lerner to specifically target TEA party groups, which he did not, nor did she.
 
2014-04-15 09:24:05 PM

PreMortem: BullBearMS: PreMortem: And here I thought the FTC made that decision. I'm sure it would be no scandal what so ever if the president were to mandate that somehow.

So Obama isn't the guy who just appointed one of the cable industry's biggest lobbyists to head the FTC?

Oh, wait.

He is exactly the guy who just did that.

And do you have any proof, let alone any hint of a whiff of a rumor that there was collaboration on this FTC decision? No you don't. Take off your tin foil hat, stay away from infowars and try to base your opinions on facts. Based on your logic, Obama ordered Lerner to specifically target TEA party groups, which he did not, nor did she.


Are you functionally retarded?

That is your big defense for Obama appointing yet another industry lobbyist into a position to regulate the industry they come from?

You do know that Eric Holder is a career Wall Street defense lawyer whose clients include all the too big to jail banks he has refused to criminally prosecute, don't you?

How about the fact that the lobbyist with our nation's largest insurance company who literally wrote the Obamacare bill was appointed by Obama to also write the regulations regarding it?

Stop making such pathetic excuses for the inexcusable.
 
2014-04-15 09:35:50 PM
Get back to me when you have evidence of collaboration on this specific merger. Your wailings bore me.
 
2014-04-15 09:37:41 PM

adamatari: I think the point that is being made is that outside of social issues, that is, in matters of economics and even to a large extent foreign policy, Obama and the democrats at large are indistinguishable from republicans.


Take a look at the "Free Trade" agreement Obama is currently pushing. In his last State of the Union address he specifically took time out to urge Congress to not even allow debate on this treaty, but to force an up or down vote instead.

Take a look at what it does:

One major focus is will be stronger protection for intellectual property. In the case of recorded music and movies, we might see provisions similar to those that were in the Stop Online Privacy Act (Sopa). This would make internet intermediaries like Google, Facebook and, indeed, anyone with a website into a copyright cop.

Since these measures were hugely unpopular, Sopa could probably never pass as a standalone piece of legislation. But tied into a larger pact and blessed with "free trade" holy water, the entertainment industry may be able to get what it wants.

The pharmaceutical industry is also likely to be a big gainer from this pact. It has decided that the stronger patent rules that it inserted in the 1995 WTO agreement don't go far enough. It wants stronger and longer patent protection and also increased use of "data exclusivity". This is a government-granted monopoly, often as long as 14 years, that prohibits generic competitors from entering a market based on another company's test results that show a drug to be safe and effective.

There are many other provisions in this pact that are likely to be similarly controversial. The rules it creates would override domestic laws on the environment, workplace safety, and investment.


Giving our Corporate masters the ability to override US laws and regulations, including the ability for Obama's Wall Street buddies to ignore even the watered down financial regulations recently passed?

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
 
2014-04-15 09:42:24 PM

PreMortem: Get back to me when you have evidence of collaboration on this specific merger. Your wailings bore me.


i128.photobucket.com

Sure... Despite the fact that not allowing lobbyists to control Washington was one of Obama's central promises in 2008, it's entirely an accident that he keeps putting them in charge of regulating the industry they lobby for.
 
2014-04-15 09:48:39 PM

rugman11: time is tight: rugman11: King Something: Semper IvXx: I'll just cut my cable and watch all my TV on the Internet. That'll show 'em!

Oh, what's that? They also own all the ISP's too so you'll have to get that Internet through them? And they'll probably use that monopoly to choke out Netflix, Hulu, and any other online TV service that competes with them? Guess we're farked then.

I don't see a reason for Comcast, who (at least partly, if not wholly) owns Hulu, to throttle Hulu.

Other than that, your argument is valid.

Because Comcast would much rather have you pay $100/mo for cable that $8/mo (split three ways) for Hulu?

And Comcast already has a data cap, which is essentially throttling such services, or at least forcing customers to throttle themselves so as not to hit that cap.

Give me half a break. If you're going past 500g per month, either A: you're an engineer dealing with Monsterous autocad files daily or B: some basement dwelling hump doing nothing but pirate bay and netflixing all day every day (and if that's the case....job, women, etc....see where I'm going here), or possibly C: you have more than 3 kids

I used to think that until we canceled our cable.  First, Comcast's data cap is 300 GB (or so my quick research shows).  The only plan with a 500GB+ cap costs $120/mo.  Second, our data cap (Cox) is 250GB and we blew by that last month (our first month without cable).  We went from averaging about 160GB/mo to using 311GB and the only thing that changed was switching from watching most of our television on cable/DVR to watching most of it on Hulu+.  At 2-3 GB/hr, streaming HD video racks up the data fast, especially if you watch as much television as we do (2-3 hrs/day, probably more on weekends).

We've already had to downgrade Netflix from HD to 480p, though the difference isn't hugely noticeable in my opinion.


I see now that the 300GB cap is only in about a dozen markets right now, but that's clearly where Comcast is going.

And the bigger issue here is that Comcast is trying to argue that Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. are their competitors.  But if you can control how much somebody uses your competitor's product, well they're not really a competitor are they?
 
2014-04-15 10:03:17 PM

BullBearMS: PreMortem: Get back to me when you have evidence of collaboration on this specific merger. Your wailings bore me.



Sure... Despite the fact that not allowing lobbyists to control Washington was one of Obama's central promises in 2008, it's entirely an accident that he keeps putting them in charge of regulating the industry they lobby for.


You know it's probably the illuminati, or perhaps the Bildebergs. Have you ever heard of the correlation/collaberation argument?

The issue here is whether Obama is directly ordering an FTC judgement. I've asked for evidence of any involvement and you have only provided innuendo. Again, specific information about Obama saying he has instructed the FTC to decide a certain way on this specific case or stfu.
 
2014-04-15 10:15:54 PM

PreMortem: The issue here is whether Obama is directly ordering an FTC judgement.


So unless they confess to their guilt, it just doesn't matter that Obama put a lobbyist for the cable and cellular phone providers in charge of regulating those industries as Chairman of the FCC?

That is the most pathetic excuse for political corruption I've seen so far this year.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report