Posted on 04/09/2014 5:49:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Heavyweight conservatives and banterweight conservatives are lining up on both sides the Comcast/Time Warner merger.
The heavyweights, which include Grover Norquist at Americans for Tax Reform, Wayne Crews at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Duane Parde at the National Taxpayers Union, have penned a letter to influential Senators including Mike Lee, Chuck Grassley and Ted Cruz, urging them to look past the politics and approve the merger between the two cable giants on traditional grounds—you know, the grounds under which the anti-trust laws were written and passed in the first place?
“As advocates for a free market,” the heavyweights write, “we believe that the Sherman and Clayton antitrust laws require the government to abstain from intervening in such transactions on antitrust grounds absent any clear showing of actual or potential market failure of which there is none here.”
And they are right.
Let me make it clear: I don’t like Comcast’s politics. I once ran a company that was a competitor to Comcast and know full well what they can do to the competition. And I think they are at the sleazy end of the K Street shuffle.
But none of those reasons are reason enough for anti-trust policies to apply.
Anti-trust laws were created to prevent any company from so dominating the marketplace that they could damage competitive pricing for consumers. They were created to make sure that business combinations didn’t unfairly cooperate on prices too.
On both counts the Comcast/Time Warner merger clears the hurdle.
We have become so accustomed in this country, on both sides of the aisle, that all is fair in love and war and politics, that we have forgotten that laws are not meant to be used as hammers against people we disagree with, but rather are made to be enforced, under the Constitution for the expressed purpose for which they are enacted.
And those protections should apply to everyone.
The bantamweighters, which include Judson Phillips with Tea Party Nation, Colin Hanna with Let Freedom Ring and Stephen Demaura with Americans for Job Security, are arguing that Comcast and Time Warner merger would provide less diversity of thought, amongst other things, which is not what the law was meant to ensure.
They cite the First Amendment to the Constitution as a “guarantee of a diversity of viewpoints.”
The First Amendment does no such thing as guarantee diversity of thought. Only a liberal would argue such. Their argument is not just wrong historically, but a very different plain meaning than our Founders intended for the First Amendment.
In essence, the arguments the "liberty" people make are political arguments that conservative interests might be harmed by the merger.
It always pains me when I have to point out to good, faithful conservatives that they didn’t invent the Constitution even if some of them just discovered it six years ago.
In their discovery, they should be careful not to twist it as our liberal friends would do.
The Comcast/Time Warner deal might have some hidden problems that the Senate Judiciary Committee will have to sort out.
But from here, it looks like neither the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust provisions nor the First Amendment to the Constitution would be violated.
I’m not a big fan of cable either.
But if you have problem with it you can change the channels just as well at DirecTV.
I have Netflix and Hulu running through a Roku device. No need for cable TV at all.
The big-government/big-corporate crony-fascist complex doesn’t care what you want.
We dumped Charter cable 8 months ago. The only thing we get from now from them is high-speed internet. We’re doing just fine with an air antenna, Roku3, Hulu+, Netflix, & Amazon Prime. We’ve got more than enough to watch and we dropped our cable bill by $100/month. And we watch WHEN we want to watch....no schedules...
I have DirecTV and a computer on my system. I cut the cable cord long ago.
In 1980 we had fifty major media companies in this country. Now its six Media Corporations. All that power and influence concentrated into the hands of a few men. Do you think the men that run those Corporations have any love for traditional America or have they done everything they could to undermine it? The last thing we need is for those Corporations to get larger and more powerful.
Sam, that’s what we have too. We disengaged from cable last year, and we couldn’t be happier. And it costs SO LITTLE. I hate the cable companies - ‘You have to have it for two years, you can’t have this station, you have to have that one.’ And they are unions, to boot, so you’re probably paying for their life-long pensions and who knows what else?
We have Charter at the Outer Banks of NC, the only game in town. They recently converted to digital on March 4 and were ‘forced’ to rent a set top box to get a usable signal. They charge $6.99 a month for each box. I was tempted to go the outside antenna route; but the reception is terrible.
The bantamweighters, which include Judson Phillips with Tea Party Nation, Colin Hanna with Let Freedom Ring and Stephen Demaura with Americans for Job Security, are arguing that Comcast and Time Warner merger would provide less diversity of thought, amongst other things, which is not what the law was meant to ensure. They cite the First Amendment to the Constitution as a “guarantee of a diversity of viewpoints.” The First Amendment does no such thing as guarantee diversity of thought. Only a liberal would argue such. Their argument is not just wrong historically, but a very different plain meaning than our Founders intended for the First Amendment. In essence, the arguments the "liberty" people make are political arguments that conservative interests might be harmed by the merger.
It always pains me when I have to point out to good, faithful conservatives that they didn’t invent the Constitution even if some of them just discovered it six years ago.
PFL
> I have Netflix and Hulu running through a Roku device. No need for cable TV at all.
I do too, for about 4 years now, but it would be nice if HBO-Go was available to non-cable subscribers.
It isn't just access. I get minimum cable TV, though instead just getting a better antenna for over the air stations is tempting. The problem is they control what I see. Why am I stuck with a religious-themed station, two stations of people gibbering in hispanic, and only stations which toe their line? It will only get worse and the offerings even less geared to local offerings if they merge. Remember back when cable TV started out? It was supposed to provide access for local, innovative programming in studios and channels they provided.
As a Time Warner customer for years, I hate to see this merger. We have just gotten them to be a really good provider.
WHy? As part of my new arrangement with TW, they gave me all of the HBO stations free. There is nothing there that I want to watch.
But I do love a new channel that they are providing — Ovtions!
If ya thought NY state hated conservatives before, just wait until we’re portrayed as and/or perceived as being in favor of the Comcast takeover of TW.
As a disgruntled ex-customer of the bait and switch operation in question, I’d vote for Obama before I’d favor this “merger”.
Thanks Kaslin.
And seriously, Grover Norquist is in favor of it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/grovernorquist/index
Our local power utility has fiber optic cable. Their cheapest internet package is about 5 times faster than Comcast’s best. I would go without before I went back to Comcast. I am amazed that literally anyone at all still has Comcast around here. Seriously, I don’t get how they still have even a single customer.
My bride’s cousin has a condo out in the Outer Banks. She is very upset with that, and has been looking to go to a dish. Except the condo association banned dishes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.