A little-noticed article in the Wall Street Journal over Labor Day Weekend concerning the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger caught my eye, not only because the article obviously concerns an important matter of communications policy, but also because it raises questions regarding a matter of proper administrative agency process.
Pro-regulation interests often resort to highly misleading arguments to advance their cause. Fortunately that kind of deception ultimately exposes the weakness of their underlying argument and public policy position.
Aside from whether you think the proposed Comcast – Time Warner Cable merger ultimately should be approved or not, it’s hard to suggest that Comcast’s announcement that it will divest 3.9 million subscribers does not advance the company’s pro-merger case by alleviating claimed competitive concerns. Without getting into the complexities of the proposed three-party subscriber divestiture transactions involving Comcast, TWC, and Charter Communications, the end result is that, as Comcast promised when the merger was announced in February, Comcast’s total number of subscribers, post-merger, will be less than 30% of the total number of U. S. cable subscribers.
The girl in pink will not be changing into a blue dress after all. AT&T finally threw up its hands after months of wrangling with the Federal Communications Commission and[…]
The Daily Caller this weekend published my piece on why I think the AT&T/T-Mobile merger should be allowed to happen. An excerpt: … Third, charges that the merger will stifle[…]
A big reason why The Heartland Institute argues for less government regulation of industry — especially in the digital economy — is because the choices individuals make in a free[…]