Skip to main content

View Diary: Comcast To Buy Time Warner Cable... What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Updated x2 (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's the best i'm going to do, (0+ / 0-)

    due to limited interest.  What i'm suggesting is that regulatory agencies have to be able to make their decisions on the basis of evidence, or at least have such evidence supporting them.  I think there's a valid case to be made for each of the things you say, indictments, etc., but to draw the inferences about "THE SYSTEM" you do, they have to be 100% iron-clad.  Proof is more, not less, important to your position: none of the defenses (lack of scienter, e.g.) can have any possibility of being right, or else you're out over your skis.  I don't know they're anything more than decisions I'm not sure I would have agreed with if in their position, but you're arguing, no, assuming bad faith.  On what basis?  The revolving door?  It proves too much, and how do you explain when government doesn't do something.    

    Against that backdrop, I'm not going to make claims about the motives of others, especially the hundreds of career civil servants doing the grunt work of trying to find out the facts at issue.  Similarly, if you take the position that it's 100% obvious there's no basis to approve the merger, in fact or law, that's both not true and also uninteresting to this discussion.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:03:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you're going to continue to make the case (0+ / 0-)

      that things work the way they're supposed to work...because that's how they're supposed to work, then it's pointless to discuss this further with you as it's clearly going to be a silly discussion. You're certainly smart and experienced enough to know that this isn't the case. Why you're pretending otherwise, only you know.

      As an aside, the more I get to know lawyers, the more I'm struck by how they're ALWAYS in lawyer mode, meaning they're always arguing a given position even if they don't personally believe in it, because that's what they're paid to do--even when they're not paid to do it. Whether this is an effect of the job or an innate quality that draws people with it to the law, I don't know. Probably both. But it's not an attractive or commendable quality.

      Personally, I think it's a sign of insecurity, the dishonesty hiding behind formal procedure outside the formal legal process, a quality I believe most lawyers have, which is part of why they became lawyers.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:30:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's not the case i'm making (0+ / 0-)

        i mean, they work mostly like they're supposed to work, but possibly not at the margins.  not so much you can assume the opposite.  

        i'm in lawyer mode discussing a legal issue, i.e., regulatory approval of a business transaction.

        if you don't like lawyers, all i can say is i hope you never have to need one.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:43:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do I have to like auto mechanics to use one? (0+ / 0-)

          Now that's a silly point. My experience with lawyers is that they'll usually work as hard as you're able and willing to pay them, and otherwise give a rat's ass whether you win or lose or go bankrupt in the process. Most are not good people IMO, but exploiting their power to make money.

          In any case, this is not a legal venue and we're not discussing the legal aspects of how this will go down, but the political and economic aspects, which while obviously having to be mindful of the legal aspects, at least formally, are what will actually determine what happens. You know that, and I don't know why you continue to claim otherwise unless you have a stake in this matter.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:49:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

            on what basis other than the FCC, Sherman, and Clayton Acts are the FCC and DOJ supposed to review the merger?  It's simply not possible to throw out years of precedent that inform their decision and would be relied on by the merging entities if it went to court.  

            You made a certain claim about what approval would "mean," in political terms, and I'm challenging your basis for that.  I don't share your view on the conclusions you draw from facts you don't yet know, and claiming I have a "stake" in the matter because I don't agree with your approach is exactly why  you have a toxic approach.  Your only move seems to be the ad hominem, and i count three so far.  (Simplest answer for responding: you keep  not disengaging.  More complex answer: nothing you've said has made me change my mind.)  

            What approval would mean, to me, is that regulatory agencies looked at this from the basis that very few consumers would have choice of cable provider effected and therefore would not see retail price increases and questions about consumer access may prove to be too speculative to sustain a preliminary injunction, which is the vehicle to block the merger.  As i said, i think the merger would be approved, with conditions, including possibility a consent decree implementing net neutrality.  If that happens, it'd be reasonable, but I don't work for either of these companies, because as I said, I am a plaintiffs lawyer.   If i were a comcast shareholder, i'd probably prefer a dividend to buying a company with a reputation for even worse service.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:14:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site