Comcast ought to be broken up, under U.S. Anti-trust regulatory law.
Debate Rounds (5)
In light of its recent buyout of time-warner cable company, I believe that Comcast ought to be split apart into smaller companies for the good of the free market.
My Standard Boilerplate
Round 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.
Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.
Round 3- Free choice.
Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only.
Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.
Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.
Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss.
The BOP is shared.
Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.
I will argue that Comcast has become too large as a company, and should be broken up into two or more smaller companies of equal size in order to encourage competition in the free market.
Con must argue that Comcast has not become too large as a company, and should not be split up by U.S. regulatory anti-trust law.
Comcast Business is the division of the Comcast Corporation which handles the sales, marketing, and delivery of Comcast services such as Internet, phone, and Ethernet to small, medium, and large businesses. In 2012, Comcast Business grew by 34%, the fastest growth of any of Comcast's products, reaching $2.4 billion in revenue
Comcast was founded in 1963 in Tupelo, Mississippi, and the Business Services division was added in 2006, initially serving businesses with 20 employees or less. By 2010, the company's investment in "massive amounts of fiber" for its cable television operations enabled it to include medium sized businesses of 20 to 250 employees.By February 2011, Comcast Business began its rollout of metro Ethernet for large businesses,and in March 2011, Comcast Business launched its business telephone service called Comcast Business Class Trunk Service, and completed its initial rollout of metro Ethernet in May 2011, providing services for large businesses to 25 markets. Comcast Business expanded market presence throughout 2011, and continues to expand as of 2013. By 2012, the Business Services division had the highest growth rate of any of Comcast's services. The division's revenue has increased every year since 2006, when the division's earnings were $265 million. By 2013, Comcast Business had become the largest business-facing enterprise, by revenue, of all cable providers who provide services to businesses.
Initially, Comcast Business was for businesses with 20 employees or less, such as florists, dry cleaners, and bakeries, but with continued expansion, Comcast Business is now able to serve medium sized businesses such as clinics,hotels and the hospitality industry, as well as large organizations such as the Boston Ballet, and sports arenas, including arenas for the Boston Celtics, the Boston Red Sox, the Denver Broncos, the Philadelphia Phillies, the Washington Nationals, the Oakland A's, and the Detroit Tigers.
In February, 2014, Comcast Business was recognized as the fastest growing company based on 2013 carrier Ethernet provisions.
A) Comcast Controls a Massive Market Share
With the coming buyout of Time-Warner Cable, Comcast will soon control around 30% of the national market share for cable television (1). The TWC deal is a merger of the largest and second largest cable providers in the country. This is a clear violation of federal anti-trust laws, such as the Sherman Act.
B) Comcast has an even larger market share in local economies.
Although the Sherman Act is a federal law, it still applies to Comcast on the local level. Many areas of the united states are what is called a "Comcast Monopoly Zone" meaning that Comcast is the only ISP in the area. In these areas, the Market Share of Comcast isn't just 30%, or even 80%. It's 100%. Total monopolization. This is obviously contrary to capitalist ideals. In non-infrastructure businesses, local dominance is not a problem. The global economy insures competition right? Or at least, the national economy does, right? Not in the case of ISPs and Cable companies. If you're living in a Comcast Monopoly Zone, you may realize that you want to give your business to a Korean ISP (That average internet speeds thousands of times faster) but you simply cannot because the infrastructure just simply isn't there. Your only option is Comcast. Comcast will charge you more, and give you less.
C) Comcast Stifles Competition.
With such a strong control over the market, Comcast is absolutely stifling competition. In metropolitan areas, maximum connection speeds average 2 mb per second (two Megabits). This is also alongside a very austere bandwidth. In South Korea (where there are numerous ISPs and savage competition) the average internet connection speed is 2.2 gb per second (2.2 Gigabits) that is over 1000x faster. The reason why Comcast doesn't provide speeds this fast? Why should they? All that will do is cost them more money, without any real benefit, because everyone in their areas are already 100% dependent upon them for internet service. Comcast can up their price all they like (within reason) without providing any real significant upgrades to your service, because you simply have no where to go.
why is U.S. Internet so much slower and pricier than broadband connections in South Korea
we have to agree that South Korea are or is one of the country that provide faster and cheapest broadband connections in the world to date.
So why is U.S. Internet so much slower and pricier than broadband connections in South Korea?
let me explain
The comparison between South Korea and the United States is not perfectly instructive, the different between it geography, history , politic is so different.
cultural differences between hyper-connected Korea, where more than 94 percent of people have high-speed connections, according to the OECD, and the United States, where only about 65 percent of people are plugged into broadband http://www.oecd.org...
The South Korean government has encouraged its citizens to get computers and to hook up to high-speed Internet connections by subsidizing the price of connections for low-income and traditionally unconnected people.
One program, for example, hooked up housewives with broadband and taught them how to make use of the Web in their everyday lives.
Parents in Korea, who tend to place high value on education, see such connections as necessities for their children's educations, said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
These cultural differences mean Korea has a more insatiable demand for fast Internet connections, he said. That demand, in turn, encourages telecommunications companies to provide those connections. http://www.oecd.org...
Sub point A.2
Open versus closed networks
There is vigorous debate in the telecommunications world about the role "open networks" have in creating fast, cheap Internet connections.
The idea behind an "open" system is essentially that, for a fee, broadband providers must share the cables that carry Internet signals into people's homes.
Companies that build those lines typically oppose this sharing. A number of governments, including South Korea and Japan and several European countries, have experimented with or embraced infrastructure-sharing as a way to get new companies to compete in the broadband market.
The U.S. does not require broadband providers to share their lines, and some experts cite Korea's relative openness as one reason the Internet there is so much faster and cheaper than it is here.
The most important thing is that countries create a way for companies to enter the broadband market without having to pay for huge amounts of infrastructure
South Korea, with more than 1,200 people per square mile, is a lot denser than the United States, where 88 people live in the same amount of space, and where rural areas and suburbs are large.
The result for broadband? It costs less to set up Internet infrastructure in a tightly populated place filled with high-rise-apartments, such as South Korea, than it does in the United States, where rural homes can be great distances apart.
In both countries, copper wires tend to carry broadband signals from fiber optic cables and into the home. Data can travel fast on copper wire, but it slows down the farther it goes.
In South Korea, that's usually just from the base of an apartment building to a particular unit. In the U.S., copper wire may have to link a home with a fiber optic cable that's a mile away.
Main point B
comcast are overall best in Internet Service Provider Comparisons compare of price and speed in US which voted and chose in action with proof as top and most costumer based provider , and also with top reviews.
the fact when we compare price of all provided Comcast price are in the market standard its closely priced with another company in US .
in economics and business ethics, a coercive monopoly is a business concern that prohibits competitors from entering the field, with the natural result being that the firm is able to make pricing and production decisions independent of competitive forces.
A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service (a monopoly), but it is a monopoly where there is no opportunity to compete through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or marketing; entry into the field is closed.
what evident can you claim that its monopoly?
please read thoughtfully on
when you make statement such as "under U.S. Anti-trust regulatory law"
you know the drill, u need solid PROOF . not baby kid proof of based on 30% of share owning. based on its buying over the 2nd huge company in the same industry.
I don't see how this in any way clashes with the resolution, or my argument. My opponent simply states that, "the political climate of south korea improves their internet connections." Well I'm saying we should change our political climate in order to improve our internet connection.
"Sub point A.2
Open versus closed networks"
Again, this point in no way clashes with the resolution.
I'm not understanding Cons point here. His argument so far fails to clash with the resolution. It instead only explains the elements of south korea that lends itsself to high speed connection. THough I did reference south korea, this debate is about an American company. Comcast.
"Main point B"
Comcast is the best of all evils. I have shown that other countries have more competitive cable markets, which results in better service. Comcast is simply the best of a terrible selection of companies and services.
My evidence that it is a monopoly? Well if you read my argument you may see that. If my opponent understood how exactly US anti-trust laws worked, he might understand my argument. You don't break up a business once it is at 100% market share. You break it up well before that.
Furthermore, there are regions of the US that are monopolized. Seattle, Atlanta, and Chicago are some, just to name a few.
"Susan Crawford, former broadband advisor to President Obama, stated “The major cable providers in this country do not compete with one another. The operators clustered all cable into regional monopolies during the summer of 1997.” They deliberately do not trespass on each other's turf. "(1)
My opponents argument does not clash with the resolution, for the most part. What few parts do clash are unabsed opinions that I have proved here to be false.
humanright2debate forfeited this round.
Forward All Points.
humanright2debate forfeited this round.
Per the rules of the debate set forth in round 1, I claim victory.
humanright2debate forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Round one rule: Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.