4 ms·
I'm so glad the end of Net Neutrality has ushered in an era of unprecedented competition in the broadband market. EDIT: Yes, this acquisition is of the content
by rosser 8y ago
I'm so glad the end of Net Neutrality has ushered in an era of unprecedented competition in the broadband market.
EDIT: Yes, this acquisition is of the content division of Time Warner, not the ISP, which was previously acquired — by another broadband provider, mooting my general point how, again?
- Confiks 8y agoAnother comment [1] indicated that "this isn't the internet Time Warner (...) this is the entertainment Time Warner". Is that correct? (I'm not familiar with the US broadband market) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17297966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17297966
- wmf 8y agoTime Warner Cable (the ISP) was already bought by Charter and renamed to Spectrum.
- opencl 8y agoThis has nothing to do with the broadband market. Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009 and subsequently bought up by Spectrum in 2016.
- rosser 8y agoIt has plenty to do with the broadband market, if you happen to be an AT&T subscriber, and especially if they're your only choice. This, coupled with their no longer being restrained from the kinds of shenanigans that NN barred, positions them to force preferential choices on their subscribers and wring more money out of them for the privilege of accessing competing services. This is only good for people holding T and TWX, and probably not even most of them.
- opencl 8y agoI would certainly agree with that but your original comment was specifically about competition in the broadband market, which this deal has absolutely zero effect on and your post seemed to be based on the common misunderstanding of TWC still being part of TW.
- rosser 8y agoSloppy and emotionally-driven phrasing on my part, sorry. I hope my edit and follow-up to yours have clarified my position.
- Gibbon1 8y agoThat's one of my complaints when courts pretend to rule in favor of stock holders rights. In practice there is an inherent conflict of interest between management and the stockholders whose interests are diverse and barely represented.
- rosser 8y agoWhat? The almighty market doesn't solve the Principal-Agent Problem? [0] Like, say it ain't so, man. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
- gm-conspiracy 8y agoNobody wants to be "dumb pipes".
- unclebucknasty 8y agoCable companies created regional monopolies with municipalities and used that protection to lay their lines. By the time the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act rolled around, they'd established natural monopolies based on that infrastructure and they have benefitted from that ever since. They don't want to be "dumb pipes", but they also won't give access to those dumb pipes, ensuring that no one else can compete with them upstream. Seems they shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but here we are. So, the next-best-thing would be to assign protection through edicts like Net Neutrality and rigorous anti-trust policing. Yet, these are now being dismantled as well. Not a good place we're heading.
- dv_dt 8y agoAs noted in other comments this is Time Warner the entertainment assets (not cable co). But it's equally bad at the end of Net Neutrality, as it gives AT&T direct motivation to interfere with competing services trying to offer entertainment over the internet to any customers who happen to get access via AT&T.