16 ms·

Comcast Acquiring Time Warner Cable In All Stock Deal Worth $45.2 Billion

435 points by ssclafani 13y ago

einrealist 13y ago
This might be an opportunity for the antitrust agencies, to force Comcast to open up their network to the competition like Netflix. I would not be so pessimistic about the deal.
- mkempe 13y ago
  Will net neutrality be a regulatory condition of the merger?
mgkimsal 13y ago
Aren't there antitrust laws to protect against this exact sort of thing?
- tfigment 13y ago
  Indeed. This is not a good thing for consumers. Comcast is way too big as it is and does not need to dominate the market any more than it already does. My former company was the market leader and acquired the #2 player and gov't eventually stepped and force sold off a significant part of the acquired company including allowing the new buyer to give hire offers to anyone in that company which probably 75% of them took (or left). My guess is Comcast has better lobbyists and nothing will happen and execs will be congratulated by the regulators.
- gorner 13y ago
  It doesn't violate anti-trust laws to buy another company you do not compete with. And there are very few, if any, territories where Comcast and TWC directly compete at present – depending on where you live, you can subscribe to one or the other (or some other cable company), but not both.
  - mgkimsal 13y ago
    but... they only don't compete because of govt sanctioned monopoly status in the first place, no?
    - gorner 13y ago
      Originally (and perhaps still in some specific areas), yes. Most regions have deregulated though, which is why FiOS, U-Verse and Google Fiber TV are able to exist. But the infrastructure costs for Comcast to build out a brand new network in TWC territories (or vice-versa) on a mass scale would be pretty high. For the sake of comparison (Google Fiber): http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationwide-google-fiber-deployment-would-cost-140-billion http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationw...
      - mgkimsal 13y ago
        "pretty high" but they've got $45b to 'invest' in buying out competition, instead of spending a fraction of that to compete head to head in specific markets, then eventually more markets? If it's deregulated, then they can enter the market and compete on service and price, not buy up the competition so there's no chance of anyone else ever being able to enter. TWC has been pretty active in trying to prevent municipal fiber in NC, and I suspect with even more money/muscle/lobby power behind them, it will be easier to squash any semblance of competition in any form.
        gorner 13y ago
        It's an all-stock deal though. Comcast isn't actually paying any money (in fact I believe they still have a significant amount of debt from buying NBC), instead they're proposing giving TWC shareholders the equivalent of $45B in new Comcast shares in exchange for giving up their collective ownership of TWC. But yeah, Comcast and TWC's recent lobbying efforts in general sound pretty suspect. Not defending that aspect by any means.
famousactress 13y ago
As a TWC customer I've been long certain based on conversations with others that I have the second worst cable company in the country. So my reaction to this announcement is approximately "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK."
- ryanSrich 13y ago
  I can confirm that you do. Nothing in your life has prepared you for Comcast.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    We had Comcast in Cali, in Texas TW was a breath of fresh air, about 3 years ago all these weird fees kept showing up. A year ago we were fed up and dropped all but Internet, went digital TV OTA (over the air) plus Roku and Netflix (my brother clued me in that Netflix actually had streaming now). Roku has some interesting channels we never got on any cable. Now we could be back with ... Comcast? Yuk. Hey as long as they don't mess with our current unlimited plan with TWC, I guess we can deal with them.
    - zacinbusiness 13y ago
      Have you ever noticed the prices on the TWC site for new subscribers? How they say something like "down from." What does that mean to you? To me, it means the regular price is one thing but that new subscribers get a deal. As it turns out that is incorrect. The higher price is an arbitrary number, not the retail value of the package. I asked a TWC representative once where on their website I can find the retail price of their plans and his response was "You won't find them anywhere."
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  The baseline I had from years of living in a Comcast market is so rotten that I really was deeply, fervently in love with TWC for the first year or so after I moved to a market that they own. It was hard for me to believe that a cable company could really be that awesome. Upshot being. . . yeah, Comcast is so heinous that simply spending any amount of time in contact with them will actually warp your mind.
mroby 13y ago
They need a login to read the post? That's ridiculous.
- pgrote 13y ago
  Run it through Google News. https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time+Warner+Cable https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time...
iandanforth 13y ago
I was proud of the DOJ Antitrust division when they objected to the ATT/T-Mobile merger. I can only hope they do the same here.
- bryanpaluch 13y ago
  It's a bit different in this situation. Comcast and Time Warner do not currently compete with each other.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Something tells me that if that's the linchpin for the deal going through, it's not an accident.
    - ericd 13y ago
      It's definitely not, these companies trade territory, and when an upstart that's not part of the collusion (like Verizon FIOS) comes in, they finally upgrade and cut prices on that part of their network to be competitive, so that it's not profitable for them to come in.
  - logn 13y ago
    Sad but true. They should deny the acquisition and then launch a lawsuit for unfair competition/collusion.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    and now, they never will, which would be the focal point of any antitrust attack. Also, the DOJ does not have sole authority to challenge. Here is the breakdown for telecommunications (taken from DOJ website, http://www.justice.gov/atr/icpac/3b.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/icpac/3b.htm) Telecommunications. Mergers involving telecommunications service providers usually are subject to competition policy review or challenge by: One of the federal antitrust agencies (only the DOJ has jurisdiction to review mergers involving telephone companies; both the DOJ and the FTC have reviewed mergers between cable television firms); The Federal Communications Commission (FCC);(8) The PSC of each state in which the parties do business (although most state PSCs lack jurisdiction over cable television mergers and some lack jurisdiction over mergers); In the case of cable television, county and municipal authorities with responsibility for granting and overseeing cable franchise agreements; The attorney general of each state in which the merging parties do business; and Private entities such as competitors to the merging parties. As with mergers involving electric power firms, review by any of these entities is nonexclusive. Approval of a transaction by one entity does not preclude a separate challenge by any of the other entities, nor does it bar another entity from seeking adjustments that exceed concessions that resolved the concerns of other bodies. I suspect the DOJ (who has sole jurisdiction in telecommunications) will object, and that comcast is just willing to fight it out in court.
ben1040 13y ago
Interesting timing, considering Charter's been preparing a hostile takeover attempt and was trying to push for a shakeup on TWC's board: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warner-cable-adelphia-veterans-hostile-takeover-attem/2014-02-11?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warne...
ritchiea 13y ago
Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this? What does an all stock deal mean at that kind of magnitude? It certainly feels like little else than a handshake deal to create a monopoly.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  At a minimum you can expect to fire some staff. You don't need two marketing departments coming up with ads, for instance. It won't quite be half the staff, but salaries are expensive (health care too).
- gorner 13y ago
  Bigger scale, lower combined costs, more negotiating clout with TV channel operators, etc.
  - ritchiea 13y ago
    So monopoly
    - gorner 13y ago
      Well, they're still competing with your local telco (AT&T / Verizon), DirecTV, Dish Network, and Google Fiber and/or others in some areas. (Though granted some of those are TV-only, not Internet.) Not really much different than how Comcast and TWC are individually competing right now (as their service areas don't overlap). Though I'm not suggesting either one is a shining paragon of customer service or fair pricing (I don't have any first-hand experience to speak of there; I'm in Canada).
- kawera 13y ago
  Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this? At first, the deal makers: executives, bankers, lawyers, auditors, consultants and assorted advisors. Down the road... nobody.
- Tsagadai 13y ago
  In a word, shareholders. Many won't benefit but there is money in this sort of deal and it is likely going to the business owners.
pgrote 13y ago
Oh, boy. Charter wanted them, badly.
suprgeek 13y ago
If this merger goes thru, (and the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that) two things are certain: 1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"
- rhizome 13y ago
  3) Centralizes putting the neutrality screws to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Itunes, et al.
- delucain 13y ago
  I don't think your second premise is entirely true, since Comcast doesn't provide enough bandwidth for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube already. Those services are going to become harder and harder to use if anything.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    I have no problem with Netflix on Comcast's lowest tier. 6mbps, 10 TV channels.
    - doubt_me 13y ago
      Literally the same situation here. No throttling yet I just hope it doesn't take 10 years for fiber to get to Chicago
      - mkr-hn 13y ago
        The presence of AT&T and Windstream probably keeps the local form of Comcast from falling too far.
      - Killswitch 13y ago
        That's good to hear, I just moved to Chicago and my biggest fear was using these big named companies because of all the horror stories.
chaosmonkey 13y ago
Well now we wait for things to get worse!
delucain 13y ago
Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who can switch to TWC. I know there's still a diversity of offerings across the market that will change, but that seems a minor thing compared to the fact that most broadband users don't have a choice who they get their broadband from anyway.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  The future isn't cable though, it's internet, and even the cable companies know this. In most places the best internet is still via cable. Having such a dominant monopoly would put them in prime position to gouge everyone in every direction. Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist. And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.
- iends 13y ago
  It matters to me as a TWC customer. Luckily I have a choice between TWC and AT&T internet currently. I don't want to do business with one of the worst American companies, too bad both my choices are just that.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  People get up in arms about them being monopolies and their solution is to grant them monopolies. It's stupid. How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Suppose there weren't any official monopoly grant from way-back-whenever to your existing local telco and cable companies. There would still be a de-facto monopoly or duopoly: The easement permitting process, currently entirely blocked due to the monopoly grants, would exist, but as a sham... with the (mono|duo)polies coercing city politicians not to let upstarts dig up roads or string new cables. I've lived in a city with lots of fiber being put in. It's a nuisance, and without vocal public support it's easy for entrenched ISPs to argue that the nuisance isn't worth the increased choice, particularly in markets where there is already "competition" between one [horrible] "cable" provider and one [horrible] "telco" provider.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  As others have mentioned, it's not clear that this would increase the market concentration in any way that matters, because it's not clear that Comcast and Time Warner meaningfully compete with each other. How many households can choose between one or the other? Is there another way in which they will materially reduce consumer choice and gain new pricing powers? (Some people have said Net Neutrality and putting the pressure on Netflix, which is Interesting; it's not clear the extent to which third parties like this are covered by said Act.)
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    > Some people have said Net Neutrality and putting the pressure on Netflix, which is Interesting; it's not clear the extent to which third parties like this are covered by said Act. Why wouldn't it be? There is a market for residential internet service, but if Comcast wants to charge Netflix et al for bandwidth then there is also a market for that "service" where Netflix et al are the customers, and the merger would have quite a strong effect on competition and market power in that market.
mikeryan 13y ago
Non WSJ Paywall article http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider+(Silicon+Alley+Insider) http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-ca... This is crazy I don't see how this can get past any sort of anti-trust. Particularly with Comcast's stake in NBC. Comcast would own both the content and distribution of too large a chunk of the broadcast industry.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  To go with non-WSJ paywall article: non-paywall WSJ article! https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579379801986541412 https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/a...
  - jonknee 13y ago
    Or even better, I setup Chrome to use a referer of "google.com" for all requests to online.wsj.com--no paywall or need to search for headlines. I'm sure there are other ways, but the extension Referer Control makes this easy as can be: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
    - karmajunkie 13y ago
      oh that's beautiful... thanks for posting that!
- FLUX-YOU 13y ago
  http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commi... Well, this might be one way it goes through.
fiatmoney 13y ago
It would be insane to let this go through. They're both effectively monopolists in most markets they serve; allowing them to combine just allows them to exert more political influence to make sure they keep their monopoly and high profit margins. Their core business is very much a low-value-added, rent-seeking concern, which doesn't benefit from economies of scale except for in as much as they can increase their market power by reducing competition - a fundamentally zero-sum game. Political influence is a major and underexplored negative externality of monopolies.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Building the expensive infrastructure that Silicon Valley depends on to get its cat videos and advertisements to users is a low value add, rent seeking concern that doesn't benefit from economies of scale? Its exactly the opposite.
  - wmf 13y ago
    Does economy of scale start to level out above, say, 11 million customers?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      There's no practical reason why there needs to be say more than one team of cable network architects in the whole country. If an architecture works okay in Philadelphia, it should port pretty easily to Chicago. The stuff that needs boots on the ground, laying cable, doing installations, and servicing them, is already outsourced to local companies.
    - gojomo 13y ago
      Probably not in 'lobbying power'.
  - fiatmoney 13y ago
    The most valuable infrastructure that Comcast and Time Warner run is ye olde copper coax lines in the "last mile", often built a long time ago and at a large public subsidy (either explicit or implicit via a grant of monopoly). What little infrastructure investment they do make (eg, laying fiber) is a result of actual competition, which would be lessened by the merger. By way of analogy, having clean water is important, but water infrastructure is not high-value-added ("buy Water Premium Max Plus! only 79.99/month!"); it's a basic utility. The alternative to Comcast isn't "no internet", it's a public utility wire-owner. Which would provide roughly the same level of service that Comcast actually provides, in the vast majority of areas. And exploiting a monopoly on infrastructure is almost the Platonic ideal of rent-seeking.
mayneack 13y ago
Man, Comcast and TWC were already go to examples of the problems of monopolies.
cenhyperion 13y ago
How could this not be considered a monopoly over the majority of the US?
- roozbeh18 13y ago
  timewarner by its own is a monopoly. i dont think anything will change. I already pay 55 bucks for crappy 15 up 1 down speed.
  - _kst_ 13y ago
    Do you mean 15 down 1 up?
fiatmoney 13y ago
I can't believe no one has yet even trolled the possibility that allowing this merger would be payoff for both companies' loyal service to the NSA.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
blazespin 13y ago
The point is not to merge. The point is to use this as a negotiating point with the FTC. Ask for the sun, and end up with the moon.
- davidgay 13y ago
  So you get one part in 10 million (by mass)? Seems an expensive approach...
natural219 13y ago
I would welcome this merger. Give them 3 months, and let them demonstrate why the telecom monopoly is bad for business, consumers, and America.
- FireBeyond 13y ago
  And then what? You think Standard Oil is going to be repeated? Not a chance. The Republican Party/side of the country would probably be more likely to rebel at the idea of such “government interference in the private sector”, especially on such a grand scale.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
roozbeh18 13y ago
who submits wsj articles no one can read...
tomasien 13y ago
Is this a PR move? Do they like paying lawyers? Leverage against the FTC? I mean, this is never going to happen.... right?
chimeracoder 13y ago
I can't wait until we finally get around to relegating broadband providers as common carriers. At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall, which forces ISPs, cable companies, and content providers to be separate entities. The current situation is laughably awful for consumers. I can't imagine a single informed customer actually supporting the status quo.
- nine_k 13y ago
  Among other things it would kill Google Fiber.
  - brubaker 13y ago
    That is fine in the short and long term if it means splitting the content distribution from the broadband access providers.
  - bluthru 13y ago
    In theory I still don't like the idea of a content provider owning infrastructure.
- WaterSponge 13y ago
  Not going to happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunic... Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be. In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    I think the grandparent is saying we need a new law to replace the current one. The courts having upheld a decision on what the current law says doesn't really preclude the passing of a new law - the only time court decisions trump legislation is when the Constitution comes into play.
adventured 13y ago
Classic peak of the market bozo move. Comcast is massively overpaying for a dying business that will be valued at 1/3 this price in three to five years. I'd mark this equivalent to the HP / Compaq deal, and the AOL / Time Warner deal (in which Time Warner allowed a soon-to-implode dial-up player to eat them). TWC has a mere $1b in cash, and negative $22.8b in net tangible assets. Comcast shareholders just bought a massive black hole.
gremlinsinc 13y ago
With this announcement we as a community REALLY need to get behind Net Neutrality as much as we did w/ SOPA -- Companies like Google, Netflix, et al - should block all access to their sites from D.C. IP addresses as a protest to show them what 'Throttling' feels like.
- knodi 13y ago
  THIS!!! I hope this happens!!
- redwall_hp 13y ago
  Netflix and other services can throttle their subscribers, too. :D
shmerl 13y ago
Less competition, higher prices and worse service for those who will be unlucky enough to be in the area where there is no choice but to use these cable ISPs...
richforrester 13y ago
Dear HN: I'm not too familiar with the situation over there, and have what might be a dumb question. Are there any companies that will benefit from this because they're already on their way to roll out their own lines? I'm thinking about things like Google Fiber, companies that are providing their own network to deliver internet over.
samgranieri 13y ago
This is bad
yeukhon 13y ago
One thing I find stupid is franchise. In NYC Comcast, TWC, Verzion and RCN get franchises. Sometimes living a block away from where one used to live means a different provider and you are locked. TWC isn't so badly in the last 2-3 years after the major pool expanison and relatively stable, but in the end, why the hell is FiOS still not available to me when they promised they would have it complete by now?
- nandhp 13y ago
  As far as I know the Verizon FiOS buildout is complete and there are no plans to expand availability. Last time I read about FiOS expansion, Verizon's official position was something like this: Customers in areas not currently served by FiOS may be able to get 4G from Verizon Wireless, which is up to four times faster than Verizon High Speed Internet (DSL).
- gaadd33 13y ago
  Your options in NYC tend to be driven by the deals your building has made. My building has TWC, RCN and after Sandy destroyed the copper infrastructure FIOS. From what I understand about getting FIOS, it comes down to your building being big enough and receptive to having them wire it up. Most are not very receptive.
zacinbusiness 13y ago
I hate TWC with a great and fiery passion. I literally shake when I think about the company. And from my understanding, most Comcast subscribers feel the same way about their service. This sort of thing makes me angry, not because I think the monopoly will be worse than it currently is. But because these mega-companies have so much power and influence that they can make their own laws. A free and open internet simply doesn't stand a chance against that much money. Because all of the protests will happen online. And if I'm ComWarner and I see a site protesting me what am I going to do? I'm going to ban hammer them. And if the public complains about it the I'll slip some judges a few mil each to get them to interpret the law in my favor. And that's the simple fact: America is one of the most corrupt countries. If not the most corrupt. Because our law makers at every level are in the pockets of billionaires.
- existencebox 13y ago
  There seems to be a lot of buzz around that technical solutions won't dig us out of this hole; and while I agree that we definitely need some dramatic power shift to happen, I feel like there are technical solutions on the horizon. There are a lot of compelling mesh network/darknet projects going on, fast forward wireless tech a few years, it may be more feasible than ever. Use your anger as motivation.
pasbesoin 13y ago
The Obama Administration had better prod some serious anti-trust consideration on this -- not to mention Congress. The NBC deal a couple of years ago, and now this? Meantime, my Crapcast service contains consistently more crap (as opposed to quality), for consistently more money. Step by step, this country is flushing itself down the tubes. Ha... bit of an unintended pun, there. Fitting.
kevinalexbrown 13y ago
Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  I think business might be a little more complicated than you think. :)
  - Fasebook 13y ago
    I think collusion might be more likely than you think.
  - bdhe 13y ago
    Care to elaborate? I was a bit struck by that point too.
- Aloha 13y ago
  No. I believe in the concept of a natural monopoly for most utilities though - Building outside plant is horrendously expensive - it to me makes as much sense to have multiple cable providers as it does multiple sets of power/telephone/water/sewer infrastructure. I'd even like to see a fewer wireless carriers (consider that each for carrier are spending billions of dollars to roll out what amount to essentially identical network infrastructure often even from the same vendors - how on earth does that even begin to make sense? We - the rate payer ends up paying for it in the end thru higher rates - economy of scale is a thing, and it works. Having been in the industry for about 2 years now, looking at the spectrum, I believe that we have enough for two, possibly three really competitive national wireless carriers - as in a complete nation wide footprint. That means 20x20 LTE even in rural areas, plus whatever 2g (CDMA 1x or GSM) tech you need for circuit switch voice, and whatever legacy 3g you need too (EDGE and HSDPA or EV-DO), with the eventual goal of multiple 20x20 or 40x40 carriers once we can replace all the legacy stuff - but consider the current for a moment, that Sprint in Seattle on 1900 mhz only has 20 mhz duplex, and nothing on 800 at all - this is excluding the acres on 2.5, because of the obvious limitations of use with atmospheric issues. That said - the only way natural monopolies do not become abusive natural monopolies is thru intense and careful regulation - mostly by setting a fixed rate of return for the infrastructure, and then building rates from that.
pirateking 13y ago
Is anyone here familiar with the costs (regulatory and financial) associated with direct backbone fiber access?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- phunge 13y ago
  Verizon spent an average of $817 per household to deploy FIOS. Though that may not be the stat your asking for! :) Source: http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/The_Cost_of_Connectivity.pdf http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/...
hydralist 13y ago
please google isp, destroy this new super-fool
PaybackTony 13y ago
I think I'm seeing some people here upset with the possibly deal because service already sucks (for both companies). If that's how you feel, then this deal is good. One large company can be taken down much easier than two large companies. Just one less competitor Google Fiber (and other up-and-comers) have to deal with. The part that irks me is that Comcast will own everything from the content, network all the way down to the subscribers. It just doesn't feel right that one company has that much power. But then again, as a business owner, controlling your own destiny is your utopia.
amurmann 13y ago
Can we get a god damn amendment to the constitution that enforced net neutrality and prohibits ISPs from doing anything but being ISPs, already?! The net is part of the infrastructure of our country and needs to be neutral! Anyone who fucks with that should be charged with terrorism.
tn13 13y ago
Cable and Internet suck in American The Land of Free. I have TV Box from comcast which I have not switched on for year because it is absolute shit. It plays may be 10-15 channels and for any good channel I need to shell in so much money. I am 100% sure that someone like Google will shark behind these people and drive them out of business.
- yellowbkpk 13y ago
  If you don't turn on your TV you should make sure you return your Comcast cable box because you're probably being charged at least $3/mo for it.
- ulfw 13y ago
  You're free to pay a lot for little service.
squintychino 13y ago
Well, if you thought internet plans and prices suck now... Stay Tuned.
malkia 13y ago
I must talk to all my libertarian friends now. I need to get explanation what free market means when right now my only options for network would be one ISP.
- JeffL 13y ago
  This has nothing to do with the free market. Both companies are government granted "natural" monopolies.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - welterde 13y ago
    Huh? How is it something that the government granted?
    - JeffL 13y ago
      No other company can legally lay cable in the same areas as these companies. Same "natural monopoly" deal that governs the electric, phone, and water utilities.
      - welterde 13y ago
        Interesting.. That's indeed rather limiting. That being said, I don't think that's true in Germany (where the balance in your bank account is pretty much the only limiting factor for getting some cables into the ground) and still the ISP market is not to doing too well. Regional ISPs are pretty much the only ones capable of delivering a decent service (if you are lucky enough to live close to one).
- namuol 13y ago
  Free markets only work for spherical chickens.
knodi 13y ago
Wow, comcast is a monopoly in this current state, after this it would be a super monopoly.
- midas007 13y ago
  Ma bell of internet (TV's just about dead, and they depend on partnering with Verizon for mobile) In other areas, AT&T dominates horizontally and vertically.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    "Just about dead" is quite the overstatement. They did $32B+ last year in advertising revenue. I hope they do die a quick death, but it's going to be a while before most people cut the cord.
    - midas007 13y ago
      You're dead wrong. U.S. TV ad revenue is shrinking fast > 3% year on year and totals only $67 Billion USD for the entire industry. Also, you're looking at the wrong attribute as a proxy for relevance. The quality of the eyeballs (monetization worth, net worth) and sustained interest are far better on the web and in mobile games. Only a few rare people that don't have computers or smartphones are UHWNIs. So I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to figure out what kind of customers watch TV.
izzydata 13y ago
Still waiting for google fiber that is under construction 5 miles from my house. "Supposedly".
relik 13y ago
Now, instead of spitting on TWC vans, I'll get to spit on Comcast vans.
alexqgb 13y ago
This is either good news or bad news for municipal ISPs. Good news in that you could hardly ask for a better catalyst. Bad news in that Comcast will have even more motivation to murder the entire concept in its sleep.
maceo 13y ago
The resulting Comcast would have 75% of the US cable market, if this goes through.
- MachinaX 13y ago
  Sounds really bad to me! I hope DOJ can stop this deal.
spikels 13y ago
We should be taking these guy's monopolies away. Competition is the key to not only good value (i.e. low price/value) but also economic fairness. Ever notice how many of the biggest fortunes were built on top of government granted monopolies of some form, such as exclusive licenses, highly regulated industries, copyrights, trademarks and/or patents? Just look at the list of the world richest people: 1. Carlos Slim - telecom monopolies 2. Bill Gates - software copyrights 3. Amancio Ortega - clothing trademarks (brands) 4. Warren Buffet - highly regulated businesses 5. Larry Ellison - software copyrights 6 and 7 - Kock Brothers - highly regulated businesses ...
logicallee 13y ago
How is this legal?
antsam 13y ago
Wow, the new AT&T.
2015846734 13y ago
Responsy have years of experience in product display cabinet design，professional point of sale display solutions for growing brands。http://www.responsydisplay.com http://www.responsydisplay.com
ulfw 13y ago
Americans sure love their monopolies.
benmorris 13y ago
This really stinks. Just suffered through a transition to TWc from insightbb. Haven't been happy with the way twc operates. I can't imagine one mega cable company.
mynoseknows 13y ago
It's not like you ever have any choice with a cable provider anyway, the way it works is a cable company gets in bed with the local government and that's who gets to provide you with cable service. I must be one of the lucky ones because I've had Comcast for over 10 years and the quality of service (customer service and cable/internet) has always been great. Pricing could be better but if you call they're always willing to give me promotional pricing deals, and there's always satellite TV and/or internet, DSL, or cellular.
acd 13y ago
Since Time Warner was rumored to be the partner of AppleTV TV content, ponders how this deal affects that. Was it a plan to stop that Apple deal to happen or will they benefit from that? Ponders if this will pass the antitrust authorithy
joeshaw 13y ago
I really, really want the regulators to stop this, but most people only have the choice of a single cable provider anyway. Where in the US do Comcast and Time Warner compete head-to-head? It feels as though they have divided up the country similarly to how the baby bells were after AT&T was broken up in 1984.
founder4fun 13y ago
Google please buy Verizon FIOs and all other fiber ISPs! Building out your own ISP is going to take decades. A national Google Fiber is needed more then ever with this potential merger and Net Neutrality being struck down.
joelthelion 13y ago
Great news for internet access quality in the US! /s
kjhughes 13y ago
If you're wondering how this could possibly go through, see another WSJ article on the topic: "Comcast, Time Warner Deal to Spark Regulatory Debate, Outcome Uncertain" http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304703804579380453221890292-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMjExNDIyWj http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304... Summary: On the one hand, there are the obvious consumer concerns about the impact on pricing and service if the two largest cable companies were to merge. Besides Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission review, Congress will likely seek hearings where they can be seen being involved in such a high profile matter. On the other hand, Comcast successfully practiced completing the 2009 acquisition of NBCUniversal from GE by agreeing to a wide array of commitments with the Justice Department, FCC, and state attorney generals. Article concludes that the acquisition may well go through: "This is the first major merger review under new FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who once served as the cable industry's top lobbyist. Mr. Wheeler suggested in 2011 the Commission should have allowed AT&T to buy T-Mobile in exchange for agreeing to a new slate of regulations. Lawyers and analysts in Washington believe Comcast could similarly secure the Commission's approval by expanding its existing regulatory commitments."
- coldcode 13y ago
  That's why the cable industry put this guy into that job, to make deals like this easy as pie. Soon we will have The Cable Company and The Phone Company. Or maybe just The Company.
  - _mulder_ 13y ago
    Competition Theory does suggest every market tends towards a Monopoly position. As companies get bigger and bigger, they acquire one another, until eventually there's only one huge 'Company' left. Of course, that's one reason why the free market is regulated.
lgama 13y ago
Prepare the Vaselin.
b3b0p 13y ago
I don't have access to Time Warner or Comcast. I currently have Cox and I have never had Time Warner or Comcast my entire life. I have only read online from sites like Hacker News or Ars Technica in the comments about how bad it is. Could someone enlighten us with some points of how this possibly could benefit consumers? Will they have more capital to build out fiber networks like Google has been doing to compete with that? If this goes through how much control can be put in place by the regulators to make sure pricing is not increased, they don't throttle or block out certain content providers such as Netflix? Even though they server different markets it seems insane that this gets approved from the knowledge I have.
madmax96 13y ago
I might be mistaken, but I don't think that Comcast and Time-Warner compete in the same market, so the anti-trust people can't complain. I feel bad for those poor Time-Warner customers, though.
martindale 13y ago
There is absolutely no way the FTC will allow this.
dangayle 13y ago
Please don't let this happen. I hate Comcast and I hate it even more that it's really the only cable option where I live. I'd hate for that to be the case for everyone everywhere.
adamio 13y ago
"All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Comcast Warner Cable while we undergo contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"
mindslight 13y ago
This is yet another reminder to check out your local DSL options, like Sonic.net and Megapath. Hopefully the ones in your area haven't gone out of business yet from everyone getting duped into "faster" cable.
mjbraun 13y ago
In the past, I haven't seen much about how the "last feet" problem will be addressed in dense metropolitan areas. In multi-unit dwellings, often the wiring is still owned by the provider. So, even if you were to run fiber (municipal or otherwise) right up to the doorstep of a building, you wouldn't be able to cheaply run drops to every unit. In my previous readings, the laws in my area at least allow for provider "abandonment" or a buyout of the wiring, but I doubt those would help very much. I'd be interested in hearing if folks have seen otherwise, however.
D9u 13y ago
Damn! I finally got an acceptable deal from Oceanic Time Warner @ $60 a month for "up to 30 Mbit/sec" with no data cap. (I often see speeds over 50 Mbit/sec) I hope this deal doesn't throw a wrench in my net connection. I live in a rural area with few options.
pyro56 13y ago
This merg will be the worst thing that could happen, 1) Prices of the packages will go up what will that do with the people who already have a package with TWC. Will it make there prices go up? 2) Who would trust comcast will all the talk of them throttling internet. Its will casue full chaos and they would end up losing more money then they would gain from the merg.

435 points by ssclafani 13y ago

This might be an opportunity for the antitrust agencies, to force Comcast to open up their network to the competition like Netflix. I would not be so pessimistic about the deal.

mkempe 13y ago
Will net neutrality be a regulatory condition of the merger?

mgkimsal 13y ago

Aren't there antitrust laws to protect against this exact sort of thing?

tfigment 13y ago
Indeed. This is not a good thing for consumers. Comcast is way too big as it is and does not need to dominate the market any more than it already does. My former company was the market leader and acquired the #2 player and gov't eventually stepped and force sold off a significant part of the acquired company including allowing the new buyer to give hire offers to anyone in that company which probably 75% of them took (or left). My guess is Comcast has better lobbyists and nothing will happen and execs will be congratulated by the regulators.
gorner 13y ago
It doesn't violate anti-trust laws to buy another company you do not compete with. And there are very few, if any, territories where Comcast and TWC directly compete at present – depending on where you live, you can subscribe to one or the other (or some other cable company), but not both.
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  but... they only don't compete because of govt sanctioned monopoly status in the first place, no?
  - gorner 13y ago
    Originally (and perhaps still in some specific areas), yes. Most regions have deregulated though, which is why FiOS, U-Verse and Google Fiber TV are able to exist. But the infrastructure costs for Comcast to build out a brand new network in TWC territories (or vice-versa) on a mass scale would be pretty high. For the sake of comparison (Google Fiber): http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationwide-google-fiber-deployment-would-cost-140-billion http://news-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/1810244/nationw...
    - mgkimsal 13y ago
      "pretty high" but they've got $45b to 'invest' in buying out competition, instead of spending a fraction of that to compete head to head in specific markets, then eventually more markets? If it's deregulated, then they can enter the market and compete on service and price, not buy up the competition so there's no chance of anyone else ever being able to enter. TWC has been pretty active in trying to prevent municipal fiber in NC, and I suspect with even more money/muscle/lobby power behind them, it will be easier to squash any semblance of competition in any form.
      - gorner 13y ago
        It's an all-stock deal though. Comcast isn't actually paying any money (in fact I believe they still have a significant amount of debt from buying NBC), instead they're proposing giving TWC shareholders the equivalent of $45B in new Comcast shares in exchange for giving up their collective ownership of TWC. But yeah, Comcast and TWC's recent lobbying efforts in general sound pretty suspect. Not defending that aspect by any means.

famousactress 13y ago

As a TWC customer I've been long certain based on conversations with others that I have the second worst cable company in the country. So my reaction to this announcement is approximately "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK."

ryanSrich 13y ago
I can confirm that you do. Nothing in your life has prepared you for Comcast.
- jebblue 13y ago
  We had Comcast in Cali, in Texas TW was a breath of fresh air, about 3 years ago all these weird fees kept showing up. A year ago we were fed up and dropped all but Internet, went digital TV OTA (over the air) plus Roku and Netflix (my brother clued me in that Netflix actually had streaming now). Roku has some interesting channels we never got on any cable. Now we could be back with ... Comcast? Yuk. Hey as long as they don't mess with our current unlimited plan with TWC, I guess we can deal with them.
  - zacinbusiness 13y ago
    Have you ever noticed the prices on the TWC site for new subscribers? How they say something like "down from." What does that mean to you? To me, it means the regular price is one thing but that new subscribers get a deal. As it turns out that is incorrect. The higher price is an arbitrary number, not the retail value of the package. I asked a TWC representative once where on their website I can find the retail price of their plans and his response was "You won't find them anywhere."
bunderbunder 13y ago
The baseline I had from years of living in a Comcast market is so rotten that I really was deeply, fervently in love with TWC for the first year or so after I moved to a market that they own. It was hard for me to believe that a cable company could really be that awesome. Upshot being. . . yeah, Comcast is so heinous that simply spending any amount of time in contact with them will actually warp your mind.

mroby 13y ago

They need a login to read the post? That's ridiculous.

pgrote 13y ago
Run it through Google News. https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time+Warner+Cable https://news.google.com/news/search?q=Comcast+Acquiring+Time...

iandanforth 13y ago

I was proud of the DOJ Antitrust division when they objected to the ATT/T-Mobile merger. I can only hope they do the same here.

bryanpaluch 13y ago
It's a bit different in this situation. Comcast and Time Warner do not currently compete with each other.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Something tells me that if that's the linchpin for the deal going through, it's not an accident.
  - ericd 13y ago
    It's definitely not, these companies trade territory, and when an upstart that's not part of the collusion (like Verizon FIOS) comes in, they finally upgrade and cut prices on that part of their network to be competitive, so that it's not profitable for them to come in.
- logn 13y ago
  Sad but true. They should deny the acquisition and then launch a lawsuit for unfair competition/collusion.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  and now, they never will, which would be the focal point of any antitrust attack. Also, the DOJ does not have sole authority to challenge. Here is the breakdown for telecommunications (taken from DOJ website, http://www.justice.gov/atr/icpac/3b.htm http://www.justice.gov/atr/icpac/3b.htm) Telecommunications. Mergers involving telecommunications service providers usually are subject to competition policy review or challenge by: One of the federal antitrust agencies (only the DOJ has jurisdiction to review mergers involving telephone companies; both the DOJ and the FTC have reviewed mergers between cable television firms); The Federal Communications Commission (FCC);(8) The PSC of each state in which the parties do business (although most state PSCs lack jurisdiction over cable television mergers and some lack jurisdiction over mergers); In the case of cable television, county and municipal authorities with responsibility for granting and overseeing cable franchise agreements; The attorney general of each state in which the merging parties do business; and Private entities such as competitors to the merging parties. As with mergers involving electric power firms, review by any of these entities is nonexclusive. Approval of a transaction by one entity does not preclude a separate challenge by any of the other entities, nor does it bar another entity from seeking adjustments that exceed concessions that resolved the concerns of other bodies. I suspect the DOJ (who has sole jurisdiction in telecommunications) will object, and that comcast is just willing to fight it out in court.

ben1040 13y ago

Interesting timing, considering Charter's been preparing a hostile takeover attempt and was trying to push for a shakeup on TWC's board: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warner-cable-adelphia-veterans-hostile-takeover-attem/2014-02-11?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss http://www.fiercecable.com/story/charter-recruits-time-warne...

ritchiea 13y ago

Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this? What does an all stock deal mean at that kind of magnitude? It certainly feels like little else than a handshake deal to create a monopoly.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
At a minimum you can expect to fire some staff. You don't need two marketing departments coming up with ads, for instance. It won't quite be half the staff, but salaries are expensive (health care too).
gorner 13y ago
Bigger scale, lower combined costs, more negotiating clout with TV channel operators, etc.
- ritchiea 13y ago
  So monopoly
  - gorner 13y ago
    Well, they're still competing with your local telco (AT&T / Verizon), DirecTV, Dish Network, and Google Fiber and/or others in some areas. (Though granted some of those are TV-only, not Internet.) Not really much different than how Comcast and TWC are individually competing right now (as their service areas don't overlap). Though I'm not suggesting either one is a shining paragon of customer service or fair pricing (I don't have any first-hand experience to speak of there; I'm in Canada).
kawera 13y ago
Who benefits from large corporate mergers like this? At first, the deal makers: executives, bankers, lawyers, auditors, consultants and assorted advisors. Down the road... nobody.
Tsagadai 13y ago
In a word, shareholders. Many won't benefit but there is money in this sort of deal and it is likely going to the business owners.

pgrote 13y ago

Oh, boy. Charter wanted them, badly.

suprgeek 13y ago

If this merger goes thru, (and the AnitTrust people would have to be really asleep at the wheel for that) two things are certain: 1) Americans can expect some of the worst Cable price gouging they have ever seen 2) NetFlix, Amazon Prime et al will become really popular as a result of all the customers saying "FU ComcastWarner"

rhizome 13y ago
3) Centralizes putting the neutrality screws to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Itunes, et al.
delucain 13y ago
I don't think your second premise is entirely true, since Comcast doesn't provide enough bandwidth for streaming services like Netflix and YouTube already. Those services are going to become harder and harder to use if anything.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  I have no problem with Netflix on Comcast's lowest tier. 6mbps, 10 TV channels.
  - doubt_me 13y ago
    Literally the same situation here. No throttling yet I just hope it doesn't take 10 years for fiber to get to Chicago
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      The presence of AT&T and Windstream probably keeps the local form of Comcast from falling too far.
    - Killswitch 13y ago
      That's good to hear, I just moved to Chicago and my biggest fear was using these big named companies because of all the horror stories.

chaosmonkey 13y ago

Well now we wait for things to get worse!

delucain 13y ago

Will this really matter in the long run? I mean don't most cable companies have a local monopoly anyway? I don't think there are many Comcast subscribers who can switch to TWC. I know there's still a diversity of offerings across the market that will change, but that seems a minor thing compared to the fact that most broadband users don't have a choice who they get their broadband from anyway.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
The future isn't cable though, it's internet, and even the cable companies know this. In most places the best internet is still via cable. Having such a dominant monopoly would put them in prime position to gouge everyone in every direction. Gouge downward by charging the consumers higher prices. Gouge upward by charging companies like netflix to have their content not be horrendously throttled over your pipes. With such a large customer base, it becomes much harder for folks to resist. And, of course, with more customers they have more revenue, which better positions them for future acquisitions. Comcast already owns NBCUniversal, so they are already positioned to become an even larger media conglomerate.
iends 13y ago
It matters to me as a TWC customer. Luckily I have a choice between TWC and AT&T internet currently. I don't want to do business with one of the worst American companies, too bad both my choices are just that.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
People get up in arms about them being monopolies and their solution is to grant them monopolies. It's stupid. How about this? No monopolies at all. If I want to run cable and I get the easements, I should be able to...
- harshreality 13y ago
  Suppose there weren't any official monopoly grant from way-back-whenever to your existing local telco and cable companies. There would still be a de-facto monopoly or duopoly: The easement permitting process, currently entirely blocked due to the monopoly grants, would exist, but as a sham... with the (mono|duo)polies coercing city politicians not to let upstarts dig up roads or string new cables. I've lived in a city with lots of fiber being put in. It's a nuisance, and without vocal public support it's easy for entrenched ISPs to argue that the nuisance isn't worth the increased choice, particularly in markets where there is already "competition" between one [horrible] "cable" provider and one [horrible] "telco" provider.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

fennecfoxen 13y ago
As others have mentioned, it's not clear that this would increase the market concentration in any way that matters, because it's not clear that Comcast and Time Warner meaningfully compete with each other. How many households can choose between one or the other? Is there another way in which they will materially reduce consumer choice and gain new pricing powers? (Some people have said Net Neutrality and putting the pressure on Netflix, which is Interesting; it's not clear the extent to which third parties like this are covered by said Act.)
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > Some people have said Net Neutrality and putting the pressure on Netflix, which is Interesting; it's not clear the extent to which third parties like this are covered by said Act. Why wouldn't it be? There is a market for residential internet service, but if Comcast wants to charge Netflix et al for bandwidth then there is also a market for that "service" where Netflix et al are the customers, and the merger would have quite a strong effect on competition and market power in that market.

mikeryan 13y ago

Non WSJ Paywall article http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider+(Silicon+Alley+Insider) http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-ca... This is crazy I don't see how this can get past any sort of anti-trust. Particularly with Comcast's stake in NBC. Comcast would own both the content and distribution of too large a chunk of the broadcast industry.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
To go with non-WSJ paywall article: non-paywall WSJ article! https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303704304579379801986541412 https://www.google.com/search?q=http://online.wsj.com/news/a...
- jonknee 13y ago
  Or even better, I setup Chrome to use a referer of "google.com" for all requests to online.wsj.com--no paywall or need to search for headlines. I'm sure there are other ways, but the extension Referer Control makes this easy as can be: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hn...
  - karmajunkie 13y ago
    oh that's beautiful... thanks for posting that!
FLUX-YOU 13y ago
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commi... Well, this might be one way it goes through.

fiatmoney 13y ago

It would be insane to let this go through. They're both effectively monopolists in most markets they serve; allowing them to combine just allows them to exert more political influence to make sure they keep their monopoly and high profit margins. Their core business is very much a low-value-added, rent-seeking concern, which doesn't benefit from economies of scale except for in as much as they can increase their market power by reducing competition - a fundamentally zero-sum game. Political influence is a major and underexplored negative externality of monopolies.

rayiner 13y ago
Building the expensive infrastructure that Silicon Valley depends on to get its cat videos and advertisements to users is a low value add, rent seeking concern that doesn't benefit from economies of scale? Its exactly the opposite.
- wmf 13y ago
  Does economy of scale start to level out above, say, 11 million customers?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    There's no practical reason why there needs to be say more than one team of cable network architects in the whole country. If an architecture works okay in Philadelphia, it should port pretty easily to Chicago. The stuff that needs boots on the ground, laying cable, doing installations, and servicing them, is already outsourced to local companies.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Probably not in 'lobbying power'.
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  The most valuable infrastructure that Comcast and Time Warner run is ye olde copper coax lines in the "last mile", often built a long time ago and at a large public subsidy (either explicit or implicit via a grant of monopoly). What little infrastructure investment they do make (eg, laying fiber) is a result of actual competition, which would be lessened by the merger. By way of analogy, having clean water is important, but water infrastructure is not high-value-added ("buy Water Premium Max Plus! only 79.99/month!"); it's a basic utility. The alternative to Comcast isn't "no internet", it's a public utility wire-owner. Which would provide roughly the same level of service that Comcast actually provides, in the vast majority of areas. And exploiting a monopoly on infrastructure is almost the Platonic ideal of rent-seeking.

mayneack 13y ago

Man, Comcast and TWC were already go to examples of the problems of monopolies.

cenhyperion 13y ago

How could this not be considered a monopoly over the majority of the US?

roozbeh18 13y ago
timewarner by its own is a monopoly. i dont think anything will change. I already pay 55 bucks for crappy 15 up 1 down speed.
- _kst_ 13y ago
  Do you mean 15 down 1 up?

fiatmoney 13y ago

I can't believe no one has yet even trolled the possibility that allowing this merger would be payoff for both companies' loyal service to the NSA.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

blazespin 13y ago

The point is not to merge. The point is to use this as a negotiating point with the FTC. Ask for the sun, and end up with the moon.

davidgay 13y ago
So you get one part in 10 million (by mass)? Seems an expensive approach...

natural219 13y ago

I would welcome this merger. Give them 3 months, and let them demonstrate why the telecom monopoly is bad for business, consumers, and America.

FireBeyond 13y ago
And then what? You think Standard Oil is going to be repeated? Not a chance. The Republican Party/side of the country would probably be more likely to rebel at the idea of such “government interference in the private sector”, especially on such a grand scale.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

roozbeh18 13y ago

who submits wsj articles no one can read...

tomasien 13y ago

Is this a PR move? Do they like paying lawyers? Leverage against the FTC? I mean, this is never going to happen.... right?

chimeracoder 13y ago

I can't wait until we finally get around to relegating broadband providers as common carriers. At the very least, we need a broadband version of Glass-Steagall, which forces ISPs, cable companies, and content providers to be separate entities. The current situation is laughably awful for consumers. I can't imagine a single informed customer actually supporting the status quo.

nine_k 13y ago
Among other things it would kill Google Fiber.
- brubaker 13y ago
  That is fine in the short and long term if it means splitting the content distribution from the broadband access providers.
- bluthru 13y ago
  In theory I still don't like the idea of a content provider owning infrastructure.
WaterSponge 13y ago
Not going to happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_%26_Telecommunic... Just wait till Aereo gets screwed in their Supreme Court case. Then we really will be. In fact no matter which way they rule in Aereo's case we are screwed. If they rule in favor of Aereo the content companies (Comcast owns NBC) will just start taking content "cable only".
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  I think the grandparent is saying we need a new law to replace the current one. The courts having upheld a decision on what the current law says doesn't really preclude the passing of a new law - the only time court decisions trump legislation is when the Constitution comes into play.

adventured 13y ago

Classic peak of the market bozo move. Comcast is massively overpaying for a dying business that will be valued at 1/3 this price in three to five years. I'd mark this equivalent to the HP / Compaq deal, and the AOL / Time Warner deal (in which Time Warner allowed a soon-to-implode dial-up player to eat them). TWC has a mere $1b in cash, and negative $22.8b in net tangible assets. Comcast shareholders just bought a massive black hole.

gremlinsinc 13y ago

With this announcement we as a community REALLY need to get behind Net Neutrality as much as we did w/ SOPA -- Companies like Google, Netflix, et al - should block all access to their sites from D.C. IP addresses as a protest to show them what 'Throttling' feels like.

knodi 13y ago
THIS!!! I hope this happens!!
redwall_hp 13y ago
Netflix and other services can throttle their subscribers, too. :D

shmerl 13y ago

Less competition, higher prices and worse service for those who will be unlucky enough to be in the area where there is no choice but to use these cable ISPs...

richforrester 13y ago

Dear HN: I'm not too familiar with the situation over there, and have what might be a dumb question. Are there any companies that will benefit from this because they're already on their way to roll out their own lines? I'm thinking about things like Google Fiber, companies that are providing their own network to deliver internet over.

samgranieri 13y ago

This is bad

yeukhon 13y ago

One thing I find stupid is franchise. In NYC Comcast, TWC, Verzion and RCN get franchises. Sometimes living a block away from where one used to live means a different provider and you are locked. TWC isn't so badly in the last 2-3 years after the major pool expanison and relatively stable, but in the end, why the hell is FiOS still not available to me when they promised they would have it complete by now?

nandhp 13y ago
As far as I know the Verizon FiOS buildout is complete and there are no plans to expand availability. Last time I read about FiOS expansion, Verizon's official position was something like this: Customers in areas not currently served by FiOS may be able to get 4G from Verizon Wireless, which is up to four times faster than Verizon High Speed Internet (DSL).
gaadd33 13y ago
Your options in NYC tend to be driven by the deals your building has made. My building has TWC, RCN and after Sandy destroyed the copper infrastructure FIOS. From what I understand about getting FIOS, it comes down to your building being big enough and receptive to having them wire it up. Most are not very receptive.

zacinbusiness 13y ago

I hate TWC with a great and fiery passion. I literally shake when I think about the company. And from my understanding, most Comcast subscribers feel the same way about their service. This sort of thing makes me angry, not because I think the monopoly will be worse than it currently is. But because these mega-companies have so much power and influence that they can make their own laws. A free and open internet simply doesn't stand a chance against that much money. Because all of the protests will happen online. And if I'm ComWarner and I see a site protesting me what am I going to do? I'm going to ban hammer them. And if the public complains about it the I'll slip some judges a few mil each to get them to interpret the law in my favor. And that's the simple fact: America is one of the most corrupt countries. If not the most corrupt. Because our law makers at every level are in the pockets of billionaires.

existencebox 13y ago
There seems to be a lot of buzz around that technical solutions won't dig us out of this hole; and while I agree that we definitely need some dramatic power shift to happen, I feel like there are technical solutions on the horizon. There are a lot of compelling mesh network/darknet projects going on, fast forward wireless tech a few years, it may be more feasible than ever. Use your anger as motivation.

pasbesoin 13y ago

The Obama Administration had better prod some serious anti-trust consideration on this -- not to mention Congress. The NBC deal a couple of years ago, and now this? Meantime, my Crapcast service contains consistently more crap (as opposed to quality), for consistently more money. Step by step, this country is flushing itself down the tubes. Ha... bit of an unintended pun, there. Fitting.

kevinalexbrown 13y ago

Does it strike anyone else as curious that the two largest cable/internet providers merge, and it doesn't matter because they already don't compete? It might be a sign that something's odd if the premise is that there's no competition between identical products to harm in the first place.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
I think business might be a little more complicated than you think. :)
- Fasebook 13y ago
  I think collusion might be more likely than you think.
- bdhe 13y ago
  Care to elaborate? I was a bit struck by that point too.
Aloha 13y ago
No. I believe in the concept of a natural monopoly for most utilities though - Building outside plant is horrendously expensive - it to me makes as much sense to have multiple cable providers as it does multiple sets of power/telephone/water/sewer infrastructure. I'd even like to see a fewer wireless carriers (consider that each for carrier are spending billions of dollars to roll out what amount to essentially identical network infrastructure often even from the same vendors - how on earth does that even begin to make sense? We - the rate payer ends up paying for it in the end thru higher rates - economy of scale is a thing, and it works. Having been in the industry for about 2 years now, looking at the spectrum, I believe that we have enough for two, possibly three really competitive national wireless carriers - as in a complete nation wide footprint. That means 20x20 LTE even in rural areas, plus whatever 2g (CDMA 1x or GSM) tech you need for circuit switch voice, and whatever legacy 3g you need too (EDGE and HSDPA or EV-DO), with the eventual goal of multiple 20x20 or 40x40 carriers once we can replace all the legacy stuff - but consider the current for a moment, that Sprint in Seattle on 1900 mhz only has 20 mhz duplex, and nothing on 800 at all - this is excluding the acres on 2.5, because of the obvious limitations of use with atmospheric issues. That said - the only way natural monopolies do not become abusive natural monopolies is thru intense and careful regulation - mostly by setting a fixed rate of return for the infrastructure, and then building rates from that.

pirateking 13y ago

Is anyone here familiar with the costs (regulatory and financial) associated with direct backbone fiber access?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
phunge 13y ago
Verizon spent an average of $817 per household to deploy FIOS. Though that may not be the stat your asking for! :) Source: http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/The_Cost_of_Connectivity.pdf http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/...

hydralist 13y ago

please google isp, destroy this new super-fool

PaybackTony 13y ago

I think I'm seeing some people here upset with the possibly deal because service already sucks (for both companies). If that's how you feel, then this deal is good. One large company can be taken down much easier than two large companies. Just one less competitor Google Fiber (and other up-and-comers) have to deal with. The part that irks me is that Comcast will own everything from the content, network all the way down to the subscribers. It just doesn't feel right that one company has that much power. But then again, as a business owner, controlling your own destiny is your utopia.

amurmann 13y ago

Can we get a god damn amendment to the constitution that enforced net neutrality and prohibits ISPs from doing anything but being ISPs, already?! The net is part of the infrastructure of our country and needs to be neutral! Anyone who fucks with that should be charged with terrorism.

tn13 13y ago

Cable and Internet suck in American The Land of Free. I have TV Box from comcast which I have not switched on for year because it is absolute shit. It plays may be 10-15 channels and for any good channel I need to shell in so much money. I am 100% sure that someone like Google will shark behind these people and drive them out of business.

yellowbkpk 13y ago
If you don't turn on your TV you should make sure you return your Comcast cable box because you're probably being charged at least $3/mo for it.
ulfw 13y ago
You're free to pay a lot for little service.

squintychino 13y ago

Well, if you thought internet plans and prices suck now... Stay Tuned.

malkia 13y ago

I must talk to all my libertarian friends now. I need to get explanation what free market means when right now my only options for network would be one ISP.

JeffL 13y ago
This has nothing to do with the free market. Both companies are government granted "natural" monopolies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- welterde 13y ago
  Huh? How is it something that the government granted?
  - JeffL 13y ago
    No other company can legally lay cable in the same areas as these companies. Same "natural monopoly" deal that governs the electric, phone, and water utilities.
    - welterde 13y ago
      Interesting.. That's indeed rather limiting. That being said, I don't think that's true in Germany (where the balance in your bank account is pretty much the only limiting factor for getting some cables into the ground) and still the ISP market is not to doing too well. Regional ISPs are pretty much the only ones capable of delivering a decent service (if you are lucky enough to live close to one).
namuol 13y ago
Free markets only work for spherical chickens.

knodi 13y ago

Wow, comcast is a monopoly in this current state, after this it would be a super monopoly.

midas007 13y ago
Ma bell of internet (TV's just about dead, and they depend on partnering with Verizon for mobile) In other areas, AT&T dominates horizontally and vertically.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  "Just about dead" is quite the overstatement. They did $32B+ last year in advertising revenue. I hope they do die a quick death, but it's going to be a while before most people cut the cord.
  - midas007 13y ago
    You're dead wrong. U.S. TV ad revenue is shrinking fast > 3% year on year and totals only $67 Billion USD for the entire industry. Also, you're looking at the wrong attribute as a proxy for relevance. The quality of the eyeballs (monetization worth, net worth) and sustained interest are far better on the web and in mobile games. Only a few rare people that don't have computers or smartphones are UHWNIs. So I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to figure out what kind of customers watch TV.

izzydata 13y ago

Still waiting for google fiber that is under construction 5 miles from my house. "Supposedly".

relik 13y ago

Now, instead of spitting on TWC vans, I'll get to spit on Comcast vans.

alexqgb 13y ago

This is either good news or bad news for municipal ISPs. Good news in that you could hardly ask for a better catalyst. Bad news in that Comcast will have even more motivation to murder the entire concept in its sleep.

maceo 13y ago

The resulting Comcast would have 75% of the US cable market, if this goes through.

MachinaX 13y ago
Sounds really bad to me! I hope DOJ can stop this deal.

spikels 13y ago

We should be taking these guy's monopolies away. Competition is the key to not only good value (i.e. low price/value) but also economic fairness. Ever notice how many of the biggest fortunes were built on top of government granted monopolies of some form, such as exclusive licenses, highly regulated industries, copyrights, trademarks and/or patents? Just look at the list of the world richest people: 1. Carlos Slim - telecom monopolies 2. Bill Gates - software copyrights 3. Amancio Ortega - clothing trademarks (brands) 4. Warren Buffet - highly regulated businesses 5. Larry Ellison - software copyrights 6 and 7 - Kock Brothers - highly regulated businesses ...

logicallee 13y ago

How is this legal?

antsam 13y ago

Wow, the new AT&T.

2015846734 13y ago

Responsy have years of experience in product display cabinet design，professional point of sale display solutions for growing brands。http://www.responsydisplay.com http://www.responsydisplay.com

ulfw 13y ago

Americans sure love their monopolies.

benmorris 13y ago

This really stinks. Just suffered through a transition to TWc from insightbb. Haven't been happy with the way twc operates. I can't imagine one mega cable company.

mynoseknows 13y ago

It's not like you ever have any choice with a cable provider anyway, the way it works is a cable company gets in bed with the local government and that's who gets to provide you with cable service. I must be one of the lucky ones because I've had Comcast for over 10 years and the quality of service (customer service and cable/internet) has always been great. Pricing could be better but if you call they're always willing to give me promotional pricing deals, and there's always satellite TV and/or internet, DSL, or cellular.

acd 13y ago

Since Time Warner was rumored to be the partner of AppleTV TV content, ponders how this deal affects that. Was it a plan to stop that Apple deal to happen or will they benefit from that? Ponders if this will pass the antitrust authorithy

joeshaw 13y ago

I really, really want the regulators to stop this, but most people only have the choice of a single cable provider anyway. Where in the US do Comcast and Time Warner compete head-to-head? It feels as though they have divided up the country similarly to how the baby bells were after AT&T was broken up in 1984.

founder4fun 13y ago

Google please buy Verizon FIOs and all other fiber ISPs! Building out your own ISP is going to take decades. A national Google Fiber is needed more then ever with this potential merger and Net Neutrality being struck down.

joelthelion 13y ago

Great news for internet access quality in the US! /s

kjhughes 13y ago

If you're wondering how this could possibly go through, see another WSJ article on the topic: "Comcast, Time Warner Deal to Spark Regulatory Debate, Outcome Uncertain" http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304703804579380453221890292-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMjExNDIyWj http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304... Summary: On the one hand, there are the obvious consumer concerns about the impact on pricing and service if the two largest cable companies were to merge. Besides Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission review, Congress will likely seek hearings where they can be seen being involved in such a high profile matter. On the other hand, Comcast successfully practiced completing the 2009 acquisition of NBCUniversal from GE by agreeing to a wide array of commitments with the Justice Department, FCC, and state attorney generals. Article concludes that the acquisition may well go through: "This is the first major merger review under new FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who once served as the cable industry's top lobbyist. Mr. Wheeler suggested in 2011 the Commission should have allowed AT&T to buy T-Mobile in exchange for agreeing to a new slate of regulations. Lawyers and analysts in Washington believe Comcast could similarly secure the Commission's approval by expanding its existing regulatory commitments."

coldcode 13y ago
That's why the cable industry put this guy into that job, to make deals like this easy as pie. Soon we will have The Cable Company and The Phone Company. Or maybe just The Company.
- _mulder_ 13y ago
  Competition Theory does suggest every market tends towards a Monopoly position. As companies get bigger and bigger, they acquire one another, until eventually there's only one huge 'Company' left. Of course, that's one reason why the free market is regulated.

lgama 13y ago

Prepare the Vaselin.

b3b0p 13y ago

I don't have access to Time Warner or Comcast. I currently have Cox and I have never had Time Warner or Comcast my entire life. I have only read online from sites like Hacker News or Ars Technica in the comments about how bad it is. Could someone enlighten us with some points of how this possibly could benefit consumers? Will they have more capital to build out fiber networks like Google has been doing to compete with that? If this goes through how much control can be put in place by the regulators to make sure pricing is not increased, they don't throttle or block out certain content providers such as Netflix? Even though they server different markets it seems insane that this gets approved from the knowledge I have.

madmax96 13y ago

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that Comcast and Time-Warner compete in the same market, so the anti-trust people can't complain. I feel bad for those poor Time-Warner customers, though.

martindale 13y ago

There is absolutely no way the FTC will allow this.

dangayle 13y ago

Please don't let this happen. I hate Comcast and I hate it even more that it's really the only cable option where I live. I'd hate for that to be the case for everyone everywhere.

adamio 13y ago

"All Amazon hosted websites have been blacked out from Comcast Warner Cable while we undergo contract negotiations. Thanks for your patience, here's a free Video on Demand for the inconvenience"

mindslight 13y ago

This is yet another reminder to check out your local DSL options, like Sonic.net and Megapath. Hopefully the ones in your area haven't gone out of business yet from everyone getting duped into "faster" cable.

mjbraun 13y ago

In the past, I haven't seen much about how the "last feet" problem will be addressed in dense metropolitan areas. In multi-unit dwellings, often the wiring is still owned by the provider. So, even if you were to run fiber (municipal or otherwise) right up to the doorstep of a building, you wouldn't be able to cheaply run drops to every unit. In my previous readings, the laws in my area at least allow for provider "abandonment" or a buyout of the wiring, but I doubt those would help very much. I'd be interested in hearing if folks have seen otherwise, however.

D9u 13y ago

Damn! I finally got an acceptable deal from Oceanic Time Warner @ $60 a month for "up to 30 Mbit/sec" with no data cap. (I often see speeds over 50 Mbit/sec) I hope this deal doesn't throw a wrench in my net connection. I live in a rural area with few options.

pyro56 13y ago

This merg will be the worst thing that could happen, 1) Prices of the packages will go up what will that do with the people who already have a package with TWC. Will it make there prices go up? 2) Who would trust comcast will all the talk of them throttling internet. Its will casue full chaos and they would end up losing more money then they would gain from the merg.