Jump to content

Comcast to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion (USA Today)


COZisBack
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Comcast agreed to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion Wednesday night, swooping in to top a bid by Charter Communications to merge the nation's top two cable companies in a huge media deal, according to a person familiar with the matter."

 

My personal opinion. If Antitrust Regulators are going to let this type of merger occur, I see no reason why any cellular merger shouldn't occur.

 

When I woke up this morning to this news, the first thing I said was, "NOOOOOOOOOO". The only thing I hate more than TWC is CrapCast. I just want my WOW back.  :wall: 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard about this on the radio this morning too. The last thing we need is Comcast to get bigger and more powerful. I am pretty sure my cable bill will be even higher by April. I feel that Comcast and TWC merging would be akin to Verizon and AT&T merging. Two of the largest, most dominant providers merging together into a powerful and abusive force in the industry.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing stinks - it makes me furious.

 

Comcast gobbles up NBC, good move to prevent IPTV from taking off...

 

Now, Comcast gobbles up Timewarner as rumors of an apple/timewarner tie-up?

 

One of things that I love about where I live is that I have a choice between RCN Cable and Comcast.  I love being able to switch between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should totally reject this merger. The same way they should have never allowed AT&T landline to reconstitute itself or allowed landline companies to own wireless. If they are rejecting Sprint/T-Mobile out of hand then they should just totally laugh at this.

 

Come on Apple/Google/Microsoft. Put your money where your mouth is.

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comcast simply cannot be trusted, at their size, to treat their vendors, employees, or customers with any degree of fairness or professionalism.  I'm friends with a current and former employee and according to both of them, comcasts myriad of software and poor employee training is the biggest reason their customer service stinks so bad.

 

Literally every single market they serve has personalized pricing, bundling, fees, and surcharge cramming based on the competitive environment in that municipality/area.  Areas with no competition can be priced anywhere from 10-50% higher than a neighboring market with competitors.   

 

For the past 7 years, comcast has raised its rates in my city by 30-40%.  Recently, C-spire decided to bring fiber to the city AND the city entered an agreement for ATT to deploy U-Verse... Within 3 months of these announcements, Hattiesburg customers have suddenly started being offered retention plans to stay.  I'm currently receiving triple play services totaling $120 a month before taxes that just 6 months ago was offered for $149.00 to new customers for 6 months and $189.00 to everyone else. 

 

If Comcast is going to be allowed to get even larger, I think its time the FCC required some unified level of pricing be offered to all customers in its footprint. Comcast is a behemoth but has been allowed to govern its pricing with a small, local shop mentality.  Just imagine if the cost of mobile service varied from city to city based on how many carriers were in that city and whether or not fuel costs in that city were higher or a natural disaster recently hit causing repairs or a new site had to be built so customers must pay more.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate hate hate comcast. Customer service sucks. Fortunately I have insane pricing because of my neighborhood and my internet with hd service on my tv (cable is included in rent at discount rate) is like 40 bucks. Internet 29.99 50+ down, and 10+ up. When I moved it took me an entire full day of trying to get comcast to get my service back up. I simply transferred to a new apartment unit in the same complex so all they had to do was change the address and push a refresh signal.

 

It took THE ENTIRE DAY! And then my HD service wasn't working after they "activated" it so they said they would send a tech. 4 hours later, a new rep calls in and says you should have HD service. The previous rep forgot to check a few options off. ....... :angry:  This was after the entire day, and at `10 at night they called back. Bunch of idiots.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there went the cable market in the US. :P I am starting to feel that the Government is biased towards certain companies. There is no reason the top 2 should combine. I bet if ATT and Verizon land line divisions were to try and combine it would fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I can't see how this is going to be allowed.  I'm a former Comcast customer and the only reason I used from for high speed internet is there was no comparable service offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe comcast could pull this off!

Feel really bad for you guys as I directv tv!

 

I do have cc for internet though but dtv/cc/vonage is cheaper than the cc bundle of nothing that I was offered.

 

I dont get how this can be allowed and tmo/sprint can't?

Only in America I guess.

 

Comcast will choke everyone while sprint and tmo fight for a few subs, while eventually att and vzw are allowed to absorb them in a couple of presidents from now....smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, its funny that no actual competition will be lost because of the cable co's no-compete system.

At this point, the Internet is a utility. Utilities are price-regulated. Why isn't the Internet also?!

This makes me love Windstream and my cheap 24/4 VDSL2 connection even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, the reason why this may get the okay from regulators is that Comcast and TWC do not directly compete against one another. They may somewhere, but I know of no locale where both are MSOs. That makes this transaction very different from a possible Sprint-T-Mobile.

 

AJ

 

I'm stealing from a post at Light Reading:

 

The Litmus Test 

Ask yourself these questions. Is the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal...

 

Good for consumers?

 

Good for suppliers?

 

Good for content providers?

 

Good for employees?

 

Good for shareholders?

 

Except for the near-term share price increase for shareholders, I can't find any reasons to say the answer is yes.

Edited by bigsnake49
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, its funny that no actual competition will be lost because of the cable co's no-compete system.

 

There is no no-compete clause.

 

Any cable company can come in and over build in your neighborhood if they want..it would be stupid of them to do it but they can.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no no-compete clause.

The de facto non compete clause is between Comcast-TWC and VZ as part of the SpectrumCo transaction.

 

Any cable company can come in and over build in your neighborhood if they want..it would be stupid of them to do it but they can.

Many municipalities will not grant more than one cable franchise.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The de facto non compete clause is between Comcast-TWC and VZ as part of the SpectrumCo transaction.

 

Many municipalities will not grant more than one cable franchise.

 

AJ

How dumb. They should want at least ONE more wired internet provider beyond the local cable and telephone monopolies. Those two have built up telephone and cable wiring assets that they are now using to provide last mile internet access. Certainly the market has room for a pure play fiber/ethernet last mile solution too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comcast simply cannot be trusted, at their size, to treat their vendors, employees, or customers with any degree of fairness or professionalism.  I'm friends with a current and former employee and according to both of them, comcasts myriad of software and poor employee training is the biggest reason their customer service stinks so bad.

 

Literally every single market they serve has personalized pricing, bundling, fees, and surcharge cramming based on the competitive environment in that municipality/area.  Areas with no competition can be priced anywhere from 10-50% higher than a neighboring market with competitors.   

 

For the past 7 years, comcast has raised its rates in my city by 30-40%.  Recently, C-spire decided to bring fiber to the city AND the city entered an agreement for ATT to deploy U-Verse... Within 3 months of these announcements, Hattiesburg customers have suddenly started being offered retention plans to stay.  I'm currently receiving triple play services totaling $120 a month before taxes that just 6 months ago was offered for $149.00 to new customers for 6 months and $189.00 to everyone else. 

 

If Comcast is going to be allowed to get even larger, I think its time the FCC required some unified level of pricing be offered to all customers in its footprint. Comcast is a behemoth but has been allowed to govern its pricing with a small, local shop mentality.  Just imagine if the cost of mobile service varied from city to city based on how many carriers were in that city and whether or not fuel costs in that city were higher or a natural disaster recently hit causing repairs or a new site had to be built so customers must pay more.  

my buddy works as a tech there treated like crap!!! I work as a tech for another cable company and i also get treated like crap.  Only care about the money they make

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dumb. They should want at least ONE more wired internet provider beyond the local cable and telephone monopolies. Those two have built up telephone and cable wiring assets that they are now using to provide last mile internet access. Certainly the market has room for a pure play fiber/ethernet last mile solution too?

 

If I am wrong on that count, I will stand corrected.  But I believe I am correct.  Local governments may enter into exclusive cable franchise agreements.  Or they may choose not to grant additional cable franchise agreements because of aesthetic or logistic reasons relating to buildout, for example.  Regardless, MSOs are not chomping at the bit to overbuild and compete -- too risky for their ROI.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, the reason why this may get the okay from regulators is that Comcast and TWC do not directly compete against one another. They may somewhere, but I know of no locale where both are MSOs. That makes this transaction very different from a possible Sprint-T-Mobile.AJ

Very true, but sprint makes the argument that they compete against verizon not tmo...and tmo against att?

 

I know these 2 dont compete, however it seems many times our government often sides on the belief who ever contributed the most. Comcast will increase prices and we will suffer, They have a clause where they don't compete. So how is that good for the consumer? Our govt Didnt step to say anything. (Yet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am wrong on that count, I will stand corrected. But I believe I am correct. Local governments may enter into exclusive cable franchise agreements. Or they may choose not to grant additional cable franchise agreements because of aesthetic or logistic reasons relating to buildout, for example. Regardless, MSOs are not chomping at the bit to overbuild and compete -- too risky for their ROI.

 

AJ

From what I've read, I'm pretty sure you're right about the whole "exclusive franchise" thing. I've read stories about TWC suing competitors out of cities because the local government granted them monopoly power over all wired internet access in the city.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the longest time, cable companies were oligopolies.  Territories were bought out by competitors as they got larger, or there would be trades of territories.  Then DSL came.  Not much, but an option for internet.  Now we have a few options in places, but not enough to get the price of TV and internet competitive with other parts of the world. 

 

Where is that dang Al Gore and his promise for internet for all?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...