Comcast To Buy Time Warner Cable In $44.2 Billion All-Stock Deal

symbolset writes "CNBC and many others report Time Warner Cable has agreed to be acquired by Comcast for $44.2 billion. From the article: 'The agreement comes more than eight months after Charter Communictions and Liberty Media made their first foray to try and negotiate a deal to acquire Time Warner Cable (a story broken by CNBC) and follows months of conversations between Time Warner Cable and Comcast about the prospect of a Comcast acquisition of the company. '"

Comments

ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

/nuffsaid

Re:ogahdno

[tedgyz]

Agreed!

I love my Time Warner service. Comcast will find a way to ruin it.

Re:ogahdno

[ackthpt]

Agreed!

I love my Time Warner service. Comcast will find a way to ruin it.

At what point do we begin to want Government Interference?

Re:ogahdno

[Sponge Bath]

Finally, the great customer service of Comcast combines with the competitive pricing of Time Warner to create a single convenient entity to steer public policy with targeted campaign funding. Municipal broadband? Not on Timecast's watch.

Re:ogahdno

[ganjadude]

I would not say I LOVE time warner, In fact I think they suck, But they are better than comcast, Im not happy about this at all, 1 less provider makes it easier for the government to collect said data

Re:ogahdno

[amiga3D]

Practice sarcasm much?

Re:ogahdno

[Chas]

Agreed!

I love my Time Warner service. Comcast will find a way to ruin it.

At what point do we begin to want Government Interference?

Right about now actually.

There's the whole "localized monopoly" thing. But this beast is just about the sole provider for a huge swath of the US now, and people's ability to choose providers is in jeopardy.

Re:ogahdno

[Shadow99_1]

I've been all for the government to claim ownership of the physical aspect of these networks for years and then sell the physical service to ISPs for over a decade. The companies have proved time and again, regardless of massive subsidies, that they only care about milking users and not the experience of those users. Hence 1.5m/128k ADSL 'competing' with 10-25m/512k cable internet and 3G/4G capped wireless networks more recently.

At least with the government doing it we could hold someone accountable, even if the the politicians only care at election time and would likely stick the blame on someone else...

Re:ogahdno

[naris]

Welcome to my world :(

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck justice department? You sue over the US Airways/American Airlines merger, but they're just gonna fucking greenlight this one? Goddamn lobbyists! Fuck you, Comcast, fuck you!

Re:ogahdno

[AJH16]

All I can say is SHIT!!! Need FiOS available to my area NOW!!!

Re:ogahdno

[SuperTechnoNerd]

When our choices dwindle to none.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

They already have that, you have locked in service for regions, neighborhoods, or complexes. I remember one apartment I could only get service electric cable, which they are terrible to the point that they make pretty much every other provider look like they're the greatest, even though RCN was available in my area though. Its not considered a monopoly either because technically you could get say DSL and Satellite TV, which are competitor services to cable companies. The reason for the localized monopoly is because the company will come in and do the cabling for the city, neighborhood, and complex for which this is how they recover the cost. Usually the terms of the deals are for maybe a decade but once its over people have freedom to pick their provider. In situations like with FIOS, Verizon was paying out of pocket to build the fiber network without having such a deal, which is why it took so long and in some cases it will never come to some. I live now in Alexandria VA and FIOS will never come to it apparently but I'm not going to complain as my Comcast service is pretty good here.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Comcast marks most of their channels as Copy Free, so you can capture them with a cablecard under linux. Can't say the same for Time Warner.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Right about now actually.

There's the whole "localized monopoly" thing. But this beast is just about the sole provider for a huge swath of the US now, and people's ability to choose providers is in jeopardy.

For the vast majority of people, no it wont...at least not anymore than it already is. Time Warner and Comcast have almost no overlap in markets. The only places in the US where you have your choice of Time Warner or Comcast are in New York City and Kansas City.

OK, there's one exception to the above. If you use available-cable-providers as a major consideration point when choosing where you want to live, then yes, this may have an impact on your available choices.

Re:ogahdno

[jjeffries]

Hence 1.5m/128k ADSL 'competing' with 10-25m/512k cable internet and 3G/4G capped wireless networks more recently.

ADSL2+ will do near 30/3 on short loops (~1mi) and can be bonded. VSDL gets up into the hundreds of megabits. Mostly, ILECs just aren't interested/serious in competing, and would generally rather have bunches of unused, zero-revenue copper laying around than resell it to someone who *is* interested, because making no money at all is better than "helping" your competitor (who you aren't interested in competing with) by selling them something.

Re:ogahdno

[elrous0]

They'll be able to bully Netflix and Google/YouTube right out of business. With that much power, who's going to stop them? It's sure not going to be Washington (from the CNN article):

Analysts also point out that Comcast is remarkably well connected in Washington. In fact, its chief lobbyist, David Cohen, was a guest at the White House state dinner for the French president on Tuesday night.

Re:ogahdno

[tbuddy]

As good as that sounds, if the government owns the lines they'll start spying on people's communications. *ducks*

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's bad when you're cheering on one evil empire to beat another.

Re:ogahdno

[Creepy]

My guess is they'll be prevented from buying further media - if they were also acquiring Time Warner media, I think all hell would break loose, but the cable and media parts were split. I really dislike that Comcast is allowed to own NBC and Universal, as it creates all kinds of ground for price gouging, but the US regulators are in the pockets of the corporations, so I only suspect this will get much, much worse before it gets better.

Re:ogahdno

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

What?

Like in the "Cold War"?

Re:ogahdno

[Creepy]

There may be a setting to bypass that. While I don't know about Time Warner, I have DISH and the default is for the DVR not to allow external recordings, but you uncheck a menu option with a three letter name (SCV, I believe) and then they are allowed.

Re:ogahdno

[KingMotley]

About 10 years ago.

Re:ogahdno

[Redmancometh]

I chose time warner over Comcast in Dallas, Texas. The fuck are you smoking?

Re:ogahdno

[Rolgar]

If they sell to the network, it will go to the highest bidder (through loans for decades into the future) , who will then HAVE to raise prices to buy the network.

A much better solution is to give them to the people as a customer owned network, much like rural electric co-ops.

Re:ogahdno

[Eravnrekaree]

Local governments should own them, cities and special purpose districts within counties so that the local population can maintain accountability and direct influence over the operations. The municipal networks done so far have been a great success. While TWC et al will say that there is no way they can offer a gigabit internet service, Municipal governments have been doing it for years, because they dont have stock dividends and millions of dollars CEO salaries, to pay.

Re:ogahdno

[Meeni]

They do that anyway, so what.

At this point, we have an effective private monopoly. This merger should not have been allowed (actually wires and service should be split, like it is in Europe).

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh joy, less choices and less quality for higher prices.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they haven't already?

Re:ogahdno

[Shadow99_1]

The example I gave was for my local market and the 1.5m/128k ADSL is through Verizon... And costs $48/month (currently). I have neighbors who use it (and who come to me when they have issues). They could offer more, though they would have to upgrade the local loops where I live as we all seem to be on ancient switching systems that are from the 70's. They accepted hundreds of millions in subsidies from my state over a decade to spread 'broadband internet' across my state, and this is the result.

Time Warner was the other offering 25m/512k cable internet and are the only ones who seem to want business. Though they are, slightly, more expensive at $55/month. Unlike DSL offering though they have upgraded to newer and faster speeds since launching their service. I've seen it go from 5m/384k, to 10m/384k, and then jump all the way to the current 25m/512k last year. I'm quite worried Comcast will decide to drop my area, degrade our service, or increase prices... Possibly the last of those two at the same time.

3G/4G isn't even on the table here as many areas don't get 3G service let alone 4G. I came name the only couple miles of 4G service within 100 miles of where I live. Even on the college campus I work at currently and which leases out towers for all the big cell providers to use, the gear they put in is only 3G. Relying on cellular service is not an option in my area.

I wanted municipal internet back in 2000-2003 before anyone offered broadband in my area, but about that time the communications companies got laws passed in my state making muni run networks illegal. As I said in the original post, I think the state should simply take the physical lines and equipment off the hands of these companies and let the ISPs sell service over them for fixed fees that then go back into supporting the physical infrastructure. If it's handled at the local and state level worried about 'spying' (even though it's already done) should be minimized.

Re:ogahdno

[Shadow99_1]

I mean selling services over the physical infrastructure, much like most of Europe. The government runs the physical layer of the network and anyone can offer services as an ISP over that for rates set by the government (state or local), the federal government can even come in to handle interstate network connections. I'd prefer these be local governments owning the physical infrastructure and if you can effect any level of government as an individual it tends to be your local level.

Btw co-op ISPs have been suffering issues lately, see the story just a few weeks ago with the co-op that dropped service down to really small amounts of bandwidth per month and at very low speeds. Governments on the other hand can be forced to follow certain state or federal minimums.

Re:ogahdno

[krups gusto]

Shrug.  The government currently just asks comcast/verizon/twc/comcast for whatever they need anyway.  Your information is going to NSA regardless - who stores it is really a meaningless distinction.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Im not even sure how this is legal? Comcast goes from chapter 11, then buys out AT&t's cable and fiber optic networks, then buys out all the local (PA) cable providers, then buys out NBC, now Time Warner? They already bought out and own small cities, which of course refuse to allow any competitors that can offer cheaper and better service.

I'm not surprised by this, but it is like finding out you have terminal cancer!! Upsetting, disappointed.. These companies can get away with this, but the old saying "if it was the average Joe/Jane they would be facing prison time, heavy fines.

Re:ogahdno

[AJH16]

Or the 2012 presidential election?

Re:ogahdno

[Algae_94]

Municipal governments have been doing it for years, because they dont have stock dividends and millions of dollars CEO salaries, to pay.

Point of note. Stock Dividends are in no way required to be paid. Cutting dividends would most likely result in a share price drop as jilted investors sell out, but there is no obligation to pay them or continue paying them.

Re:ogahdno

[thunderclap]

Agreed!

I love my Time Warner service. Comcast will find a way to ruin it.

Very true. My concern is for the cities that only have Comcast competing with Time warner. What happens then?

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of note. Stock Dividends are in no way required to be paid. Cutting dividends would most likely result in a share price drop as jilted investors sell out, but there is no obligation to pay them or continue paying them.

Right. And a CEO that oversees slashing dividends and the resulting stock price tank in the name of getting a warm fuzzy feeling from giving good service to customers is in no way required to be paid either. Or even keep his job.

Re:ogahdno

[thunderclap]

This point. I want Comcast to sell to Cox the places that is is competing only with Time warner. Screw Charter.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

Choice between two or even three providers is still not a choice. We really need to have localized backbone data services that allow us all to subscribe to providers that are centrally hubbed in each community.

Re:ogahdno

[DaveJ45]

The obvious logic fault in this argument is the assumption that local governments are any less corrupt than state or federal ones....

Re:ogahdno

[dave562]

I love my Time Warner service..

Are you serious?

Is Comcast even worse than TWC? Is that even possible?!

I hate TWC. I experience serious packet loss and latency. All they will do is "test the modem" and then pronounce it fine. Of course the modem is fine, the problem is upstream from there.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't get FIOS fag, Comcast - among others paid Verizon to stop rolling it out. Now that Comcast is even bigger you can STFU that much harder neckbeard cunt. You're little people. You don't count for jack-shit in 'Merica.

Re:ogahdno

[Grishnakh]

It's different, actually.

I hate to defend these horrible, horrible companies, but there's a big difference between an airline merger and a cableco merger.

With airlines, you as a consumer have a choice between airlines. When two of them merge, you now have one less choice. That's called "monopolization". (This assumes that US Airways and American Airlines actually competed in any markets. It's not the case if the airlines don't compete. For example, AFAIK, Southwest airlines does not compete with Lufthansa. They don't fly any of the same routes, therefore they don't compete. Southwest isn't going to fly you to Berlin.)

Cablecos are already monopolies, but only in local markets. I actually use Comcrap right now, and this Slashdot post is going to go over a Comcrap connection when I submit it. Comcrap is my only choice for a cableco here. Time Warner is not a choice here. The same goes everywhere: there is no place where a consumer has a choice between Time Warner and Comcrap. The two are not competitors; they're regional monopolies. All they're doing is merging, to form an even larger monopoly. While I don't see how it'd help consumers any, I also don't see how it'd hurt them, because it's not removing any competition, or any choices.

What'd be bad is if Comcrap merged with Verizon, because here where I live at least, those are the main two ISP choices.

Anyway, if you're wondering why the Justice Department isn't stepping in, this is probably why.

Re:ogahdno

[Grishnakh]

I have Comcrap and from what I can tell, TWC is worse. It's not great by any means, but I don't see all the problems I've heard you and others complain about. However, running Netflix on it sucks unless it's not prime-time (evening): lots of pausing. I need to try running it over my VPN as soon as I take the time to configure my DD-WRT box to do that.

Re:ogahdno

[dave562]

I see the same problem. Netflix streaming problems are the obvious ones. Terrible performance in FPS games is another.

I am participating in an FCC study of ISPs (SamKnows). They monitor the circuit 24/7 and send me monthly reports. TWC sucks during "peak" times. I am talking 25%+ packet loss at 7pm, 200+ms DNS latency, etc.

Re:ogahdno

[Grishnakh]

Have you tried shifting your Netflix traffic to a VPN during the times it's having streaming problems? I've read that some people have tried that and found their Netflix problems disappeared, which of course indicates that their ISP is specifically sabotaging Netflix traffic.

Re:ogahdno

[dave562]

I know for a fact that it is just poor infrastructure. I live in a "less affluent" apartment complex, and TWC simply does not care to improve the infrastructure. The packet loss that I mentioned it across the board, not just limited to Netflix. I even paid for the higher tier speed. In my area the default speed is 10/1 and I am paying for 15/3. They do not care.

Re:ogahdno

[kyjellyfish]

Agreed!

I love my Time Warner service. Comcast will find a way to ruin it.

I loved my Insight service, until they were purchased by TWC, now my download speed has dropped by 20%, and service interruptions are occurring all too frequently. Chances for any improvement after a Comcast takeover are slim, but what bothers me even more is the monopolistic implications. Here in Kentucky, TWC/Comcast has no competition, which means that there is no incentive to improve service, especially with DSL and satellite as our only alternatives.

Re:ogahdno

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't been allowed, yet. Please, for the sake of everyone, make loud noises towards making sure "yet" never comes.

Re:ogahdno

[swalve]

How is it in jeopardy? Each consumer will still have the same amount of choice they started with. Cable, FIOS or ADSL, or satellite. If Comcast sucks, they will chose the other options. It doesn't make a shit-sack of difference whether my cable choice is Comcast or Time Warner, nor does it matter whether I have the same cable choice as someone in Portland.

SEC block?

[TrekkieGod]

In terms of competition, verizon buying time-warner is a much bigger deal than the blocked attempt of at&t buying t-mobile. This purchase can't possibly be allowed to proceed.

Re:SEC block?

[TrekkieGod]

Comcast buying time-warner, I mean. Was thinking about cell phone companies and screwed up.

Re:SEC block?

[ShanghaiBill]

In terms of competition, [Comcast] buying time-warner is a much bigger deal than the blocked attempt of at&t buying t-mobile. This purchase can't possibly be allowed to proceed.

The difference is that cellular is actually competitive, so a change in the market can reduce that competition and give consumers less choice. But in cable, there is usually only one company in any area. So there is no real competition. How much does does their cable coverage overlap?

I have dealt with both companies (in different cities). On a scale of one to ten, I would give Comcast a one. I would give TWC a zero. So a Comcast takeover could be a win for consumers.

Re:SEC block?

[aerivus]

Interactive HTML5 Coverage Maps:
Comcast Coverage Map
Time Warner Cable Coverage Map
Buzzfeed has further analysis of the above maps

Re:SEC block?

[dptalia]

I agree. This has antitrust issues written all over it. I predict the Justice department and the FTC will oppose the merger.

Re:SEC block?

[rogoshen1]

Comcast was allowed to 'close the loop' by purchasing NBC (content provider + cable company/ISP)... I fail to see why our regulatory bodies would even pretend to do their jobs and block something like this.

Re:SEC block?

[SpaceManFlip]

Wow, neither company has very good coverage on a national scale.
Also, that may be the slowest interactive map I've ever used on the Internet. Our tax dollars at work, creating sub-par web experiences every day.

Re:SEC block?

[ganjadude]

In NY Ive had both in a few towns separated by only a handful of miles apart. Id say that time warner is slightly better than comcast. When it comes to network speeds its better, the on demand/channel guide is 100 times better. I dont use their VOIP so I cant comment on that though.

Re:SEC block?

[slimjim8094]

That's what I thought, until I remembered that nobody with TWC can switch to Comcast or vice-versa, at least without moving. There should be huge anti-competitive concerns - but there's no competition anyway so I guess it doesn't matter?

Re:SEC block?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

have dealt with both companies (in different cities). On a scale of one to ten, I would give Comcast a one. I would give TWC a zero. So a Comcast takeover could be a win for consumers.

You forget that in a merger or reorg if there is a way to screw someone they will get screwed. Expect any good things that they don't have in common to be cut, as well as the bad things from each to spread. Just like in a corporate reorg when benefits get cut when 2 divisions are merged. Everyone goes to the lowest common denominator instead of things getting better.

Re:SEC block?

[dptalia]

Justice may find an excuse not to prosecute (although antitrust prosecutions tend to go up under Democratic presidents). I don't see the FTC not getting involved.

Re:SEC block?

[CimmerianX]

Probably not since There will be no reduction in competition... Comcast and TW do not compete in very many areas.... thus the consolidation will (for the most part) neither increase or decrease competition. What it will do is give comcast for leverage when making deals with the content providers.

Re:SEC block?

[dptalia]

There's more to antitrust law then where they compete. Market share is a big deal too. Justice usually jumps in around 30%.

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful. Holder's justice department is fucking useless for actually looking out for public interests. And Comcast probably lobbies the fuck out of Washington.

Re:SEC block?

[AJH16]

Ironically, Verizon buying Time-Warner would be a good thing because FiOS and Time Warner combined would actually have a small prayer of giving Comcast a badly needed run for their money, instead I get to watch Internet options in my neighborhood vanish.

Re:SEC block?

[AJH16]

I would have to say I'm firmly the opposite of this. My experience with TimeWarner for Internet access has been phenomenal. Decent speeds, no stupid caps and reasonable enough value. My friends with Comcast on the other hand are faced with bandwidth caps, stupidly overpriced prices and horrible support. As a very satisfied user of TimeWarner's Ultimate internet service, I'm quite honestly terrified of the implications of this take over. I would give TimeWarner cable a 7 or 8 when it comes to Internet access in my area, but I'd give Comcast a -3 based on what I've heard from numerous friends.

(Now when it comes to TV and Phone service, they don't hold up as well, but I don't use them for either of those.)

Re:SEC block?

[emaname]

Exactly. It strikes me that market share equates to financial leverage. And the more they have, the more they'll want. They'll have a great deal more influence in the marketplace. And we'll still be a third-world country when it comes to internet service.

Re:SEC block?

[khelms]

Yes, but you now have the option to stream your TV programming! ... uh, through your cable modem.

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

As part of the proposal though, Comcast claims they will shed about 3 million customers to stay below the 30% market share boundary. They seem to understand how to game this system as well.

Re:SEC block?

[JWW]

No, you're not doing your merger math right.

0 + 1 = -1

Re:SEC block?

[bigpat]

Funny, but I am guessing this will be pretty much how the Department of "Justice" determines how to rubber stamp this acquisition. They will probably just force the companies to divest in areas where they currently overlap in service.

If I were the DoJ I would force Comcast to provide net neutral service in places where there is no equivalent or better competition. And put their pricing under ongoing review and demand prior authorization of pricing changes in areas where there is no competition. Otherwise block the acquisition. This is far too critical a part of our infrastructure to allow such complete control by so few.

Re:SEC block?

[whoever57]

Maybe at the consumer level there is no competition, but the next time your city negotiates with companies to provide cable service, there will be fewer options.

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

TimeWarner is in love with you. It is just too afraid to say anything.

Re:SEC block?

[whoever57]

until I remembered that nobody with TWC can switch to Comcast or vice-versa, at least without moving.

Not at the consumer level, but cities can switch.

Re:SEC block?

[thomst]

TrekkieGod warned:

In terms of competition, verizon buying time-warner is a much bigger deal than the blocked attempt of at&t buying t-mobile. This purchase can't possibly be allowed to proceed.

I agree.

An earlier version of the NYT story quoted Comcast's CEO as stating the combined company would only control 30% of the US pay TV market - a claim which purposefully conflates cable MSOs with SATELLITE TV providers. The difference (and it is crucial) between those two delivery models is that virtually every member of Comcast's customer base, and the 8 million net subscribers they expect to acquire from TW also depend on their cable operator as their broadband ISP, whereas almost NONE of DirectTV's customers also use it for Internet service. There's an excellent reason for that: their satellite Internet service is VERY expensive, AND IT SUCKS. It's dogshit slow, monthly data transfer quotas are ludicrously tiny, it's unusably laggy for online gaming and VoIP service (plus, your uplink requires POTS), and rain- or snow-storms make it impossible to use altogether.

Still worse, Comcast has already been caught extorting money from Level 3 Communications to keep Netflix from being throttled, and it counts Netflix streams against customers' monthly data caps, but does not do the same for its own Xfinity app for the Xbox.

Nor, in all fairness, is TW anything approaching a model corporate citizen. This month TW raised my Internet access bill by $5, from $39.99 to $44.99. That's in excess of an 11% increase. Has TW's cost of providing service increased to my rural duopoloy increased by any even marginally-significant amount recently? Oh, HELL NO. That increase was shoved down my throat purely to pump up TW's stock price, SO THAT COMCAST WOULD HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THE COMPANY. And, of course, Comcast will insist on additional ratepayer robbery to increase the stock price of the combined company, because increased, short-term shareholder return is the ONLY goal of capitalism.

Just ask any MBA.

This scumbaggery must not be allowed to spread.

Re:SEC block?

[PRMan]

And also bigger than DirecTV/Dish.

Re:SEC block?

[PRMan]

That national split was forced upon TimeWarner when they bought Adelphia. They had to trade with Comcast to make the split more fair.

Re:SEC block?

[PRMan]

I would have to say I'm firmly the opposite of this. My experience with TimeWarner for Internet access has been phenomenal. Decent speeds, no stupid caps and reasonable enough value. My friends with Comcast on the other hand are faced with bandwidth caps, stupidly overpriced prices and horrible support. As a very satisfied user of TimeWarner's Ultimate internet service, I'm quite honestly terrified of the implications of this take over. I would give TimeWarner cable a 7 or 8 when it comes to Internet access in my area, but I'd give Comcast a -3 based on what I've heard from numerous friends.

(Now when it comes to TV and Phone service, they don't hold up as well, but I don't use them for either of those.)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My internet has only been down once in the past year. At 4 am.

Re:SEC block?

[Nethemas the Great]

Looking at the coverage maps, I'd say CenturyLink is really the only direct competitor of consequence for any of them. They are the only ones that seem to have a presence in most of the same markets. Each of the other players seem to have settled down in the respective territories purposefully avoiding one another.

Re:SEC block?

[un1nsp1red]

Jesus, I can't imagine how bad Comcast's channel guide must be if TWC's is 100 times better. Every time I look at TWC's I struggle to understand how it can be such a steaming coil of shit.

Re:SEC block?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No I think I have it about right unique good things go away, unique bad things spread so that would produce results similar to what you stated.

Re:SEC block?

[Shadow99_1]

Wow, you only have to pay $44.99? My TW bill for cable internet is currently $59.99 (not including taxes and fees)...

Re:SEC block?

[ganjadude]

Maybe its because im just used to it but I find the TWC guide easy to use. The lag sucks but its straight forward. However comcast guide, at least in NY is a joke, the on demand features are only about 20% as opposed to TW

on the other hand, with the merger hopefully compcast gets the other 80%, and not that we lose our 80%

Re:SEC block?

[MachineShedFred]

I don't even look at their channel guide, because the show I'm looking for will be over by the time I find it. Seriously, it shows like 5 channels at a time on a HD display, because they can't stop showing you fucking ads for their rape-per-view content; and takes 15 seconds to load the next 5 when you hit the up / down button.

TimeWarner's equipment is shit, the service is shit, the quality is shit. They only thing they had going for them is that they weren't Comcast, and now they don't even have that.

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think cellular is just beginning to get competitive with T-Mobile's elimination of contracts. All major carriers used to be at minimum $40 and a 2 year contract.

Re:SEC block?

[Rakarra]

Comcast was allowed to 'close the loop' by purchasing NBC (content provider + cable company/ISP)... I fail to see why our regulatory bodies would even pretend to do their jobs and block something like this.

That was the unholy act, a merger of Comcast and TWC is tame, peanuts compared to allowing content provider to merge with a cable/ISP monopoly.

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget content distribution as well. With one outlet providing over 30% of U.S. content distribution services, that can have a tremendous effect on content developers and providers.

Re:SEC block?

[swalve]

Then cancel your service.

Re:SEC block?

[thomst]

swalve sneered:

Then cancel your service.

Is English not your natal language? Because I thought I was pretty clear about being stuck in a local duopoly where the alternative is the ILEC - whose upstream limit on DSL is ~100 kbps.

So, basically, you're suggesting I trade a shit sandwich for diahrrea soup?

Kindly fuck the hell off and die.

Re:SEC block?

[swalve]

There are only two signals you can send to your cable company: giving them money or not giving them money. When you keep giving them money, you are telling them that you approve of their behavior and wish them to continue.

Continuing to pay them for a service you don't think is worth the money is utter stupidity.

Re:SEC block?

[thomst]

swalve insisted;

There are only two signals you can send to your cable company: giving them money or not giving them money. When you keep giving them money, you are telling them that you approve of their behavior and wish them to continue. Continuing to pay them for a service you don't think is worth the money is utter stupidity.

So, your proposed solution is that I either give up Internet access altogether, or switch to using my ILEC (which means giving up my VoIP landline) for access?

Purely symbolic personal actions are easy - as long as you don't care about self-harm.

The problem is that I have no other choices of ISP. This is not just my personal problem. It is a problem of US national policy. Depriving TW of my monthly fee won't accomplish ANYTHING useful. Changing national policy - making cable ISPs common carriers, being the most obviously useful immediate change - WILL. So I argue in favor of that change, because pursuing that change by publicly advocating it as a response to Comcast's bid to become an effective monopoly player in the US cable industry IS useful.

Denying Comcast's attempt to acquire TW would also be useful - but only in the short run. Making acceptance of common carrier status for their combined ISP business a condition for approval of their merger would be more useful, long-term.

Re:SEC block?

[Wolfrider]

--I've had to deal with Comcast in another state and they weren't that great. Now I've been a TWC customer for the last 5 years or so and this merger is DEATH for Internet connection quality and support.

--HOW DO WE STOP THIS MERGER?!

Re:SEC block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone here seems to miss the point. There is no overlapping coverage because they have to bid for the coverage against each other. If the merger is allowed to proceed, they will no longer be bidding against each other, so consumers, i.e. municipalities, will no longer be able to demand higher levels of service or lower prices when a contract comes up for renewal. It is clearly anti-competitive.

Antitrust lawsuit?

[randomErr]

That two biggies merging. Will they be put under the scrutiny of an antitrust investigation? That will definitely eliminate choice in several areas. What the alternative, dial up or over the air broadcast?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[jonnythan]

I don't think there area any areas where both TW and Comcast operate. So it won't change the number of choices for anyone.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

ip over pigeons

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[rudy_wayne]

I don't think there area any areas where both TW and Comcast operate. So it won't change the number of choices for anyone.

This is true.

You will just replace one shitty company with an even shittier company.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[SJHillman]

Washington Post's article confirms that:

"Comcast and Time Warner Cable don’t have overlapping markets, so antitrust regulators won’t view the merger with the same concerns they did with AT&T’s proposed bid with T-Mobile, experts say. That deal, which regulators rejected, would have eliminated a major national carrier and given consumers across the country fewer options."

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[slimjim8094]

As horrendous as Comcast is, they've got nothing on Time Warner.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

If these two cable providers don't have overlapping markets, it seems to me they were like a cartel to begin with, dividing the territory between them and entering a do-not-compete agreement, which should have already prompted an anti-trust case.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is pretty much what they have been doing and so yes they should have been handled but the government completely failed there (by choice or incompetence, take your pick).

Re: Antitrust lawsuit?

[ozydingo]

But it will make it even harder to compete against an even more behemother company that can leverage now even more assets and power to crush little uprisings of entrepreneurial rebellion. Though I'm not sure there is any chance to begin with even without the merge.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is on the NBCU content side and the additional control over pricing and eyeballs it gives them control over.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[arekin]

Its not the companies that restrict area. An area cable franchise authority grants franchise rights in an area which limits a number of providers to a single area. This is probably a good idea as allowing every provider access to easement or run lines on poles would be a mess. You would also have to worry about planes dropping out of the sky or birth defects at some point due to the line egress.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[UnknowingFool]

Not mentioned in the summary but in the article is that the merged company will get rid of 3 million customers willingly. In articles not linked but other ones, the reason is that the merged company wants to keep their share of the market to less than 30%. As others will mention, there are few areas where they overlap. I remember there was a re-alignment a few years back when Comcast replaced Time Warner in some markets and vice versa but they did not compete against each other.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Rich_Lather]

More people get to be Comcastrated.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[dptalia]

It's more than just area coverage. Antitrust law also looks at market share. If a merger will give you more than 30% of the nationwide market or so then Justice usually gets involved. If you get more than about 25% of a regional market states may get involved too.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[gstoddart]

As horrendous as Comcast is, they've got nothing on Time Warner.

Ah, but suck is additive ... which means you'll probably end up with an entity which sucks more than either could possibly be on their own.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Austerity Empowers]

Actually this was done between 1996 and 2001 for telecom, as a result we saw huge boom in internet service providers, $/bandwidth, and overall service. Dubya killed that for us, how helpful. Since it was repealed, things have gone to pot, at least with twisted pair. It's a little harder for cable companies in terms of video service, but thanks to the internet that too is changing.

What is truly the blocking issue here is that these people scream bloody murder if they're forced to compete.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[coastal984]

No, it won't eliminate consumer choice because most often Cable companies have a government-authorized monopoly on a geographic area.

What this will do is create a powerhouse negotiator with the content companies as they would represent about 1/3 of all cable households. Who really hates this deal is those content companies, and the satellite companies. If allowed, Comcast will have the power to negotiate substantially lower TV subscription costs than Direct/Dish, and take money out of the content producer/broadcasters coffers.

The other side is internet... but I'm not sure that this is going to affect their DSL/FIOS competitors that much. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think this is likely a secondary concern that lags behind the concerns of the networks/sat providers.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[amiga3D]

You know I actually think it's a toss up as to which is shittiest. I wonder if they will be shittier than the sum of their parts?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why these local authorities should not be able to grant franchise rights as it limits competition. The infrastructure needs to be paid directly with taxpayer funds, not indirectly through massive financial incentives like this, then the providers can compete over which services to provide over infrastructure owned by the taxpayers. I've been fortunate to never have to deal with Time Warner, although I have had to deal with Comcast, and they are both steaming piles of shit that would never exist in their current form in a truly competitive marketplace.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Jason Levine]

It might have, but the cable companies have likely spent a lot of money on lobbyists to convince officials that there's nothing to look into.

Lobbyists: The corporate version of the Jedi Mind Trick. "This isn't the cartel you are looking for. We can go about our business. We can move along."

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[jebrick]

The question should be asked why don't cable companies compete in the same markets? Why do the consumers have no choice now?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

but.. but.. but... Comcast is offering to divest itself of 3 million (of its lowest profitable, you can bet on that) customers!! Surely that will be enough for the corporate-owned government entities, entrusted by the public to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace, to see that this mega-merger is a win-win for the public.

[sarcasm:off]

NO MORE MEGAMERGERS. THIS IS BAD NEWS, FOLKS. Comcast is already the largest cable company and probably the largest consumer ISP as well along with having a fair marketshare of wireline telephone service in their service areas.. but they also happen to own tv studios, movie studios, television programs, movies and film libraries, cable networks, sports networks, sports teams, sports stadiums, an sports/entertainment ticket outlet, web streaming sites, broadcast stations and broadcast networks.

This allows Comcast to own the television or movie studio that produces programming, own the programming itself, own the broadcast network (and some stations) it airs on, owns the cable network it airs on, own the cable system the networks and stations are distributed on, and own the internet site that streams the programming.. and here I thought such vertical expansion of a company was illegal.. Fuck you Comcast, and fuck you federal agencies who let them get this big. this proposed acquisition is WRONG WRONG WRONG... which is entirely why the feds will allow it to happen with nothing more than short term pocket lint (if anything) as a concession.

If Comcast, the cable company, wants to buy TWC they should a) give up not 3 million but enough customers to keep their service area overall to less than a fourth of the u.s. lower 48 population regardless of whether they are customers (and less than 2/3rds of that located in the largest 40 metropolitan areas); and b) divest itself of the following categories of assets: broadcast network, cable networks, sports networks, television/movie production/studios.. that's right break up, voluntarily, into at least five separate and independent companies.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[JimSadler]

Too big to fail comes to mind. No way Comcast should be allowed to expand. Comcast is already short of good content considering the high prices they charge.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2. New York City and Kansas City

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101413235

Time Warner Cable owns cable systems in key areas, including New York City, Southern California, and Texas. Of the top 50 market areas in the country, Time Warner Cable and Comcast overlap in only two — New York City and Kansas City.

Re-reading that, there are 2 overlaps in the top 50 markets. There may be more overlap in smaller markets.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[bigpat]

Department of "Justice": Oh they were monopolies to begin with so who cares if they are just a bigger monopoly now!

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[misexistentialist]

Consumers and government still look at quality of service, and if Comcast is the only game anywhere, their service and prices can't be questioned. You could bring up Japan or something, but that is a lot less convincing than pointing to another company offering cheaper service in the same state.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[MobyDisk]

You are right, but with a caveat. But the reason they don't have overlapping markets is because the local governments give exclusive cable contracts. So it isn't that the companies were forming a cartel, it is that the governments were enforcing a cartel. The companies might have actually wanted to compete, and the government was forbidding it.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

DSL? Satellite? Cellular?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Redmancometh]

Yes...Dallas Texas and NYC I know personally have them competing in a few areas. Julius heights and lake highlands in dallas, and Kiev nearly all of NYC.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Redmancometh]

areas);

Okay there man you're closing out singular parentheses AND reflexively adding semi colons after the end.

Just close out the IDE man. Its ok sometimes not coding is a good thing.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Laxori666]

No it's an awful idea because it leads to not having competition which leads to horrible shitty-ass internet service. Why do you think Time Warner and Comcast are so universally hated?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[mr_mischief]

I don't know for sure if there are any individual addresses they both serve, but there are certainly some areas where they are side by side. Some cities and towns they both list as service areas. Beaumont, Texas is one. Dallas is another. In Missouri they both list Kansas City, Lee's Summit, and Independence.

Near me, Time Warner operates in Spring Branch in Texas. Spring Branch is a district of Houston. Houston is served by Comcast, but I'm not sure about that part of Houston. Some of the other nearby cities and towns are a checkerboard of their service areas. There are also places you can get AT&T "U-Verse" or can't neighborhood by neighborhood. Which providers offer service in an area is a popular question when looking at a home here. This deal would eliminate an option even if only upon moving to a different part of the same metro area.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both companies can bid for a municipal franchise, so it does reduce choice.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[MachineShedFred]

You're an optimist.

When it comes to telcos and cable operators, suck is multiplicative .

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[zentec]

The overlap (or lack thereof) isn't my concern, the problem is that Comcast is also a HUGE content provider.

Do you really think they'll offer competitive terms for WeatherNation considering that they own The Weather Channel?

How long before some elevated middle manager from the NBC newsroom gets the brilliant idea that it is in the best interest of Comcast to prioritize data to The Weather Channel's web site over anyone else?

At some point, Comcast has to be beaten down and told "you're too big, divest the content business or divest the physical plant".

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be disingenuous. No publicly traded company wants to compete. Competition is bad for business. That monopoly legislation was bought and payed for with good ol' fashioned legislative bribery^w lobbying.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Examples...

Netflix vs. Comcast
Netflix vs. TWC
Netflix vs. Comcast+TWC

Much different game.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Chelloveck]

Maybe we'll get lucky and find that while Comcast sucks, Time Warner actually blows. And the suck and blow will cancel out. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[sir-gold]

Cable franchises don't work anyway. No matter which company the city chooses, the major player in the region will just buy-out whoever won the franchise. This happened twice in my city, the city gave the franchise to a small local company, then that company was immediately bought by charter. When that franchise contract ended, the city choose another small local company, which was again immediately bought by charter.

Even if the city did allow multiple redundant networks, all of those networks would eventually end up being owned by a single corporation.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the biggest argument for municipal broadband I've ever heard. The government should be promoting competition, not hindering it. So if there's only one provider, and private industry can't provide competition, the public sphere needs to step in.

It's also a huge argument for common carrier status: the providers are using public lands, and being granted monopolies by the government, so they should act neutral with regard to content.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why aren't you starting a small local company that can then be bought by charter, allowing you to profit, and move?

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[arekin]

Ahh prices would be cheaper if we had child labor and no minimum wage too, but hey, why make a public safety issue out of it. Lets allow them to stack cable line on top of cable line and maybe we will get a few more retards who only care that their internet costs too much.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[jwhitener]

Somewhat true, except those contracts are a result of physical limitations that create an almost natural monopoly. (You can't run dozens of cable lines along the poles, it would be a mess).

Now, if towns owned the cable infrastructure and other network devices involved, and just leased to Comcast / Whoever to act as an ISP, you could have competition. Remember back in the days when the internet only existed on the phone lines? Dozens of mom and pop ISPs in every town, competing on price and service, all sharing the same phone system.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[swalve]

My stupid little village can't even keep the streetlights running. I'll be goddamned if I want them playing with fiber optics.

Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[MobyDisk]

Yay someone who gets it! But you don't have to have the municipality own the infrastructure. You could still have a monopoly do it, so long as they only ran the lines and didn't act as an ISP. Permit me to expand on what you said, for the benefit of anyone stumbling upon this.

Those contracts are a result of physical limitations that create an almost natural monopoly. (You can't run dozens of cable lines along the poles, it would be a mess)...

This was true in the 1960s and 1970s when Comcast was first starting. But it is no longer true today since you can run multiple services over a single wire. This is how power is today, and how internet used to be in the 1990s. Everyone forgets that this limitation no longer applies, and so our regulatory framework is stuck in the past.

...Now, if towns owned the cable infrastructure and other network devices involved, and just leased to Comcast / Whoever to act as an ISP...

With power, one company builds and maintains the wires. Many companies provide the actual power, and customers can choose their power provider. This is really easy with power since power is fungible. The power companies just put the power on the wires and off it goes.

With telephone in the 1990s, one company built and maintained the wires. They also provided local dial-up or PPTP access. Many companies provided internet service, and customers could choose their ISP. The telephone wire company merely provided the means to connect the customer to the service.

With broadband internet, it could be the same way and it would work exactly like how telephone used to work. Telephone company provides PPTP, and you get a box that does PPTP to your ISP who could be anyone anywhere.

What happened that messed this up was that the cable and telephone monopolies were permitted to become ISPs. They had special accses tot he system, so the 3rd-party ISPs couldn't compete. For a while, in some states, there was legislation that actually required the telephone companies to allow these other ISPs to lease access to the lines at certain fixed prices. This was a poor attempt to allow competition. But ultimately, if you have 2 delivery companies and one owns the roads, there is no way to compete against that. So the telephone and cable monopolies bought out all the dial-up ISPs, then all the PPTP broadband ISPs, and now *poof* we have a "natural" monopoly.

This is good for competition

[QQBoss]

In some places, people will be able to choose from Time Warner/Comcast and in others they will be able to choose from Comcast/Time Warner.

Oh, wait, this is the same situation that exists now where DSL or FTTC isn't meaningfully available.

They both suck almost as much as Beta, which I accidentally viewed today. Oh, the pain....

Remember kids

[Dunbal]

We need to cap your internet usage and charge you usage fees as well as bandwidth fees because, oh god, it's so hard to make money in the telecommunication business we just can't seem to stop having enough money to buy each other out. By the way, we're going to increase your monthly flat rate bill a good 10% again this year because hey, those "Friends" reruns sure are getting expensive to er, broadcast.

Re:Remember kids

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an all stock deal. No money exchanged hands, they just created more stock.

Economies of Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! With their improved economies of scale, my rates should drop, and I should get better service than ever!

Antitrust petition

[MCSEBear]

Is there already a Whitehouse.gov petition asking Obama to oppose this? Since the cable companies seem to think they will get away with it, we need to act fast to shame Obama into stopping this.

Re:Antitrust petition

[arekin]

This isn't antitrust. Most areas restrict cable franchising so you don't have multiple providers in an area. If Comcast were to buy WOW in areas they both exist (Such as Michigan, maybe available elsewhere) it would restrict competition. Since Comcast and Time Warner don't overlap there is not antitrust issue.

Re:Antitrust petition

[The Cat]

When did it become the reflex action in America to go running to daddy every time something happens you don't like?

Congress has the authority and the power to put a stop to abusive mergers like this. Grow up, act like an American and call your representative.

Re:Antitrust petition

[akpak]

"Act fast"

There are petitions on there that have gotten over the 100k signatures, but have languished without a response for months. Almost none of the "successful" petitions get responded to within the 30-day "deadline."

A We The People petition is *not* fast.

Re:Antitrust petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there already a Whitehouse.gov petition asking Obama to oppose this? Since the cable companies seem to think they will get away with it, we need to act fast to shame Obama into stopping this.

There is a whitehouse.gov petition: http://1.usa.gov/1gA3xvC

Re:Antitrust petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Like fucking hell. Comcast has already used it's leverage to stop FIOS rollouts nationwide. Now with a larger chunk of the country - they can stop even more competition.

Oh and you can suck my cock neckbeard lobbyist apologist faggot. Suck it deep in your throat.

Re:Antitrust petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama went golfing with Comcast's CEO. He's some sort of big donor.

Re:Antitrust petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and you can suck my cock neckbeard lobbyist apologist faggot. Suck it deep in your throat.

Yes plz.

Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[jasper160]

Equals a ISP landscape that will even more consumer unfriendly.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[SJHillman]

There's no overlap between TWC and Comcast, so the number of choices won't change for anyone. I have TWC and I'm worried that Comcast will change their policies. TWC's price is a little high, and their technicians have broken my stuff more often than fixed it, but it's gotten significantly more reliable in the last couple years and as long as my loop isn't saturated, they give me about 32Mbps when I pay for 10Mbps.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[rudy_wayne]

Equals a ISP landscape that will even more consumer unfriendly.

This merger doesn't reduce anyone's choice because there are very few (if any) areas where you currently have the option to choose one or the other. In the vast majority of areas you have exactly one choice for cable TV. If you are lucky, you might have 2 choices for Internet -- shitty expensive cable and shitty expensive DSL.

Force the monopoly cable and telephone companies to open up their networks. Then you will have real competition which will result in real consumer choice. It will also mean the end of stupid shit like monthly bandwidth caps.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[slimjim8094]

My parents have Comcast, I have TWC. Performance, reliability, and tech are all about the same - Comcast on demand and cable boxes are much better, but TWC's been working on that. I actually have had better luck with Comcast customer service than Time Warner, but that might just be a fluke.

I don't expect anything to get worse, but it probably won't get any better either - certainly not the price.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no overlap between TWC and Comcast, so the number of choices won't change for anyone.

And when they merge, I won't even be able to move away to get a different ISP.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[Jason Levine]

*raises hand*

That's my options in a nutshell. For TV, I have Time Warner Cable or I can go with satellite (and be locked into a contract). Then again, we've been on the cusp of cutting the cord for years so this might be the move that pushes us over the edge.

For Internet, however, we have Time Warner Cable. There's also Verizon DSL, but they have shown time and time again that they want to ditch it ASAP. Dial-up or no Internet isn't an option. Neither is relying solely on my cell phone for data (too expensive). So I'm essentially locked into one choice for Internet service. If they decide to charge me $100 a month for a 1Gbps connection and a 10GB cap, I have no choice but to pay. (So long as they are less expensive than cellular data plans which isn't hard to do.)

I'd love to see their networks forced open. One company should run the network and sell access to companies who then offer service to customers. This would increase competition, decrease prices, decrease network neutrality concerns (because the network company wouldn't be "competing" against NetFlix, etc), and improve service. Sadly, cable ISPs don't want this and will fight tooth and nail (and lobbyist) to prevent this from happening.

Re:Bad Service x Fewer Choices

[bigpat]

Force the monopoly cable and telephone companies to open up their networks. Then you will have real competition which will result in real consumer choice. It will also mean the end of stupid shit like monthly bandwidth caps.

Agreed. The DoJ should require that Comcast agrees to net neutrality for this to go through. But I think they also really need to divest NBC Universal and any other content business because even with net neutrality it is far too likely that they will grow their own content business at the expense of competition and at the expense of consumer choice.

no coverage of w. va. or n. carolina etc....?

[Anonymous Coward]

not the best news;; https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A2KLtYEpxfxSClQA93CbvZx4?p=w.+va+n.+carolina+spills&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901

other stuff overlooked in spiritless media http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=starvation+genocide&sm=3

Meridith Atwell Baker was Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Comcast will just bribe the FCC again

America was fun while it lasts, but if people can keep being bribed to do favors, corruption can inevitably kill a country. We have laws that you can't buy a vote. That seems noble. But the fact is that politicians can accept campaign contributions which is just a fancy word for a bribe. Who needs to buy votes when you can buy a politician?

Again, I love America, but corruption unchecked can destroy any nation no matter how strong. And with campaign contributions running rampant, the game is rigged in favor of the corrupt.

Re:Meridith Atwell Baker was Re:Antitrust lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think America was ever and different than today, you might want to read up on Standard Oil. It took years of abusive practices before it got broken up. Same with AT&T.

Thank god!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer I'm thrilled by this. Less choice means I don't have to think as much!

Win for IPv6

[Tim the Gecko]

Comcast have been rolling out IPv6, and I can now get all of Google/YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Slashdot is still only IPv4, of course.

TWC's installed equipment may delay a roll out right now, but a long term commitment to IPv6 would be good.

Re:Win for IPv6

[SJHillman]

Don't worry, Slashdot is planning on implementing a beta version of IPv6. All of your packets will be routed directly to the NSA, then China, then the Antares nebula, and then beamed into space. Because fuck user experience.

Re:Win for IPv6

[slimjim8094]

TWC does v6 as well. I'm using it right now

Re:Win for IPv6

[Tim the Gecko]

Oops! I should have used my IPv6 connection to do a search before posting! - http://www.timewarnercable.com...

More places for Netflix to suck

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

I guess it is time to switch to the Netflix DVD option, or join Redbox.

FTC Where are youuuuuuu?

[nurb432]

This should not even be on the table. A nearly unrelated virtual monopoly, growing even larger.

The US is screwed...

[sumdumfuk]

As if Comcast being second most hated company (EA was first) wasn't bad enough, now the giant will have almost a monopoly on cable (if it is approved). Things will NOT get better with this merger, only worse since they will have almost no competition.

Re:The US is screwed...

[elrous0]

They'll be able to bully Netflix and Google/YouTube right out of business.

increase of rates

[nurb432]

Well, they have to pay for the purchase somehow, and you cant expect them to take it out of current profits/bank accounts.

Re:increase of rates

[tompaulco]

Well, they have to pay for the purchase somehow, and you cant expect them to take it out of current profits/bank accounts.

They are paying it out of stock. In other words, they are buying it with funny money. I guess the good side of that is that the shareholders can vote it down if they don't like the deal.

Re:increase of rates

[nurb432]

"Funny money" still filters down to higher rates as the cost of business is pushed to the consumer in the end.

Wait ... AOL?

[gstoddart]

Surely Time Warner understands by now that getting bought in an all stock deal is a stupid friggin' idea.

Because when AOL bought them with over-inflated .com stocks, it was a terrible idea and ended up with a grossly over-valued company with few actual assets owning a company which had both revenues and assets.

I predict that in the long run this will be a terrible idea for both consumers and stockholders.

Re:Wait ... AOL?

[chakan2]

To be fair though, when was the last time the Stock Market or Consumers cared about the "Long Run." We are in an immediate gratification society (both sellers and consumers).

Re:Wait ... AOL?

[jafac]

It's still great as a pump-n-dump scheme for the financiers who work the deal, and a couple insider majority shareholders.

What's not to like?

Could be a good thing.

[arekin]

One of the main factors that cause cable television bills to increase is Channel Providers raising costs on cable companies. ESPN has been notorious for raising rates over the years. If the cable company gets bigger it has better negotiating power to maintain current rates (what broadcaster is going to loose 3 million subscribers by pissing off the cable company in negotiations). I doubt that the current rates will decrease, but it could stabilize costs some. This is not to mention that Time Warner actually has worse consumer reviews than Comcast. Time Warner customers would likely see an improvement.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[gstoddart]

One of the main factors that cause cable television bills to increase is Channel Providers raising costs on cable companies.

And, of course, there's no chance in hell that this new entity will just decide to increase rates and win on both ends.

I'm sure they'll be nothing but paragons of looking out for the consumer.

Or, they'll gouge you on both ends and chalk it up to corporate profits.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still wining the special Olympics if you ask me, yeah you may have the gold medal but your still retarded. Time Warner is pretty crappy, but all I've ever heard was horror stories out of Comcast. Comcast had a 20% ownership of the local cable company (Insight communications) but Time Warner bought the whole company 3 years ago (and is still working through re-branding everything). My service didn't change at all (still have random disconnects for hours at a time), my rates didn't change at all, oh and they wanted to offer me a "deal" to add services and pay almost double what new customers were paying for the same thing.

TWC is crap, Comcast is not much better, I miss Insight, Google Fiber can't spread fast enough

Re:Could be a good thing.

[Jason Levine]

At most, they'll drop rates by some token amount while the FCC is looking (perhaps making it up with a "Merger Service Fee" hidden in the bills). Then they'll have a rate hike (blaming some channel they have a tiff with) and will make up more than the token price drop.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[bigpat]

You are focusing on Comcast as a cable and Internet provider, but they themselves are content companies... Comcast owns NBC Universal and Time Warner does content also. These are vertically Integrated companies with a lot of local monopolies in the Cable and Internet businesses. If anything they will simply look to squeeze out the competition in the content areas. Already you are seeing the Cable and Satellite providers squeezing the content providers and cutting them out whenever they aren't getting a big enough cut. Look at the current situation where DirecTV has created their own "weather nation" channel instead of paying the weather channel. With more market power Comcast will be able to be more anti-competitive in content.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[bigpat]

Just to add... yes The Weather Channel is owned by Comcast which has in turn raised rates on DirecTV. So this is what is happening. ESPN is owned by Disney, but Comcast has its own Sports network. So there is a convoluted web of corporate interests here which is very likely to work itself out against the consumer interest

If net neutrality isn't enforced on the Internet side and we don't see a greater portion of the network devoted to the Internet versus these non-Internet content subscription channels.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[PRMan]

Not sure how that study was rigged, but neither I nor anyone I know with Time Warner has ever had a service issue to my knowledge. EVERYONE I know with Comcrap has had a service issue.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[PRMan]

Time Warner Cable currently has zero ties to Time Warner. They are not tied to a content provider currently.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Warner has no cap on bandwidth per month; Comcast does have caps. How is this going to benefit Time Warner customers?

Re:Could be a good thing.

[Nethemas the Great]

Do you really think that any cost savings would be passed on to the consumer? They want is to be a 1990's AOL style provider where everything you do exists within the Crapcast ecosystem and then charge you a premium for the favor of restricting your choises.

Re:Could be a good thing.

[dcherryholmes]

This. I have no mod points today, or I would mod you up.

(I work for TWC in video deployment, and had a ringside seat for the CBS fiasco, as well as every time the providers come back to us insisting to jack their rates. I spend every New Year's with my finger hovering over the "blackout" button while the two sides lawyer it up and fight it out to the last second).

Re:Could be a good thing.

[Rakarra]

One of the main factors that cause cable television bills to increase is Channel Providers raising costs on cable companies. ESPN has been notorious for raising rates over the years. If the cable company gets bigger it has better negotiating power to maintain current rates (what broadcaster is going to loose 3 million subscribers by pissing off the cable company in negotiations). I doubt that the current rates will decrease, but it could stabilize costs some. This is not to mention that Time Warner actually has worse consumer reviews than Comcast. Time Warner customers would likely see an improvement.

That's a problem the cable companies created for themselves by not allowing ala carte cable packages or allowing customers to choose exactly which channels they want, and pay just for those. ESPN raises the price of their channel by $2/month? That's fine, that will get passed along transparently to the customer. Then ESPN would have to deal with the repercussions, if any.

And no, I wouldn't buy any argument that this system would be too difficult or there are too many technological boundaries. Given the amount of money that has been thrown at the cable companies, they could easily solve this... if they wanted to. But they don't want to.

Infrastructure investment?

[Yonkeltron]

I wonder if Comcast plans to upgrade infrastructure in TWC service areas. Friends of mine in pre-war NYC apartment buildings seem to have terrible service degradation in the evenings as more people get online.

Re:Infrastructure investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if Comcast plans to upgrade infrastructure in TWC service areas. Friends of mine in pre-war NYC apartment buildings seem to have terrible service degradation in the evenings as more people get online.

HAHAHAHAHA! Good one...

Ah, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Shytergy.

Break it up like AT&T. baby coms

[goombah99]

I wonder if the paid for politicians have the brass to break it up. If they can't common carrier status becomes imperative.

Now let's suggest a proper Noun to name the new company, and a verb or noun to describe the service provided. Bonus points: company slogan

example:

ourcast, intranet, thank you for your patience, like you had a choice.

This sucks...

[Hangtime]

If this does go through and I have my doubts, I want the FCC NOT to force them into divestiture but offer higher speed Internet, ala carte pricing, sign off on Net Neutrality, and remove all bandwidth throttling and caps. The time is not to try and create competition, because there is none in cable, but to actually make a company perform like it is in a competitive environment.

Re:This sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this does go through and I have my doubts, I want the FCC NOT to force them into divestiture but offer higher speed Internet, ala carte pricing, sign off on Net Neutrality, and remove all bandwidth throttling and caps. The time is not to try and create competition, because there is none in cable, but to actually make a company perform like it is in a competitive environment.

Won't work. They'll agree for a time period to do something, and then after that time period, boom - they make up for it. Or worse, look at Sirius-XM. They agreed not to raise rates for a couple of years, then immediately implemented a new "fee", but the "rate" never changed.

Great!

[sudon't]

Great! Now, instead of having one choice for high-speed (haha) internet, I'll only have one choice for high-speed (haha) internet.

Re:Great!

[PRMan]

My 113 Mbps with Time Warner IS high-speed, thank you very much. I'm sure Comcast with screw it up with bandwidth caps.

Here comes IOI

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until these merged companies rename themselves to Innovative Online Industries?

Oh HELL no!

[slashmydots]

I have TWC and have heard nothing positive about Comcast. When TWC bought AOL, it was the worst corporate merger ever in US history. Now they're selling out to the king of all assholes, Comcast? I can't wait for my prices to go up and my netflix to get throttled.

Re:Oh HELL no!

[x_t0ken_407]

Yeah, throttling is my main concern. I had comcast before when I lived a short stint in Houston...no real problems personally but I always had the throttling and deep packet inspection in the back of my mind.

Mother of God

[x_t0ken_407]

I hope Bright House is unaffected by this (as I understand it, they're a separate company from TWC at this point in my area, I think).

Perverse incentives

[Anonymous Coward]

They make more money just buying customers from someone else than simply building out to more customers.

say good by to HD channels on TWC to match

[Joe_Dragon]

say good by to SD / HD channels on TWC to match Comcast non SDV setup

ESPN Goal Line HD/ Buzzer Beater HD
Some of multiplex hbo, show, max, stars, HD channels.
premier league extra time HD as a real channels
BTN alt HD
EPIX
and others

welcome to tiered Internet

[recharged95]

If this goes through, we will get a glimpse of what tier internet will look like.

I know, I know, we have a good idea what tiered internet looks like, but this will give us some real concrete evidence.

Thoughts on Beta and Slashcott

[Anonymous Coward]

So the slashdot community is in full revolt. I have read extensively the reasons for the dislike of the beta and I happen to agree with them. I also agree that Dice's corporate double speak doesn't do anything to soothe the situation.

With that being said the choice of language chosen by the community to voice their opinion is poor. Using swear words doesn't advance the cause and makes people who might agree with you want to distance themselves from you.

I sincerely hope that you are successful with soylentnews.org. It has become clear that this sites days of relevance are behind it.

Bend Over

[Anonymous Coward]

OH please, Comcast and its subsidiaries (NBC et. al.) have been so obsequious to the Obama administration the last 6 years that this thing will fly through Justice Department review.

Re:Bend Over

[Redmancometh]

Even if it's fairly obvious in context...thats the first word I've had to look up in a long long time.

Re:Free Market FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is way better then TWC

Re:FIOS Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Service will suck when you want watch a video that is FIOS by Verizon

Re: Break it up like AT&T. baby coms

[PFritz21]

Yeah, then 20-30 years after Time Warner Comcast is broken up, 6 of the 7 pieces are merged back into a single company.

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, dude, shut the fuck up and stop spamming this shit everywhere.

Pipes or content. Pick one.

[sjbe]

They should have to divest NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, and any other content and local stations. This company is getting a little too much of the distribution network for comfort. I'm a customer as they are the only practical option in my area (the only other being Frontier Communications with some relatively slow DSL) and they've largely behaved themselves but we separated content delivery and content generation for a reason.

Re:Tell you what (2 things)

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally nobody cares.

Re:Tell you what (2 things)

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly project that YOU do, stupid... lmao!

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, You sure stopped him (not).

Why does it matter who buys who?

[Lost Penguin]

It is not like there actually is competition.

The US cable industry reminds me of the old joke about Soviet Russia television; Channel one has the official party line, while channel two has the KGB announcer telling you to turn back to channel one. The cable companies all treat customers like domesticated farm animals, you are either inside of one farmers fence or another's, you can only move from one pasture to another pasture with much paper work and time off from work, yet still you will eat the same grass.

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

We're laughing at you fool

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you post the same message twice? Do you no longer even pretend that you're not a blatant spammer?

Do you take pride in the fact that you've been downmodded and banned more often than any other person in Slashdot history?

Also the timestamp of the parent post and this post proves that you're abusing proxy servers or TOR to circumvent posting limits (and obviously to circumvent your IP bans but that goes without saying).

At least your posts are much shorter than they used to be since Slashdot actually reprogrammed Slashcode last year to detect and filter long "APK-style" posts. Does it make you proud that you're posting on a site that's actually dedicated programmer resources to try to keep you out?

Re:Tell you what (2 things)

[Redmancometh]

1) I will literally fly you down to dallas texas at my expense to show you just how hard I want to "make you."
2) I actually can offer something superior:
An image of you just after you shoot yourself in the head, hit a neonatal trajectory, have to do it again..3 or 4 times before dying in agony. On live cam, and the rats are clawing your dead lifeless eyeballs and fighting over the 13 grains of gray matter you may possess.

Re:Tell you what (2 things)

[Redmancometh]

I swear that said non-fatal before I hit submit not neonatal..fucking S3 firmware update

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep posting, apk. The more often you post, the faster your proxies and exit nodes will get banned. Or are you running a botnet via your shitty "host file manager" malware?

This won't help customers

[Anonymous Coward]

People who think this merger will help customers. Must also believe Obama is the best President for American's since George Washington. Most mergers help reduce overhead costs such as billing and customer service. Look for even worse customer service with this merger. Yes, I think Comcast/ Warner will have a better negotiating position with content providers. But don't expect these savings to be passed on to customers. What I actually see is less pressure to update and improve service, poorer customer service and continued cost for services increases without much improvement. The reason why is very simple. The same mega companies were controlling the phone companies many years ago. So the Feds forced them to break up and become smaller less powerful entities. Cable companies are merging for the same reasons as those phone companies. Gain a monopoly over customers and price services for maximum profits.

This is a terrible deal for consumers

[rickb928]

There is no point in discussing relative service levels, customer service, blah blah blah. None of that is the significant issue at stake.

First, Net Neutrality. A 'TimeCast' conglomerate will wield immense power and be able to enforce selective access and performance. If Netflix is your favorite video provider, you will be left at the mercy of a much larger and much more motivated ISP. This is an opportunity for the FCC to join Justice and require neutrality of access and routing as a condition. Let the court fights begin... Here, consumers have little hope that the government will act in their best interest, or even be allowed to.

Channel selection will become more interesting as this is an entity that could challenge content providers such as Disney and ESPN, and we'll see the battle between cable systems too big to ignore and content too valuable to refuse. I doubt consumers will benefit from this in any way.

Pricing will go up, count on it. Municipalities will take advantage of that and hang increased fees on these price changes, and consumers will pay more. Period.

There is nothing good about this. And there need not be, since corporations are not motivated to act in the best interest of their customers, merely to earn profits. that should, in a perfect world, result in serving customers, but it need not, and we are not in a perfect market or world. Oligopolies like this will not operate int eh customer's best interest.

Which is the current state of our government, not serving its citizens well at all. And that is why limited and constrained government is essential, and abdicating power to a central federal government is a bad idea. Corporations need also to be restrained. Same problem.

Careful what you wish for

[ThatsNotPudding]

Government control can very quickly turn into censorship by latter-day Puritans that now wear the buckles on their brains instead of their hats.

Re:Careful what you wish for

[un1nsp1red]

And corporate control can't lead to censorship?

Re:Careful what you wish for

[jmcvetta]

Your internet isn't already censored??

The Real Winner

[hondo77]

Follow the money:

The deal would be a coup for Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Rob Marcus, who just ascended to the top job on Jan 1. Filings show that the former mergers and acquisitions attorney is set to pocket $50 million if Time Warner Cable is sold and he is replaced while he is CEO.

incorrect

[ahabswhale]

This merger has zero impact on your choices. Their territories don't overlap.

Re:Antitrust petition - yes, there is

[wytcld]

Petition at Whitehouse.gov

Aim low

[gelfling]

Ya can't fuck it up. Well ya can't fuck it up more than Time Warner. Unless you stop having service completely, forever. Better than that you're on par with Time Warner.

But the real point here is that Comcast now owns the lagest VoIP network in the nation if not the world. One stop shopping for the NSA while Obama's FCC gets to tax it some more.

Re: Break it up like AT&T. baby coms

[goombah99]

So, the breakup spurred innovation which in any industry can only go on for so long before it matures. consolidation happened as cell phones and the internet matured into the modern from of telephony.

Re:Nothing of the kind

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly write like a dimwit.

Bastard hellspawn of Satan and Godzilla

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I suggest reading a book in protest. Voltaire anyone?

Re:Whose name's on this post stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

a pity, I'd love to have him TRY make good on his threats (be the LAST FUCKING THING THAT LITTLE FUCKWAD WOULD DO IN THIS FUCKING LIFE, I shit you not) I eat little SHITS like him, almost every week around here, because it's so full of asswipes like him around here... apk

What, gonna have your mommy beat him up for you? Pussy.

Reminds me of when Comcast ate Adelphia

[Kremmy]

I lived in Adelphia's service area at the time. Adelphia had done some serious rollout in the region, they laid a lot of wire in anticipation of offering cable telecom services, then they hit the local market with the first real broadband option. When Comcast bought Adelphia, they soaked up all the new markets that had just been built, and stopped building. We need a cable company that gives a damn about their network.

Who's yo daddy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't talk that way to apk: He did yo mama. You came out.

Re:Nothing of the kind

[Anonymous Coward]

I read his words fine. You're the dyslexic mentally addled moron.

Re:Nothing of the kind

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Paul.

Re:Nothing of the kind

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly write like a dimwit

Will the FCC let this happen?

[DaveJ45]

Of course the FCC will let this happen - There are still lots of six and seven figure salary positions open for ex-FCC honchos at Comcast!

Re:Get bandwidth back this way then

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid. He now knows downmods = useless. We see both his posts.

Re:Whose name's on this post stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that Jeremy Corinthius is one of your sockpuppet accounts, apk. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Re:Free Market FTW

[Grishnakh]

I have Comcrap right now, and while it's not great by any means, I do have to say it's been fairly reliable (though not cheap), and I haven't heard nearly as many horror stories with it as I have with TWC.

I wish I had Cox instead. I had Cox in Arizona and again, while not great, they were a lot better than Comcrap, they were actually bordering on decent. When I had tech problems, their phone support people actually knew how to solve them.

You're forgetting Netflix...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the companies existed only as cable television companies, you may have a point. But it is more complicated than that.

These companies are also broadband providers and as such, the combined company would control a much larger percentage of the infrastructure necessary for companies like Netflix and Hulu... companies that compete with the television side. With the recent suspension of net neutrality, the potential for anti-competitive abuse has certainly increased.

Re:Ok, big talker

[Redmancometh]

528 Reiger St Dallas, Texas 75223.
Come and get it.

Roadrunner Meet Comcast

[agrisea]

I was not thrilled when I heard that Charter was trying to buy Time Warner Cable but this deal with Comcast means that all the roadrunner clients will get squashed.

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

So you admit that you're abusing Slashdot by violating the posting limits and other rules?

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

Question is, are you breaking rules? I have a pc, a smartphone, laptop, and pc with different isps. I can post here that way too. Turn off any of them, acquire a new ip address, and you can do the same. That is not breaking any rule at all. It's merely powering up or down equipment. You do have someone here that had the cops called on them in Dallas today though (redmancometh) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... and nobody does anything about that (death threats and such) do they? So let's not speak rules here.

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

redmancometh broke laws and rules here (cops called on him) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Tell you what (2 things)

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Paul.

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello apk (you forgot to sign your post) -- using multiple IPs to circumvent your well-deserved IP bans is abuse of Slashdot and is illegal. You are accessing a service whose owners do not want you to access it, and who have taken extensive measures to try to prevent you from accessing it. Using technological measures to circumvent these restrictions constitutes unauthorized use and abuse of a computer system. Spamming and harassment are crimes as well. You are subjecting yourself to many years in federal prison, as well as subjecting yourself to civil liabilities that could easily bankrupt you. You are without ethics or morals. Karma is a bitch (and I'm not talking about Slashdot karma). Someday you will answer for your many crimes.

Re:Know what LIBEL is, asshole?

[Anonymous Coward]

The coward apk got called out and has no response.

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you the owner? No. Let the owner say it. They sure condone deaththreats here though http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Know what LIBEL is, asshole?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been royally pwned http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Re:THIS is why (especially my ps)

[Anonymous Coward]

Powerful parties have taken an interest in your crimes. This goes far beyond Slashdot. You are being watched. It's too late to stop what's going to happen. You've made enemies all over the world and the time has come for your victims to fight back.

Re:Just spoke to Officer Oliver

[Redmancometh]

A) It's a real address. I'm pretty sure my house isn't fictional. Do you want a picture?
B) I made no threats at all whatsoever. I just said I'd show you just how much I'd love to make you do something. Maybe that means I'd give you a blowjob who knows?
C) The person who calls the police on some random stranger on the internet isn't the "little cowardly crumb"?

Go take your meds nutjob.

Re:Just spoke to Officer Oliver

[Redmancometh]

Oh and the other comment was me saying you killing yourself (albeit in detail) was superior to HOST files.

Nowhere does it say I am going to cause you harm.

Big fish?

[fseminario]

But time warner as a whole is 3 x bigger than Comcast. It is not every day you see a big fish give up some of its territory. Aside from that, this is not good news for consumers.

Re:WoW - YOU're a serious crackpot

[Anonymous Coward]

Save your words. It's too late. You'd better hope you end up in jail because that's basically the best-case scenario for you.

Re:What law or rule is there that says

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you're still monitoring this week-old thread for replies, aren't you? Sitting at home alone, unemployed, no friends, no hobbies except spamming and trolling, apk patiently waits for someone (anyone) to give him attention, no matter how long it takes.