Slashdot Mirror


Comcast-TWC Merger Review On Hold

An anonymous reader writes: When the U.S. Federal Communications Commission began reviewing the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, it imposed a 180-day deadline on the review process. The agency has now pushed that deadline back a few weeks after learning that TWC withheld over 7,000 documents they shouldn't have. TWC originally claimed the documents fall under attorney-client privilege, but that appears not to be the case.

Perhaps more disturbing, the article says another 31,000 documents "went missing" because of a vendor error. (Perhaps even more disturbing is that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the sum total of information TWC dumped on the FCC — apparently over 5 million pages. How they can be expected to properly review that much material is beyond me.)

The FCC is also ready to close the public comment period for the merger, during which over 600,000 comments were filed. Critics are making their final arguments and Comcast is tallying up all the nice things people (and paid public relations agencies) had to say.

18 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Oligopolies usually suck by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.

    1. Re:Oligopolies usually suck by saloomy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.

      Apple bought Next. The next decade and a half was pretty awesome for the computer industry, and no one can deny Apple's (Next's) role in that.

      And in general, these mergers should be allowed. I also think Comcast / TWC should not have to release any territory as a stipulation for approval.

      What should be stipulated is the removal of any "anti-competitive" agreements these companies have with various municipalities restricting competition in the local broadband market. If you want great service, make the providers compete for your business, and empower consumers with choice!

    2. Re:Oligopolies usually suck by alen · · Score: 3, Informative

      most of the cellular carrier mergers
      back in the day you got like 60 minutes a month, used it even if calling on the same carrier, no long distance included, no night/weekend minutes, no roaming unless you paid a lot more money, $.25 cents per text and no choice of text plan and a crappy small network where you drive 50 miles from home and you roam

    3. Re:Oligopolies usually suck by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The apple next acqusition didn't matter much until apple mattered again with the iphone.

      Steve Jobs even admitted the iphone was somewhat of a hail mary play.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Oligopolies usually suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The apple next acqusition didn't matter much until apple mattered again with the iphone.

      The iPod was available years before the iPhone, and was what really started Apple's rise to where it is now. Additionally, the introduction of OS X was around the same time, and drew from NeXT's OS quite heavily.

    5. Re:Oligopolies usually suck by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The American Football League and the National Football League's merger combined the AFL's innovative rule and strategy changes with the marketing, history, and business relationships of the NFL. At the time of the merger, pro football was a mere sideshow in popularity to the college game. (Super Bowl III, the last game played before the merger was announced, was played in the afternoon on New Year's Day in 1969. They couldn't play in prime time because NBC didn't want to put the game on against the college football bowl game that night.)

      Today, the NFL runs the most popular sport in the United States, and everyone involved makes a boatload of money.

  2. The real reason by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Funny

    The politicians who are TWC customers found out that Comcast was giving away VIP support bypass cards but TWC wasn't, so they're retaliating. Temporarily, of course, until TWC promises to give them cards after the merger.

  3. Alternatives by moj0e · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I would like see one of two things happening:

    1. Break up Comcast and make the new pieces share infrastructure (so they would have to compete with each other).
    2. Allow the merger, but with the stipulation that laws would be put in place to spur competition. Such as allowing municipalities to bulid their own network (like Chatanooga).

    While few people actually have a choice, I'm still left wishing I didn't have to choose between AT&T & Comcast.

    1. Re:Alternatives by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      But it doesn't currently work that way. Who is going to pay the billions of dollars it would take to deploy network hardware on the pole like you suggest?

      I am all for competition, but there has to be a sane way to do it.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  4. Any good MBA would do this. by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the things that they teach at MBA school is that long badgering documents can make up for things like facts and logical arguments. If you look at the documentation in MBA paradises such as military procurement it easily runs into millions of pages for even the simplest of military kit. Often these pages are generated from much more compact groupings of facts which then helps to obscure the reality that these projects are usually total BS. For a simple comparison someone who needs to get to the point where they have completed a doctorate in physics might have used portions of textbooks that totalled in the 100,000 page range. So short of records that simply were an endless list of telephone calls or some such that level of documentation is almost certain to be designed to overwhelm not illuminate.

    When a company feels that they must stoop to such measures so as to bamboozle people like this they have made it clear that what they are doing is very very bad, legally, morally, ethically, and not acting in the public interest. This last bit is critical in that we allow them to use public goods such as the airways which are a limited good. I am sure that other companies could be found that would serve the public interest in a cleaner way. Simply put these companies should lose access to these public goods.

  5. if TWC is hiding documents, deny the merger by swschrad · · Score: 2

    seems like a no-brainer. punish weasels.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  6. Of course by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course while they like to point out that their service areas don't overlap so "competition" won't be impacted, they fail to note that because their service areas don't overlap, there has never been any real "competition" to keep prices down.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  7. Re:Google's acquisition of Android Inc. Q.E.D. by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but I think the threshold of proof here is not just one bad company, but two bad companies coming together and creating a better company. I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence for that is scant.

  8. lots of failing companies, small, YouTube by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This particular cable merger would be bad. With that out of the way:

    Tons of mom-and-pop shops with a good product but terrible process get bought by companies like Proctor & Gamble who have far better and more efficient processes. They then produce the same great product with more reliable quality at a much lower cost.

        My own company may well become an example- we make terrible products, and have bad process, leading to very slow customer service, etc. That's because I'm very good at designing innovative new software systems, and very bad at running a business. I can think of a dozen well-run software shops that would make us better by taking us over. Their process, their customer service, billing department, etc and our products would be a huge improvement.

    Aside from small companies who just never developed good processes, there have been many famous brands that have been bankrupt or on the way to bankruptcy before being aquired by a better company with a clearer vision or better execution. Given that these companies were going bankrupt, or already bankrupt, for them to survive at all (as a division of a larger company) is better.

    One big, big name is Youtube, who was burning through other people's money faster than a drunk Kennedy and getting rightfully sued every 5 minutes for copyright infringement. They had a cool idea, and a completely non-sustainable business model that was guaranteed to put them belly-up within 36 months until Google bought them. Google brought to bear their expertise in funding a free service in a way that keeps customers happy (aka the best targeted advertising available) , allowing YouTube to survive and thrive rather than burning away investors' money until investors got sick of it and'the whole thing imploded.

    1. Re:lots of failing companies, small, YouTube by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      there are now that youtube blazed the trail, and really almost all of them except youtube are porn sites

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  9. Re:How do we comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.fcc.gov/comments

    Comcast / Time Warner Proceeding # is 14-57

    To file a comment of up to several paragraphs, click on one of the proceedings listed below. To file a longer comment as an attachment, click on submit a filing and include the docket number of the proceeding both on the form and on the attachment.

    If the proceeding you are looking for is not listed, you can go to ECFS and enter the proceeding number.

    NOTE: The filing you are making is a public filing. Any information that you submit will be available to the general public.

  10. They're just waiting for it to blow over by damn_registrars · · Score: 3

    The cable companies know that people are paying attention to this right now. Soon there will be something more interesting provided by the news networks and the public will have forgotten about this. Then it will quietly pass through as though there was never any opposition to it at all.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. Re:Doh! TERRIFIC products , not terrible by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

    Sorry. You can't take that back. You will be remembered for making terrible products. But perhaps if you try to sell it such that people think in terms of the original meaning of 'terrible'. You make truly frightening products that strike terror into the competition. Doe this help?

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com