Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Pays Overdue Fees, Offers Freebies For TWC Merger Approval

Posted by Soulskill on from the bought-and-paid-for dept.

WheezyJoe writes: In seeking more support for its mega-merger with Time-Warner Cable, Comcast has been going across the country giving local governments a chance to ask for favors in exchange for approving a franchise transfer. In Minneapolis, this turned up an unpaid bill of $40,000 in overdue franchise fees, so Comcast will have to pay the city money it already owed in order to get the franchise transfer. Comcast will also throw in $50,000 worth of free service and equipment.

"Thirty Minneapolis city buildings will get free basic cable for the next seven years as part of a package of concessions (PDF) the city wrung out of Comcast in exchange for blessing its proposed merger with fellow cable giant Time Warner," Minnesota Public Radio reported. The article notes that getting any kind of refund out of a cable company is not easy.

Part of the deal with Minneapolis involves the spinoff of a new cable company called GreatLand Connections that will serve 2.5 million customers in the Midwest and Southeast, including Minnesota. After the deal, Comcast's franchises in those areas would be transferred to GreatLand. Such goodwill concessions may seem impressive as Comcast seeks to foster goodwill, but one wonders how Comcast/Time Warner will behave after the merger.

62 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They should be dissolved, not merged.

    1. Re:Corrupt. by crunchy_one · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Can I throw up now?

    2. Re:Corrupt. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      My personal theory is that a merger would be the best way to dissolve them. Here's why:

      The content industry has been pushing for higher and higher re-transmission rates across the board, and usually they've succeeded because individual MSOs typically don't have enough bargaining power to resist higher rates each time the contracts are up for renewal. At the same time, the content industry has been resistant to non MSO (over the top, internet based) content delivery because they know that they risk disrupting their already very profitable cable model.

      If a massive provider such as Comcast is able to get enough leverage that they can resist or even lower the retransmission payments, then I think that would basically force their hand to look for alternative distribution methods, thus killing the cable model in the process.

      Otherwise think about what happens if we leave things as is: TWC is already well known to be a douchebag cable company, about the same as Comcast is. I'm not sure how approving the merger would change that for the worse.

      The only question is what happens to their internet service vis a vis companies like Netflix. I think a solution to that, which Comcast would buy, is to have them lobby hard for Title II as a condition of merger approval (they have to lobby first and it has to become law first before any merger is approved, and even if such a law is overturned later, they still have to agree to Title II conditions for themselves for the next 30 years.)

    3. Re:Corrupt. by kelarius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except you're missing the fact that Comcast already controls vast swathes of the content creation industry, if they control the markets AND the creators then they don't need to deal with the other creators because fuck them, we'll make our own shit. Of course they will still deal with the other CCs as it's a prestige thing but it gives them far too much power in bargaining with them.

      Add that to being able to bully the MSOs since they're the only game in town other than broadcast (which most customers don't bother with as it's extra work they need to do) and all the merger does is strengthen the behemoth that Comcast is becoming.

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    4. Re:Corrupt. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Get in line.

    5. Re:Corrupt. by antdude · · Score: 1

      If they dissolve, then how will I get my fast Internet connections at decent residential prices?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  2. In other words. by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Thirty Minneapolis city buildings will get free basic cable for the next seven years"

    Which is to say Comcast is helping Minneapolis increase taxes. We all know there's no such thing as "free," so this is simply a hidden tax on cable subscribers, who will now be subsidizing municipal cable.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:In other words. by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      Couple that with this statement:

      After the deal, Comcast's franchises in those areas would be transferred to GreatLand.

      And it looks like Comcast is writing checks they don't even have to cash. They'll provide the "free" cable until the merger goes through, then it becomes the burdon of GreatLand Connections.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    2. Re:In other words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it looks like Comcast is writing checks they don't even have to cash. They'll provide the "free" cable until the merger goes through, then it becomes the burdon of GreatLand Connections.

      And I'm sure GreatLand Communications will be spun off with a competent staff utilizing new and robust hardware, not the crappy group of staff that you've been waiting to cheaply divest along with crappy and aged equipment serving less desirable markets.

    3. Re:In other words. by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      "Thirty Minneapolis city buildings will get free basic cable for the next seven years"

      I wonder why thirty Minneapolis city buildings need basic cable to begin with, let alone for 7 years. Maybe the city employees could, you know, do their jobs instead of watching basic cable?

    4. Re:In other words. by arekin · · Score: 1

      Greatland is 2/3 owned by Comcast, 1/3 owned and managed by Charter. Ultimately it will still come off Comcast's ledgers to some degree.

      --
      Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
    5. Re:In other words. by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Given the length of time I have to wait for services (I'm looking at YOU DMV), I would appreciate some basic cable in the waiting areas.

    6. Re:In other words. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, there are different people who may be paying for it. If Minneapolis would pay Comcast for seven years for certain services, and Comcast, as part of an agreement, provides the services and absorbs the cost, then it's free to Minneapolis and the Minneapolis taxpayers.

      Exactly who pays for it is a matter between Comcast and its victims^Wcustomers. I doubt it will increase cable rates, so Comcast/Greatland is likely to just mark the cost (which is less than what Minneapolis would pay) up as a cost of doing business. Comcast/Greatland stockholders might suffer a bit, but that's not going to bother me.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. local access channel in HD but what about main cha by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    local access channel in HD but what about main channels in HD?

    Comcast is lagging big time next to other systems.

    Comcast is paying off citys and people in GOV to rip us all off.

  4. "Let me ask you.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    ....just how can you be bought? And how cheaply?"

    Also, shouldn't Minneapolis' club being removing the franchise for the unpaid franchise fee? If I don't pay Comcast, they turn off my cable.

    1. Re:"Let me ask you.... by houghi · · Score: 1

      If I don't pay Comcast, they turn off my cable.

      If only.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:"Let me ask you.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Also, shouldn't Minneapolis' club being removing the franchise for the unpaid franchise fee? If I don't pay Comcast, they turn off my cable.

      And if Comcast doesn't pay Minneapolis, Minneapolis turns off everyone's cable, right?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:"Let me ask you.... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      ....just how can you be bought? And how cheaply?"

      Also, shouldn't Minneapolis' club being removing the franchise for the unpaid franchise fee? If I don't pay Comcast, they turn off my cable.

      Yeah, most politicians aren't that enthused by the idea of shutting down television and Internet service for a large % of their constituents.

    4. Re:"Let me ask you.... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      No they teach them a lesson by revoking their franchise agreement and allowing competitors free access to poles in the city.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:"Let me ask you.... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Its not a matter of shutting down television, but revoking their franchise, and allowing competitors access. ... oh wait ... now that all the Cable Companies are merging there are no competitors anymore.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    6. Re:"Let me ask you.... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Revoking their franchise IS shutting down cable. The system belongs to the operator. You can revoke their franchise, but then you have to either build out a new system, from scratch (figure $800 per home passed, or $150M for a city like Minneapolis, and that's just for the outside network), or get another company to come in and put up the money, even though you've just kicked out a cable company (not exactly an enticing proposition).
      I suppose you could try to eminent domain the system, rather than building it out yourself, but that's a couple of years of litigation. Meanwhile (i.e. absolute minimum a year, probably 2-3), your constituents are without cable TV or internet service.

    7. Re:"Let me ask you.... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Oh, and by the way, their competitors are already "allowed" access. Cable companies don't overbuild each other because it's a great way to lose money.

    8. Re:"Let me ask you.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which means that somebody will keep the cables more or less going, probably Comcast/Greatland, while the city either demands payment as part of negotiations or (if the amount is large enough) sues Comcast.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:"Let me ask you.... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Simple answer is you take them to court for not paying but do it now while the merger is in the works.
      I really hope that this merger fails like the TMobile AT&T merger did but since the current president does not need to get reelected I have little hope.
      He is hoping his legacy will be opening Cuba.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:"Let me ask you.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      And if Comcast doesn't pay Minneapolis, Minneapolis turns off everyone's cable, right?

      Wrong? When I hear "remove the franchise", I imagine Minneapolis saying "hey Comcast, guess what, competition is now legal since you didn't pay your bill". What I don't imagine Minneapolis saying is "hey constituents, guess what, your cable is being cut because Comcast did not pay its bill", and it is not clear to me why you do imagine that.

      Yep, that's what I meant.

  5. feeling swindled by dingleberrie · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know, as a cartel-based geographically-monopolistic corporation it may look like I think I can do what I want and ignore these fees. But here I am trying to be a good upstanding corporation. I'll even give you a cut. Make me bigger and I'll promise... It'll all work out.

  6. translations by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    "Basic cable": 1GB monthly cap at some ridiculously low bitrate and/or contended connections (like, one 10MBit fibre into a tower or some shit to a 500:1 contention ratio), pay-for terminal equipment (great, superfast BB but you have to pay to rent the box or you get BC when you take out a phone/tv bundle). Or are we talking about "Basic cable TV" which'll be offered in a similar way: 20 channels bundled when you take a phone/BB deal?

    I've seen this shit before.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:translations by quetwo · · Score: 1

      The franchise is for CATV service (not broadband), so they are talking about 60 channels of basic cable television.

    2. Re:translations by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      what, you expect me to RTFA?? This is Slashdot, not the BBC... :p

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  7. Franchise Fees are evil by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Part of the merger should be the requirement that franchise fees across the country need to be made illegal. They are only used to limit competition in a legal form.

    The franchise agreement in my town states that no other cable company can sell services here. That's wrong.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Franchise Fees are evil by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Especially now that most of the data is transmitted digitally. This was a necessary evil before digital distribution, because an analog signal took up a full bandwidth having too much will cause interference. With the data being distributed digitally a lot of competition can go across the same pipeline without affecting the other. TCP/IP is kinda neat that way.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Franchise Fees are evil by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Multiple competing cable companies would have multiple competing outside plants. The franchise fee was always just a way for the town council to exchange monopoly status for money in the coffers.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Franchise Fees are evil by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Exactly. A franchise fee is simply a legal "doing business kickback"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Franchise Fees are evil by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Part of the merger should be the requirement that franchise fees across the country need to be made illegal. They are only used to limit competition in a legal form.

      The franchise agreement in my town states that no other cable company can sell services here. That's wrong.

      That franchise arrangement is already illegal. The text of the document may say that, but it's unenforceable (unless your town is actually some sort of private development, and even then, it's probably unenforceable).

  8. We promise! by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Let's see, they promised to provide decent service, pay their fees, etc. but never did. So we PROMISE to bless the merger if you provide decent service, pay your fees, etc.

  9. Such a shame by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    To see anybody even considering this only illustrates how easy they fall for every con in the book, and not even new ones. This shell game goes back to ancient times.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Such a shame by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

      To see anybody even considering this only illustrates how easy they fall for every con in the book, and not even new ones. This shell game goes back to ancient times.

      Unless this is just a cover story for a decision that was made on the basis of undisclosed benefits specifically to the people making the decision, in which case it is another game, equally ancient.

      It used to be that a sufficiently blatant appearance of corruption could get a public official into trouble, but SCOTUS put a stop to that. This has led to a predictable increase in the lameness of cover stories for this sort of thing.

  10. Remember that time by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    Hey, you guys remember that time that the US government was so corrupt and greedy that they allowed the two worst companies in America to combine into one mega company and literally destroy the internet as we knew it?
    That was awesome.

  11. When Lobying becomes bribery by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is so obviously bribery it isn't even funny anymore. Obviously nobody will do anything about that. There will be no investigation. There will be nobody actually trying to stop it.

    The merger will go on and I would not be surprised if they did not even pay out their bribery.

    I can imagine that some of the big shots will get a much larger bonus when the merger goes through.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:When Lobying becomes bribery by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      There will be nobody actually trying to stop it.

      Least of all the voters. Everybody's favorite pork bellied congressman will always win reelection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  12. Calculated expense.. by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

    Much like lobbyists and donations - it's obviously a well calculated cost. Spread around the freebies when you want something, because the upside once you get it is a thousand times more profitable! Yay for obvious corruption.

  13. Re:Legal Bribery by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

    I agree. There is a shockingly low number of corporate revenge murders in America. These CEOs and all the motherfuckers like that? They need to be SCARED. We need to up the corporate terrorism game severely.

  14. Let's say what we really mean here by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    Comcast has been going across the country giving local governments a chance to pay bribes in exchange for approving a franchise transfer.

    FTFY

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Let's say what we really mean here by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Meant to say TAKE bribes

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  15. Looks like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny
    One Comcast to rule them all, One Comcast to buy them,

    One Comcast to bring them all and in the baksheesh bind them

    In the Land of 'murica where the infomercials lie."

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  16. No Wonder! by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    One wonders how Comcast/TimeWarner will behave after the merger.

    After being held accountable for, what to them, is tens of dollars in past due franchise fees, and then bribing gov't officials fully & legally right under our noses,

    I would say their incentive to improve is infinitesimal.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re: No Wonder! by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would say that there IS NO NEED to wonder how they will behave. We know already.

  17. No, one doesn't wonder by bulled · · Score: 1

    Such goodwill concessions may seem impressive as Comcast seeks to foster goodwill, but one wonders how Comcast/Time Warner will behave after the merger.

    If you think they will do anything other than go back to being the giant pile of donkey feces that they have always been, you need to share what you are on.

    1. Re:No, one doesn't wonder by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. They're already a monopoly in my area, and act like one. There is no way any good can come of this for the consumer. I've started calling them Con-cast. Their service leaves much to be desired, it's pushy and disingenuous. And, after trying to upgrade my subscription to HD this weekend, I never even received the confirmation email I was supposed to get, so I doubt it's even in their records.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    2. Re:No, one doesn't wonder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      I don't think that anyone wonders how Comcast will behave: they'll behave just as they always behave. Horribly and with apparent malice.

  18. im sure the business strategy was solid. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    general public: you are by far the worst internet service provider on the planet. There are detainees being tortured in guantanamo right now with better internet access than us.
    Comcast: It is comcastic. it bundles its service. it does this whenever its told.
    FCC: seriously guys we have quantifiable data that shows people prefer packet radio and tin cans to you. Also its pretty obvious we're going to pass some common carrier regulation
    Comcast: Is it because we aren't comcastic enough? Here, We'll merge with Time Warner and then you can experience the best service. also bundle it.
    FTC: guise, this is the opposite of a solution. you would literally own half the US internet. No dice.
    Comcast: How about we do you....a favour....Minnesota, just this once because we're buds like that
    Minnesota: What? we--
    Comcast: ssshhhhhhhhh its comcastic.....its comcastic.....
    Minnesota:...right. uh, any chance you could pay the franchise fee you've been ignoring?
    FTC Jesus Comcast....
    Comcast: HE BUNDLES TOO WE ALL BUNDLE WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  19. I'd just like competition by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    If there was any serious competition to comcast in my area I'd switch. But we have nothing. ATT U-Verse at half the speed and the same price, or comcast with 1.8th the support and customer service.

    I'd gladly pay 35% more for 100mbps internet with a 10mbps uplink.

  20. "Concessions"? more like "bribes" by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

    Giving away basic cable, which for buildings already wired has a marginal per-unit cost approximating zero, in exchange for a quid-pro-quo from a political entity sounds like public corruption to me.

  21. Fuck Crapcast and their caps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Each year, the system costs $300 million
    Each year the system can transmit 500 gigabytes/second * 3,600 seconds/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 15.7 billion gigabytes
    $300 million/15.7 billion gigabytes = 1.9 cents per gigabyte.

    The 350GB cap cost them $6.93 in 2011 and it's even cheaper today.

    http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brainstuff/what-does-a-gigabyte-of-internet-service-really-cost-a-look-at-the-worst-case-scenario.htm

    1. Re:Fuck Crapcast and their caps. by raind · · Score: 1

      My internet from them has been down at least 4 times this month. not to mention tv and phone, I seen 2 of there trucks in the neighborhood but resisted talking to the workers about what was up.

      --
      Get up!
  22. One ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    one wonders how Comcast/Time Warner will behave after the merger.

    No, one does not. One actually has a pretty darned good idea.

  23. Within 10 years by dirk · · Score: 1

    I predict that within 10 years GreatLand Connections will be purchased by Comcast/TW.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  24. Re:Basic cable? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    From personal experience, they will have an excuse to budget a tv in every office (to watch for weather and new alerts). The tv will be used primarily to watch People's court and other daytime drivel.

    --
    Cheap storage VM.
  25. How is this not bribery? by nebular · · Score: 2

    I was under the impression that offering money in exchange for political favours was illegal. I mean the usual end run around these issues is support for a re-election campaign; this seems a bit more obviously over the line.

    *sigh* plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    1. Re:How is this not bribery? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that offering money in exchange for political favours was illegal.

      You have a mistaken impression. Offering money in exchange for political favors is standard operating procedure in the US. The laws about bribery only make very specific forms of it illegal, but leave lots of other ways to do the same thing. As long as you rigorously avoid those specific forms, then you can bribe all you want.

    2. Re:How is this not bribery? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Offering money to individual people in exchange for favorable actions is bribery. TFS claimed nothing of the sort. Giving money to the city of Minneapolis in exchange for Minneapolis doing certain things is standard negotiations, and there's nothing improper about it.

      What's wrong with bribery is that it causes an official to do something that's good for him or her but bad for the city or whatever. It's the old difference between agent incentives and principal incentives, pumped up with gifts. A payment to Mayor Hodges (not that she has much power under the city charter) in exchange for her performing an individual service is proper if there's no other entanglements. A payment to the city in exchange for the city doing certain things is proper, assuming the city decision was made properly. A payment to Hodges in exchange for the city doing certain things is bribery.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. Re:Basic cable? by powerlord · · Score: 1

    Really?

    Building Management I work in wired the building for our local Cable Co. They wanted to provide free basic cable. We passed an insisted on free internet instead.

    But then we're a private company, not a government bureaucracy.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.