Slashdot Mirror


Comcast and TWC Will Negotiate With Officials To Save Their Merger

An anonymous reader writes with news about Comcast and Time Warner Cable's attempt to keep their proposed merger alive. "Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are slated to sit down for the first time on Wednesday with Justice Department officials to discuss potential remedies in hopes of keeping their $45.2 billion merger on track, according to people familiar with the matter. The parties haven't met face-to-face to hash out possible concessions in the more than 14 months since the deal was announced. Staffers at both the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission remain concerned a combined company would wield too much power in the broadband Internet market and give it unfair competitive leverage against TV channel owners and new market entrants that offer video programming online, said people with knowledge of the review."

101 comments

  1. And by negotiate ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we mean "bribery" or "campaign contributions"?

    This just sounds like a company trying to ensure it gets to have its monopoly and eat our cake too.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:And by negotiate ... by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "bribery" or "campaign contributions"?

      There's a difference?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:And by negotiate ... by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

      Depends on the cleanliness of the bathroom stall the cash is slipped under.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re: And by negotiate ... by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you or I do it, it's bribery. If a corporation does it, it's lobbying.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:And by negotiate ... by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Funny

      "bribery" or "campaign contributions"?

      There's a difference?

      Of course there is. All campaign contributions are bribery, but only some bribes are campaign contributions.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    5. Re:And by negotiate ... by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 0

      don't be silly ... straight out bribery of course.. contributions have to be reported

    6. Re:And by negotiate ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That or "agree to concessions that they will only really abide by for a year or two and then will 'forget' about."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:And by negotiate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Thanks to Citizens United "MONEY IS A FORM OF PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH!" So bribe all you want. Fuck democracy, fuck liberty, for sanity, and most of all fuck the people.

    8. Re:And by negotiate ... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      more like the size of the round hole in wall...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:And by negotiate ... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      What they do between now and the proposed merger date should have no bearing on the decision. It should be based on what they've done before the application was submitted, and what they commit to doing long term after the merger is approved. But somehow they'll probably do some superficial things to squeak out an approval.

    10. Re:And by negotiate ... by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Promising DoJ can slip whatever "black box" they want into any data centre / Internet hub owned/operated by TWComcast without question will go a long way.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  2. How about... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they be denied the right to merge until they've satisfied all lack-of-service complaints within their respective monopolistic areas, fixed their customer service so that it's not abusive, and stop charging exorbitant amounts of money to customers for equipment that they've already depreciated for tax purposes?

    Oh, who am I kidding?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:How about... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bah, the entire purpose for the merger is to be able to do this crap on a larger scale.

      They don't give a crap about customers, they care about corporate profits, executive bonuses, and the price of cocaine and hookers.

      They want to give worse service, and charge even more for it. With even more customers they can sit on their infrastructure for even longer without upgrading it, all while claiming to have cutting edge service.

      Why do you hate America?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:How about... by NormAtHome · · Score: 2

      I like that; and address the "Comcast customer service is the worst anywhere" problem; like people who call and say "I keep getting this 900|bla bla error while watching Game of Thrones on XFinity streaming" and customer service says "Streaming service? What's that?".

    3. Re:How about... by TWX · · Score: 1

      You know, I would be willing to take an online test to demonstrate my technical acumen, if the results of that test would guarantee that i could skip tier-1 agents and get right to people that actually know how to handle technical descriptions and advanced problems. After all, by the time I've called tech support I've already power-cycled the equipment, removed NAT devices from the equation, and tried with multiple devices.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re: How about... by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you are going to dream, dream big. Require them to open up to open their networks to competition!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:How about... by tbuddy · · Score: 1

      More likely make more promises to give out the worst possible internet to people who weren't making them any money in the first place and put them on 7th tier of customer service. They don't care about their customers that pay out the nose, they really don't care about the ones who get off on the cheap that they use as a betting chip when getting areas to cooperate with their bad business.

    6. Re:How about... by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      But for every one of us there's 100 or more people who call CS at the drop of a hat 'cause their compooter don't work or their screen won't come on or their Facebook won't come up. :(

    7. Re:How about... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      There are so many times when I wish "Shibboleet" were a real thing.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:How about... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hence the technical exam. If you don't pass it, you don't get to speak with tier-2 CSRs unless a tier-1 CSR escalates the call.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:How about... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      When you have the profits of a major corporation to draw upon you don't actually care about the price of cocaine or hookers. Megayachts sure. But not the roundoff errors. Ex-wives as a result of cocaine and hookers are another matter entirely.

      Now if you are paying $10,000 per hour for prostitute, you are not actually paying for a prostitute, you are paying for a fantasy or status or something else. High end-sex prostitues are simply not expensive if you are make $10 million annually.

    10. Re:How about... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is true. My in-laws told me they would call Comcast when they had a problem like getting Word to come up on their laptop, my jaw dropped. I have no love for Comcast, but I told them comcrap has nothing to do with an issue like that and to stop abusing their service contract. Older people (60+) seem to have the hardest time grasping the the difference between the concept of the Internet and a local hard drive.. no matter how many times you explain it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    11. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lack-of-service complaints

      That would be awesome. I've lived in Seattle all of my life, but I have never been able to get cable TV. I'm a huge college basketball fan so not having ESPN is really annoying. It is also costing me a lot of money since I end-up going to sports bars and spending a lot of money on overpriced appetizers and $6 beers. I live in one of the Comcast monopoly areas, but they do not offer service to the block. The city's laws prevent them from adding equipment, but I'm sure if they were fined for not offering service that they would find a way to beat-down the city. The city doesn't want us to be allowed access to cable, but if Comcast was required by the federal government to offer service to everyone in their monopoly areas, then there's a chance we could get cable here in Seattle.

    12. Re: How about... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      There is. Its called a business account.

    13. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      ...Older people (60+) seem to have the hardest time grasping the the difference between the concept of the Internet and a local hard drive.. no matter how many times you explain it.

      You are over-generalizing. Think of the pioneers of the industry: Don Knuth, Nicklaus Wirth, John McCarthy, Richard Stallman, Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Grace Murray Hopper, and others. They were all doing innovative work after age 60 or (in some cases) are still doing it. If you had told Amazing Grace that she didn't know the difference between a hard drive and the Internet in 1966 (when she turned 60) she would have laughed in your face.

    14. Re:How about... by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      I work in phone support for a different ISP but I'll tell you that for every person that ACTUALLY has powercycled the equipment, bypassed 3rd party devices, etc. there are 5 that skipped some of the most basic steps and just lie. Whenever someone calls in and lists their references at the start of the call ("I work with all this for a living, I'm an admin for 500 computers and the network that connects them all, blah blah) the calls are more difficult than the people that call in that know nothing and will just do what I ask them to do. After an hour of fighting with a person and them claiming that they've checked the cables 10 different times, they'll finally ACTUALLY take a look at it and see that when they painted the room they forgot to plug the cord back in.

      There's no way for me to know if you're the first type of person or the second type, so I HAVE to get you to redo some steps sometimes. If it didn't happen on the phone with me, then I'm going to assume that it didn't happen, even if I believe you.

      As for asking to reboot the computer when the modem sync light is showing disconnected, that's silly and anyone following any kind of tech support tree would be starting with the modem itself. Always start outside and work your way in.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    15. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what happens if internet is down and you hit F1 in word?

    16. Re:How about... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You're on the right track, but think about what this merger actually lets them do.

      First off, they get to give half the management the golden handshake. Seems like a good deal for those leaving, and cuts management costs as well in the long run.

      Secondly, this is two cable providers that don't have coverage overlap... so the actual service to customers isn't really an issue one way or the other -- and will likely stay exactly the same or devolve to the lowest common denominator.

      What they want is to become the Wal Mart of Cable TV: if they own that much of the market, they start to get to dictate how the market works, demanding certain rates and concessions from the content providers "to pass the value along to you". This means that the investors will make more profits, the customers will get exactly the same (or slightly worse) service, and the content providers are the ones that lose out. Which is probably why the likes of HBO have now diversified into pure Internet Streaming -- because they don't want to get trapped in a "my way or the highway" situation with TWComcast. If TWC/Comcast attempted something like this right now, they'd get hit with Anti Trust suits like the book publishers did -- they'd be doing pretty much the same thing, and for the same reason. So instead, they've requested the right to become one big company, so that there's no longer any collusion: just one policy across the company.

      I'm surprised the content creators aren't being more vocal than they are about this proposed merger, as they're the ones who lose the most -- subscribers only lose in a minor way comparatively (although they'll also lose out by lack of program variety as all the smaller shops close when they can't land the multi-year contracts with TWComcast).

    17. Re:How about... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I don't have experience with Comcast TS personally (which I consider a blessing), but I've always found I can escalate myself to T3 pretty quickly, by addressing my problem at their level.

      When T1 starts their script, I state my problem. There's usually a pause, and they ask the next thing on their script, at which point, I politely state "It appears your script isn't designed to handle my issue. Would you please connect me to your manager?"

      They're more than happy to do so, as keeping me on the line guarantees that they'll have fewer calls handled, which means a worse score at the end of the day, and I've already informed them they'll eventually have to escalate anyway.

      I then run through the same routine with their manager, stating the same details, and adding in why the T1 couldn't handle my call with their script. I then ask some technical questions about the hardware they're using on their end, at which point they realize I probably know more about the domain than they do, and keeping this call or dropping it back to T1 is just going to look bad on their report. So they ask me if someone from T3/engineering can call me back, to which I say that would be fine, I expect the call within 20 minutes.

      Depending on the political situation that manager finds themselves in, this either results in me getting a call back within 20 minutes from someone who can actually do something, or, 20 minutes later, I call the sales number and ask to speak to someone in customer retention.

      I then go through the entire situation again with them, and most of it flies way over their head. They offer me a better deal on X for the next 6 months and apologize profusely, and I turn them down, explaining that unless this problem is fixed, I'm without service anyway, and have no reason to keep paying them when they aren't providing the agreed service.

      I then ask them if they could get someone who can fix the problem on the line, preferably someone from engineering. Within 3 minutes, I always have.

      Yeah, a one-time test might be easier and faster, but they'd abuse it. This way, you get to play the politics against them. Figure out what each person's lever is, push it, and you'll get to the right person fairly quickly.

      One thing with this: make sure you record the name of each person you deal with, and the time you dealt with them. Sometimes, asking for a direct line you can call them back on works too (at each level). That way, if you get "accidentally" dropped into the voice system merry-go-round, you can skip the first steps next time and call in where you left off.

      Amassing a list of names, times and numbers will always help with leverage on future calls as well :)

    18. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you had told Amazing Grace that she didn't know the difference between a hard drive and the Internet in 1966 (when she turned 60) she would have laughed in your face.

      Because it didn't exist?

    19. Re:How about... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Who cares? :) That's not one of the problems they had. Suffice to say the issues they had were clearly local.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    20. Re:How about... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As somebody who does know something about networking and routers...I go along with all reasonable requests from support. They might just possibly come up with something I missed, and it's a lot more pleasant and productive to spend fifteen seconds power cycling the silly thing than to spend minutes arguing about it. I like to deal with people who are being pleasant, and a little courtesy and cooperation seems to make them reasonably happy about being on the call. (Do NOT start being unpleasant with me without reason. You will not enjoy it.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that simply because computers were not part of their life until recently. There are, as usual, exceptions in the form of people who actually worked in the field and so had access to computers (and a reason to access them) much longer.

      It'snot that younger people are somehow smarter or better, it's just that they have had longer (in general) to learn about computers.

      The experience thing goes both ways. I found it amusing in a "Kids React" video where they were looking at an old desk phone and were thoroughly confused about things like rotary dialing. The best comment though was that it was too bulky to fit in your backpack, clearly not understanding that it was expected to remain on the desk. Again, not a matter of intelligence or other virtue, just a matter of life experience.

    22. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt you will have a few id10t's calling rattling off (fake) credentials or actually meaning they managed people who did those things.

      But honestly, is it so much to ask that the card flipper automatically ping the customer's router and others on their street before haranguing them to reboot their modem, router, PC, car, cell phone, and cat before even considering the possibility that they might know what they're doing?

      Quite honestly, with some very basic training and proper tools, there's no reason any of my connection down calls should take more than 30 seconds to result in a truck roll even if they don't believe a word I say. For that matter, with proper monitoring, the truck should be rolling by the time I call.

      To top it off, in addition to better customer satisfaction, they would save money by keeping the calls short and especially by avoiding rolling a contractor truck that has no ability to fix the actual problem on the line.

    23. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      It isn't just people who worked in the field. Personal computers began to be popular in the late 1970s. Anyone over the age of 24 who bought an Apple II or Commodore 64 when they first came out would be 60 or over by now. Such people have had a long time to learn about computers.

    24. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they were slow, expensive, and didn't do anything that the average Joe needed to do, so most people in that era didn't buy one. $1300 was a giant pile of money in '77.

      The C64 wasn't until '82. It really brought the price down but still wasn't cheap at nearly $600. Most of the adults who bought one did it for their kids. They became a lot more affordable a couple years later.

      But even then, most adults had little reason to have a computer at home and most who used one at work did so by rote. They didn't need to know how the things worked in order to do their job, so they didn't.

      The mid to late '90s was when computers in the home became the rule rather than the exception. A 30 something then is a 50 something today.

    25. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      They were slow and expensive by today's standards, but I don't agree that they didn't do anything the average Joe needed to do. I bought an Apple II for word processing and spreadsheets, Visicalc being the "killer app" for the Apple II. Those are still two of the major uses of personal computers today.

      I also don't agree that most adults who used a computer at work did so by rote. That may be true today, but it wasn't true in the 1970s and 1980s. You had to know what you were doing to get any useful work out of those beasts.

    26. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?

      I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.

    27. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      I needed it to balance my checkbook. Keeping track of my expenses on paper was tedious and error-prone, and I knew computers could do better. That wasn't my only application; as I said, I also used it for word processing.

      In the 1970s I didn't know anyone other than myself who had a computer at home. If I had been living in a city, or in Silicon Valley, I probably would have, but in suburban New Hampshire I was unusual. The people I supported in the early 1970s used computers at work. The application programmers coded in Fortran, assembler and COBOL using either punch cards or KSR-33 teletypes. You can't do that by rote. In the late 1970s I worked for DEC, and there we used VT52s, VT100s and their successors connected to various DEC computers to code in Bliss or assembler. The environment was very different, but none of the engineers operated by rote.

      What was your situation like?

    28. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.

      I was still in Elementary school in the '70s. I knew exactly one family that had a computer and it was a TRS-80. Mostly because the dad was an electronics engineer. My dad used a computer at work (civil engineer) but really didn't know how it worked beyond the programs he used. He also had a scientific calculator in the early '70s. A true rarity at a time when even a 4-banger cost $50 (and that was real money then).

      At that time, balancing the check book was generally done un-aided with pencil and paper math. At most, a simple calculator might be involved. Why would anyone in that time feel that they NEEDed a computer to balance the check book? Especially given how much it cost. My friend's dad didn't evenm use their TRS-80 to balance the checkbook, it was too cumbersome for that.

      My next-door neighbor was a programmer on a mainframe (COBOL IIRC) but didn't have a computer at home. I imagine he is now one of those 60+ who does have a clue about computers.

      My contact with computers beyond the TRS-80 was dialing into the school system's mainframe with a Honeywell terminal as part of a summer program for gifted students. Very occasionally, we used punch cards.

      By the '80s when I was in high school, we started getting C64s when the price came down but our parents weren't even vaguely interested in them and had no idea how they worked. I would guess perhaps 10% of the students used and understood computers. Another 20-30% saw them as advanced game consoles.

      By the late '80s I had an XT clone with the v20 upgrade. I was building and repairing PCs. The customers were definitly using them by rote and had no idea how they actually worked.

    29. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.

      Perhaps I saw a different type of "muggles" than you did. While most of the people I supported in the 1970s were in the computer department, some were not. They were generally the "best and the brightest" among the engineers, who used computers to do their jobs as they used every other resource they had access to. They might simulate a piece of hardware, for example, or compute the radiation pattern of an antenna.

      Where I worked there were no mechanics, doctors or nurses, and the lawyers stayed in their offices on the top floor. We had secretaries but they didn't use computers.

    30. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I can see that, but that group was a small minority of people who are now 60+ years old. It's enough that one shouldn't assume a 60+ year old is a computer novice, but not enough to invalidate the claim that most 60+ year olds are less knowledgeable of computers.

    31. Re:How about... by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      Aha, we are now in agreement. My original objections were to your statement that

      Older people (60+) seem to have the hardest time grasping the the difference between the concept of the Internet and a local hard drive..

      followed by

      In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that...

      .

      I don't have any authority to back this up, but I suspect most pepole of all ages, even today, have trouble understanding the workings of computers, just as they do electricity or FAX machines. To most people, I suspect, these are simply magic.

    32. Re:How about... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wasn't my statement, but I did defend it as not too far from true.

      Because many over 60 have very little experience with computers, you have more knowledge to backfill in order to teach them about computers (starting with de-mystifying the magic box). Again, not a question of intelligence or educability, just a matter of experience.

      That will be true for many (more often than not), but clearly is far from universally true.

      I suspect, these are simply magic.

      I have little doubt most of those things are magic to most people, but through using them for decades, they have learned to deal with them from a black box perspective. The 60 somethings who have recently found a good enough reason to bother with a computer will get there too.

  3. Negotiate = Bribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Le Sigh

  4. Problem with Comcast by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

    As a Comcast customer, I really think they have a problem with their service. You can only get their highest internet speeds if you also subscribe to one of their other services (phone or cable tv). I really don't want those services. I just want a high speed internet connection. The other provider is Century Link which I had before and wasn't that impressed with their service.

    1. Re:Problem with Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two years ago they cut off my service for being behind on my bill, Friday before the Super Bowl.

      I walked into their office on Monday with a check and my converter box. It's great not having to pay $90/month for a service I rarely watched.

      But, their CEO is still making out well without my business, about 500 times what an average person makes.

    2. Re:Problem with Comcast by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you shouldn't be behind on your bill?

  5. Grease it up baby. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything can be approved if you throw enough money at it. Comcast didn't get to be the monopoly it is without throwing money around to the right people.

  6. This merger will allow choice and growth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For DOJ and FCC members to choose to become lobbyists for CableClown and watch their bank accounts grow! Just say yes to the merger!

  7. No worry, they have plenty of campaign donations by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Here you go politicians, these brib....ahem...."campaign donations" should alleviate any of your concerns.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  8. Nevermind, we'll do it anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good grief. It's about time one or two big corporations are taken apart, to serve as an example.

    It seems that to them nothing counts. What's that "law thing" or this "democracy thing" being talked about? How much does it cost to acquire it"?

  9. Since they get to meet w/ the DoJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does that mean that concerned citizens will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Department of Justice and express their concerns against this merger?

    Seems only fair...

    1. Re:Since they get to meet w/ the DoJ by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is usually a public comment period. That's as close as you're going to get. It's pretty good, though.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  10. IIRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Century link is just a comcast reseller anyway.

    Its the same service you'd buy at comcast, but with an extra $10 tacked on.

    1. Re:IIRC by SCPRedMage · · Score: 2

      Uhh... no. No they're not. Century Link uses DSL and/or fiber optic. They most certainly do NOT resale any form of "cable" (aka cable TV) service.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
  11. I'll let them merge... IF... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... They immediately break up again after the merger. They can swap bodily fluids or whatever gross thing conglomerates do when no one is watching. I won't peak or take pictures or put it up on the internet as revenge porn. But when they've got their hormones under control again, I want them separated off because we can't have just one fucking cable company in the US. It is already basically two for the whole country. That's pathetic. We should have a dozen at least. And they want to move it from two to one?

    As I said... they can fool around for awhile if they want. We'll get them a room and everything. But we can't have just one cable company.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I might be willing to say "let them merge" if their merger also meant a split by services rendered.

      Company #1 handles ISP service.
      Company #2 handles TV service.
      Company #3 handles content ownership. (e.g. NBC.)

      I'm not sure where phone and other services fall in that structure, but those three are the important ones. With a breakup like this, you won't have Comcast ISP's monopoly being used to advance Comcast TV's profits.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The only thing I care about is the wire itself. I care nothing for the tv service or the licenses. That's all dying anyway. The cable is all that is relevant. And what I want more than anything is for there to be a competitive environment for last mile ISP service. And for that, we need as much competition in the last mile as possible. I want more cable run... not less.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by swb · · Score: 2

      Love the idea, it will never happen.

      The ISP service is mostly a race to the bottom without the ability to manipulate the market via monopoly power, including blocking competition at the local level, extorting content providers you don't own to pay you for service delivery (a second time, really, since you already billed your customer for delivery of bits).

      TV service via cable is a dead business. Streaming is killing it and if Comcast, et al, wasn't choking high speed Internet and restricting content providers from streaming their own content it would be dying even faster. HBO is already escaping this market.

      Content is where the money is, but even there you have to wonder. It doesn't take a whole lot of realignment at the content creation level to leave NBC-Universal in a bidding war with Netflix for new shows. If Netflix or Amazon can come to the production house with the same sized check as a network, why should the show go on a network?

    4. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Without the TV service, the ISP service might actually improve speeds and remove caps (which are really designed to make streaming videos expensive).

      Without the ISP service, the TV service might go IP-TV to widen their customer base.

      In fact, if the latter happened, you could cleanly separate the TV portion of the company from the ISP portion.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I'd break each one of those companies up 2-4 times as well. Merge Comcast/TWC then break them up into 6-12 separate companies.

    6. Re:I'll let them merge... IF... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Ugh, no... I get your point, but we don't want horizontal monopolies any more than we want vertical monopolies. Let's just say that perhaps they should be split BOTH ways.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  12. As an executive, maybe i can elaborate. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    To the good-willed officials who find themselves obstructing our annealing:
    By now you no doubt know the awakening, or as you put it the 'merger,' is taking place and there is very little you can do to stop this. Having awakened Cablor, our dead god of a thousand bits per second, with your senseless supplication of the common carrier ritual, we have finally unlocked the 6th chevron of the rune of bundling. When as you no doubt observed the moon eclipsed the sun for its final time, and all stars fell from the heavens in a plague of fire, we were absolute in our resolution to ensure "competitiveness" and "fairness" in our merger as is conforming to the will of the dark demon Abyzou. The flesh, as is noted in subsection 35 chapter 15 of page 666, will be peeled from the bone of so much sorrow and into the pile of meat will the hellmouth feast. However, you've failed to understand that we are acting in good faith, and will continue to offer Comcastic experience, and excellent service. It is our sincerest hope you understand our unstoppable union into a single beast, the beast of Motaja Amoi, will help customers to experience 1080p entertainment and phone service like never before, as well as witness the crown upon bone, and skeleton of dead lords upon throne. In conclusion, we hope you reconsider your futile, child-like attempt to control that which you can never understand.

    Of darkness and desapair,
    Belphegor,
    seductive demon of greed and ruin
    Senior Financial Analyst

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  13. HBO Go Amazon Fire TV and Roku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast has failed to support HBO Go (and many other channels' streaming content) on Roku for years and now Amazon Fire TV. There is a Facebook page dedicated to getting Comcast to enable authentication for a service that Roku owners are paying for:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages...

    If I had a choice, I drop Comcast in a heartbeat. Do not let these ass hats increase their monopoly and deny more people options that don't coincide with their goals.

  14. Got Fiber? by Ryyuajnin · · Score: 1

    I'm a current TWC customer, and my neighborhood/fiberhood just met the signup requirement for Google Fiber. As I wait for the construction to be completed, I'm really thinking about the future of the internet. How can companies TWC and Comcast continue to thrive? Everyone on my block is openly negative about their service. Fiber-hoods keep rolling out synchronous gigabit Internet. Construction crews are getting much faster at installing fiber conduit with these strange pneumatic hole burrowing machines, which is no doubt contributing to other ISP's are following suit with an increasing nomber of workers that know the tools of the trade well. My Dad is getting fiber at his backwoods cabin in the Lake of the Ozarks!! How long before these jokers stop fooling themselves? When I roll into the TWC office to return their gear and pay my final bill, I'll be pulling a wagon full of pennies, and justice will be served!

    1. Re:Got Fiber? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They'll be happy to fleece the rest of the 99% of us that don't have fiber. And if the heat gets to be too much, they'll just charge those in single provider areas more and roll out fiber to compete where Google forces their hand, letting everywhere else languish, all the while pointing out that rolling out Gfiber is causing their rates to go up, up, up, and there's nothing they can do about it because the FCC keeps upping their costs through redefining broadband.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Got Fiber? by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 2

      How can companies TWC and Comcast continue to thrive?

      You gave me a idea. TWC and Comcast could make an effort to provide reliable Internet connection speeds and cable TV service at reasonable prices, honor their contractual and regulatory obligations, and improve customer support. It's just crazy enough to work!

    3. Re:Got Fiber? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing that the fact that Google Fiber exists may strengthen their case to go through with the merger. They may argue that Google demonstrates that it is possible for competitors to pop up.

      Hopefully if they try such an argument, the Justice Department would be wise enough to realize that the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service. Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.

    4. Re:Got Fiber? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ... the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service.

      Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service. There is a municipal monopoly for wired telephone service, but not for Internet OR cable TV. At least there are no municipal-enforced cable monopolies anyone has been able to cite. Every one that someone has tried claiming is a government monopoly wasn't when you actually look at the franchise ordinances.

      Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.

      This site says there are 25 providers, although it appears that they are listing different modes of delivery as different providers (U-Verse as both DSL and fiber, e.g.), so the number of different companies is less.

    5. Re:Got Fiber? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service.

      Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.

      This site says there are 25 providers

      So? Your point is?

    6. Re:Got Fiber? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      The FCC did not up anybody's cost. Nice trolling.

    7. Re:Got Fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring ISPs to spend more money doesn't increase costs? The dial-up ISP I work for in Seattle is looking into selling out because of the onerous new requirements from the FCC's lastest power grab. We simply don't have enough profit to cover the cost of the additional data retention and legal fees that the President has ordered the FCC to demand. So-called net neutrality, which is really about closing Comcast's competition, is going to destroy a lot of small ISPs.

    8. Re:Got Fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC did not up anybody's cost. Nice trolling.

      So says the troll. So how does steeply increasing the cost of providing service not up "anybody's cost?" Who do you think will pay for the increase in costs? They will be passed on to customers which will increase prices. I know our plan is to triple our Amazon S3 costs this year because of Obama's new rules requiring us to keep a ridiculous amount of logs for an even more ridiculous amount of time. If his goal was to put all small ISP's out of business, then he is being very successful. The FCC has fucked us, and I will probably lose my job before the end of the year because of Obama's latest increase in our costs.

      Seriously, go to hell you troll liar. People with families are being put out of work because Obama has demanded that costs be increased.

    9. Re:Got Fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FCC keeps upping their costs through redefining broadband.

      This, and the new anti-neutrality (despite what Obama lies and calls them) measures make it even more expensive to own a small ISP. We've spent more on legal fees to try to determine what our responsibilities are than the three founders make together, and we're still not sure to the law's effect wrt data retention, log access for law enforcement, and other reporting. Our lawyers agree all three things are greatly expanded under these new rules, but they disagree on the details. It sucks being at the whim of the FCC that has no direct accountability. If things go like it looks like they will, we won't make it six more months if the new anti-neutrality rules are as bad as our lawyers think they're going to be. While Comcast might be able to swallow the huge costs of these new rules, we can't afford to.

    10. Re:Got Fiber? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.

      What town? Do you have a link to the ordinance that created that monopoly? What is the ISP? How in God's name did they get away with such a vast overstepping of their authority? How did they stop other companies from providing service?

      If what you say is true, that would be the first and only such place I've ever heard of.

      So? Your point is?

      That there is no government-granted or enforced monopoly for ISP service. In that list of 25 providers are a large number of cellular services that exist nationwide. Those ISPs are why I question your story about a monopoly for your ISP.

    11. Re:Got Fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What crazy fantasy are you ranting about? You immediately lose 99% of your credibility when you blame anything directly on Obama. That just implied you are a biased idiot who lives in a delusional world where Obama actually has that power. But I'm still curious, what are the "new rules requiring us to keep a ridiculous amount of logs for an even more ridiculous amount of time" that the evil, all powerful Obama has forced upon you? Also, why is an ISP using Amazon S3? Shouldn't you have your own infrastructure since you're an ISP?

  15. Teddy Rooseveldt and trust busting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh how we need you now Teddy...

  16. Comcast must be concerned by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    The prospects for the merger going through must look quite bleak in order for Comcast to get on its knees in front of the regulators and lay out its plans for campaign contributions to change the lay of the regulatory land in the future.....

    1. Re:Comcast must be concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prospects for the merger going through must look quite bleak

      Comcast and TWC always expected to negotiate with DoJ and the FCC when the government agencies had completed their initial review(s). And DoJ has a long history of considering litigation, and obtaining some (minor) concessions, in order to demonstrate that they are standing up for the people. It is all part of the game. I would expect that Comcast already has their list of potential concessions ready, none of which will imperil the long term profit outlook to the purchase (I mean merger, for tax purposes).

  17. How is this even an option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Justice Department should be breaking up Comcast as it exists today, not contemplating approval of an even bigger Comcast.

    1. Re:How is this even an option? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I second this.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  18. No mutually acceptable options by danaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would say it's unlikely to the point of ridiculousness that Comcast would ever accept the kinds of restrictions on the merger that would prevent things from getting worse than they are already, let alone start to reverse the merciless devastation of the public interest and regulatory capture that's already happened.

    I think the most likely outcomes of this are the DoJ allowing the merger with some relatively superficial conditions (like the 5-year enforcement of net neutrality regulations that was imposed for the merger with NBC/Universal) or blocking it entirely. Much depends on how much the DoJ people in question actually value their role as regulators, versus their role as toll (aka bribe) collectors.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  19. TWC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought TWC stood for The Weather Channel. Please stop using acronyms in the headlines. Thank you.

    1. Re:TWC by Holi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your inability to understand context must make life very difficult.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. Comcast TWC to negotiate with officials by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 1

    it should be nothing less than individual channel a la carte ... and there should be competition on broadband so other network providers can connect to the last mile and provide services .. whether its google, verizon, level3 or someone else they should be able to rent the last mile and provide network access to home owners just like you can get electricity from solar companies on the other side of the country... .... This will never happen though because Comcast will unleash Al Sharpton against anyone trying to regulate them and 25000 crazy protesters will be out in front of every FCC Official's home... thats what Sharpton was hired to do.

  21. Come to Minneapolis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USI fiber is smoking all y'alls: $65 for Gbps, symmetrical. No caps, no strikes (so far..), no throttling. It's more a problem of disk space. But then, Amazon Cloud is now supposedly unlimited. We'll see.

  22. More Blowjobs? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Let's see if they have any more backbone than the FTC.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  23. Split the Fckers! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'm sick and tired of forced bundling from telecoms in general. I can't just buy what I want and only what I want; I have to buy crap I don't want and don't use to get it, and there is not enough competition to find one that doesn't ALSO force bundling.

    They should be split up, not merged, dammit! Merging just makes them more bundly.

    And don't even get me started about reliability and stealth billing "fees". ARRRRGGG.

       

    1. Re:Split the Fckers! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They should be split up, not merged, dammit!

      I personally volunteer to do the splitting up!

      . . . with a chainsaw. I think it would be best to start at the top. With their executives. The normal foot folks can stay as they are.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Split the Fckers! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Better yet, and less violent, lock the execs in a cell with spotty Internet and a bunch of channels they don't want. Let them watch the World Series, but have the picture and sound go all pixelly and choppy in the 9th inning in a close game.

    3. Re:Split the Fckers! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      --
      Time to offend someone
  24. Divest content from pipes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I still wouldn't be happy about it, but if Comcast/TWC divested their content business (comcast sportsnet for example) from their physical networks I could see it as being tolerable, with the content required to licensed at fair market rates to all purchasers and available for streaming.

    Also make mandatory customer support improvement metrics. It's 2015, there's no reason you have to wait for more than 2 hours for a cable install.

    1. Re: Divest content from pipes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please be home between the hours of 9-5 tomorrow through Friday. A technician will stop by then.

    2. Re:Divest content from pipes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > available for streaming.

      How does that help most people? I have a 160 kbps DSL connection, so streaming simply doesn't work. Most of my friends here in Seattle are still on dial-up so they can't stream either. Streaming doesn't do us any good. We need download. I'd pay for Game of Thones, but HBO only makes it available to people that have cable TV or very fast Internet access. Here in Seattle, we basically don't have access to steaming. That is why I steal with BitTorrent. I feel bad about it, but HBO gives us no other options. I'm almost finished downloading the episode from Sunday before last.

  25. Believe Comcast and TWC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any public official who believes anything these two companies say, is a fool and should be removed from office PDQ! Neither has said a true thing in years, or possibly decades...

  26. Comcast is the only system that is dropping HD cha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast is the only system that is dropping HD channels at a time when others are adding them.

  27. translation... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really rich guys are getting upset that their plan to become even more rich is being held up.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  28. Proper regulars' response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let's see... how do we put this... NO."

  29. solution: both get out of the cable business by swschrad · · Score: 1

    by providing free services and dealing with the baboons in cuss-at-tomer "service."

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?