Slashdot Mirror


Bloomberg Report Suggests Comcast & Time Warner Merger Dead

andyring writes: According to Bloomberg News, the Time Warner/Comcast merger of raw evil is dead. Comcast plans as early as tomorrow to withdraw the merger proposal, "after regulators decided that the deal wouldn't help consumers, making approval unlikely" according to the story. If so, that means regulators won't have the chance to kill it themselves.

99 comments

  1. Bah ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

    I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.

    Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Bah ... by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

      I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.

      Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.

      Absolutely correct. The only way you would get those involved to back off completely is if you threatened them with incarceration.

      Not even fines would deter them, since fines are usually so laughingly small they're worth paying basically every time.

    2. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Charter Communications will buy Time Warner now.

    3. Re:Bah ... by bobbied · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, we shall see if the FCC commissioners who leave office after the next administration takes office heads towards one of these players or not. I'm not so sure the next administration will be for this merger or not. Obviously the democratic ruled commission doesn't like this idea, but which party will be in the Whitehouse and what their position on this merger would be is an open question.

      Suffice it to say, this deal is dead for at least two and likely more years.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Bah ... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

      So you don't think that Comcast knows who is responsible for approving the merger?

    5. Re:Bah ... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Fines are also paid for by the company, which is 'other people's money' from the perspective of executives.

    6. Re:Bah ... by Dins · · Score: 1

      I'd be more or less ok with that in that I was a Charter customer and liked them slightly better than Time Warner (who I have now). They still were overpriced with mediocre customer service, but at least their service was faster and than Time Warner and more reliable.

      Of course if they merged, I'm sure it would end up screwing consumers in some way or other...

    7. Re:Bah ... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

      What the fuck kind of commie bullshit country has this become where an honest, hardworking corporation can't bribe his own Congress?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:Bah ... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.

      So you don't think that Comcast knows who is responsible for approving the merger?

      It's not like it's hard to figure out who the FCC commissioners are. There are 5 total, 3 democrats and 2 republicans. Currently the chair is held by Thomas Wheeler, appointed by Obama who's term runs until 2018 who is a past industry lobbyist for the cable industry.

      Unless there is some serious palm greasing between now and then, I doubt that the commissioners will be changing their stance on this and given their very public refusal to approve the merger I doubt that Comcast has enough money to grease enough hands to change enough commission votes as we barrel into a presidential election cycle. It would be too much of a scandal to be worth the political risk.

      No, this deal will have to wait for the commissioners to start turning over after the current administration leaves office, which will mean a whole new set of palms to grease and/or politicians to support in the next election cycle so you can get commissioners appointed who are more favorable to your deal.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its back oin they have just changed things around to suit the regulator - it is now the Comcast , Time Warner merger!

    10. Re:Bah ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Agreed with sibling... Charter is among the least evil telcom corporations out there.

      Now CenturyStink and Comcrap...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the democratic ruled commission doesn't like this idea, but which party will be in the Whitehouse and what their position on this merger would be is an open question.

      Well, someone must want all that money...

    12. Re: Bah ... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      My biggest problem with Charter? They have been bombarding me with mailers for years but when I call they don't offer service at my address. But they do offer service within 1/4 mile in any direction.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    13. Re:Bah ... by Livius · · Score: 1

      The only way you would get those involved to back off completely is if you threatened them with incarceration.

      They laugh at your threats. Nothing less than actual incarceration is going to make them change.

    14. Re:Bah ... by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I was with Charter for about a decade and had good service. I always got more bandwidth than I was paying for and the service was stable. In ten years, I never had an outage.

    15. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be more or less ok with that in that I was a Charter customer and liked them slightly better than Time Warner (who I have now). They still were overpriced with mediocre customer service, but at least their service was faster and than Time Warner and more reliable.

      Of course if they merged, I'm sure it would end up screwing consumers in some way or other...

      They'd combine them for the "best" (for them) qualities... you'd pay more for slower and less reliable service.

    16. Re:Bah ... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      fine them 100 billion bet that will get some attetion.

    17. Re:Bah ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. After discussion, the psychopaths at the top felt that Time Warner Comcast would have too much power and that they would all collude against them to destroy the merger. The US government as just another obedient media channel just gets told what to say, by the owners of the other media channels, does it and then pretends they decided what will happen.

      Yes, they might collude for world domination against us but they want to dominate each other as well and hence do not in any way shape or form trust each other. It is rabid dog, eat rabid dog at the top and the only bitch of that is, they are all continually putting the bite on the rest of us.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently the chair is held by Thomas Wheeler... who is a past industry lobbyist for the cable industry.

      In fairness to the common cynicism in here (including from me)... wow. Despite having an "inside man" they still managed to do what seems like the right thing and block the merger. Big credit to the FCC commissioners.

      Between this and Net Neutrality, they seem to be making some good decisions recently.

  2. Fire by sycodon · · Score: 2

    Kill it with Fire.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time Warner, Comcast, their merger, or all-of-them?

    2. Re:Fire by ckatko · · Score: 1

      >Time Warner, Comcast, their merger, or all-of-them?

      No, you were mistaken. He was quoting the CEO of Comcast referring to Hulu.

    3. Re:Fire by halfEvilTech · · Score: 1

      yes...

    4. Re:Fire by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but Comcast is part of the joint venture that owns Hulu.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be arson. You would probably prefer to be able to claim self-defense.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope both of these companies go bankrupt. It's amazing how bad service and prices get the moment a company is given a monopoly.

    1. Re:Good by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue with the price, is your are paying for the Service and the Infrastructure.
      I much rather have two bills.
      One for the infrastructure, and one for the Service.
      Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.
      We may have had limited options for the infrastructure, but you could choose ISP.

      The problem is that We have both bundled together.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Good by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Oh yea, cause I *totally* miss paying long distance fees to send an email to the east coast.

    3. Re:Good by jythie · · Score: 2

      It used to be that way with DSL too, it was wonderful. Actual choice!

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always FidoNet.

      Anyhow, who pays long distance fees on POTS lines these days? For telcos who still care about POTS, they dropped long distance fees on everything except bare bones service in order to compete with cellular plans.

      Plus, FTTC (Fiber to the City(tm), or Fiber to the County(tm)) is so pervasive that you'd never need to dial long distance to reach an ISP, as they could easily locate a POP within your local billing area.

      I say bring back the 2400 baud modem! I still use mutt for e-mail, and when I complain about HTML e-mail to people I could complain about speed, rather than trying to explain why it's such a PITA to simply read it at all.

    5. Re:Good by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for why your area has only one DSL choice, but in my small town we have eight DSL providers, only one of which is the telco. "Used to be" is "is" for a very large number of people.

    6. Re:Good by dave562 · · Score: 1

      They are probably all selling access to the same set of DSLAMs at the CO.

      The de-regulation of DSL was a mixed bag. On one hand, it produced competition and lowered prices. On the other, there was so much competition that companies were folding left and right. When I was doing SMB consulting in the mid-2000s we had one client who had to change providers four times in three years because they always went with the lowest priced provider and those providers kept folding.

    7. Re:Good by westlake · · Score: 1

      Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.

      The good old days.

      In the outer ring of suburbs where we lived, the only realistic and affordable Internet solution before broadband cable was dialup AOL --- combined with a unlimited regional calling plan.

      Not much has changed in all the years since.

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the separation, as long as things are truly separate. You pay to rent a fiber to the local switching center, and then providers go from there. It can't be like DSL was where the phone company owned the wire, and then when competition became an option, the phone company seemed to partly stop caring about expansion. Of course the phone company probably wouldn't have cared much either way, but the fact that people could choose someone else probably slowed dsl's spread into some areas...

    9. Re:Good by jythie · · Score: 1

      Chances are the only reason that is possible in your area is that the local telco is voluntarily (or due to existing contracts) leasing its lines to other ISPs.

    10. Re:Good by jythie · · Score: 1

      I have not really seen prices go down after deregulation, and I would say it did NOT produce competition in the least, it eliminated it almost completely. Companies folded left and right because they found themselves no longer accessible to their customer base. Overnight all your customers could become Verizon customers by virtue of Verizon making itself the only option to people on its lines.

    11. Re:Good by jythie · · Score: 1

      I think we did not see the real expansion of DLS till we saw bundling of video and data services, so expansion fueled by media companies and their ability to get preferential treatment. Before that, telcos still made good money off leasing their lines, they got paid no matter which ISP the customer went with.

  4. sucks to be time warner cable.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean, not only do they get rejected by their long-time suitors, but they won't even get a deal breakup/termination fee out of it, either.....

  5. Yesssss!!!! by surfdaddy · · Score: 2

    Thank goodness. But a long way to go for real competition.

  6. Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The next time we have FTC and FCC leadership appointed by a Republican they'll just try the merger again, and they could easily succeed. I just don't think allowing the merger would seriously hurt the Republican president who did it. Republican strategists have their voters so anxious and paranoid over emotional topics like terrorism, gay marriage, marijuana, and immigration that who exactly would change their votes over internet service? Who would help the socialists take over and the floodgates open and another 9/11 happen just for ethical billing and some decent customer service?

    No one who believes their lies would ever vote D or I for such a trifling issue.

    1. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like you're dumb enough to think that the Democrats are less corrupt.

    2. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Republians? Surely you jest. Take of the partisan hat and look at the actual data for Hillary Clinton, presumed Dem presidential candidate.

      Her top 10 career donors are mostly investment banks (all the big names are there), but Time Warner and Cablevision make the top 10.

      Will we get a GOP candidate not already in the pockets of investment banks and cable companies? I'm not holding my breath, but it's theoretically possible, unlike the Dem side which is already bought and paid for.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with the possible timing of when they might try again, that much you got right, but I disagree on how this works..

      Comcast is grooming their next pick for who they want nominated for FCC commissioner by supporting political parties and candidates who are supportive of their cause. Republicans appointees would be no different than democratic ones. The question is did you grease the skids with the party who's appointing the next set of commissioners or not and can you get the commission populated with the people who will vote your way.

      Republicans may seem a bit more distracted by other things, but I can assure you that both parties pay attention to their donors and work to achieve the results these donors want in an effort to secure support in the future. It's how politics work in a big, all expansive, in your face government and we should all be scared of the power this represents. Gone are the days when FCC commissioners actually where technically competent in the field of communications, we now get commissioners who are there to vote a specific way. And yes, I have examples of this kind of incompetent decision making by the commissioners...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK...why do people keep doing this? The whole "they're all corrupt, bah! Here's the proof!" argument doesn't mean the two parties are *equally* damaging. Republicans have obstructed progress in congress and abused congressional procedure literally 10 times more than Democrats since Obama was elected. Republicans have gerrymandered their way into 2-4 times as many House seats as Democrats.

      To call Republicans the greatest threat to American political progress is *not* to give Democrats a pass, and I'd appreciate it you insouciant snobs would stop willfully misinterpreting attacks on Republicans as endorsement for Democrats.

      I said not one word to excuse or praise Democrats. Not one. And yet I get responses like this asking me to "take off the partisan hat".

    5. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are suicidal over all this...go for it! What are you waiting for?

      Captcha - despise

      Couldn't have said it better.

    6. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by lgw · · Score: 2

      The opposition party has obstructed the president 10 times as much as his own party has obstructed him? You don't say.

      It's past time to stop caring about the "Democrat" or "Republican" labels! What matters is, on a critter by critter basis, which specific congresscritter is in the pockets of which specific corporations. Stop voting based on party, stop voting based on ridiculous emotional appeals about what sexual practice will be mandatory or forbidden, and pay attention to who owns the specific candidates. It's reasonably public, if we choose to care, and while every congresscritter may be owned by someone, there are plenty of corporate political agendas I don't give a fuck about (e.g., luxury taxes on yachts), and plenty that affect my life directly, and voting on that basis matters.
       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that site conflates all donations from anyone employed by those companies as donations from those companies. Sure, at the bottom in red they say "these dontations weren't contributed by the companies rather the companies pac, individuals, etc." 88%+ of the money donated in Hillary's career (by your own source) came from individuals, and not companies or their PACs. PAC money accounted for 1% of her donations. Just because I work for a company doesn't mean when I write a check to a candidate (which unlike a PAC is strictly limited in quantity) that the company is donating. You are distorting the source of these numbers by pointing to "donors" which is a conflation of people's employment. Although I expect that's the whole purpose of this site -- to distort and conflate individual donations with big corporate PACs. That way the republicans don't look as shifty using Citizens United style PAC money (unlimited) over individual contributors (which are limited to ~$2,000 or ~$5,000? don't recall exactly). Maybe you should link to the Hillary Clinton donations summary page rather than the misleading "donors" page if you want to make your bias a little less obvious.

    8. Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway by lgw · · Score: 1

      You do realize the real contribution from these companies are many millions, right? Except to the Clinton "charity" and a $300k speaker fees for Hillary, instead of on the books? (And it's not like the Clintons are especially corrupt here, compared to the rest, though they're more brazen than most about it.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Help me out by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?

    1. Re:Help me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?

      Because the oligarchy doesn't all get along with each other. It is more complicated than that. Just matter of who owns whom and where in the food chain they are in the process.

    2. Re:Help me out by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are always limits when you're not a pure [insert government type here] in every sense. Sure, the US has oligarchical tendencies that are pretty strong. But it's not an outright oligarchy. The people with money can't just pay people off directly in the US. They have to do it under the table which adds a layer of complexity.

      A secondary consideration would be competition from other interests who are "lobbying" against this merger. The bigger bribe wins. Or at least a competing bribe works to negate the initial bribe. Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.

    3. Re:Help me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They failed to make enough campaign contributions to the correct people, or they made too many contributions to the wrong people. It's hard to tell which.

    4. Re:Help me out by jythie · · Score: 2

      Multiple competing oligarchies.

    5. Re:Help me out by ckatko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a pretty silly logical fallacy. Just because they have undue influence doesn't mean they always win, or can win against the entirety of public opinion. It's far more important all of the things they can accomplish that the public doesn't know, understand, or have the capacity to mount a successful counter-campaign.

    6. Re:Help me out by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.

      Time Warner has 3 times the revenue of Charter. They're not going to be "gobbled up".

    7. Re:Help me out by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking it was a combination of both..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Help me out by Livius · · Score: 1

      Because it's easier to get away with being a de facto monopoly if you technically are not a de jure monopoly.

      It's all theatre.

    9. Re: Help me out by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      It depends on who they are a shill for. The merger is bad for Google, who has lobbied against it. As you know, Google was a big Obama supporter and has meetings at the White House on an almost weekly basis.

    10. Re:Help me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect, revenue is not the proper metric to use. The market cap is at 3-1/2 times, which just happens to correlate roughly with revenue because their products are essentially identical. But revenue is meaningless when comparing who would buy whom.

    11. Re:Help me out by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The point is that Charter is not buying Time Warner.

    12. Re:Help me out by raind · · Score: 1

      Sing it for me \ / :

      --
      Get up!
  8. Remember this when people say D vs R doesnt matter by Optic7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As much as I feel disappointed and disgusted by things that Obama and other Democrats have done over the last several years, I still don't buy the whole line that some people here on Slashdot trot out all the time: that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing.

    You know that this deal would have sailed through and there's no way the FCC would have pushed for Title 2 regulation, if a Republican were in the White House right now.

    So remember, as dumb and crappy as some parties' actions have been lately, who you vote for still matters, even if only in limited ways. Yes, some large scale issues are pretty much a wash between the two, but there are still some issues that you can have an influence in with your vote. Pick the party and candidates who you feel are more likely to be on the same side of the issues you care about, regardless of what the naysayers say.

    Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.

  9. Oh noez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean we are still stuck with TWO pieces of raw evil?

    1. Re:Oh noez! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'd rather have two Satans than Satan^2.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Oh noez! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean we are still stuck with TWO pieces of raw evil?

      More like at least two... It just remains to be seen if either one will be lightly braised and served with fava beans and chianti.

  10. D vs R doesnt matter by edawstwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.

    You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    1. Re:D vs R doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're different at the margins.

      As it is the way with most things. All this political apathy is idiotic. Politics hasn't really changed all that much in over 200 years. People complained bitterly about politicians and politics in 1830 at least as much as we do today, except things like graft and cronyism were way worse. No student of history could legitimately say that there were no substantive differences in parties and policies in any decade that didn't change the course of American history.

      Grow up, people. Vote for gods sake, and stop whining about lack of choice like little pussies. Or crying about how your vote doesn't matter, because "the man" or "the system" or whatever. Yes, there is "a system". Power is stratified. No shit, Sherlock. But that has nothing to do with whether your vote or not.

      Look, it's a collection action problem. You have a responsibility to vote. If everybody was a cry baby like you, then nobody would vote and this country would be ruled by even more extreme ideologies than it is right now. But the more people who stop being pussies and get up off their ass and vote, the more things will get better. They'll be a far cry from perfect, and we'll still complain bitterly about politics and politicians, but an engaged citizenry is absolutely necessary to prevent things from going completely off the rails.

      I think older people vote more because their expectations are different. Plus, they've experienced how turnout matters. They're not constantly staring at their navel, chasing ass, or masturbating. And they have some kind of interest in changing things, instead of talking and dreaming about change.

    2. Re:D vs R doesnt matter by edawstwin · · Score: 1

      I wasn't actually arguing that he was wrong. I was pointing out that he invalidated his own argument.

      --
      I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    3. Re:D vs R doesnt matter by Livius · · Score: 1

      Unless the real world is more complex that two points of view.

    4. Re: D vs R doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't invalidate his arhument: the fact that President Obama appointed regulators which deserve the name, makes the Democratic party differerent enough to matter.

      Opposing the "forces of the market" and favoring market regulation is an instant carreer ending move on the Republican side.

      That's a big difference between the parties that matters.

    5. Re:D vs R doesnt matter by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Sometimes you have to give people a chance to come around to the good ideas if they're not popular or notable at first.

      Think about it this way: if Al Franken had been on the Republican side and had spoken up in the same way, he would have been shouted under the table by his own party members and would have become a pariah, perhaps even losing the very next primary election to a more party-line candidate or a tea party challenger.

  11. And Comcast's ad blitz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...nothing more bizarre and perplexing than Comcast's massive ad blitz for the merger. With their Orwellian promises of more features, better service and more choice. Wow, what massive piles of BS.

    1. Re:And Comcast's ad blitz... by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I didn't know what to make of the Comcast - Time Warner merger, but then I dug deeper. "

      "How so?"

      "You know my crippled mother? She really wanted to watch Game of Thrones, and Comcast remains committed to showing Game of Thrones."

      "I did not know that."

      "Yeah, and you know cute little Sally?"

      "The stripper down at the club?"

      "Yeah. Comcast has committed to showing soft core porn between the hours of 2 and 4 am."

      "I remember that's something she's really been aspiring to do."

      "And if the Comcast merger goes through, she might well get her chance."

      "Hmm. I guess I have a lot to think about."

  12. Oligarchs aren't the Borg by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not all the rich and powerful got there the same way, and they don't all have the same goals. Some extremely large and influential companies lobbied *against* this merger, including (but hardly limited to) Netflix and Google, because their owners thought the merger could lose them money.

    The oligarchs in America work together on plenty of issues, this just isn't one of them.

  13. God: 1 Satan: 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minions of evil may return to hell with all due haste.

  14. Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll believe it when I actually see it.

  15. Congratulations statists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another win for big government over private enterprise!

  16. Hail Dorothy! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hail Dorothy!

    1. Re:Hail Dorothy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first thought I had too "Ding Dong the wicked merger is dead!"

      Chances are though that this is just to let our guard down and they'll merge anyway in 6 months once we've all forgotten about it.

    2. Re:Hail Dorothy! by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Actually, probably not. They'll just find another evil dance partner.

    3. Re:Hail Dorothy! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Naw, it's going to have to be at least 2 years before we can start appointing commissioners to the FCC to overturn this decision..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  17. It was on fire when I got here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (cliching fist in a backward motion) Yes!

    happy to hear that some Good in the world does surface from time to time.

  18. I knew they would. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I didn't think it'd come this quickly. I figured it'd be a couple weeks after DOJ and the FCC moved to block, in hopes they could talk those two into some kind of greater divestiture that'd allow it. They wouldn't have been talked into it, but I'm surprised Comcast didn't try.

    Guess I'd give Comcast's lawyers some credit. They saw the writing on the wall and pulled the plug instead of running up fees for no reason.

  19. HAAAAAhahahahhaha by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    I'm just amused by the notion that anybody anywhere ever thought this would be "good for the consumers".

  20. Plan B, doing it piecemeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TW will buy the valuable bits and pieces of Comcast over the next few years which will end up being the same thing. The detritus that's left will be sold for pennies and the non-insiders will be left holding the bag. If at first you don't succeed bribe, bribe again.

  21. Both stocks up for the day! by EzInKy · · Score: 2

    The market is speaking to you Comcast and TWC! Perhaps it would behoove both of you to listen to what it is saying.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  22. Re:Remember this when people say D vs R doesnt mat by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    As much as I feel disappointed and disgusted by things that Obama and other Democrats have done over the last several years, I still don't buy the whole line that some people here on Slashdot trot out all the time: that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing.

    You know that this deal would have sailed through and there's no way the FCC would have pushed for Title 2 regulation, if a Republican were in the White House right now.

    Actually, I'm surprised so much is happening on Obama's final term. Usually the second term of a president is coasting because he knows he's not getting re-elected, while everyone else is clamoring for his spot in the next election, so no matter what the president does, it doesn't matter because everyone else is using it to campaign for 4 years. Doesn't matter which party - oppose the president if it gets you votes.

    Hence the term lame duck - the president's second term is supposed to be one where they are powerless and really just keeping the White House warm...

  23. Maybe investors are just wising up by swb · · Score: 2

    I'm kind of surprised that this deal had investor support. The larger business model is under attack on many fronts, content delivery by streaming video, Internet by municipal-backed and private fiber vendors who are seeing opportunity -- CenturyLink, one of the few companies who compete with Comcast for poor service, just strung fiber optic cabling on the poles behind my house which is supposed to support gigabit residential Internet speeds. And even NBCUniversal's strength in content creation is under assault by Netflix and Amazon original productions.

    Even if you assume greater profits from increased monopoly abuse by a combined Comcast/TWC, huge mergers face big costs internally and I'd question whether they will have time enough even as a monopoly to recoup those costs and the investment expenses of the merger deal itself.

    Plus, the larger the entity, the less it is able to adapt to the huge changes sweeping the video content and Internet markets. Cable is already a dinosaur, being a bigger dinosaur has never proven helpful.

    1. Re:Maybe investors are just wising up by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Even if you assume greater profits from increased monopoly abuse by a combined Comcast/TWC,

      Comcast Profit Margin (Quarterly):10.86% for Dec. 31, 2014.

      Apple Profit Margin (Quarterly):24.16% for Dec. 31, 2014

      Google Profit Margin (Quarterly):26.28% for Dec. 31, 2014

    2. Re:Maybe investors are just wising up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, look! When people have choice instead of being faced with a monopoly, and the companies providing consumers with those different options have to compete against one another, quarterly profit margins increase. Who knew.

    3. Re:Maybe investors are just wising up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CenturyLink, one of the few companies who compete with Comcast for poor service, just strung fiber optic cabling on the poles behind my house which is supposed to support gigabit residential Internet speeds.

      centurytel just did that here, too.. little shit town of 2-3k, 3 hours from anything remotely significant.. speed compares to or is faster than lower priced cable tiers... as shitty as centurytel's customer service is (and it is right up there with comcast, except at least they don't call their customers bitches and whores).. the product itself (their hsi/dsl) is rock solid, so thankfully, you don't have to call in for support.... as long as you don't use their email server (those suck ass, and since they outsource email, they're just as clueless as you are when you call in), you're set... no wonder the cable company recently lowered our area's "business class" rates to ridiculously low prices (cheaper than residential... but tv isn't included in those cuts, just phone/internet) with no contract needed.

  24. That is not dead... by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2

    That is not dead which can eternal lie,
    And with strange dealings even death may die.

  25. He's dead Jim..... by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    and for humanitarian reasons, I think we should leave him that way.

  26. Dead ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... in a manner of speaking.

    It keeps saying, "Braiiiins! Braiiiins!"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Deal Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too much riding.

    Too many wanting 'under-the-table-cash'.

    Even Congress scoffs at such buffoonery. Ha ha.

    Dead Deal.

  28. That's too bad by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    I would much rather the regulators had their chance to shut this down.

    The message needs to be sent that we're not going to take it anymore!

  29. Amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's up with the government?

    The Faa did a reasonable thing on drones.
    The Fcc did a reasonable thing on the Internet.
    The Doj did a reasonable thing with this merger.

    I'm confused, who are these guys are what happened to the usual cast of characters?

    What they do with the Patriot act will be telling.