Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Officially Gives Up On TWC Merger

An anonymous reader writes: Confirming speculation from yesterday, Comcast announced this morning that its attempt to merge with Time Warner Cable has been terminated. The announcement was very brief, but indicated that regulatory pressure was the reason they killed the deal. CEO Brian Roberts said, "Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but we structured this deal so that if the government didn't agree, we could walk away." The Washington Post adds, "The move by regulators to throw up roadblocks shows that the government has grown concerned about massive media conglomerates bigfooting rivals that are finding success by streaming content over the Internet, analysts said. And after years of approving a wave of mergers in the industry — including that of Comcast and NBC Universal in 2011 — federal officials are taking a new tone, they said."

112 comments

  1. Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is truly sad that we will be deprived of Time Warner getting the Customer Service that Comcast is (in)famous for, while at the same time Comcast getting the forward looking understanding of technology that Time Warner, a copyright focused company would have brought to the relationship.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know you're making a joke, but I just thought I should add--I've lived in Comcast, Cox, and Timewarner cable areas. I'm commenting solely on Internet service, but Timewarner has far and away been the best. They're rolling out their ridiculously named "Maxx" service in my area in the next month or two. 25/5 will be upgraded 100/10 or 200/20 (I'm not entirely clear which it is). It's no Google fiber, but it will do until Google rolls out next year... I'm overjoyed the merger is not going through.

    2. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CEO Brian Roberts said:

      but we structured this deal so that if the government didn't agree, we could walk away

      Translation: "We knew it was sketchy as hell, but hey, might as well give it a try! If they see through the BS, no harm done."

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would say it was a match made in hell, but even hell would never stoop THAT low.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by TWX · · Score: 2

      That part kind of got me too, shouldn't all deals subject to regulatory approval be structured where they could walk away? Wouldn't anything else be outright flaunting in the face of regulation?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by pcolaman · · Score: 2

      I don't know about that. I can't intelligently comment on Comcast (as I have the pleasure of saying I've never lived in an area plagued by Comcast) but between Cox and TWC I've always had better internet service through Cox. The speeds are better, the downtimes are extremely rare, and although they claim a data cap, I've gone over it numerous times and have never been penalized for it. I called them on it and they indicated that in reality it's a soft cap and all they do is send a warning email. I suppose if that ever changed I might change my mind, but for now I'd personally recommend Cox.

      Their customer service, on the other hand, leaves a lot to be desired (although I doubt it's as bad as what I've heard of Comcast)

    6. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      It probably depends a lot on the specific area you live in. Cox was fine (no major complaints other than a billing dispute when I moved), but I do like that TWC doesn't even have a soft cap on usage.

    7. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Rastor · · Score: 5, Informative

      That part kind of got me too, shouldn't all deals subject to regulatory approval be structured where they could walk away? Wouldn't anything else be outright flaunting in the face of regulation?

      What they meant here was that unlike AT&T, they didn't screw up and allow a penalty clause in the agreement if the merger didn't go through.

      T-Mobile made out pretty well in that one.

    8. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by ooshna · · Score: 2

      Where I live Cox already offers 150/20 doesn't throttle and has almost perfect uptime.

    9. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by djrobxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      That part kind of got me too, shouldn't all deals subject to regulatory approval be structured where they could walk away? Wouldn't anything else be outright flaunting in the face of regulation?

      I think he meant walk away without significant impact. For example, the AT&T/T-Mobile deal failure had very serious repercussions for AT&T. From Wikipedia:

      "Deutsche Telekom will receive $3 billion in cash as well as access to $1 billion worth of AT&T-held wireless spectrum."

    10. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Schnapple · · Score: 2

      Time Warner, a copyright focused company would have brought to the relationship.

      It's worth pointing out that Time Warner Cable is, confusingly, not owned by Time Warner Inc. It used to be, of course, and for some reason it still has the name (likely some sort of obligation with an expiration date) but since 2009 it's been an independent company.

      It's resulted in some asinine incidents, like how TWC for a while could not use HBO Go even though Time Warner proper owns HBO.

    11. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Andrio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      CEO Brian Roberts said, "Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities..."

      Hey Brian, guess what. You still can! Nobody is stopping you.

      Oh wait, what's that? You don't want to enter a market where there's any competition? I see.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    12. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Holi · · Score: 1

      My one problem with Cox lately is jitter. It makes my evening gaming extremely frustrating more often then not.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    13. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You think Satan wants to wait on hold for tech support? The King of Hell has better things to do than "have you tried turning your router off and back on?" or being at home sometime next week between 8AM and 7PM.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      TWC has had crappy reliability in my experience.

    15. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Cox is Las Vegas is 100/20 with very good uptime. Netflix ranked Cox one of the fastest ISPs. I think the only faster ones were Google, and one or two tiny little ISPs.

    16. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your comment as someone who has 8/4, characterized it well, with often Netflix HD, VoIP, Web Browsing, even downloads going all at the same time with hardly, if ever, perceptible contention. If you have needs for greater than 25/5, I can understand if you have some significantly unique (among average consumer) habits like torrenting, moving containers around, or many people in the household doing these concurrently. But most of us it really is not that big of a deal. Maybe you truly aren't utilizing or getting the full 25/5? Dunno, but please enlighten me as I always wondered what exactly the pressure was for such high bandwidth.

    17. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      I can't even get past the fact that the TWC - AOL merger was labeled the worst in the entire history of the US and then they went for a second indentical title with Comcast. Who the hell is running things at Time Warner?

    18. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I have to agree I have lived in both places where I have had Cox and other places with Comcast, Cox has been the best experience.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by zwede · · Score: 1

      I've lived in Comcast, Cox, and Timewarner cable areas. I'm commenting solely on Internet service, but Timewarner has far and away been the best.

      Same experience here. I've had TWC internet-only for 5 years. No outages, no data cap, no artificial slowdowns on "non-approved sites" (AFAIK). There's a local phone number on the bill. The times I've needed service I called it rather than the 800 number and each time I've talked to an on-shore call center that was able to fix the issue.

      Now Comcast on the other hand... yuck.

    20. Re: Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to state the obvious, but isn't it somewhat annoying that TW waited until competition showed up on their doorstep before upgrading your speeds ?

      Do you think they would have done so had Google not decided to become a player in the area ?

    21. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      ... the forward looking understanding of technology that Time Warner, a copyright focused company would have brought to the relationship.

      So why would a cable company be "copyright-focused"?

    22. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      I can't even get past the fact that the TWC - AOL merger was labeled the worst in the entire history of the US and then they went for a second indentical title with Comcast. Who the hell is running things at Time Warner?

      Different people from the ones who are running things at Time Warner Cable, as Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009. (And Time Warner has nothing to do with Time Magazine; that's now a product of Time Inc.)

    23. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by dysmal · · Score: 1

      Having had to call all of the major ISP's for service, I'd be floored if Satan even made it as far as anyone in support. The phone trees that they use ("please tell me about your problem") are awful enough to make the Dark Lord go do a keg stand with holy water!

    24. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling that the only reason you are getting this upgrade from Time Warner is BECAUSE Google rolls out next year for you. Otherwise, I don't think you would be seeing it.

    25. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They're not. The GP obviously doesn't realize that Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable quite some time ago.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We’re so fucking smart for thinking of the obvious by putting this in the contract. We deserve million dollar raises!"

    27. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "We knew it was sketchy as hell, but hey, might as well give it a try! If they see through the BS, no harm done."

      This is why elections matter. A different president (say, one who made all his $ off of mergers), a different justice department,and this would have gone through.

    28. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      More is always better.

      MURICA!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    29. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Where I live they haven't bothered to make any provision for back up power to the repeaters on their coax plant. Power goes out? Kiss your phone service goodbye, even if you've got the battery in your modem. They finally did upgrade us to DOCSIS 3, about eight months ago, so now our peak hour speeds have gone from atrocious to tolerable FWIW.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I'll let you enjoy that 8/4. I do a lot of video conferencing and online gaming (and downloading of games via Steam), and having had a 10/5 at one point I can tell you that my current 100/25 is leaps and bounds much easier on my sanity.

    31. Re:Comcast and Time Warner, a match made in . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in most cases, they can't. Local government structures (whether that be a county, or an individual municipality) tend to grant cable franchises to individual companies. This is why you end up with having Charter in one city, but the next town over is Cox, and 20 miles away is Comcast, and so on. Cable is and almost always has been a locally granted and upheld monopoly within the service area

  2. Thank Gawd by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

    I was tired of hearing those commercials.

  3. Officially Celebrating by alphatel · · Score: 1

    Netflix, Amazon, Sling
    Possibly Google, Apple, anyone else?

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Officially Celebrating by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

      anyone else?

      Everyone else

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re: Officially Celebrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one else

    3. Re:Officially Celebrating by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Netflix, Amazon, Sling
      Possibly Google, Apple, anyone else?

      All of humanity and the angels in heaven too, I imagine.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Officially Celebrating by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      NBC Universal, Time Warner (not to be confused with TWC, a different company), ABC/Disney, CBS/Viacom, Fox...

      Don't kid yourself as to why the regulators were tough on this one...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Officially Celebrating by SebNukem · · Score: 2

      Celebrating here! With One More Time by Daft Punk from you tube no less! Once it's done buffering that is!

    6. Re:Officially Celebrating by gtall · · Score: 1

      Perspective victims currently with Time-Warner cable.

    7. Re:Officially Celebrating by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      NBC Universal, Time Warner (not to be confused with TWC, a different company), ABC/Disney, CBS/Viacom, Fox...

      Don't kid yourself as to why the regulators were tough on this one...

      no NBC Universal is owned by Comcast

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    8. Re:Officially Celebrating by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Yep, forgot about that. OK, well all the others are celebrating...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Officially Celebrating by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Except of course for the paid shills.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:Officially Celebrating by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      We all should be. There's still a shred of sanity in this country.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  4. Nice to know... by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 1

    It's nice to know that money can't always buy government representatives all the time.

    --
    Some things need to be said...
    1. Re:Nice to know... by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can buy all of the government some of the time, and some of the government all of the time, but . . .

      it takes a lot of money to buy all of the government, all of the time. So that option is only available to oil companies and major defense contractors.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Nice to know... by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. Comcast just wasn't paying enough this time.

    3. Re:Nice to know... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2

      It's nice to know that money can't always buy government representatives all the time.

      Too many people hated Concast for this to work. Had it gone through, well.... I'm fairly certain there would have been a black hole knocked off course or something somewhere :-)

      Honestly they've simply pissed off way to many people. They have a serious PR issue which has lasted for years and they were arrogant enough to believe it wasn't going to prevent this from happening.

      Personally I'm pleased and hope for more (not less) competition in the Industry.

      Yeah I know. That's a tough wish. maybe I'll go find a Buddha belly and rub it for good luck :D

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    4. Re:Nice to know... by alphatel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can buy all of the government some of the time, and some of the government all of the time, but . . . it takes a lot of money to buy all of the government, all of the time. So that option is only available to oil companies and major defense contractors.

      And Google, And Apple, And ...

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    5. Re:Nice to know... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's nice to know that money can't always buy government representatives all the time.

      Just give them a little more time.

      2017 headline: Time-Warner/Comcast merger approved by a last-minute, late night amendment to the Veterans Administration funding bill.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    6. Re:Nice to know... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I doubt very much this had anything to do with Comcast's customer service reputation. The government doesn't give a shit about that stuff. I, perhaps niavely hope, that this decision was actually an intelligent, reasoned one, but really, I wait to hear the details of the machinations that went on behind it all. Someone somewhere made some money from this.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:Nice to know... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The last two major regulatory issues these companies have faced are net neutrality and the merger- and they've lost both. So at least recently, they don't seem to be buying any of the government any of the time.

    8. Re:Nice to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast is the highest spender on capitol hill. Second highest is a major defence contractor.

    9. Re:Nice to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think money buying Government representatives was the major deciding factor on this one as well.

      Remember, this had big money on both sides of the issue, the fact that public opinion and public good was also one one side of it was just bonus and would have forced a public show to make it look legit regardless.

      If it wasn't for the big players fighting on the side of the public (because our best interests aligned, not for our actual benefit as a people though), this probably would have gone through and probably been pretty silent on the news front about it when it did.

    10. Re:Nice to know... by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      And Google, And Apple, And ...

      Neither Apple nor Google have made enough payments yet; the FBI director is still loudly accusing them of supporting terrorists and pedophiles.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  5. perhaps only temporary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once new administration is in place and comcast squirts some more grease (err i mean, cash) around d.c... those 'regulatory pressures' might be a little more 'manageable'.

    but i don't recall any 'mega merger' that was either rejected or called off, being re-done by the same participants later.

  6. The Government Should Continue Investigating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The government should continue investigating as a follow up, to see if Comcast has fully followed through with the promises/requirements of the NBC Universal purchase.

    1. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      May I remind you that NBC made those promises as a condition of acquiring Universal. So Comcast can claim, sort of with a straight face, suppressing involuntary evil laughter, that Comcast shouldn't be held to NBC's promises. Alternately, Comcast can say that NBC made those promises in an earlier financial Quarter, even an earlier fiscal year, and therefore should not be held to them. Or finally, Comcast can say, here's a 'campaign contribution' now go investigate something else like Net Neutrality or finding a way to siphon some of Google's money our way.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by thaylin · · Score: 1

      This, I really think this is actually the reason. Comcast knows they have not lived up to the agreement and does not want the FCC looking too closely.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by BVis · · Score: 5, Funny

      You want a big company to actually do what it promised it will do? Why do you hate America?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    4. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless Comcast acquired NBC/Universal's property, but not the company itself (like a bankruptcy asset purchase) then I don't see them getting out of the NBC obligations. When a company purchases another company outright it keeps those obligations. One of the big banks that absorbed one of the big mortgage lenders still had to deal with billions of dollars in fines from that mortgage lender if I'm remembering correctly, and if the bankers couldn't get out of it, a few media moguls sure as hell aren't going to.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > I don't see them getting out of the NBC obligations

      I didn't expect to see a lot of things earlier in my life.

      But Corruption. And Congress.

      Believe me, anything could happen if the right palms are greased and enough grease is used. Simply not pushing the merger any further may avoid scrutiny into how they already may not be honoring those obligations.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:The Government Should Continue Investigating by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The government should continue investigating as a follow up, to see if Comcast has fully followed through with the promises/requirements of the NBC Universal purchase.

      Well, MSNBC is still on the air despite not making any money, so I'd say the executive branch regulators who they made the promises to are pretty happy with them.

  7. I gave up by socialoracle · · Score: 1

    On both of them long ago.

  8. Good Business or Empire Building? by userw014 · · Score: 2

    This really suggests that the Comcast/TWC merger had more to do with empire building (or expanding an effective monopoly) than good business.

    Too often, mergers and acquisitions are driven by ego and result in an overall conglomerate that is less efficient.

    1. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by swb · · Score: 2

      My sense is that it maybe wasn't good business.

      The sectors represented by Comcast (content, cable, internet) all face a ton of pressure from various competition. Amazon and Netflix are actively creating content and building alliances with production companies. Cable is being decimated by streaming and downloadable content (accelerated by excessive cable pricing and poor customer service). Even Internet is showing signs of competition from municipal broadband and other providers -- CenturyLink, who is just about as awful as Comcast from a customer service perspective, just ran fiber optic cable down the poles behind my residential address. The utility guy I quizzed said it was for residential high speed internet.

      The only way this deal made any sense was as a holding action -- give Comcast a bigger local monopoly slice and hope that they can milk the customer base and Netflix, et al, for enough cash that they can keep the wheel turning. Regulatory pressure, net neutrality, etc may even have limited that strategy, at least on the milk-the-content-providers department.

      Mergers are expensive, from the deal costs to the business integration side and I really question whether at the speed their markets are changing that they can maintain customers and margins long enough to profit from the merger.

      It also makes the business a lot bigger, which makes it slower to adapt and innovate, especially when it represents a sector that has traditionally relied on monopoly power and not innovation. Being a bigger dinosaur didn't help the dinosaurs.

    2. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      This really suggests that the Comcast/TWC merger had more to do with empire building (or expanding an effective monopoly) than good business.

      Too often, mergers and acquisitions are driven by ego and result in an overall conglomerate that is less efficient.

      Mergers are always done as a way to create a bit of chaos and negotiation opportunities so that CEOs and top shareholders can pocket a bit of the wealth they control, but isn't theirs.

    3. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The sectors represented by Comcast (content, cable, internet) all face a ton of pressure from various competition.

      Comcast is often the only effective provider of all of the above in many local areas with local franchises that give them exclusivity to lay their cables and with anti competitive agreements with Verizon which have blocked an expansion of Verizon FiOS into competing areas in exchange for Comcasts agreement to not get into Wireless. In many places if you want to get content, cable and/or Internet Comcast is the way you get it.

      Pricing models mean more expensive Internet if you don't bundle content which gives them an effective slice of the content pie even if you don't buy their content.

      And the FCCs Net Neutrality rules won't effectively force Internet providers to peer with content providers networks at necessary bandwidth speeds to serve the demands of their own customers. Which was the primary means by which Big Cable was extorting content providers and their customers.

      The situation does not represent a healthy free market competition, but rather a number of local monopolies using the monopolies to vertically integrate their companies with more and more exclusive content and services. Blocking this merger merely prevents a bad situation from getting much much worse all of a sudden.

    4. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you described could be said about TWC as well.

    5. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by gtall · · Score: 1

      I rather think it was Comcast wanting to put their valve on the intertubes between content provides and content users. Then they hoped to extract money from both sides as the price for the floor of information through their pipes.

    6. Re:Good Business or Empire Building? by swb · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that blocking was the right choice. What I question was whether Comcast's current monopoly practices in the face of pressure across all business sectors (some more than others) are enough to make this merger make sense as a strategic business decision.

      2-3 years ago where I live, you had a "choice" of high speed Internet -- DSL from CenturyLink, permanently stuck in the sub-2 Mbit/sec range or Comcast at 10+. A local Internet provider has been wiring part of the city for fiber -- it's a pretty small area now, but they just announced an expansion and are even offer 10 gig. CenturyLink has been running fiber in residential neighborhoods over the past month.

      So by the end of the year, it's possible that there will be far better choices than Comcast for high speed Internet. Obviously this isn't enough, only one place, limited availability, etc, but it shows that other providers "get it" and see that Comcast is ripe for the picking.

      I think the pressures on Comcast's cable TV service are even greater from Netflix, Amazon, HBO's new streaming option, selective download services like iTunes, Roku "channels" and so on. You can get most content now without cable.

      I'd be most worried if I was Comcast about the original content. Most of what underpins cable is having content, and it may not be unlikely that in the near future the content people want isn't even available on Comcast or any other cable service at all.

  9. If anyone believes that Comcast is giving up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If anyone believes that Comcast is giving up, I have some swampland in the Sahara for sale too! I believe that Comcast made this announcement as a PR move, and will still be pursuing this merger behind the scenes in secret and we will only find out when they think they can succeed. What really needs to happen is that Comcast needs to be broken up into small municipal ISPs as should all of the ISPs. These municipal ISPs should then be run as not-for-profit public utilities, only able to charge customers actual cost for unlimited (without data caps) broadband service.

  10. Until next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll simply bide their time, grease more palms, then try it once more after the hoohar has died down.

  11. the original release was far less appropriate by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ceo Roberts: take a message! "Today, we move on. The heralding of the 6th star of ocorium and the death of all that grows to chew the cud as the mighty beast arises has been circumvented. The runes of pestilence have not siphoned the blood of the babe, as was foretold in our prophetic lore of bundling. Today, we stand apart, our hellmouths never to entwine and form a new dead god. Comcast and Time warner will never be able to take our great products to new cities into which wrack and desolation shall grind the bones of the damned to dust, and succor a distant memory of a world once living. The government has seen fit to meddle in that which they can never understand, to oppose the will of Baal our dark lord and in so doing unlock the very amulet that is the dawn of their obliteration. We structured this amalgamation, or as you laughably know it as "the deal" in a pact of dark blood, an ichor stronger than christs own bleached bones, in that it may be transmutated and reformed should such blasphemous interference take place. Today, we walk this earth upon damned hooves of..."
    PR Executive: ....o...okay....so im just going to trim this up for tomorrows soundbyte o-on....on CNN, is that alri-
    CEO Roberts: Yes it must be hewn into a frame that fits the skull of a black ram to be delivered upon the masses as per the divination
    PR Executive: uh...im thinking...8x11
    CEO Roberts: Yes. use the eights of eleven to elucidate our will to the sheep. Dorris in accounting has a spare ream i believe.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the original release was far less appropriate by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny is not enough. I bestow the title upon you, "Today's winner of the internet". Bravo!

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    2. Re:the original release was far less appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, this was a fucking hilarious little skit! Bravo!

      Fucking neckbeard.

  12. What the feds are really saying is... by Vermonter · · Score: 1

    "Comcast will have to give us more money before we let them merge with Time Warner"

  13. Greatness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities....

    I'd be happy if Comcast were capable of bringing a "great" product to ANY city.

  14. How much was spent? by dysmal · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how much they spent on lobbying to get this to go through?

    1. Re:How much was spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know how much they spent on lobbying to get this to go through?

      clearly, not enough.

  15. Why not just fix the broken system? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    "...we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities..." I'm not American, but as I understand somehow cities are run by one ISP only or something like that? Wouldn't a better approach for them "to bring our great products to new cities" be to lobby and break this system so that they can enter new cities alongside their competitors? Maybe build some healthy competition? Yeah yeah, I know, that'll never happen... but somebody should at least call them on their crap, since this would be the best way for them to get to do what they want to do.

    1. Re:Why not just fix the broken system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they'd have to lay down new fiber.

    2. Re:Why not just fix the broken system? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Competitors? Ha, ha, ha. It's mostly monopoly here friend.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    3. Re:Why not just fix the broken system? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      I'm not American, but as I understand somehow cities are run by one ISP only or something like that? Wouldn't a better approach for them "to bring our great products to new cities" be to lobby and break this system so that they can enter new cities alongside their competitors?

      Well, keep in mind, the government just threw up dumb roadblocks to something that Comcast wanted to do because Comcast didn't pay the Leftist executive branch regulators a big enough bribe. Comcast's last big entry into politics was Net Neutrality*, where the institutional Left demagogued against Comcast, despite the fact that like the institutional left, Comcast was supporting the so-called Net Neutrality plan. A plan based on "Comcast will lobby the government to do the right thing" is obviously not going to work at the moment.

      *Also, once the government pretended to unveil the "Net Neutrality" rules and word started leaking out that the government's plan wasn't really Net Neutrality, but wholesale regulation of the ISP based on ex post facto rulings (see: Future Conduct Standard) the conventional wisdom on Slashdot switched to "ISPs have to be a monopoly because they're a natural monopoly."

  16. That was an incomplete quote by Minwee · · Score: 2

    "Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but we structured this deal so that if the government didn't agree, we could walk away"

    "...and besides, fuck you."

  17. bring our great products to new cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would actually like to see them do this. Not as monopoly, but as competition.

  18. Ding dong the witch is...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ding dong the witch is temporarily delayed until a more extensive lobbying campaign can be organized!

  19. Great Products? by dprimary · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should focus on having great products first. I have yet to find an ISP that is even close to great.

  20. Rest for the next battle by stox · · Score: 1

    This is far from over. This was just the first skirmish in a war that is going to last for some time. I have the feeling that a number of politicians are going to be surprisingly well funded in the next election.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  21. More than 1 way to skin a cat by s.petry · · Score: 1

    The merger may be off, for now, but that does not mean that there will be no collusion and behaviors of a merged company down the line. Proxies are not something new in terms of abusing monopoly powers.

    Sure, I am glad this deal is off. At the same time, I don't trust these mega companies holding monopolies to do the right thing.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:More than 1 way to skin a cat by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I'm almost sure this will make a return. Right now they saw what was happening and they were going to lose out. All Comcast & TWC are doing is stepping back out of the spot light so they can do some more behind the doors deals and 'gift buying' for more politicians.

  22. Most ironic comment by neminem · · Score: 1

    From Consumerist, where I got this news a couple hours ago: "Comcast wonâ(TM)t want to sit idle; theyâ(TM)ve got $45 billion burning a hole in their pocket and will want to spend it on something."

    Gee, maybe if they would take that 45 billion dollars and invest it in not totally freaking sucking at everything, the public wouldn't hate them so much and want to block their attempts to get any bigger than they already are? Maybe invest in internal infrastructure and better processes so that they don't keep getting egg on their face for yet another boneheaded thing they did every other month?

    That said, it is pretty impressive that the US government is actually doing their job for once, of protecting us against corporations with giant moneybags wanting to come in and screw us over for their profits, instead of just taking the bribe^Hdonation and rolling over like normal. Good job! (Until next time.)

  23. Maybe not "great" but actually just fine IME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strangely enough, I've been on Comcast since my AT&T@Home service got absorbed by them in something like 2002 and I can only think of one issue I've run into; it was activating a CableCard in an uncommon Digital Cable Ready TV (rather than a more typical TiVo or similar). It took them coming out and spending hours fiddling around and calling successively higher internal tech support folks until finally getting that working. That was years ago. Since then I've activated an HTPC CableCard (twice) and two TiVos with no issue. The last one was super-easy and required only going down to the local office to pick up the CableCard itself (waited in line probably 2 minutes total) then one phone call to activate it. The office even suggested how I could save some money by turning in currently-unused equipment even if I might want it again later. They were friendly and suggested I could just pick up similar equipment again in the future when I'll actually be using it. They could have easily just keep their mouths shut and continued charging for it.

    Sure, I've had an outage here and there, but quite rarely, and only for very short periods over the years, and none of my interactions with customer service have been bad. In fact, back when they first rolled out their 105Mbps service I fairly easily convinced them to apply it to an existing bundle and deduct the proportional cost of the standard Internet that was already in the bundle, even though that service option technically wasn't available. The discount has stayed active for years since. They did still charge me the fairly large installation fee for the 105 service, but now I have new RG6 run throughout the house and my signal strength is so high I have to use an attenuator to make the TiVo happy since they expect a more degraded signal and boost it internally when splitting out to the 6 tuners.

    So, while I can appreciate that lots of other people may have had different experiences, I cannot, in good conscience, make any complaints at all about the service I have /personally/ received from Comcast as a long-time customer. I guess it must vary significantly in different areas of the country? And no, there's no major competitor here aside from far-slower DSL, so it's not just good service due to competition..

    Bottom line on this subject, I suspect what may happen in lieu of the merger is that Comcast will simply start to "compete" (i.e. buy out, undercut, revise any needed legal agreements, or otherwise supersede) TWC and friends a few areas at a time until a similar goal is achieved, just more slowly. That MIGHT be an improvement in some cases as it could potentially drive prices down overall (at least for a while), but that remains to be seen. Short of getting actively broken-up, I'm not sure how this could really end significantly differently long-term.

  24. It will be interesting to see ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... how the shareholders react, and whether any C-level heads roll over this apparent institutional overreach.

  25. Oh boo hoo! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    They could have already been bringing their "great" products to new cities without this merger. Though, that would have required *gasp* competing with other companies rather than carving out local monopolies to prevent having to compete with each other.

    1. Re:Oh boo hoo! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      And before someone comes along telling me how it's all the fault of local governments that we have these monopolies, that's simply not true. The reason these local monopolies exist, is that for decades the cable operators required these exclusivity agreements from the local governments as a condition of even serving their municipal area. It was not that the local governments decided to force these monopolies upon the cable companies against their will.

  26. Comcast is being Investigated by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

    Comcast are being investigated. One of the conditions of the NBC Universal / Comcast deal was that HULU would remain independent from Comcast oversight. The WSJ (IIRC) reported that Comcast was directly involved in a meeting between high-level execs when HULU was being considered for sale. Comcast convinced the execs in question not to sell.

  27. Simply quite elated at this by zuki · · Score: 1

    For the sake of 'the rest of us', glad to see that the sheer obscenity of something that was probably conceived as making sense in the minds of merger-happy investors and money managers didn't come to pass.

    Before celebrating too much, let's keep in mind that this may just be a temporary reprieve. They are sure to try again.

  28. Alternatively... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

    Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but it turned out we don't actually have any. This took us by surprise but a quick poll among our executive staff came to the result that nobody actually knows how we make money or why we're still in business. Money comes in, certainly, and from what I could gather some of it is government money so we seem to be providing some kind of service, I guess. And some of it to the government, it seems. But the exact nature of this service remains a mystery.

    Look, I only wanted to merge with Time Warner Cable because the guys over there seem to know what kind of business they're in and I figured it could be a learning experience. Now that that plan has been kiboshed, could anyone tell me what it is that we actually do? I heard some speculation that we do something with the internet but from what I can tell we don't have anything resembling a broadband infrastructure so that can't be it. We do have call centers but when I called one they didn't know anything about the internet, either. Perhaps we're some kind of telemarketing outfit?

    Seriously, if anyone has an idea what our business plan is, please drop me a line at ceo@comca.st.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  29. Odd by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I have Cox and am thankful of it every time I even hear these twin pillars of suck mentioned. Absolutely rock-solid, with tech support people located within my own Podunk rural state.

  30. Thank you God. by rochrist · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  31. Charter looking to merge with Bright House by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    As a central florida resident who has Bright House for cable, whom I've been happy with up until now, now wait to see if Charter continues to court Bright House for a possible merger or even if they think the merger will be approved. Here is one of the stories about that potential merger.

    I personally don't think we need any more cable companies merging.

    1. Re:Charter looking to merge with Bright House by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1
  32. Bring your products to new cities by nytes · · Score: 2

    Dear Comcast:

    I know this is hard to figure out, but I found a map of areas that you could bring your products to.

    Comcast and Time Warner in 1 Map

    You can start by wiring those areas that are blue, then proceed into the areas that are white.

    No need to thank me.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    1. Re:Bring your products to new cities by neminem · · Score: 1

      That'd be nice - even if I have no desire to ever touch Comcast with a 100 foot pole (unless it had a dagger on the end and I could touch them... forcefully), just having them in the same city would force whoever was already there to stop sucking so much themselves. Sadly, there are usually laws specifically designed to protect whichever ISP is already entrenched, because competition hurts whoever already has a local monopoly, and money can do almost anything. Amazingly, not this time, but still, this was an outlier.

  33. Hooray!!! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    There seems to be so little good news lately, that I just have to savor this for a while!

  34. Technically good, but... by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

    I understand this is a good thing in general.

    However I kind of feel it sucks for me. I have TWC in my area and the best plan I can get is 100/5. 5 measly Mbps upload...

    If we got Comcast instead I would have been able to get their 105/20 plan which would have quadrupled my upload speed.

    I just want more upload and now that this sale is dead I feel like i'm years away before TWC ever increases their upload speeds...

  35. what Comcast didn't say in their press release by DaveJ45 · · Score: 1

    Here's what Comcast said in their official press release-
    “Today, we move on. Of course, we would have liked to bring our great products to new cities, but we structured this deal so that if the government didn’t agree, we could walk away,"

    Here's what Comcast didn't say in their official press release, but should have-
    Now that we no longer have to 'play nice' to help get the merger approved, you can all expect big price increases in our monopolistic markets, reinstated data caps with BIG upcharges for those of you that stream the bulk of your video content instead of paying us for cable access, and further obfuscation of that silly agreement we made to provide low cost internet access for low income families!

    We are still the 6000 lb gorilla of the industry and we will do anything we please. Just try to stop us!

    --
    Differences between how you act when some one is watching, and how you act when no one is watching, define who you are
  36. Comcast had to give up NBC Universal? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think THE biggest reason why the merger was called off was the very likely stipulation from the Federal government that Comcast must spin off NBC Universal to get the merger completed. Given how hard Comcast worked just to purchase NBC Universal in 2010, that was something they would not accept.

  37. What I would have liked to see... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Personally, what I would have liked to see is allowing the merge of the retail arms and wholesale/infrastructure arms merged, but into separate respective entities, with a stipulation that the wholesale/infrastructure arm was explicitly not allowed to sell services to end users (ever); only to retail ISPs, at a regulated but fair rate and requirement to upgrade the network to FTTx as demand arises. It's a common model in a lot of other countries and for the most part, works pretty well.

    That way, other ISPs could sell service on a whitelabel/unbundled/virtual network basis using [Comcast-TWC wholesale] infrastructure at competitive rates, and the retail arm of the newly combined [Comcast-TWC Retail] would now have to compete with multiple ISPs on the basis of service quality and customer support, rather than simply having their monopoly over their coverage areas.

    Imagine if [Comcast-TWC Retail] had to compete with ISPs including but not limited to Sonic.net, Google Fiber, EPB, US Internet etc because they were now able to access all that infrastructure? They [Comcast-TWC retail] would basically be forced to clean up their act.

    And even if upgrades were not stipulated in the deal, [Comcast-TWC wholesale] *could* still be incentivized to begin upgrading their service areas to an FTTx model, because the technology & infrastructure is all they would have to worry about/concentrate on now, and their wholesale ISP customers could/would/should demand it.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley