Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Charter Strikes $56B Deal For Time Warner Cable

Posted by timothy on from the shaky-nervous-laughter dept.

mpicpp writes with word that Charter Communications has struck a $56 billion deal to buy Time Warner Cable; if the deal goes through (which the article says is likely, according to Macquarie Research analyst Amy Yong -- at least more likely than the recently scotched Comcast-Time Warner deal), it would mean that the second- and third-largest U.S. cable companies would share a letterhead, and more than 20 percent of the country's ISP market. From the linked Reuters article: The Federal Communications Commission immediately served notice that it would closely scrutinize the deal, focusing not only on absence of harm but benefits to the public. Charter, in which Malone-chaired Liberty Broadband Corp owns about 26 percent, is offering about $195.71 in cash-and-stock for each Time Warner Cable share, based on Charter's closing price on May 20. Including debt, the deal values Time Warner Cable at $78.7 billion. A key area of regulatory concern would be competition in broadband Internet.

206 comments

  1. recently scotched Comcast-Time Warner deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bet it was!

    1. Re:recently scotched Comcast-Time Warner deal by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad we were spared the bad hangover after it...

  2. I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Competition" for broadband Internet.

    1. Re:I think they mean.... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.

      Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:I think they mean.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This has been my proposal for a while now. It would solve, or at least provide choice in "Net Neutrality" issues, like that of Comcast v Netflix.

      The problem is that nobody really wants to tackle the FIOS rollout that would be needed to make this work. However, I do believe it would work, and a small municipality, one that is geographically isolated, would be a great case study in how it would work.

      The thing I believe most about this scenario is that we'll start to see new products and new services that are currently missing like "a la carte" ordering.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.

      Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.

      Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not! Can you imagine how responsive a government run infrastructure would have been to say the Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers? Yea, its got to be better to let the government run stuff... (sarcasm off)...

      Where I think you are onto something, government is not the answer. Maybe what's needed is to separate the "providers" from the companies that own the infrastructure. Sort of like the electric distribution companies are separate from the "retail providers" here in Texas. Then you have competition between providers, but don't have government running the infrastructure.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:I think they mean.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Corporations are even LESS of an answer, they exist SOLELY for profit, and they rape the consumer every chance they get.

      The government is SUPPOSED to be responsive to the citizen, but legalized bribery has upset that that check and balance...

    5. Re:I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that nobody really wants to tackle the FIOS rollout that would be needed to make this work. However, I do believe it would work, and a small municipality, one that is geographically isolated, would be a great case study in how it would work.

      Hello, I'm in Chattanooga, TN. Our electric utility has run fiber on its existing power poles.

      They haven't expressly set it up to have independent ISPs, but the fiber? Done. The other part? Would be at the head-end and maybe the ONTs, it would be easy to arrange.

      Of course, in large part, it was actually done by a private contractor, Adelphia, I believe, but I've not seen their trucks in a good while, so I don't know for sure, I may be misrecalling the name. A-something anyway.

    6. Re:I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have fios 75/75 mbps plan and for the past 6 month's have been getting 10/15 mbps with no help from verizon fixing this issue. So how can municipal broadband be any worse?

    7. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Government is NOT the answer in most cases....That's why we have a Constitution that limits government's power over it's citizens and not the other way around.

      Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me. My local city government has a hard time maintaining even their simple IT infrastructure so they can keep balancing their checking account.... I don't want them running some distributed network infrastructure that I depend on for my internet...

      Oh, and large corporations are not "evil" just because they have a profit motive. There is nothing wrong with making money in a business. Where there are companies that make money in less than ethical ways, you cannot argue that companies that make money are ALWAYS unethical. In Fact... I'd argue that MOST companies are not out cheating their customers, even the most profitable. Cheating and doing unethical things are NOT long term winning strategies, and most people who run companies understand that, especially people who have been running companies for a long time. The people who play to win, generally do work within the bounds of ethics and law and are not out defrauding their customers.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:I think they mean.... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure

      My municipal government can't even keep the streets in good shape. Ever seen this meme? It's an accurate reflection of the condition of the roadways here. They don't even have the hard freeze excuse that my municipality in the northeast had. You want them running the last mile? Thanks, but no thanks.

      There's probably merit to someone owning the last mile infrastructure and leasing it out to ISPs; there's definitely merit to separating the TV side of the house from the ISP side.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:I think they mean.... by chilenexus · · Score: 1

      If you look at Chattanooga, TN, then it seems to be working quite well. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/2...

      Are those "Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers" the ones where traffic from Netflix was being throttled to force them to pay extra for Verizon's customers to receive the data from Netflix that the customers were already paying both of them for?

    10. Re:I think they mean.... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      A-something anyway.

      I believe it's pronounced "azz-WEE-pay."

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    11. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The "Verizon" problem was about link speeds... Verizon was asking for more money to provide a larger pipe into their network. It got worked out quickly...

      How long does it take to build a road? I've lived in a house for 15 years and the local city has had plans since BEFORE I moved in to widen the main road though town from the two lane blacktop it had been for more than 40 years. Traffic was horrible, making it impossible to ever make a left turn out of my subdivision onto this road during daylight hours and had been that way since I moved in. Plans and money where around, but not until the last two years have we seen any progress.

      I don't know about you, but waiting 15 years to get my Netflix fixed is not something I want to do.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:I think they mean.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      corporations need to balance short-term profit and long-term profit, and this may mean raaping or kissing customer azz, as needed.

    13. Re:I think they mean.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Since when do corps kiss any customer's ass?

    14. Re:I think they mean.... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the last mile user a bit more. Making sure they get their coverage as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      We've had success with these types of infrastructure problems in the past using the cooperative approach. This was a regulatory thing and not direct government activity or take over to build and maintain this infrastructure. I suggest we stick with what's worked for Telecommunications and Electrification of rural areas in the past over the idea that local governments just do their own thing.

      This approach keeps private investment and innovation flowing while providing incentives for the private sector and doesn't make local government the owner/manager of the infrastructure. It's also tried and true, we know how to historically make it work, idea that harks back to the 1930's.....

      Like I've said in previous posts today... I'm willing to discuss regulations that make it possible for private industry to build out the infrastructure.... Just don't put government in the driver's seat...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have fios 75/75 mbps plan and for the past 6 month's have been getting 10/15 mbps with no help from verizon fixing this issue. So how can municipal broadband be any worse?

      Municipal broadband - now operated by Comcast!

      That's one way it could get worse. Some stuff in life sucks. Death for example. Death by explosive diarrhea is worse. Death, like government, is necessary. The explosive diarrhea (corporate graft) is an unnecessary addition best avoided where possible.
       

    17. Re:I think they mean.... by towermac · · Score: 1

      "separate ..."

      Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.

      Here's the thing about free market competition: When a market has a natural monopoly built into it, like power, water, natural gas, roads, fiber connections, government, ... You can't just magically legislate a free market into existence. Of course they do it all the time, just badly.

      So a suggestion is, that the local government owns the fiber, and you have 'competition' between multiple ISPs. What the hell do I need an ISP for anyway? I need a DHCP when I log on, and then my packets routed. I have a WRT54g that does that; I assume the city network has one of those too.

      It's a made up bullshit 'market'. We need to wrap our heads around a) Internet access is a utility, not a consumer good, and b) Good enough is good enough.

      Now, perhaps we are not quite there yet. I'm glad we didn't standardize on ISDN. But I think gigabit fiber is good enough. If I'm wrong, then it's close.

    18. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "separate ..."

      Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.

      It means that the company that owns the wires that lead to my house (Oncore Electric delivery) is a different company than I buy my electric power from (TXU). I have the choice of retail electric providers, all of which pay Oncore for the use of the electric distribution network, but offer varying rate plans and terms.

      I don't hear anybody suggesting that what we need is multiple pipes into my home, but competition for the service that comes over the pipes we already have. So, I suggesting that it's not a good idea to have the government *own* the infrastructure, but provide a regulatory framework where multiple providers can use the existing infrastructure while leaving it in private hands.

      My druthers is for the government to stay the heck out of broadband infrastructure development, and discussing a regulation scheme where cooperatives similar to how we got telephone and electricity into rural areas if we really think we need to push broadband in the boonies.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government is NOT the answer in most cases....That's why we have a Constitution that limits government's power over it's citizens and not the other way around. "

      That is exactly correct. I don't know why other people can't understand this very simple point.

    20. Re:I think they mean.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      a lot of companies in the relationship industries (lawyers, accoutnants, real estate agents, other) will kiss azz to keep their clients. a lot of people are loyal to certain brands because the brands "take care of them". eg Nordstrom.

    21. Re:I think they mean.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      apples to oranges

    22. Re:I think they mean.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      which apples to which oranges? you said corps raape customers at every opportunity.

    23. Re:I think they mean.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... limits government's power over it's citizens ...

      Charter and Time-Warner are people when when they can be put in jail, not before. They're an artificial entity created by the same federal government that's regulating them. To that end, they get the powers the actual citizens grant to them, no more.

      ... Having government manage a rapidly-changing ...

      Which is why no-one is demanding it. This a straw-man.

      ... you cannot argue that companies that make money are ALWAYS unethical ...

      And no-one did. You are building a straw-man.

      Cheating and doing unethical things are NOT long term winning strategies ...

      This is game theory, no doubt explained by the late Mr Nash. Cheating works because everyone else is not cheating. When everyone is cheating, one has instability (because not-true costs mean not-true prices), hyper-inflation (because not-true prices means not-true liquidity) and anarchy (never buy and sell, just cheat again).

      ... The people who play to win ...

      You're arguing that honesty==winning, which begets the question of: Can winning equal something else? The problem, as any manager will admit, is that businesses aren't structured to be honest and ethical, they're structured to take more money. That honesty must be forced upon companies as part of their limited powers.

    24. Re:I think they mean.... by towermac · · Score: 1

      "but offer varying rate plans and terms"

      Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.

      Whatever the lowest price is for that; that's the plan. There's only one set of wires coming to my house. The name on the bill is quite irrelevant to me.

      It's a completely made up, bullshit, 'market', and there's no getting around that.

      "broadband infrastructure development"

      Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on gigabit fiber. That should hold everyone for a long time, no? Sort of like the 240V 60Hz thing has held us for quite a while.

      If we're not there yet, and there's new kinds pipes on the way to my house within a decade, then I'm wrong..

    25. Re:I think they mean.... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because we learned history.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    26. Re:I think they mean.... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Just because wherever you live can't figure out how to get stuff done doesn't mean that all parts of the world are as equally inept. The places which have municipal broadband seem to be doing better than places with a single choice (thanks to your wonderful "capitalism will solve everything!" mantra). You are arguing out of your ass, and I'm slightly worried you don't even realise it. Tragic stuff.

    27. Re:I think they mean.... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're not proposing anything new, just a continuation of the current system, which has ensured the US's internet infrastructure remains an absolute joke. Why do you hate yourself so much? Bizarre.

    28. Re:I think they mean.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Nordstrom is a retailer, there are millions of retailers.

      Most people are lucky to have 2 or 3 choices for internet access and cable TV, nice try thoguh.

    29. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Right.... Look, I have a 25/25Mbps connection to my ISP and it comes over a connection that is fully capable of doing 10 Gig if Verizon really wanted it too. As it is, they offer 250Mbps using the existing hardware, which is more capacity that the bulk of the world has available. Not to mention that the local cable company ALSO offers service, up to 100Mbps which would enter my home on a different bit of infrastructure. I have two choices which offer service up to 100Mbps. This doesn't sound too shabby to me.

      I also have mobile internet service which covers the majority of the USA and gives me 1Mbps service (usually) just about anyplace I've been, except perhaps on some camping trips where internet wasn't necessary...

      So you somehow think the USA is second rate on internet connectivity? Perhaps, but what we do have isn't that bad..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    30. Re:I think they mean.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "but offer varying rate plans and terms"

      Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.

      Quite so, however in the "free market" of Texas retail electric providers there are multiple rate plans to choose from. Do you wan electricity from windmills? They have a rate for that.. Do you want to pay for "time of use rates" so you can get nights and weekends nearly free? They have rates for that. How about a fixed rate for a known term or one monthly bill that never changes.... Yep, they have rates for that. How it gets delivered? Never going to change.

      "broadband infrastructure development"

      Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on gigabit fiber. That should hold everyone for a long time, no?

      Maybe, maybe not, but how will you finance getting fiber put into houses where the nearest infrastructure is 10 miles away?

      Look, I have two current options for a wired internet connection where I live. There is a cable system and a fiber system. Then there are the multitude of wireless options. Seems to me that broadband (i.e. 1 Mbps or more) is pretty much ubiquitous for the bulk of the population of the united states. It is available NOW for the vast majority. How this is somehow twisted into a "problem" is beyond me...

      However, we solved this kind of problem for rural electricity and telephone within the last 100 years without having government own the infrastructure or controlling it's development directly, and I suggest that if we insist on "fixing" this problem that we use the same techniques. They worked before.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    31. Re:I think they mean.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why would a local government care about the Netflix-Verizon issues? The local government would operate or regulate last-mile access, and allow companies access to this network so they can serve as ISPs. The Netflix-Verizon dispute was on a higher level, a very popular service against a truly massive ISP. Given free access to a last-mile network, customers could choose ISPs based on what they liked, such as cost and Netflix access.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:I think they mean.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I get my power and my natural gas and my phone service from regulated companies, and have few problems with those. For internet access faster than dial-up, I've got two main choices, the area cable company and my phone company, both of which are more interested in selling me things beside internet access. If we had a municipal fiber network, there could be a company administering it answering to regulators for internet access, and primarily concerned with internet access.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:I think they mean.... by towermac · · Score: 1

      "rural electricity"

      I had that, and it was from a co-op; which is publicly owned by the customers.

      So, not the government per se, but little difference. The people in charge of it were elected, it was non-profit, etc.

      By far the cheapest power I have ever had.

      The second cheapest was Memphis Light Gas & Water. Owned by the city. When a line was down they were there in like 12 minutes. The mayor knew that you blamed him personally, and he made damn sure it was top quality service.

      Since I've been in FL with these private power companies, I pay out the ass. Any outage is always hours. And all they bitch about is that they need to raise rates. Apparently I also have to pay for a nuke plant that was never actually built.

      That's just real world stuff. I haven't even gotten into the morality of forcing profit out of a captive audience.

    34. Re:I think they mean.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You should go and kick your history teachers square in the crotch. They taught you bullshit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:I think they mean.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Providing services over government-run infrastructure would have no effect on peering issues between any two private companies (eg Comcast & Netflix or Verizon & Netflix) - the cores of those ISPs are still independent and private, just the last (and probably middle) miles are not;

      BUT when you have government-run infrastructure done properly, it would be provided by the government to the ISPs as a wholesale layer-2 service only, meaning that it's open, meaning that you as the consumer would have your choice of Comcast, Verizon, Cox, TWC, Charter, CableOne, AT&T, Sonic, Monkeybrains, Clearwave Google etc as your ISP - and when you as the consumer have that kind of choice, ISPs have to compete on metrics other than "we own this territory" and "screw you, you have a 2-year contract"... metrics such as price and good customer service.

      The governmental involvement in your life? Making sure the infrastructure works. (This can also be achieved with a private company if regulated accordingly)
      Need tech support? Call your ISP - they have the SLA with the infrastructure provider so any problems get solved fairly quickly.
      Have an issue accessing Netflix on your current ISP? Quit that ISP and move to another one. Changing is basically a matter of the new ISP provisioning a new username/password combination to put in to your router.

      Case study: New Zealand (Chorus - a private, for profit company - is mandated to provide ADSL/VDSL/FTTH infrastructure on a wholesale basis to ISPs at regulated prices, ISPs provide retail services at whatever prices they deem fit, but consumers have a choice of 30 or so ISPs no matter where they live). Since this all came about in the mid-to-late 2000's, NZ's internet situation has improved quite a lot, both as far as speeds and prices are concerned - IIRC I was paying about $200/month for 2mbit/s wireless with a usage cap of about 100GB in 2005 - and before that our options were 384k satellite with the uplink provided by POTS or 128k ADSL. Most of the country never even had cable TV or Internet (some cable infrastructure is in Wellington and Christchurch - SKY satellite was the only way to get pay TV until IPTV and Internet-based TV came along in the last couple of years).

      The UK and a few other countries are also doing things in a similar way. None of them are perfect, but on the whole, consumers are benefiting when there's open infrastructure.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    36. Re:I think they mean.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      This is ***probably*** due to citizen objections rather than government... kind of a NIMBY/DON'T INCONVENIENCE ME!!!!/Environmentalist etc deal.

      This is what happens when politicians don't stand up to those people who are blocking genuinely important/beneficial projects and say "this is for your own good, like it or fuck off".

      Unfortunately, it's when that attitude permeates the thinking of projects for the greedy/power hungry types (NSA, TSA, etc - name your poison) that such thinking is problematic.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    37. Re:I think they mean.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      In your neighbourhood, perhaps. But as mentioned in a previous post, your situation is an anomaly and as a result, you are enjoying something 90+% of the rest of the country does not have.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    38. Re:I think they mean.... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Now you're starting to make some sense.

      1 pipe (who you don't deal with), multiple retailers (who you do deal with).

      So long as said infrastructure provider is sufficiently regulated in that they can't charge $500/mo for access to the pipes, you might be on to something ;)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  3. If you want your bigass merger approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First propose an even bigger assed one, and let the Feds shoot it down.

    1. Re:If you want your bigass merger approved by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Timing is rather interesting on this one...

    2. Re:If you want your bigass merger approved by sycodon · · Score: 1

      With apologies to Godwin, but is this something like Nazi Germany aligning itself with the Soviet Union instead of Italy?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:If you want your bigass merger approved by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Which they DID, initially...

      Germany started out with a non-aggression agreement with Russia because they needed to be free to engage the bulk of Europe without having to worry about getting stopped from the east. Hitler's intent was to conquer Europe and possibly Brittan before turning to the east, break his agreement with Russia and move into Asia.

      Of course Hitler eventually broke his agreement with Russia and invaded, which really was his undoing. He got caught with his preverbal pants down when winter came and his logistical support for the advance wasn't there. Had he concentrated his forces and consolidated his gains in Europe, there'd be a whole lot more German spoken in the world, and/or WW2 would have lasted a LOT longer. As it was, he wasted resources trying to take Russia when he really should have dug into Europe and went for the long haul, even though it would have been a war of attrition where he would have lost eventually, but there would have been a chance to sue for peace with the Allies along the way, and he might have been able to spare the homeland and perhaps some of the territory he'd taken along the way. It certainly would have made for an interesting post war world, with a stronger Russia that wasn't burning with anger towards Germany.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:If you want your bigass merger approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Hitler eventually broke his agreement with Russia and invaded, which really was his undoing.

      Good thing he didn't see Minard's six-way map of Napolean's Russia campaign. Ed Tufte wasn't around to explain it to him.

    5. Re:If you want your bigass merger approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First propose an even bigger assed one, and let the Feds shoot it down.

      Actually Charter tried to buy TWC prior to the Comcast deal, their offer was rejected by TWC shareholders... probably because they knew an offer from Comcast would be coming along.

  4. Cost of even purposing by blueshift_1 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the legal cost of even attempting this merger is above and beyond the cost of acquiring assets/debt. Though I guess it's not nearly as much as a they gain by grabbing the huge monopoly if it goes though.

    1. Re:Cost of even purposing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think cable companies really give a shit about debt. Charter just went through bankruptcy a few years ago and erased all the debt they had from upgrading their systems bandwidth.

    2. Re:Cost of even purposing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't. But then do any corporations? This is all a huge money grab by executives, boards, financiers, etc. And then the shit stock is bought up by mutual fund companies that have to spread the dollars across the spectrum. Stop investing in the stock market, stop feeding the beast.

    3. Re:Cost of even purposing by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder what the legal cost of even attempting this merger is above and beyond the cost of acquiring assets/debt. Though I guess it's not nearly as much as a they gain by grabbing the huge monopoly if it goes though.

      Doesn't matter. The consumer ends up paying for it in the end.

      I honestly wish these mega-mergers in cable would just be stopped. Flat out.

      And before someone starts quoting combined numbers of Comcast+TWC vs Charter+TWC, understand this. The final number of subscribers is largely irrelevant due to geographic monopoly.

      We have enough of these mega-monopoly ISPs as it is. And all the mergers do is concentrate the money so they can afford bigger and bigger bribes to buy a permissive atmosphere in which the best interests of consumers/constituencies are not looked after.

      And the only recourse? Try to vote out these money-grubbing incumbents with their newly marble-lined solid platinum warchests...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  5. Again? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock?

    Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.

    Somehow I wonder if Time Warner isn't selling the farm for a couple of magic beans (again).

    And you can bet your ass this single entity will not do anything to lower prices or foster competition ... it will be more "we're screwing you because we can".

    The only people this will be good for are executives who get huge severance packages. But I'm betting in the long run it hurts consumers, and quite possibly shareholders.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Again? by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      Betting?

      More like it's a foregone conclusion...

    2. Re:Again? by Ramze · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is part merger, part purchase.

      "Time Warner Cable shareholders can choose $100 a share in cash and about $95 in Charter stock, or $115 in cash and the remainder in stock."

      So, the TWC shareholders can choose from one of two real cash options which include retaining shares in the new Charter/TWC combined company. Since stock is just equity, and is "funny money" until it's sold, I don't know how it makes any difference between holding TWC stock before the merger or Charter/TWC combined after the merger stock so long as the stock price is valued properly. They're both large cable/internet/phone companies with similar assets and valuations based on those assets -- unlike the dotcom companies that no one knew how to put a dollar value on because they were so new and had such high growth potential until the bubble burst.

      TWC was trading for just below $160 for over a year before the merger talks. Now, it's at $178. The merger offer puts a premium on it at $195 in cash and stock combined. Both Charter and TWC stocks are trading higher on news of the merger, so it complicates finding the value/number of shares TWC shareholders will get of the combined company when the deal goes through unless that's already pegged in the deal.

      Looks like a TWC shareholder should be very happy taking $100 to $115 per share in cash for their pre-merger stock that was $160/share recently... in addition to stock in the combined company. There may be tax advantages to taking stock over cash to avoid capital gains.

      I don't see how this would hurt shareholders - they get the benefits of combining brand names, services, call centers, media contracts, marketing, etc. There will be lots of benefits, thus the stock price surge. Customers... well, customers will get the shaft as always, but that's no different than any other day in a world of local cable monopolies.

    3. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that if the deal is rejected Charter gives TW 2 billion in cash.

      Really not following how this will not be rejected as well.

      I could see the dude from France buying it. As in effect it is no real change in competition. But this smells like the previous one they just went thru...

    4. Re:Again? by pr0t0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Creating a business is all about mergers and acquisitions. You build a customer base and become attractive enough to one of the larger players to be gobbled up. The C-level execs all get golden parachutes, the mid-management get completely axed, and the peons see a reduction of 60% and a pay cut; which pays for the parachutes.

      In the end, the consumer gets necessarily screwed as there is either a reduction in competition, or a preclusion of competition; unless you own stock in the company being purchased.

      This has been the predominate business methodology in the U.S. since the mid-80's (admittedly, conjecture on my part), and requires a major shift in thinking to stop this nonsense. But truly, mergers and acquisitions should be the exception not the rule, if fair-market competition is to be nurtured.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    5. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about Time Warner Cable. It isn't a part of Time Warner media conglomerate (although it used to be).

    6. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock? Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.

      Time Warner (TWX) was split from Time Warner Cable (TWC) years ago. They're getting the cable television, phone and broadband business, but all other properties of Time Waner that AOL had purchased years ago (like the programming, movie studios that you mention) have nothing to do with this deal.

    7. Re:Again? by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, someone?

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    8. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock?

      Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.

      Somehow I wonder if Time Warner isn't selling the farm for a couple of magic beans (again).

      And you can bet your ass this single entity will not do anything to lower prices or foster competition ... it will be more "we're screwing you because we can".

      The only people this will be good for are executives who get huge severance packages. But I'm betting in the long run it hurts consumers, and quite possibly shareholders.

      Time Warner is not involved in the deal. We are talking about Time Warner Cable. They are completely different companies.

    9. Re: Again? by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      That's because many companies in the US exist as paper instruments to enforce government-granted monopoly or oligopoly on trade of a particular good or service. In these cases, the perceived value of the company is in the legal rights it grants, not in the work the employees are performing. Monopolies mean the sole supplier dictates the supply, and consequently will often choose to produce far less than buyers are seeking to procure, because the sweet spot for profitability is when there is a shortage. In these cases layoffs are entirely predictable. Any company which relies heavily of intellectual property law, market allocation, Import-Export banks, or other legal tricks to restrict competition is a company that has either already laid off a significant portion of staff, or is about to.

    10. Re: Again? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      That's because many companies in the US exist as paper instruments to enforce government-granted monopoly

      No.

      And you managed to toss the Import Export bank in there too, without understanding what it is. (hint: it not only does NOT stifle competition, but strengthens the country's exports and ability to export, and turns a profit for the government (which reduces the deficit))

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  6. Trumpet #2 by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The second angel billowed and something as a great mountain of ember and smoke was doused in the oceans and seas of the Earth and a third of the world's water became blood, a third of life living within them was annihilated; and a third of the ships were destroyed - the souls scattered to the wind....

    1. Re:Trumpet #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a third, whatever.

    2. Re:Trumpet #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really metal dude

  7. Former Charter employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The merger is a bad idea, Charter is a poorly managed company and has been for a long time. Management treats their technical employees with callous disregard for personal boundaries, does not recognize or reward technical expertise or professionalism and in my case, is in the habit of lying to job reference inquiries to the point of being criminal. This is just scratching the surface of what is wrong with this company. As an internet service provider, they are sub standard in terms of providing working, reliable equipment and they are notoriously slapdash with protecting their customer's privacy and options to protect their own privacy.

    My bad experience at the company aside, if an entity cannot handle and demonstrate integrity in small things, it follows that they should not be trusted with larger responsibilities.

    1. Re: Former Charter employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You described 8 out 8 companies I have worked.

    2. Re:Former Charter employee here by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yet, they are still better than Time Warner.

      THAT is how bad Time Warner is.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:Former Charter employee here by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IF they are lying about you to prospective employers and you can prove it, hire a lawyer and sue. I'm serious, don't mess around with these types, MAKE THEM STOP. If the company is worth anything, you will find it easy to get a lawyer to take the case on commission and I suggest you do, even if you have to give the lawyer 100%.

      I had a former employer do this to me too. I had them on tape saying untrue things about my job performance to someone they believed was a prospective employer, so I threatened to claim damages, lost wages and the like. Now, they will only say that I'm ineligible to be rehired by them and confirm the dates I worked for them. I know, because I've checked.

      Your reputation is most important here... Don't let them mess it up for you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Former Charter employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, they are still better than Time Warner.

      THAT is how bad Time Warner is.

      Strange. I used Time Warner Cable in Honolulu for several years and they were one of the best ISPs I've encountered. Maybe there was a lot of competition in that market to keep them on their toes?

    5. Re:Former Charter employee here by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I have Time Warner here in Ohio and I don't have any complaints. Service interruptions are very rare, speed is great for a semi-rural area (I have neighbors with goats, alpaca, chickens, geese, and horses - I'm not in a metro area at all), and on the occasion that I've had problems I've had a truck out, with a technician that knew what he was doing, the same day.

      It's a little pricey, but then again, I'm in a semi-rural area. I'd be surprised if TWC breaks even doing business here.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    6. Re:Former Charter employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have them (TWC) in Nebraska and they are god awful. Service interruptions, less than advertised internet speeds, useless tech support, and equipment that was clearly made by the lowest bidder. AWFUL. Oh yeah, and when you call their support numbers you almost never get a rep that can actually service your account. I had their premium signature package and cancelled it out of complete disgust.

    7. Re:Former Charter employee here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your sensitive lib arse back to France or whatever euro country you came from. Real Americans don't go all litigious when their feelings get hurt. They wake up earlier and work harder.

      Enjoy that welfare check from your hero Obama while you get the chance. Sooner or later the gravy train is gonna run out.

    8. Re:Former Charter employee here by Bartles · · Score: 1

      And yet, I subscribe to 60Mbps cable service, and I actually get 60Mbps cable service. No caps, throttling, or other shenanigans.

    9. Re:Former Charter employee here by antdude · · Score: 1

      But TWC is better than Comcast? :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Competition? by koan · · Score: 1

    competition in broadband Internet.

    There really isn't any.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Competition? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have plenty of choices where I live. I can choose from Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, or even Time Warner Cable!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  9. well that was sudden by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    No, you can't merge with Comcast. That would be too big of a company....suuuure, you can merge with Charter! That's fine.
    What the hell is wrong with the FTC?!

    1. Re:well that was sudden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said this was approved? Answer: nobody.

    2. Re:well that was sudden by causality · · Score: 1

      Who said this was approved? Answer: nobody.

      That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.

      A summary rejection, now that would demonstrate the slightest concern for preserving competition.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:well that was sudden by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      It escalated quickly.

    4. Re:well that was sudden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary rejection? That isn't how things work. The reality is this one will get bounced as being anti-competitive and the only ones who got rich are the insiders who bought and sold at the right times and, of course, the lawyers.

    5. Re:well that was sudden by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.

      The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.

    6. Re:well that was sudden by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with the FTC?!

      I think you're under the false assumption that Federal Agencies actually do things with the budgets they are given. Oh, sure, every once in a while, they have to justify their existence, but on the main, are just big suck of taxpayer money.

      However, in this case, it is government regulations that are causing the government to have to regulate more. Government regulation isn't complete until it has thoroughly broken everything in its path.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:well that was sudden by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:well that was sudden by Dins · · Score: 1

      It really got out of hand fast.

    9. Re:well that was sudden by causality · · Score: 2

      That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.

      The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.

      In general I would agree with you, but not in this case. That they are natural monopolies would be grounds for a summary rejection. There's no reason that cannot be a special exception.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re:well that was sudden by bobbied · · Score: 1

      UM.. Wasn't the FCC that nixed the last merger attempt? I know the FTC has to approve them too, but....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:well that was sudden by causality · · Score: 1

      Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!

      That's why we must preserve what little is left, for its rarity makes it finite and precious.

      I like that better than adopting a defeatist attitude and assuming all is lost.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:well that was sudden by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Even though I'm opposed to this merger, I'd be afraid that a summary rejection would result in some sort of lawsuit and overturned. Better to let it go through the process and THEN kill it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    13. Re:well that was sudden by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!

      Non-exclusive franchises are not "government-granted monopolies." I have yet to see an exclusive franchise, and I've asked people to point me to one. Every one that I've been told was exclusive turned out to be non-exclusive when you look at the actual agreement.

      It is a reasonably easy mistake to make. You see one company, you see "franchise", and you assume it is exclusive. But you need to read the fine print to find out the truth.

      The monopoly comes from the barrier to entry that is called "infrastructure". It costs a lot of money to build a cable plant, and if the best you can do is half the customers you can't make a profit. Only a stupid company would try, and nobody has ever claimed that cable companies are stupid.

      And, of course, there are no government-granted monopolies for ISPs, only the cable companies that have added that service to their existing plant.

  10. Better than the Worst? by bengoerz · · Score: 2

    According to ASCI's 2014 poll of Internet Service Providers (see coverage by Ars), Time Warner had the lowest satisfaction of all broadband companies (54% and dropping faster than any other company). Comcast was 2nd-worst (57% and dropping 2nd-fastest), and Charter was 3rd-worst (and dropping 3rd fastest). So, this may lessen Time Warner's decline.

    Personally, I have used both companies for coax services in the DFW area, and I prefer Charter. Business services are similar, but Charter is much cheaper (currently $40/mo promo for 60M/4M versus Time Warner at over $300/mo for 50M/5M). Time Warner's aging infrastructure in Dallas definitely does not warrant the premium. Plus, Charter service is no-contract.

    1. Re:Better than the Worst? by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      So this is a potentially good thing? I've always been hesitant to do business with TimeWarner but I think I would feel more comfortable if Charter is as you describe.

    2. Re:Better than the Worst? by adrew · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have had Charter in FW for going on 10 years and it's been good. The customer service had a bad period but has gotten good again. We had a storm come through a couple weeks ago; a neighbor's tree limb fell and took out our cable line. I called them at 9:45 p.m. on Saturday night, got a friendly, not-outsourced person who scheduled an appointment, then got a confirmation call from dispatch about 15 minutes later. The tech was there at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday morning.

      The actual internet service has always been solid with maybe one or two short outages a year. And this is different than in the past, but a modem is now included as part of the deal, so you don't have to lease one or buy one outright like with other providers. We have 60/5 (their slowest speed) for $39.99 (regular price is $59.99 when the promo expires) but if you call up and complain enough they will eventually give you a new promo.

    3. Re:Better than the Worst? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a Time Warner subscriber, this is definitely a good thing.

      Their equipment is trash - I no longer use their DVR or their cable modem because they are both fucking garbage. I built a media PC with an HD tuner / cable card set up that has already paid for itself by not having to "rent" their shit DVR box that I would have to reboot 2 or 3 times a week, at a 10-minute boot up time. I dumped their garbage "rented" cable modem because I'd have to power cycle it once a week or so, and replaced it with a $60 unit from Amazon that also actually increased throughput speed. That change will pay for itself in about 7 months.

      They abuse DRM flagging on everything that isn't available with an over-the-air tuner. If you have to go to one of their offices to trade in equipment, or get replacement, schedule two hours because they only ever have one or two people at the counter, and there's a line of people waiting to trade in broken shit for stuff that isn't broken yet, but will be. They charge more for the same services from other cable providers, because they can - when you don't have any competition for high speed internet, you don't have to worry about other lines of business being threatened (satellite TV).

      Fuck Time Warner. I hope this merger goes through and Charter fires the TWC management and starts cleaning up the huge mess they've left behind.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Better than the Worst? by bengoerz · · Score: 1

      The worst case is that Time Warner continues to gouge consumers and offer worse and worse service. A merger may be better than that.

      For reference, current business pricing is:
      $501.95/mo for 100/5 from Time Warner in Dallas
      $199/mo for 100/20 from Comcast (not in DFW)
      $99/mo for 100/7 from Charter in Ft Worth

      You can't have less competition in broadband unless you start with some.

    5. Re:Better than the Worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a charter customer, i can tell you you're completely wrong thinking the grass is greener over here.. it is not. they're just smaller so they don't get as much attention from the media as comcast or twc. charter excels at one thing, and that's being as bad and as greedy as every other cable company and telephone company in the country.

    6. Re:Better than the Worst? by HarbingerKtS · · Score: 1

      Not to mention on the internet side Charter is offering 60/4 residential speeds (with free modem) for the same price I currently pay TW to get 15/1, the modem being an additional $7.99/mo if you want them to NOT charge you should they need to stop by and fix things, and TW's price was a promotional price.

      I feared Comcast because of what I'd heard about Comcast both in terms of customer service and bandwith throttling. Everything I've heard about Charter is that I'll get faster theoretical advertized speeds and about the same level of "service" as I'm used to with TW.

  11. No by bigpat · · Score: 1

    It isn't going to be good for anyone because the answer is No, just No.

    1. Re:No by Enry · · Score: 1

      It's going to be good for lawyers and shareholders. But yeah, that's about it.

    2. Re:No by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's easy to be cynical about this, but Time Warner is so customer surly that a ultra-huge mega-merger might actually be better for existing Time Warner customers.

      For example: Time Warner abuses the broadcast flag / CCI DRM schemes to flag everything they legally can as "copy-once", locking out lots of DVR competition because the additional features don't work. Charter does not do this, and only flags content as "copy-once" or "do-not-copy" as contractually required by the content providers.

      A Charter merger with Time Warner would make my service better and more enjoyable the instant they flip that bit to comply with Charter's current policy regarding CCI tagging because I would no longer be required to watch content only on the device that recorded it.

      Time Warner is the worst cable company out there from a customer perspective. When the best news you get about someone providing you a service is that they are selling out to competition, that tells you how bad the service is.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:No by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You poor, naive fool! A Charter merger with Time Warner would inevitably degrade Charter's customer service to Time Warner's level, not the other way around.

      --

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

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should also add that Charter has historically served smaller urban and rural markets, has faster internet service and uses (at least for my taste) better promotional language. Comparing between my service with Charter now and the service with Time Warner I had a few years ago, it is something like 25% cheaper through Charter. While I am uncomfortable with any merger, this is better in my personal view than Comcast+TWC by far.

  12. How about this test? by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Look at the cable market city by city, town by town... If there are currently fewer than 3 options for services in any areas they are proposing to merge or if their merger would drop the competition to less than 3, then they can't do it.

    1. Re:How about this test? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      If there are currently fewer than 3 options for services in any areas they are proposing to merge or if their merger would drop the competition

      Cable companies do not share their infrastructure, and they usually have exclusive "franchise" agreements with municipalities. Are there actually any areas where buying service from your choice of Time Warner, or Charter was an option?

      I believe this in the past has been the big cable co's argument that mergers between companies servicing different areas don't reduce competition.

      They already have the monopoly..... the only way to switch is to move house. Would anyone actually move house to switch cable carriers?

    2. Re:How about this test? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      and they usually have exclusive "franchise" agreements with municipalities.

      They usually have non-exclusive franchises, but don't compete because it would be economically foolish for any newcomer to try to capture a significant (i.e. profitable) percentage of the market. It is an economically-driven monopoly, not a legislated one.

    3. Re: How about this test? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      My town has two providers.

      But my point is that there isn't enough competition now, so any consolidation of top competitors should be blocked at least until there is a healthy free market.

    4. Re:How about this test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I moved to get away from comcast. It was reason number 2. Right after getting away from cold weather.
      Went 600 miles south. And my realtor thought it was an odd request to have anyone but comcast.
      But they did it.

      I got adelphia cable. It was great. Fast. Cheap. Worked. Great service.

      And 2 years later comcast bought them. Prices were just a little over 2x what adelphia was.
      I lost a bunch of tv channels. My speed dropped by half. My ping went up 20%.
      Connection stability went to shit and fails a few times a week. Service is a painful joke.

      And since then the prices has gone up several times.
      They forced encrypted digtal on everyone and now i need a 'free' dta box on every tv.
      Then they started billing for the 'free' dta boxes 6 months later.

      But i have gained back some of the speed i lost.
      Altho connection stability is still shit they can't or won't fix.
      I've also had 11 different 'billing errors' that were oh so fun to resolve.

      So. Even moving house doesn't help.
      There is no escape.

    5. Re:How about this test? by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      and/or the incumbent would probably sue the newcomer for anything and everything, so the newcomer would have to have very deep pockets to get anywhere.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  13. why and how the fuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    charter just got its sorry ass out of bankruptcy...

    here's hoping the feds do the right thing again and shut this one down too.

    no more mega mergers. when has one EVER turned out for the better for consumers? never.

  14. Comcast is a content provider by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Charter is not. The vertical integration is thus not an issue here.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  15. Most Stunning Fact by tiberus · · Score: 1

    Charter is a poorly managed company and has been for a long time

    When I heard about the merger and thought back on Charter's past and what I've heard from friends about them and my personal experience in dealing with them on behalf of friends and family, I was left wondering:

    1. Where did Charter get $56 billion in disposable income?
    2. Who in their right mind would loan Charter any portion of those funds?
  16. Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!

    Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations? This meme that government is automatically incompetent is tiresome and demonstrably false in numerous circumstances. I have precisely one practical ISP option where I live (Comcast) and I assure you that their customer "service" is less than amazing and their prices are not even close to cheap. Would a government run ISP be any worse? Maybe, maybe not. I could see it going either way. Your assumption that they would be automatically incompetent "because, government" is both unproven and illogical. Government tends to be a good choice for things where market incentives break down, including infrastructure. Guess what? Market incentives aren't getting the job done in the ISP market for a lot of people. I have to pay a lot of money for a relatively slow connection to my choice of a single company. I doubt the government would be any worse to be honest.

    Can you imagine how responsive a government run infrastructure would have been to say the Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers?

    I can imagine it potentially being quite a bit better since the government wouldn't be trying to chisel Netflix out of a cut of their profits. Corporations, particularly monopolies are noted for being less than responsive. And in fact we have to have government oversight of them precisely because the company's profit motive tends to conflict directly with incentives for good customer service.

    Maybe what's needed is to separate the "providers" from the companies that own the infrastructure.

    That's a good idea but it doesn't fully address the problem. Infrastructure companies would still be tempted to charge a "toll" to prioritize traffic so regulation or competition is needed. Since competition is a practical impossibility in a lot of places (expensive to have multiple wires to rural locations) then regulation becomes necessary.

    1. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I have one ISP choice also. In my case, Time Warner Cable. I've got to not only agree with your points, but expand on one of them. Cable ISPs not only offer Internet access but also offer TV/Video services. They want to push their video services and will often engage in various shady practices to promote their video services above alternatives (Internet Video, satellite, etc). For example, they might institute caps to prevent you from streaming "too much" (as defined by them). Overage fees might make streaming more expensive so you'll either flee back to your cable company for video or pay your cable company more money in overage fees. Package pricing can be manipulated to make Internet Only more expensive than Internet+TV (while TV alone isn't more than Internet+TV). Finally, as mentioned before, the ISP can fiddle with the traffic to slow down or otherwise degrade connections to video services like Netflix knowing that it will be easier for customers to switch to another video provider (*cough* cable TV *cough*) than it is to switch to another ISP - since there usually is no other one to switch to!

      Would a government run ISP be perfect? Of course not. I'm open to any and all suggestions. However, something needs to be done because company-alone, minimal government regulation ISPs have clearly resulted in monopolistic ISPs willing to abuse customers to get more money.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!

      Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations?

      The VA is a prime example of inefficiency of government, as is MOST of what government dabbles in. Ever heard of the Department of Defense? Department of Education? Department of Energy? The EPA? NONE of these are efficient organizations, but HUGE money sucking entities that literally waste billions.... Now there are things only the government can do, but you want to add another thing to their job jar? It's really not a good idea.

      Government should NEVER be used in place of private enterprise.... Trust me...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by chilenexus · · Score: 2

      It seems like you are cherry-picking some notable failures and extrapolating that to mean the entire classification is rotten to the core and incapable of doing hardly anything successfully. That's not wisdom, it's pessimism. You're not going to find private enterprise with lower rates of failure and obstruction, only lower rates of press reporting on it. While I'm not in a position to use the services of the VA, they are the source for much of the systemic improvements in health IT we benefit from today. Here's a source for you on that, which also features how they were the first to call attention to the thousands of people that were being killed by Vioxx. https://books.google.com/books...

      When you make assertions that are also blanket statements, shouldn't you be providing some sources that back up your claim on something similar to that level?

      Is some inefficiency in government really any worse than private industry attaching profit to everything that is done and denying service if you can't pay? Defense, education, environmental protection, etc. - getting those things done only when there is profit to be made from them is a certain recipe for disaster. We've already seen that with for-profit prisons we wind up with those prisons bribing judges to send people to prison for long sentences that would otherwise have been dealt with through counseling. And that was with children.

      The single largest problem with government is that private industry is getting their fingers into it and corrupting the process. i.e. bribes, lobbying, unlimited political contributions.

    4. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Man, do YOU have the cart before the horse...

      Of course I'm discussing the worst of the government, but I won't hesitate to make the blanket claim private companies are better at efficiency than just about ANY government effort. They have to be, or they won't survive very long. That's not to say there are not things that only the government can and should do, only that one must recognize that the use of government should be limited as much as possible.

      You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that private enterprise is *always* bad, that they all pursue profits over ethical and moral concerns. This is not true. The vast majority of private companies are run by people with excellent ethical and moral standing, yet they make lots of money. Profit is NOT always made by taking unfair advantage of others. In fact, doing unethical and immoral things to one's customers is an excellent way of loosing said customers and ending up in jail (as you point out sometimes happens.)

      No economic system is without it's problems, but letting the government take over parts of the economic systems of a country has historically been universally bad. Case in point? Venezuela perhaps? The government there has been slowing taking over all parts of the economy and the country has been in a rapid decline, despite HUGE amounts of income from oil. Other historical instances are Soviet Russia and related countries, where the people are still paying for being under total government control.

      IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU bitch. We heard you the first time.

    6. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      China has the sort of unbridled capitalism with lax oversight which many conservatives here dream of. The results are lax safety standards which resulted in over 75,000 dead in accidents in 2012. Rampant child labor. Polluted environments. Slave like labor conditions (Foxconn for example). We had these same conditions here in the 1900 before the labor movement. If you believe that in the absence of accountability Corporate management will not resort to shady tactics to get a leg up on the competition and to maximize profits then you are clearly ignoring history, past and present. While in some cases such as Apple and Nike consumer backlash can force improvements, there is really no substitute to government action to ensure minimum standards are applied to every company.

    7. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bouldin · · Score: 1

      I've worked my entire career in the private sector, and there is a huge amount of inefficiency (in addition to the profit which, as you mention, comes off the top).

      Dead weight in the organization, people who are worthless but protected, executives playing turf wars for budget, leaders who block change so they can watch each others' backs, sabotage against competitors inside the organization. The worst are managers who are great at "managing up" but not actually good at leading their teams. They can cause damage for years before things change.

      Sometimes the individual profit motive does not line up with the larger profit motive of the company, and the sacrosanct "invisible hand of the free market" totally fails.

    8. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of company do you work for now if see that there? What do they do or make and what's your role there so I can get a clearer picture and by example avoid them or organizations like them in the future is what I am asking. I ask because I do not want to face that if I can avoid it. Maybe sticking to academia would work out better than private sector. I realize you don't speak for everyone or all companies but I am asking.

    9. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then explain why in other countries the government seems more than capable of infrastructure projects? You pointing to Venezuela is a bizarre example, especially considering rampant capitalism caused the very reaction you are condemning. You seem rather confused, like an abused spouse arguing that their abuser does really love them. In this one instance you prefer capitalism's problems (shitty internet, high price) over the alternatives (good internet, low price).

    10. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard he worked for Sunbelt Software but had to fire some tard in 2000

    11. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If you think the government is cheaper, you are sadly mistaken. Even with profit built into the equation, government is never going to be cheaper, better, faster. Now, you might be able to make your internet bill cheaper, but overall it will cost more for government to run this than a private company. The difference between what you pay and the actual cost will just come out of some other place, parks, roads, garbage pickup, police, fire or it will drive up your taxes.

      There ARE some things that only government can do, but providing infrastructure for internet connections is not on that list in my book. Hiring police and fire departments, maintaining parks and roads IS on that list, but building and management of telecommunications infrastructure is not.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Really? Are we thinking about the same country?

      China may be an emerging capitalistic economy, but they are very much un-capitalistic in their governance. That they choose to ignore the environment and don't care about the health and safety of their workforce is NOT what we have here in the USA and we never will.

      But China is NOT an argument for government control, because China's government has absolute control, they simply do not care. China's quest is for power, economic and military, and they will use any means to improve their position, including allowing the worst abuse and environmental harm as long as it gets them what they want. You see, China is literally at war already, so lives and environment don't matter.

      China's problems stem from government, not capitalism.... Capitalism is just one of the tools they are using to further their goals, but you can bet they will stop it as soon as it doesn't do that for them anymore.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    13. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bouldin spoke of worthlessness? He's worthless proving it http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    14. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is a economic system not a form of government. The Chinese government resembles mostly a totalitarian regime. Even though China has laws in the books concerning safety, environmental protection, child labor and other worker protections they are not enforced and violations and abuse by Corporations are the norm. Your argument that laws placing requirements on industry are not needed because "The vast majority of private companies are run by people with excellent ethical and moral standing" is clearly contradicted by the Chinese example, as well as our own history during the Industrial revolution.

    15. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And you sir are painting with a wide brush. Bad people do BAD things, one cannot deny that, but in China, the government selectively chooses not to enforce its laws and allows bad people to do bad things. So you now claim that ALL people do bad things because a few have in the past? Or, to put it another way, capitalism is bad because it is abused in China? Capitalism has its problems, but as a method for generating wealth and lifting the standard of living for the majority, it cannot be beat. And it certainly cannot be beat by a government program...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Almost everything you cite is something that doesn't directly sell services to the people.

      Government should NEVER be used in place of private enterprise.... Trust me...

      As someone who comes from a country (New Zealand) where when I was in high school we used to ENVY you Americans with your >1 megabit cable but which now has an very well regulated telecom sector with a single infrastructure provider for most of the country who is building a nationwide fiber network which is actually doing what was promised AND where the majority of consumers in the country have a choice of 30+ ISPs who compete on price, customer service and various other value features rather than "we own this territory", I can say with reasonable certainty that you are demonstrably wrong and as such, I cannot "trust you" -- especially considering where I live now (Illinois) and the options available to me in the states I'm looking at moving to (somewhere on the east-coast).

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    17. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...

      What, like subsidized healthcare and education which actually benefits the citizens of the country?

      To each their own, I suppose, but some things just stink of a ripoff.

      Anecdote: I wanted to get a prescription for some basic antibiotics recently (precautionary). Walk-in doctor wanted $200-something before they'd even take a look plus $some unknown amount for the medication. Bugger that - I'd have rather spent the money on a trip to Panama (they give you a health card at the border, even as a tourist) and got taken care of there.

      Now imagine if I wanted something more than just that - because insurance doesn't usually cover precautionary stuff: do I put up with the skyrocketing costs in the US or go somewhere that doesn't try to bankrupt you for getting sick? I think the latter. (Obviously, there's a reason my travel insurance used to cost me 2.5x as much per day when the US was on my itinerary as compared to anywhere else in the world - even places like Iraq and others ending in "stan").

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    18. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      If you think the government is cheaper, you are sadly mistaken. Even with profit built into the equation, government is never going to be cheaper, better, faster.

      Government things aren't really *meant* to turn a profit, but when they do, you seem to get some sort of refund sometime in late April or early May. The thing about government projects - unlike private projects - is that they're meant to serve everybody, so they average things out, so while *YOU* might pay 10 cents more a month on your Internet bill, someone 10 miles out of town can now get the same services at the same speeds for the same price as you can... and cities like Seattle can finally feel what it's like to have Broadband.

      or it will drive up your taxes.

      Then learn to deal with paying more than 1.5% tax (as recent filings of certain normal everyday individuals I know recently revealed their effective rate to be) and not getting massive multiple-thousand-dollar refunds every year.

      There's nothing really wrong with higher taxes when it benefits the people... Maybe if your taxes were a bit more reasonable (and you slowed down on all the war stuff), your infrastructure might not be decaying, you could afford to pay teachers properly, water would be free and clean, and I wouldn't be paying $14 a month to the city separately for garbage collection.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    19. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      In the end you pay more for internet service if government owns the infrastructure... IMHO this is universally true, government is NOT efficient at ANYTHING. Oh your ISP bill may go down, but the cost of waste will be made up in some other way.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...

      What, like subsidized healthcare and education which actually benefits the citizens of the country?

      Yea, just look at what government money has done to the price of college and how much debt subsidized student loans have created. Tell me the subsidies for healthcare aren't expensive... Government is rarely the correct answer, in fact, for me it is the answer of last resort in all but a limited number of constitutionally mandated situations.....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Then you need to figure out another way because the "free market" isn't working.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    22. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Publicly funded healthcare works when the healthcare PROVIDERS aren't charging the insurance (private OR public) 3 or 5 times the actual price of the service. I was talking to a guy just last night who told me that paying for his surgery was "only" about $70k compared to the $300k they would have charged his insurance (and he'd still have been stuck with 20% of that).

      I'm not talking about subsidizing student loans - getting an education shouldn't require a massive student loan, subsidized or not, nor should it require parents to start a college fund the day they get the positive pregnancy test. Students should be able to afford to pay for university and their living expenses by themselves with *at most* a part-time job and come out of it without any significant debt - like it used to be in the US and still is in some other countries.

      In the US, both of these things though seem to be the "free market" at work - providers of education and health are charging whatever the hell they want, and in both cases are charging amounts that are inflationary, exploitative and far beyond reason - as we already know, per capita spending on both of these things in the US is far higher than anywhere else yet the quality/outcome is far lower by comparison.

      Having private education and healthcare for those who can afford it and want the extra perks (Ivy League universities, for example) but to deny those who can't afford it *any* option whatsoever (ie, no university or healthcare for you, poor person!) is not.

      The average student shouldn't *have* to rely on scholarships and/or student loans just to pay for their degree even at random-state-U, but should have the option to apply for those things if they want to go for something specific.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    23. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Then you need to figure out another way because the "free market" isn't working.

      Says who? By what measure? Seems to be working fine for me, I have the choice of 3 mainstream providers at my home... Plus, the vast majority of people have at least two choices here in the USA.... This doesn't seem like a problem to me.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    24. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Again, for you, but as we have identified in other posts, your situation is an anomaly.

      Secondly, the choice between DSL and cable isn't really choice.

      Besides that, for the vast majority of subscribers, only one of those options actually offers (properly) high speeds -- and in a significant portion of cases the DSL on offer barely squeaks above the *old* definition of broadband.

      So yes, there is a problem.

      But it's also noteworthy that you've neglected to reply to my replies to other comments, just this and one other ;)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    25. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But.... The Federally backed Student Loan program expansion happens to be associated with a HUGE increase in money borrowed for ... Hold on to your hat... College education... Which just happened to take place at the SAME TIME as ... Hold your hat again.... Tuition increases...

      Say, could all that be somehow related? Might there be a cause and effect relationship between the Fed making more money available and students borrowing more for tuition AND THEN tuitions going up? I think so...

      Same thing is going to happen with healthcare.. Total costs are going up... You can bet the farm on that.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    26. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      But.... The Federally backed Student Loan program expansion happens to be associated with a HUGE increase in money borrowed for ... Hold on to your hat... College education... Which just happened to take place at the SAME TIME as ... Hold your hat again.... Tuition increases...

      But nothin'... quit stutterin', boy, people'll think yewr stoopid

      If you read my post at all, you'd see I am also not in favour of student loans. Universities should be publicly funded and available to any citizen/resident or at the very least the student should be able to fund their education and living expenses with a part-time job.

      This whole idea of student loans is stupid and supports this whole obsession America has with credit and going in to debt to get stuff - top, middle and bottom all suffer from this same thing.

      Say, could all that be somehow related? Might there be a cause and effect relationship between the Fed making more money available and students borrowing more for tuition AND THEN tuitions going up? I think so...

      Same thing is going to happen with healthcare.. Total costs are going up... You can bet the farm on that.

      So basically you didn't read my post at all. Try replying to what I actually wrote and only then can we have a coherent discussion.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    27. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That first sentance was supposed to have a funny tag around it. Let's try that again:

        But nothin'... quit stutterin', boy, people'll think yewr stoopid

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    28. Re:Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      damnit ./ stop stripping stuff.

      (bad texas accent) But nothin'... quit stutterin', boy, people'll think yewr stoopid (/bad texas accent)

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  17. Governments contract private companies. by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Government is NOT the answer in most cases

    Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.

    Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.

    That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.

    1. Re:Governments contract private companies. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Government is NOT the answer in most cases

      Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.

      Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.

      Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.

      That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.

      So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a horrible track record in this department and putting politicians in charge of yet another segment of the economy is only going to be asking for trouble. I see kickbacks, bribes and campaign money in the future if we do what you are suggesting.

      Personally, I'd choose to avoid all this garbage, keep government smaller and cheaper and let the private sector take care of this. Now if you want to suggest REGULATION, I'm game for that, but not a government take over.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Governments contract private companies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.

      Actually the government did take over telecom. They used eminent domain to build the railroads AND telegraph lines, broke up ATT, intervened repeatedly before and after (own your own phone - land line phone!). Ditto for power lines and distribution, even mineral rights now.

      Government is not perfect, it may and often sucks, but Government is necessary. Government + "for profit" corporations on top are NOT necessary. They suck more and worse. People like you think the job of government is to hand a no-bid contract to a company and then let the company take the profit while the government takes the blame. You may not believe it, but your every action aligns more with that thesis than any other.

    3. Re:Governments contract private companies. by towermac · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add that this is the reason to bring whatever service down to as local level politics as possible.

      The elected officials are still accountable, and can be fired in the next election.

    4. Re:Governments contract private companies. by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I second that motion. PASSED!!!

    5. Re:Governments contract private companies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a horrible track record in this department and putting politicians in charge of yet another segment of the economy is only going to be asking for trouble. I see kickbacks, bribes and campaign money in the future if we do what you are suggesting.

      How is this different than what we have right now? Comcast "donates" to many campaigns in an attempt to get laws passed in their favor. When you're talking actually building something, of course the government is going to compete and award the lowest bidder. That's both good and bad, yes it saves the taxpayer some money, but you may or may not get the best quality. There is a reason the government has rules to look at small, minority owned businesses, as well as Small Business Innovation Research contracts. It's not perfect, but it sorta works.

      Personally, I'd choose to avoid all this garbage, keep government smaller and cheaper and let the private sector take care of this. Now if you want to suggest REGULATION, I'm game for that, but not a government take over.

      The problem is that regulation has been weak for many years, the incumbents are already in bed with the lawmakers, and strengthening regulation is an uphill battle. We've seen that "letting the market work" is only making the fat cats fatter at the expense of their customers and competition, we have de-facto monopolies nationwide. Stricter regulation is exactly what the FCC is doing. Last I checked, nobody was saying the government is going to buy all of Comcast's infrastructure and relegate them to a last-mile customer service provider. The FCC is, however, attempting to make sure that these de-facto monopolies better serve their customers and (conceptually?) lower the barrier of entry for competition.

      Hell, I tried to get a local cable ISP instead of TWC, and was told "we don't service your area, we can't cross wires". Yup, openly told they can't compete.

    6. Re:Governments contract private companies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it."

      The only reason most people have electricity (and why many suburbs even exist today) is because the rural electrification program provided a cheap and quick way to get electricity out to the people. It was a government program, because the companies themselves would never have paid for it.

      It's much the same for internet for anywhere but within a highly-populated city. The reason internet reaches you is because these companies used various government subsidies and/or government-authorized "universal fees" to pay for the infrastructure roll-out. Do you live in a house newer than 1996 or one of the huge number of developments before the housing bubble popped? Then a government program got you your cable/internet/dsl hookup.

      And now they claim they 'paid' for it, and want to charge everyone twice while providing substandard service.

    7. Re:Governments contract private companies. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      we already let the private sector take of it.
      we ended up with the situation we have now.

      next question.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:Governments contract private companies. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Why change it now... Seems to be working fairly well to me...

      Oh? You don't think so?

      Well, I have TWO separate options for 100Mbps internet connections at my home, one from Time Warner Cable and the other from Verizon FIOS. PLUS, I have at least four wireless carriers that offer 1Mbps service (or better) if I choose to use them (and a whole host of WiFi based ISP's if my memory is correct). I seem to have a LOT of choices actually...

      So what problem are you thinking we have?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Governments contract private companies. by meustrus · · Score: 1

      One data point is not good enough. And are you really happy with the choice of TWC or Verizon? Neither company is really known for great customer service.

      Where I live it's $30/mo minumum for high speed at 7mbps, and if you want any more you go with the cable company that won't even tell you up front what the cost is after the first year (it's something like $70/mo from what I've gathered, but it also has a tendency to hike another $5-10 every year for no good reason).

      Where my parents live - in (rural) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - they can't even get a 1.5mbps DSL connection. Phone companies just won't build out the last mile, and cable companies don't even have TV out there. The best internet available is from an understaffed local firm that beams a high-intensity signal straight to used satellite dishes pointed at Fallbrook. Which is better than the nation-wide available HughesNet satellite internet that charges ridiculous fees for data over absurdly low caps, not to mention the terrible latency inherent to beaming every packet to and from space.

      Shopping for internet was better in the dial-up days. At least then anybody could set up a dial-up ISP and they were really competing for service. Not that I want dial-up again. But damn have we sold out for better internet when we're getting it from the f*king CABLE company.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    10. Re:Governments contract private companies. by meustrus · · Score: 1

      Local-level politics are a great idea that just don't seem to be feasible anymore. Most local politicians run unopposed these days. The Democrats just aren't organized enough to support local candidates most of the time anyway. Besides, it's hard to get voters interested anyway when the national elections have TV ads and social media campaigns and massive media buildup.

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    11. Re:Governments contract private companies. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      That's great for you. I venture to speculate that 99 percent of the country doesn't have a choice like that. I know I don't, and it's not as though I live in the middle of nowhere. 25 miles west of boston, and I have exactly ONE choice, Charter.

    12. Re:Governments contract private companies. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The rural electrification program was started under Johnson. When most suburbs where almost 20 years old.

      It has also outlived it's usefulness, but continues to suck money, year after year.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Governments contract private companies. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You have more than one choice... Perhaps one wired choice is all you have, but there are other providers out there. I'm guessing they are more expensive and likely lower bandwidth, but you have choices.

      Now, if you where *really* in the boonies, 10 miles from anywhere like where I grew up in South West Missouri, THEN, we had 2 viable broadband choices. A marginal Cell Phone based provider using a cell tower about 10 miles away or the Hughes satellite option which has broadband bandwidth and really long latency.

      But I'm saying that for the VAST majority of people in the USA, broadband is available, usually from multiple vendors. I don't think we really have a huge broad band problem. Yea, there are places you won't get wired service, but the number of people who live in these areas is pretty limited.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    14. Re:Governments contract private companies. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Of course there's always cell, but the price of that is ludicrous. No DSL. Sat service is not really workable and pretty expensive as well. I don't think you'll find that many communities with more than one /reasonable/ choice.

    15. Re:Governments contract private companies. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      But, you will find at least one for the vast majority of people.. Often more than one.

      That's not to say there is viable competition everywhere, Only that broadband access is not really a serious problem.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:Governments contract private companies. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      If it isn't a viable choice, then it IS a problem. I certainly consider it a problem in my life and a lot of other people in my town do as well.

    17. Re:Governments contract private companies. by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your situation is an anomaly. The vast majority of the country does not enjoy the choice you have.

      I consider myself fairly lucky to live where I do - I get reasonable speeds at reasonable prices, however, I'm looking to move to another state in a few months and one of the significant deciding factors as to where I'll live is based on which provider(s) is/are in the area, and I'm not having much fun trying to make this decision. I may actually end up living in an "out of the way" place or worse neighbourhood JUST because the Internet provider in that area is better than another more convenient place.

      Which is completely stupid - I shouldn't have to do that. I would rather have a choice of several retail providers no matter who has the physical cables running in to the house.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  18. Not the same companies by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock?

    Time Warner Cable is not the same company as Time Warner Inc. They have been separate enterprises since 2009.

    Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.

    The two transactions couldn't be more different. In addition the buying entity here is Charter Communications, not TWC.

  19. A few facts by sjbe · · Score: 1

    No, you can't merge with Comcast. That would be too big of a company....suuuure, you can merge with Charter! That's fine.

    First, the merger hasn't been approved yet. Second, Comcast is larger than TWC and Charter combined. TWC+Charter is roughly the same size as Comcast and in theory could be a competitor though in practice I doubt that would be the case. Third, Comcast owns content like NBC. TWC and Charter do not.

  20. Best I can do by ememisya · · Score: 1

    Is to throw a shoe.

  21. Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... to cable conduits and poles. So other companies could lay cable.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to cable conduits and poles. So other companies could lay cable.

      In most places, the poles are owned by the local Electric Utility, or a telco like CenturyLink. Conduit is more of a mixed bag, depending on where it is. But generally speaking the more expensive right-of-way crossings (bridges, highways, railroads, etc.) are leased from a 3rd party. Most of the conduit they own directly is small potato stuff in local neighborhoods. Also important to note is that housing developments often run their own conduit during construction, and any provider in the area who is interested is allowed to come in and drop lines in the trenches ahead of time.

    2. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      As to whomever owns the poles or conduit, I'm not saying they shouldn't be compensated for permitting someone to run cable. Be reasonable about it. But do not obstruct it either.

      Here people say "but it would be messy with all those wires"... it won't be messy if it is just a couple companies doing it. If it is a lot more than that, then you'll be collecting enough money in fees to convert from poles to conduits at which point the way it looks will be irrelevant.

      As to private developments allowing people to lay cable... depends. They often are in exclusive agreements to only let company X run cable.

      Here is the thing, what would it cost in materials to run fiber from your house to the trunk? If you're in a major city, then you're usually less than a couple miles from place you could click right into the backbone. what does a couple miles of fiber cable cost? Peanuts.

      The reason we have so much dark fiber is because they determined that the labor was more expensive than the cable so they just installed way more than they needed so they could just exploit unused cable for years instead of having to go out and lay more every few years.

      The cable is cheap.

      The labor is also pretty cheap.

      The thing holding it back is that you're literally on pain of getting shot in the face not allowed to do it.

      Stop stopping people from running cable and we'll all have gigabit internet by christmas.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ... to cable conduits and poles. So other companies could lay cable.

      Rights of way can be obtained by going through the franchise process. If you have a specific city in mind, go look up the franchising ordinance to see what the requirements are.

      Once you have access, where do you get the money to run your cable, and how do you pay back the people who loaned you that money when you can't cover your fixed costs with the limited subscriber base you have? That's your limiting factor.

      Oh, and be prepared for a legal battle if you want to skip some of the requirements. Not from the city, but from the incumbent who didn't get to skip them.

    4. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop stopping people from running cable and we'll all have gigabit internet by christmas.

      so you want the government then to come in and force the cable companies to allow other companies to use their resources at a rate that you feel is fair? what happened to belief in the free market? hell, the cable company doesn't own the land under the pole, the competitors could just contract for their own damned pole if they wanted to.

    5. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.

      your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.

      neither argument is credible. Sorry. You're wrong.

      There are entrenched interests in many municipalities that will not permit right of way of cable. They just won't. Often they've signed exclusive contracts with some other company and they're contractually obligated to not let your run cable.

      This has been discussed on this site repeatedly. It is basically common knowledge at this point.

      why don't you know common knowledge? Why are you forcing me to explain it to you? Why will you now feel entitled to be snippy with me when you've been putting me through that?

      Questions for the ages.

      In any case, since your information is horribly off I'm not that interested in going any further with you.

      Good day.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      By resources, you mean share their poles and conduits? Yes.

      As to rates I feel are reasonable... I would consider a rate of 1 billion zillion dollars per foot to be unreasonable.

      Would you agree?

      And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest. They will set whatever rate they want to charge for pole/conduit lease space. And ANYONE that runs cable will have to pay the same rate based on how much cable they're running.

      that would keep the rates reasonable because charging the little companies lots of money would mean the big companies have to pay lots of money as well which is not in their interest.

      You're not thinking about this constructively.

      Consider roads. What if only one company were allowed to put cars on the road and they would rent you a car to drive on their roads. But you could only drive on their roads if you bought one of their cars. That is basically what is going on with cable these days.

      That isn't capitalism.

      We have cable monopolies because of a dysfunction in the market. Saying that that is a healthy market is at best ignorant.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.

      The franchise ordinances spell out the requirements for any cable franchise agreement. If you try to avoid those requirements, then you aren't operating under that ordinance and have no reasonable expectation to getting access to the public rights of way based on it.

      But what you're talking about is an issue of the local government -- people who are elected by and responsible to the local voters. In the vast majority of cases, that won't include you.

      your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.

      You are putting words in my mouth in an attempt at winning your argument. Sorry, no, I said neither thing. If CL and G are trying to run cable for an ISP-only service then it is a given that they are trying to ignore a large part of the CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE that puts specific performance requirements on any franchisee. The cable companies got their franchises based on a CABLE TELEVISION ordinance, not an ISP ordinance. There is no law stopping CL or Google from being an ISP.

      This has been discussed on this site repeatedly. It is basically common knowledge at this point.

      The "basic common knowledge" that the incumbent cable company has been granted a government monopoly is like much "common knowledge" -- wrong.

      Why will you now feel entitled to be snippy with me when you've been putting me through that?

      Why would I be "snippy" with you for trying to misstate my argument (or put words in my mouth)? And you blame me for forcing you to do it? I haven't been "snippy", so you lose all around.

      In any case, since your information is horribly off

      I'll assume then that you have no examples of exclusive franchise agreements for cable and are unhappy that your "common knowledge" didn't turn out to be right.

    8. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to local government, you're not telling me anything I don't know and I frankly made it quite clear I was talking about that so you're just restating what I said.

      As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.

      A common stipulation for example is that cable be run throughout the entire city/town if it is run anywhere.

      And that means that a small company that might only have the resources to provide service to one neighborhood initially is locked out for basically no reason.

      this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.

      That means that big franchises can open sandwich shops but little companies can't. So everything turns into McDonalds.

      Sound reasonable?

      As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads. So no. Same basic principle.

      You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed to lock out all competition using these bogus agreements.

      It is nonsense. I believe portland issued their last franchise agreement after FREE gigabit internet was given to their capital building. And I know there was something like that in another city where the company gave them free internet at the schools.

      Well great. Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest.

      Unfortunately, the companies that have poles in place in the public rights of way do so because they have franchise agreements that require them to provide specific services in return. The ordinances that cover those franchises don't say "selling space on a pole" is a service that deserves a franchise to access the rights of way. And no city in its right mind would give away control of the rights of way so someone could sell an unlimited number of wires to every comer. There's a liability issue just to start with.

      Consider roads. What if only one company were allowed to put cars on the road and they would rent you a car to drive on their roads. But you could only drive on their roads if you bought one of their cars. That is basically what is going on with cable these days. That isn't capitalism.

      What? So, a company has a fiber and you can't "drive your car" on their fiber unless you are a customer of that company. That seems pretty reasonable to me. That seems like a natural expression of capitalism. Someone provides a service and you pay them for that.

      We have cable monopolies because of a dysfunction in the market.

      We have cable monopolies because of a normal functioning of the market. The first player expended the money for infrastructure and has all the customers. Wanna-bees see that it will cost a lot of money to try to split a limited customer base and that their return on investment will be negative. You can't cut your fixed costs in half just by waving a magic wand, you have to cut the basis of that cost in half. Cheap hardware is a false economy. Cheap labor likewise. And everyone already complains about cheap customer support. None of the program providers are going to cut their fees in half so you can compete with the incumbent and survive -- it would be economic insanity for them.

      What do you wind up with? A second company that can't really charge much less than the existing one, which means you split the available customers at best. You might get an initial burst of churn from unhappy customers, but most people will have inertia and avoid changing. The devil you know, e.g.. And those who are mobile enough that find your new service just as bad will change back. (I knew a guy who was so interested in saving money, especially on internet, that he took the introductory offers and always switched away when they ran out. He got the intro offer from the next company, and moved on when that ran out. So, you'd be building a business on a customer who will only buy from you if you give him 50% off!)

      Where's the dysfunction? It's the assumption that pixie dust and unicorns can build a working, fabulous cable system and give service away for half what the existing company does. It's the idea that new players in a market should be given the same access the incumbent has so the new player can come cherry pick certain customers, while the incumbent is required by law to provide a larger number of services, and had to agree to that in order to get its access originally.

    10. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.

      Look at the taxi mediallion licenses for another example of the same thing. You want to run a taxi service in this town? Give the city 200,000 dollars.

      What does that do? That locks out all the smaller competitors because who can afford the seed capital of an additional 200,000 dollars PER cab on top of the actual cab, advertising, office space, etc.

      Your point that "but the agreements says this" is utterly irrelevant to me. The thing could say any fucking thing some asshat wrote on it.

      it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage.

      You know that.

      I know that.

      Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?

      You have to be fucking kidding me.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.

      Interesting use of quotation marks. But what you refer to as "stupid shit" is actually the concerns of the public towards what the cable providers are expected to provide in return for access to their right of way. "Stupid shit" things like customer service quality levels, service area coverage, technical standards for installed plant, PEG channels for public and government information paths, wiring for schools and libraries, money for equipment to do PEG, and other things that are in the public interest.

      It's pretty clear you've never read a cable franchise ordinance or agreement.

      this is sort of like saying you can't open a sandwich shop unless you agree to open ten locations across town.

      No, it's like saying that you cannot use the public rights of way in this city unless you serve all the citizens of this city. That's a perfectly reasonable, and in fact responsible, requirement for a cable franchise. Can you imagine the whining if Comcast would hang all their plant and then serve only a three-square block area of a city? I've lost count of the people who complain that Comcast et. al. don't serve a large enough area where they live (service ends 500 feet from their house, etc.) and you think it's acceptable for them not to be required to serve the entire city.

      You think the broadband access in the US is bad now, imagine what it would be like had cities allowed the cable companies to cherry pick only the highest density/richest neighborhoods out of a city, instead of being forced to wire the whole thing. And you call that "stupid shit".

      As to local government, we don't let local governments screw with roads.

      You have got to be kidding. City governments screw with city roads ALL THE TIME. Rip them up, put them back, and tax everyone for the privilege. You have no clue.

      You think it is reasonable for local governments to be systematically bribed

      I've said no such thing and I tire of your repeated attempts at putting words in my mouth.

      Your schools save a hundred dollars a month on their internet bill and the entire town is locked down by the monopoly for fucking chump change.

      If you think wiring a school for internet would be a "hundred dollars a month", you really have no clue. And you know what? If you want to start a company to compete with that "monopoly", do it. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out a way to make money doing it. You can beat the economy, you just don't have to beat the government, because the government didn't grant a monopoly.

    12. Re:Wouldn't be a problem if they gave right of way by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.

      You think that it is stupid that a local government would define the requirements for a cable system operator to be able to obtain a franchise to use the public rights of way. Fine. That's your opinion. But most folks understand, and understood, that cable companies weren't going to do a lot of things unless they were forced to.

      Some people had a view that a system that was intended to replace broadcast TV as an information source for the public should have a requirement to "serve the public interest", just like broadcast TV stations are supposed to. That when an emergency hits the city, there should be a place for cable customers to go to get critical local information since they won't be accessing broadcast media, and what broadcast media there was might be from thirty miles away. And that allowing the public a place to have a voice in general would be a good thing for the community -- which is why PEG channels are a typical requirement for cable systems.

      Some people realized that a cable company would build out only what it needed and avoid investments in infrastructure. That's why some governments required cable franchisees to upgrade plant as technical standards and methods improved. For example, our city was smart enough to demand a fiber upgrade long before fiber upgrades were standard practice. We ALL benefited from that, just as we all benefit from having a specialist in the city government that we can call when the cable customer service does get really abusive and fraudulent. That specialist exists only because of the franchise you think is "stupid shit".

      it is anti competitive, pro monopolist, anti consumer, it is the reason internet speeds are often shit throughout the country and it is the reason many areas have very poor coverage. You know that.

      Please don't tell me what I know. It's arrogant and insulting. What I know is that the local government, who is elected by and responsible to, the local people, created the franchise ordinances to deal with issues they knew would be problems with any incoming cable company, and to include things they thought important for their community. That's local government in action. You don't care that they wrote the requirements, you think it's "stupid shit" to demand technical and customer service standards be met (whether the city then enforces that requirement is a different matter -- if it doesn't cost Comcast anything to meet the customer service standards because they don't, then it won't cost any newcomer.)

      Why are you defending something that is objectively bad for pretty much everyone and serves no purpose

      Because it isn't and wasn't "objectively bad for pretty much everyone" and did serve a purpose. Your opinion doesn't make it "objective". Your opinion is called "subjective".

      besides letting well monied companies basically sit on their asses collecting monthly fees for shitty service?

      "Shitty service" is a subjective evaluation. And if you can do so much better, or if anyone can, let them try. All they have to do is meet the same minimum standards that their competition has to meet. You seem to think that any newcomer shouldn't have to meet those standards, they should get to decide what service they'll provide and to whom. That's ridiculous.

      You also seem to think it is fair to have a piecemeal playing field. It's ok to demand that the original company do a lot of things to get the right to use the rights of way while allowing newcomers to cherry pick the most profitable out from under the incumbent. How about if I gave you access to the entire city for your taxi company but only if you promised to use Mercedes Benz taxis and you had to demonstrate that you were providing service even to the poorest areas of town -- and then I let a

  22. Previous charter subscriber by Malenx · · Score: 2

    Honestly... my experience with Charter was nothing short of great. Their pricing was better than my alternatives, I got decent speed which was doubled at one point without a price increase, and my customer service experience was pretty good. Had I not moved, I would probably still be a customer of theirs.

    1. Re:Previous charter subscriber by Quantus347 · · Score: 2

      Huh... As a previous Charter customer and Current TWC customer, the only good thing I have been able to say about TWC Customer Service is that at least it wasnt as bad as Charter.

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    2. Re:Previous charter subscriber by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I switched to charter from AT&T, about a year ago. I haven't yet had to deal with their customer service and the internet service has been good.

      AT&T made me sad though as I was customer of theirs for over ten years and while their customer service people were good, they weren't empowered to do much of anything. The service had gotten pretty bad and I was at the point that I had to replace the DSL modem at my cost just to see if that was the issue. They couldn't/wouldn't send me a new one even though the modem I had was the original they sold me over a decade ago. Instead they wanted me to gamble on buying a DSL modem and hope it was compatible with their system. Screw that I switched to cable, got a better connection, lower bill, and new equipment.

      Maybe Charter will tank in the near future but so far it's been great.

  23. A year from now: TWC on Overstock.com by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    "Please buy me! Won't someone please buy me?" How FUBAR is TWC that they're so ready to sell to someone, anyone? Either a) they had this in the pipeline before the Comcast deal fell through, in which case how many other deals are on standby?, or b) they brokered a major corporate sell deal entirely within the last month, presumably under immense pressure.

    In my opinion, TWC is desperate to sell because there's an internal house of cards that's about to fall over. Someone needs to unload it quickly so that a pending spectacular failure will be on someone else's watch.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:A year from now: TWC on Overstock.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your premise is deeply flawed. If I knock on your door and offer to buy your house for 25% over market, and you accept, does that make you desperate?

  24. Wouldn't we be better off if.... by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't we be better off if we outright banned mergers involving companies that hold (at least) double-digit percentages of their market? (with a possible exception in case of bankruptcy on a "likely to destroy the company" level) The biggest benefit of mergers, aside from cash infusions, is removing competition - which is rarely (or never) in the interests of the customers.

  25. I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where's all the massive hate? When Comcast announced it's intention to acquire, you'd have thought the world was ending.

    But now that it's #2 wanting to buy instead, it's somehow alright?

    1. Re:I'm confused... by steveg · · Score: 2

      I don't think anyone hates Comcast because they're number 1. People hate Comcast because they're Comcast.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  26. People are approaching this all wrong by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    Just call your local Congressman and tell them that fast cheap broadband is a matter of national security, and if we have to wait for movies to buffer the terrorists will win. You would see $10 trillion infrastructure outlays in a matter of months, and floor debates where each Congressman is trying to prove they are the party of broadband, and the other party is the party of dialup.

  27. They also acquire BrightHouse Cable. by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

    which currently offer 35/60/90/150/300 mbps internet tiers to normal folk and in some local communities like the ones in the Tampa area they signed exclusive deals to upcoming and new subdivisions/HOAs to offer 1 Gbps speeds as part of their lure to get people to move in. So if Charter buys them out what happens to the 1 Gbps deal that the original builder/HOA/CDD signed?? I bet that'll piss 'em off if Charter says, "sorry!!"

  28. Not as a security engineer after this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Because nobody uses hosts files for security" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

    FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    SpyBot S&D does dimwit

    (you FAIL #1)!

    You LATER deny it's spybot's forums http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Anyone can use it + see they do & MANY use that program stupid!

    (you FAIL #2)!

    ---

    NOD32/ESET's says hosts = valuable security http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I also "overturned a SECURITY expert" on a "false positive" on my Hosts program RIGHT there & he gave in!

    (YOU FAIL #3)!

    (Had to - MalwareBytes' employees VETTED my code & even host + HIGHLY RECOMMEND it for me near top of -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    Mr. Oliver Day of Symantec/Norton/SecurityFocus does too http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    (you FAIL #4)!

    YOU ALSO TRIED TO DENY it & it's there in PLAIN Black & White with his NAME on it!

    "I don't see Oliver Day of SecurityFocus on there. Weren't you going to cite him?" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:43PM (#49747763)

    FROM-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    (you FAIL #5)!

    ---

    WHOSE INITIALS ARE ON THIS - WINNER IN 2008 (added proof of paid for good layered security article):

    http://forums.pcpitstop.com/in...

    (YOU FAIL #7)!

    Via the layered security/defense in depth methods my security guide extolls? I've COMPLETELY shut down your "desperation" RARE edge cases you tried too!

    (You FAIL #8)!

    Do YOU have *ANYTHING* like it to YOUR name/credit? No.

    (YOU FAIL #9)!

    ---

    Do you write a ware that noted security pros even seconded me on?? No.

    (You FAIL #10)!

    A ware that not only secures you but ALSO SPEEDS YOU UP (e.g. unlike antivirus which is not as effective anymore vs. online modern threats, mine is, stopping sources of infestation BEFORE they can get into you, & IF in you, stopping their communications BACK to C&C servers too!)

    APK

    P.S.=> LMAO: "Bouldin's GOLDEN top 10 'greatest hits'" (fails vs. me)... apk

    1. Re:Not as a security engineer after this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of tards, here's apk.

      Check it out, this guy thinks hosts files suck for security, too:

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7466503&cid=49776033

  29. Thanks for letting me know... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll cook his ass like 2 'pseudo security engineers' raymorris http://it.slashdot.org/comment... AND Bouldin (with ease, & documented, concrete sources of reputable quality that's easily verifiable... fact & truth? They're JUST like that...).

    WITNESS Bouldin's AGREEING with me in the end too:

    "I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be" by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @10:25PM (#49748145) QUOTED FROM BOULDIN -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    I NEVER ONCE HAVE SAID THEY CURE IT ALL: SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE - you couldn't then, you can't now. BarbaraHudson + Hairyfeet made those SAME mistakes, they lost, just like you Bouldin (don't go put up some post impersonating me now after the date of our debate shown here & in my last post that YOU LOST BADLY, fool... I know your 'troll tricks' & YOU, better than YOU KNOW YOURSELF, & I know computer security FAR better, no questions asked! Your fails list shows that much too!)

    APK

    P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS"... apk

    1. Re:Thanks for letting me know... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual quote:

      Hosts files are NOT effective at blocking command&control of botnets. I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be.

      So, no, no agreement there. Unless you're admitting host files are worthless against botnets.

      Dishonest as always, eh, apk?

  30. Zeus BOTNET C&Cs by hostname anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hosts files are NOT effective at blocking command&control of botnets. I actually agree with most of the rest of the list, but hosts files are not the silver bullet you make them out to be." - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

    I put this out & Bouldin RAN (yes hosts block these) https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/m... since they're served up by host-domain names + ACTIVE CURRENTLY (red ones), stupid!

    * :)

    (Care to DENY that, redneck? Go for it - I'll just EAT YOU ALIVE again, as I did here 10x easily -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND right now yet again, lol!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Face facts: YOU? You don't *HAVE* the intelligence OR information + verifiable concrete & UNDENIABLE facts I do, to "get the 'best' of me", period!

    See above yet again - "eat your words"

    (Especially on partial quotes, your OWN STUPIDITY NOW got "turned against you" w/ me EASILY TURNING THE TABLES ON IT, same as in my reply after that had YOU running again "Forrest" just like you will now vs. that & your ERRONEOUS words)... apk

    1. Re:Zeus BOTNET C&Cs by hostname anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I dont see DGA domains on that zeustracker site. Not that you would know what they look like, tard.

      Not that it even matters, since malware can easily bypass hosts files.

      Go get a real education, tard. Try working on a project that isn't useless.

  31. 1st: Quit posting AC to 'defend yourself'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this - you're a moron on botnets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... via YOUR OWN WORDS QUOTED.!

    (ZEUS botnet = 1 of the BIGGEST with the MOST VARIANTS no less, uses host-domain names & NEW NEWS/Clue/NewsFlash: HOSTS FILES STOP THEM, & those are red-active ones (some even use fastflux which hosts stop too)).

    And

    YOU DID SUCH A "FINE JOB" HERE TOO, lol, Mr. 'Security Engineer' (not) w/ your own blunders in your faults QUOTED from you, doing the job for me once again -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    DGA?

    LMAO - ok: Like 'spammers' use, short-lived ephemeral ones??

    NO biggie: HOSTS STOP THOSE TOO (along with them STOPPING THEMSELVES, in such a short period, the ODDS alone of getting one = next to NIL, unless you're a fool, which the above has PROVEN you to be, no denying it since your words "do the job" for me, MORE than adequately: Only way would be to be STUPID ENOUGH to click on those spam/phish mails... me? I'm definitely not... perhaps (lmao) YOU are, but not me!)

    E.G.-> 0.0.0.0 dgabotnetnodeCandCtoBlock.com

    QUESTION: Would THAT block out those nodes? ANSWER = YES, definitely (clue again - that IS what hosts do DO, dolt...)

    * The "likes of YOU", MENIAL? Please... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Eddie Morra from the film "LIMITLESS" here: "Puts me 50 MOVES ahead of YOU & everybody else"

    ... apk

  32. 2nd: You said "botnets" quoted, & hosts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Not MY hosts file Bouldin - it's locked vs. corruption 2 ways (5 actually, since UAC + NTFS filesystem ACL in combination with it ALONG with Windows File Protection ALREADY do & I supplement that 2 additional ways...)

    Ready? Here goes (it's YOUR funeral as usual for you, vs. me):

    1.) My app, via a hi-res timer I registered w/ the OS in it, applies READ-ONLY attribs to the hosts file - combine it with the above? NO way in, no f'ing way (better than exclusive locking too, that would lock out things like browsers that read it too) & @ shutdown, should you elect NOT to keep it resident updating? It does once more... supplementing Windows MULTIPLE PROTECTIONS of it.

    &

    2.) My program updates as OFTEN AS YOU LIKE (better check some of my sources too, they update like MAD) manually, & every 12 hours if set "auto" - that means CURRENT DATA (like that ZEUS BOTNET DATA dimwit & many others) from 10 reputable security community sources & uses a PRISTINE BACKUP COPY + due to protections I use also it's clean, of the older hosts data to create a NEW hosts file, clean...

    * The "likes of YOU", MENIAL? Please... lol! You CAN'T get the best of me, or 'outsmart' me... that's NOT happenin' as the saying goes, ever... & you certainly can't produce an app like it in GUI mode, in 1 single piece (not runtimes & Python, lol, the tool of weak fools, a toy) executable protected in & of itself vs. infestations via means that did well here on /. in fact -> CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    (Prediction: Bouldin will not effetely *try* to come up with some "theoretical" or rare "edgecase" once again, & I'll just crush him, AGAIN... this? It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" vs. mere menials.

    APK

    P.S.=> Eddie Morra from the film "LIMITLESS" here: "Puts me 50 MOVES ahead of YOU & everybody else"

    ... apk

    1. Re:2nd: You said "botnets" quoted, & hosts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, tard. You're trying to talk about things you don't understand. NO tard. BAD TARD.

      Here, I'll do your research for you, and drop some knowledge on your ass.

      See this link: http://www.malwaredomains.com/?p=3880

      There is a paper there. Fidelis Security reverse-engineered the Domain-Generating Algorithm (DGA) for Pushdo (the Cutwail botnet). Pushdo/Cutwail creates 30 domain names PER DAY.

      Fidelis used the DGA to generate all ~10,000 domain names for all of 2015. There is a link to all ~10,000 domain names.

      If you want to protect against DGAs using a host file, you need to:
      1. Reverse Engineer the algorithm out of the malware.
      2. Use the algorithm to generate the domains for each day/hour/whatever.

      Step #1 requires an experienced malware reverse-engineer. They do not normally just do this work for free and post the results publicly. Fidelis did it this time to raise their profile as a security company.

      Additionally, the Pushdo authors will probably just change the DGA now that it's been made public.

      Besides, as we've discussed, malware usually runs with admin privileges and can trivially:
      1. Send DNS itself (I even linked you a paper on this)
      2. Change DNS settings

  33. WRONG: Have to CATCH it 1st... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guides for layered security stop that too -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    WHICH YOU SAW THERE - & they cutoff ANY & ALL AVENUES MALWARE USE TO "GET TO YOU", period... so you FAIL yet again, lol!

    (Their methods stop it, well - Other than 'user is stupid' ones of course, but that is what the guide is about - to educate end users vs. threats & how to secure themselves, & my GUIDES FOR SECURING WINDOWS are based on CIS Tool, highly esteemed & I've CONTRIBUTED VALID FIXES TO IT myself... you done *anything* like that? HELL NO!)

    NOW - I NEVER ever once SAID "hosts cure it all", now have I? Nope! Prove otherwise, hence my guides for security & their defense in depth practices working to do the rest... which is, of course, MORE than a schmuck menial like YOU can manage, now isn't it? Yes.

    I also created a ware that gives you more speed, security, reliability & anonymity that works great for those things too - HAVE YOU? Oh, hell no!

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    * YOU FAIL... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Plus, face it SINCE YOU AVOID THIS QUESTION:

    Even WHEN there's 10,000 like this, would this stop them (as a SINGLE example of them):

    0.0.0.0 DGABotnetCandC1.com

    ANSWER = YES, fool - NOTHING host-domain name served gets THRU that, & they can't "talk back to mama" (any central command) either.

    FACE FACTS: You lose/FAIL on both accounts noted & you KNOW it! Your evasion of answering that question alone proved it & SCORE = APK 16, Bouldin 0 as far as my points on how hosts are SUPERIOR to ANY single browser addons, doing more & with less for added speed, security, reliability & even anonymity (to an extent only on the latter vs DNS request logs)... apk

  34. APK = "experience malware reverse-engineer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reverse engineering software's cake unless you protect as I showed you I do my wares, shown here CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... WHEN they're compressed stupid... vs. on disk cracking @ least (can be done in memory though but only peering it, not writing it on disk paging back to itself as exe's do for resources & such).

    I.E.-> Ever heard of step-tracing code via a dissassembler? All you NEED is to know assembly language & take your time examining register contents as you step thru them, almost like a programming IDE's debugger!

    E.G.: When 'hacking/cracking' password protected timeout ware? You look for a JNE (jump not equal) in the disassembler tool you use while step tracing (SoftIce etc.) & that is when the branching occurs for the password 'passing' vs. 'failing' stupid. You change that jump to a NOP (no operation) = DONE, it is cracked & reassemble it!

    * SEE SUBJECT - you ARE a truly UNDEREDUCATED MENIAL, no questions asked, since you seem to *think* it's some "genius" task & tru

    1. Re:APK = "experience malware reverse-engineer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, nobody believes you are an experienced malware reverse engineer. If you want to lie to yourself, I guess that's your right.

      Second, what malware have you reverse engineered, specifically? It is not as easy as identifying a function call and skipping it.

    2. Re:APK = "experience malware reverse-engineer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk did show a basic example of how to use a debugger http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and your fails all listed here vs apk bouldin and you did mess up some very basic things http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

  35. APK = "experienced reverse engineer"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reverse engineering software's cake unless you protect as I showed you I do my wares, shown here CODING FOR DEFCON (my compressed/packed exe + sizecheck @ startup technique): 2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Especially WHEN they're compressed stupid (acts as obfuscation) vs. on disk cracking @ least (can be done in memory though but only peering it, not writing it on disk paging back to itself as exe's do for resources & such).

    I.E.-> Ever heard of step-tracing code via a dissassembler?

    All you NEED is to know assembly language & take your time examining register contents as you step thru them, almost like a programming IDE's debugger!

    E.G.: When 'hacking/cracking' password protected timeout ware? You look for a JNE (jump not equal) in the disassembler tool you use while step tracing (SoftIce etc.) & that is when the branching occurs for the password 'passing' vs. 'failing' stupid. You change that jump to a NOP (no operation) = DONE, it is cracked & reassemble it!

    * SEE SUBJECT - you ARE a truly UNDEREDUCATED MENIAL, no questions asked, since you seem to *think* it's some "genius" task & truth is, you're just a rookie noob thinking that, lol!

    APK (forgot to 'sign off' last time here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

    P.S.=> Again, my layered security guides SHUT YOU DOWN, you'd have to CATCH that 'python script kiddie' DNS query port 51/53 crap to rogue DNS servers, FIRST... you CAN'T via my guide's layered security methods stopping that from EVER happening in the 1st place here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (any security engineer KNOWS prevention IS the best medicine via layered security/defense in depth)!

    Thus, it's STILL Score APK 16, Bouldin the NOOB 0 as always regarding my points on how hosts are SUPERIOR to ANY single browser addons, doing more & with less for added speed, security, reliability & even anonymity (to an extent only on the latter vs DNS request logs)... lol!

    ... apk

  36. I explained the basics & you failed loads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I explained the basics of it here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AS WELL AS HOW TO PROTECT AGAINST IT (to an extent), so there you are.

    It's just as easy as skipping a function/proc except as I said, you have to examine the register contents as they pass and then put the algorithm together (bit more work but doable)...

    YOU have been TOTALLY SHUT DOWN here and as far as YOU are concerned pal?

    LMAO, you blew it LOADS OF TIMES on security (so much for you stating you're a security engineer - where do you work then? We'll be waiting until the clock strikes 13 on the 12th of never for that proof outta you BOULDIN, posting as AC now)!

    Evidences thereof:

    10 HORRENDOUS OUTRIGHT SECURITY FAILS FROM YOU, NO QUESTIONS ASKED (since your own words in error quoted prove it):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    YOU SAID HOSTS CANNOT STOP BOTNETS, LITERALLY QUOTED (WRONG with supporting proof in the ZEUS botnet, a huge one with MANY variants, using host names hosts DO block):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    YOU TRIED TO SAY MY HOSTS FILE COULD BE CORRUPTED (good luck when my program's running, lol, try it yourself & TRY react faster than a hi-res timer... heck, malwares can't):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    YOUR "EDGE CASE" Python & Pushdo CANNOT GET INTO MY SYSTEMS DUE TO MY LAYERED SECURITY GUIDES (which use hosts, & security gurus proved hosts ARE a good security feature from Symantec/Norton & ESET/NOD32) WHICH PREVENT THEIR AVENUES OF ACCESS INTO ANY SYSTEM:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> Face facts - you FLOPPED against me, bigtime, MANY TIMES no less: ARGUE WITH THE RESULTS, & do NOT BE ANGRY WITH ME - YOU DID THOSE ERRORS ABOVE TO YOURSELF! You are NOT a professional security engineer (they make peanuts compared to a software engineer of which I primarily was from 1994-2008 professionally, and yes, securing database engines, webservers, operating systems, network periphery, AND code itself in a security concern professionally)... apk

    1. Re:I explained the basics & you failed loads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, by throwing your little tantrum and avoiding my question, we have our answer.

      You have NEVER reverse-engineered any malware, so you were lying when you called yourself an "experienced malware reverse engineer."

  37. I *think* he wants details, ok... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF /. lets me fit them in (ac has length limits): It's like reconnoitering a network (to 'hack' it). 1st you study how the malware operates (what files it hits, what ports it accesses, where it goes to etc.) & even extract strings in it (helps sometimes, not always) + use debuggers like SoftIce I mentioned (step tracing & stopping it etc. to examine register contents etc. for debugging its code) & even tools like ProcessMonitor (monitor filesystem + registry), ProcessExplorer (for other estorica like seeing what libs it accesses & for what in functions, TCPView (or analogs from Nirsoft will do too for seeing remote connections it makes IF any) & IF POSSIBLE TO BE "SAFEST" (not always, some malware detect for this) RUN IN A VM. Tools like SNORT can help but so can tools like TCPView I noted or ones from Nirsoft to detect what it 'talks to & from' etc. - all in all, NOT much different than the primitive step trace to crack a password protected ware example I put out earlier for me (thought he'd "get it" apparently not, & I do NOT think he's ever done it, NOR BASED ON HIS MASSIVE SCREWUPS ON SECURITY vs. MYSELF enumerated here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... IN FULL do I think he is a professional security engineer he claims to be - after all: BOULDIN HAS NO PROOF OF IT & IS UNWILLING TO SUBMIT ANY HERE TOO).

    * WoW: THAT ACTUALLY FIT! Too bad I had to "condense it" which is NOT my usual style posting... I like using paragraphs more etc.

    APK

    P.S.=> It's some work BUT not some "genius task" like Bouldin *trying* to "make it out to be", writing code of enterprise class & SECURING IT + the network, OS(s), & databases it runs on is MUCH HARDER (pays better too, by far, & I did THAT, mostly, for decades & yes in BOTH a network admin/security + software engineering capacity on a security front)... apk

  38. I've reverse engineered wares (had to) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here & how I did it (same as doing malware) http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (but the GOAL is not exactly the same) + had to sometimes!

    Once, e.g. - the original coder DIED on a project for a smaller company but that wasn't my 'forte' & THEY HAD NO BACKUPS... took me less time to get down WHAT HE WAS UP TO that way in that link than it would have me performing a full-blown systems analysis & study of their data PRIOR to coding anything (database level + code)!

    I spent MORE time actually BUILDING secure networks, & securing Operating systems @ desktop endpoints + servers & webservers on them (usually IIS) + BUILDING ACTUAL SECURE CODE @ the database level and in the user front end code + reporting for it WAS my actual job as a professional software engineer from 1994-2008 MUCH of the time on enterprise class projects.

    * It pays A LOT MORE than being an ALLEGED (so you say, prove it Bouldin) "security engineer" MENIAL...

    APK

    P.S.=> However: After THIS mess of yours (all your FAILS vs. myself consolidated, you can't deny them, YOU ARE QUOTED THERE IN THEM f'ing up, lol -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    You're no security engineer... by NO means, NOT AFTER THAT MANY BASIC SCREWUPS & 'evasions' you tried pulling, Bouldin... apk