Slashdot Mirror
Charter Strikes $56B Deal For Time Warner Cable
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.
First propose an even bigger assed one, and let the Feds shoot it down.
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.
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.
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....
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.
competition in broadband Internet.
There really isn't any.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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?!
I'm just glad we were spared the bad hangover after it...
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.
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.
It isn't going to be good for anyone because the answer is No, just No.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Charter is not. The vertical integration is thus not an issue here.
Best Slashdot Co
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is to throw a shoe.
... 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.
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.
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.
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?
A-something anyway.
I believe it's pronounced "azz-WEE-pay."
I can see the fnords!
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
"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?
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.
corporations need to balance short-term profit and long-term profit, and this may mean raaping or kissing customer azz, as needed.
Since when do corps kiss any customer's ass?
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.
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
"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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
apples to oranges
which apples to which oranges? you said corps raape customers at every opportunity.
"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..
because we learned history.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
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
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
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!!"
"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.
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'
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)
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)
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)
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)