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.

13 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.
  2. 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 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.
    2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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. 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!!!