Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Looking To Buy Comcast or Charter, Says Report (nypost.com)

"Two well-placed sources" told The New York Post that Verizon is considering purchasing a big cable company to help it grow demand for its wireless data products. The source said the most likely targets would be "Charter or Comcast." New York Post reports: Verizon Chief Executive Lowell McAdam may be getting ready to answer rival ATT's moves to buy DirecTV and Time Warner. To be sure, Verizon is not in talks with any cable company and may not ever make such a move. Still, McAdam has been under pressure recently with Verizon's deal to acquire Yahoo still a question mark months after two major hacks of the internet portal were revealed. The wireless giants operate on 4G wireless networks but are preparing to become a real alternative to the cable company with phone, TV and data services. To do that more effectively, the phone companies are pouring money into 5G connections that can work with cable systems to provide more stable coverage for consumers. McAdam has already given Wall Street analysts and investors big hints that he's looking at a combination with, say, a Charter Communications. In a mid-December meeting with Wall Street analysts, McAdam said a get-together between the two "makes industrial sense." Three weeks later, at CES, his comments to friends make it clear that cable distribution is a path he is exploring, perhaps more seriously than first thought. "For regulatory reasons, Verizon can't dominate in FiOS and cable, so it appears to have to set its sights on cable," an industry source said. Charter could be a seller under the right conditions, the source added, emphasizing that Malone and Charter CEO Tom Rutledge are just getting going on their vision for Charter.

46 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. NYSE:EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the shoe fits...

  2. On Jan 20th, let the mergers begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The bankers are promoting big mergers again, for there are really large fees in really large mergers, and there is an expectation that those mergers are more likely to receive minimal scrutiny with the new administration. Interesting times ahead.

    1. Re:On Jan 20th, let the mergers begin! by DonaId+Trump · · Score: 2, Funny

      We're gonna have the yugest mergers, folks, believe me, bigly mergers! Now repeat after me: The White House Brought to You By Carl's Jr. Doesn't it have a nice ring to it?

  3. No bounds of hypocrisy by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two of the most despicable US companies, uniting to create even more power to gouge their customers.

    1. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      This would suck epically. We JUST got FIOS here in Comcast country, and there is finally competition.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Their new slogan: "Can we screw you now?"

    3. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Yeppers. Cut the Comcast cord a few hours ago. Gig up and Gig down. :)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Wow! I thought I was living the good life going from the old 25/5 to 150/150...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'd actually prefer that Verizon acquire Comcast, rather than Charter. I liked both Charter and TWC, but I don't like Comcast. I'd rather see Verizon put the latter out of my misery

    6. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty fast, but I'd rather keep my Charter service with 66/5 and no data caps. It's plenty fast enough for everything I do online and I don't have to worry about how much I'm using. If anything, I could use a bit more speed on the upstream side because my digital photos are getting huge.

    7. Re: No bounds of hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to thank you for the irony. First smile of the day.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      That would be Comcast and Charter, or TWC, but they're out of the picture now. Actually, AT&T has to rank down there as well, with their shitty service. All of them suck far worse than Verizon.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Does Verizon cap FIOS? Here there is no hard cap, though the sales guy said that if you end up being in the top 0.xxx% of users, they would likely cancel your contract (or push you into a business tier). DSL reports seems to indicate that this number is around 4TB/month. For me I guess the discussion is academic since I don't come anywhere near 4TB.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re: No bounds of hypocrisy by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You could go to 500/500, but the roughly $300/month cost is a tad high.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    11. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by nazsco · · Score: 1

      fios was sold to frontier on the west.

      also it always was cable all the way. with very short runs of fiber. the actual layency was much worse than my trusty dsl+ when I lived one block from the end point.

      it baffles me that this thread is full of people claiming their gig up and gig down with no mention of latency.

    12. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Here in the Philly area my latency went way, way down with FIOS vs cable. Pings to google.com are less than 15ms. I'm not a gamer so I'm not sure if this is a decent test or not, but I've seen an improvement over the service I had with Comcast.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:No bounds of hypocrisy by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      No data cap per the FAQ.

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  4. Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "we're looking to begin the dismantling of cable across the US and force the American public to use over-priced and highly unreliable wireless services with massive overages if they exceed their data caps, so we wanna buy Comcast or Charter to start that process."

    FTFY

  5. Goddammitsomuch.jpg by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. WTF by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

    Wait... Verizon is big enough to buy Comcast NBCUniversal?

    1. Re:WTF by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      Their marketing campaign to keep people on their $150+ per month cellular plans went better than even they expected.

    2. Re:WTF by swb · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to know what the propeller-heads who study long-term valuation think of Comcast NBCUniversal.

      I'm not one of those people, but I have this idea that of that combo-package, NBC has the best long-term business model, Universal second and Comcast third.

      Comcast's primary value *now* is its local monopolies on broadband and cable television, and the cable part isn't an actual monopoly if you take DirectTV and Dish into account as viable competitors for most households. But long-term, doesn't the whole viability of the cable television model look shaky? Netflix, HBO Now, Prime Instant, the whole streaming thing looks like its undermining their cable business.

      That leaves broadband, but who knows what that will look like in 5-10 years. 5G with high enough caps and/or more fiber rollouts could undermine that business, too.

      Universal is mostly a production studio, and their future is probably decent as a content production business -- maybe not big growth, but at least competitive if managed right.

      NBC still has a giant network of affiliates who actually broadcast their signal in addition to a fair amount of content that still draws eyeballs, which makes it seem to have some durability.

      So at the end of the day, Verizon, with its giant cell phone network and terrestrial network seems to have much more asset value and long-term value.

    3. Re:WTF by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how well NBC's books are actually doing.

      The Olympics have turned out to be a bad investment for NBC. They paid 12 Billion. But: “We wake up someday and the ratings are down 20 percent,” the chief executive officer of NBCUniversal said at a conference. “If that happens, my prediction would be that millennials had been in a Facebook bubble or a Snapchat bubble and the Olympics have come, and they didn’t know it.” They're blaming it on everything but the fact that some people want to watch sports and not fluff pieces and Chevy Ads.

    4. Re:WTF by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a cable TV provider, you're correct. However, Comcast also has a large network of fiber and copper that provide high-speed data service to a captive audience. Not all Comcast infrastructure is legacy copper, and even the copper that is there is often just the local loop, backed by fiber a few blocks away..

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:WTF by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Technically, Verizon is a Fortune 13 company, whilst Comcast is a Fortune 37.

      Interesting that Comcast bought DreamWorks Animation studio for $3.8 billion.

      So yeah, one big evil fish could buy one smaller bad fish. :-/

    6. Re:WTF by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      This should be modded up up up.
      Why? Think about it: Once they have the technology to animate and create extremely realistic-looking scenes, the owners can then create and distribute their own fake news at will; they will own everything from creation to delivery with no one to get in the way of pushing whatever agenda is bought by the highest bidder.
      You think people are divided into camps now? Just you wait until they wall off services and get people "on their network"

      --
      -
  7. Re:Even Trump can see by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    T has been ambiguous on telecom mergers. I don't have any links, but I remember him pandering to both the non-intervention angle, and the oligopolies=low-competition angle.

    We'll have to wait and see.

  8. Grow demand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You want to grow demand for your product? How about offering a good product at a reasonable price? It's just so crazy it might work! You know what consumers want. You just refuse to sell it to them.

  9. Reduces competition ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... for broadband in areas where Verizon and Comcast or Charter co-exist. So I'd say; go ahead and Verizon buy. As long as it sells off it's wireless service business in the overlapping areas.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. You mean Kabletown? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Is Kabletown getting a new owner?

  11. Because of Trump? You've got that backwards... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

    You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.

    Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.

    Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.

    He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.

    He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.

    It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people. He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.

    When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".

    Give him a chance.

    He might actually make things better.

    1. Re:Because of Trump? You've got that backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump "says" a lot of things.

      But the people he's proposed to appoint to the FCC are very "pro-business" and have already stated that they plan to quickly eliminate FCC net-neutrality and consumer protraction regulations.

      A Verizon and Comcast/Charter merger would probably be considered very favorably.

      He's "draining the swamp" by appointing alligators to key positions. Yeah, that's going to work.

    2. Re:Because of Trump? You've got that backwards... by TheLongshot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump is only interested in what makes him look good. Anything that benefits anyone else is only a byproduct of that.

    3. Re:Because of Trump? You've got that backwards... by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      His transition plan for the FCC includes removing all consumer protection functionality from the FCC. The Trump administration opposes Net Neutrality. In the matter being discussed here, his position is clear.

  12. MaBell by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    In the 80's, the government forced the breakup of "the phone company", AT&T/The Bell System. It's taken a little over 30 years to be put back together. Basically, you have AT&T, and Verizon. What do you want to bet, that in a few years, after they've gobbled up what's left of any independent services, that Verizon & AT&T will merge and we'll be back where we started...and will need to break them up again. For the most part, it's a duopoly with AT&T and Verizon...for the most part.

    1. Re:MaBell by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 1

      I think the entire phone system could merge back into one company, and no one important will blink an eye. It's a different world. We now have various cellular companies offering phone service, not to mention hundreds (thousands?) of various sized VOIP internet companies.

      For instance, in my household alone I use a cell phone and MagicJack each tied to a Google Voice number. We use Spectrum/TWC here. Landline company mergers won't even affect many of us.

      While mergers could be a big problem for communities that are far from being served by cable or good cell service, it could be a nice incentive to start local internet co-ops.

    2. Re:MaBell by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Look at the heads of AT&T back in the 80s, names of companies, names of executives spin-offs, and where the money went: AT&T was never broken up, it was just broken into a few pieces that easily colluded behind closed doors to ensure they would get back together eventually, after the people in office had left/given up/died.

      --
      -
  13. Never going to happen by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    The FTC, FCC, and Justice Dept. will have a field day.
    Verizon will never be able to buy Comcast.
    More likely the real target is Charter, and muddying the waters by throwing Comcast's name in is just a bargaining tactic.

  14. Too much overlap, not enough coverage by grumling · · Score: 1

    Verizon wants to do what AT&T tried to do in the 1990s, become a nationwide wireline provider. Didn't end so well for AT&T (real T, not former Bell South or whatever). Verizon is all about the northeast and mid-atlantic, where Comcast also has a big presence. But the rest of the country is covered by many different cable companies, and also a good bit of geography still has no cable at all. Hard to run national campaigns when most of the people watching aren't able to get your product.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  15. Bad news for Comcast and Charter! by e432776 · · Score: 1

    at least going by Verizon's previous shopping spree. They might be "altabad"! (also, I propose we verbify "altaba").

  16. Merged corp. needs a name by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

    I suggest VerComChaSuck.

  17. They've been talking about the $100k salary thing by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    since the tail end of Obama's first term. Talking. No action. Same thing with Boeing. Lots of talk. No action. As soon as everybody's eyes are off it'll be BAU.

    Obama at least cock blocked the AT&T/Comcast. Yeah, Trump's said he's against it. But at this point that's a little like saying you're against Hitler and Stalin. It's not a controversial stance.

    I don't need to give Trump a chance. One look at the cavalcade of billionaires he's nominated for his cabinet (that guy who used to run Carls Jr is particularly bad) and I know where this is going. While I'm on the subject I've got friends who live and breath because of Obamacare. So far their 'alternative' is selling insurance across state lines; an idea that has been vetoed in the past because it just means the companies incorporate in whichever state has the weakest consumer protections. Meanwhile I get to go back to worrying about how the fuck I'm gonna afford Cobra if I change jobs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Shit Summary. Malone WHO? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    The summary manages to mention someone named Malone, but only once and without saying who that person actually is.

    Nice work there editor. You lost the subject but left in a reference to it. Maybe the inevitable dupe post will fix this.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  19. Re:Shit Summary. Malone WHO? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Forget that. I want to know how you got the headline "Verizon looking to buy Comcast or Charter" when there is a line that says "To be sure, Verizon is not in talks with any cable company and may not ever make such a move."

    WTF?

  20. Re: Even Trump can see by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Now that is funny. Trump has no idea what the common man wants or needs. He does know how to tell people he knows what they need, but if you think an administration loaded with bankers (4 Goldman execs!) and other rich people is going to do anything for the lttle guy you're delusional.

  21. Re:Merged corp. needs a name (earlier run-thru) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anon, just becuase.

    I worked for Alltel. Verizon bought us in 2008 -- excuse me, it was a "Merger of Equals" was the line the executives pushed within Alltel.

    Lowell McAdam and all the top executives came down to speak to us in Little Rock at Alltel Arena (Now Verizon Arena.) There were -- I don't know -- 400 people in the room. They had multiple meetings for different overall groups. We were the internal technical side.

    He gave a nice talk as well as the other executives and asked for audience questions. They got a few -- operations, job placement, HR items, and then THIS jewel: "So what is the new company going to be called?" Adams looks at him puzzled, the audience stirred confusingly, and I held my breath as I realized what he was actually trying to ask. The guy continued. ,"Well you said that this is a merger of equals so I was wondering what the new company will be called?"

    Adams pretty much looked at him with disdain and answered: "Verizon." After a second more of silence, he asked for any more questions.