# Comcast-TWC merger could mean new cable company



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Instead of selling 3 million subscribers to some other cable company, Comcast-TWC may spin them off as yet another cable company.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/comcast-subscriber-spinoff-could-create-a-new-cable-company/

That article references this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ubscriber-spinoff-after-time-warner-deal.html

and they say the spin-off would be a new publicly traded company.

Supposedly this would get them the most money for their shareholders for "selling" those customers, but they might be able to convince the shareholders that a quick sale to a single party instead of going through the whole IPO mess might get the merger approved more quickly.

I'd like to see TiVo buy those soon-to-be-kicked-to-the-curb households and show everyone what a TiVo-friendly cable regime is like.

Of course this completely ignores the question of whether all the local franchising authorities are just going to rubber-stamp the franchises changing hands. With enough local pressure, some might even grab the opportunity to renegotiate to make things better for the community.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

How nice for Comcast. They will buy TWC and then dump...er, I mean sell their 3 million most unprofitable customers into a new company loaded down with debt from the purchase that is doomed to fail.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

They could also foist off all the old crappy equipment on the new company and keep all the shiny new stuff for themselves. Brilliant idea! Sure to land Comcast on next year's list of the "most admired" companies.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

How much do you want to bet that Comcast stacks the new board of directors of this supposedly independent company with their hand-picked candidates?


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

LoadStar said:


> How much do you want to bet that Comcast stacks the new board of directors of this supposedly independent company with their hand-picked candidates?


Agree. Spinning the assets off into a brand new company probably makes it a lot easier for Comcast to come back in the next ~5 years (or whenever they think they can get away with it) to swallow the new company right back up.

I wonder which TWC regions are being considered to be spun off.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mrizzo80 said:


> I wonder which TWC regions are being considered to be spun off.


The least profitable ones and the ones whose networks are in the worst condition of disrepair.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The least profitable ones and the ones whose networks are in the worst condition of disrepair.


 Oh, so you mean ours here in HI.....great! :-/


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This makes no sense... it's not like they compete anyways and have to spin off competitive markets. I think part of the merger deal should be that every zip code and municipality currently served by Comcast or TWC should have to get a 100% build-out, and all systems should have the same offerings as the best do today. Of course that will never happen with our corrupt, wet-noodle regulators.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> This makes no sense... it's not like they compete anyways


Man, you're still repeating this lie? Didn't we already correct you on this? Are you getting paid by someone in the TWC/Comcast lobbying arm? There's no incentive for you to keep repeating this lie after it was corrected.

They compete in many markets. The only market they do not directly compete in is households.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> Man, you're still repeating this lie? Didn't we already correct you on this? Are you getting paid by someone in the TWC/Comcast lobbying arm? There's no incentive for you to keep repeating this lie after it was corrected.


They do not compete in a legal sense. "We" did not correct him; you have your (incorrect) opinion, but that doesn't warrant calling anybody a liar.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Grakthis said:


> Man, you're still repeating this lie? Didn't we already correct you on this? Are you getting paid by someone in the TWC/Comcast lobbying arm? There's no incentive for you to keep repeating this lie after it was corrected.
> 
> They compete in many markets. The only market they do not directly compete in is households.


What markets? They don't have the same territory. What should be broken up is the Comcast/NBCU thing. That's just a mess of conflicts of interest. Give them TWC, let them rescue the poor souls on TWC, but make them divest NBCU...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> This makes no sense... it's not like they compete anyways


By this logic, we should let all of the cable companies merge together into one giant nationwide cable company. Just imagine the economies of scale that would be achieved.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Here's a couple maps showing their footprints:

http://mashable.com/2014/02/13/comcast-time-warner-cable-coverage-map/
http://money.cnn.com/infographic/news/comcast-time-warner-coverage-map/


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> By this logic, we should let all of the cable companies merge together into one giant nationwide cable company. Just imagine the economies of scale that would be achieved.


Why not? You just can't include RCN and other overbuilders, as they actually compete... As long as they weren't vertically integrated with content, it might get them the power to finally reign the out of control content providers back in.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Why not? You just can't include RCN and other overbuilders, as they actually compete... As long as they weren't vertically integrated with content, it might get them the power to finally reign the out of control content providers back in.


Ummm, what about NBC Universal? I assume Comcast will have to sell that off before they will be allowed to buy TWC, right?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> What markets? They don't have the same territory. What should be broken up is the Comcast/NBCU thing. That's just a mess of conflicts of interest. Give them TWC, let them rescue the poor souls on TWC, but make them divest NBCU...


They compete on content purchasing, they compete on hardware design and supply, they compete at the regulatory level, they compete on internet service contracts (peering agreements, internal hosting of streaming services, etc), they compete on pricing even when they aren't in the same areas ("I see prices in CA and I lobby my local franchising authority to pressure my CC into offering the same prices")...

Saying "they don't compete" is an absolute fabrication. It is not true.

If you want to be really specific and say "they do not compete directly in customer households" then by all means, say that. But you CANNOT say "they don't compete."

This would be like saying the Broncos and 49ers "don't compete" because the Broncos are in Denver and the 49ers are in... wherever they are now (Is the new field in SF? I don't even remember anymore). They still compete for national recognition, jersey sales, directly on the field, etc etc etc.

It's misleading. If you did it once on accident, I'd correct you and move on. But this has been corrected repeatedly, and anyone still repeating it is doing so out of malice at this point.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> They do not compete in a legal sense.


Cite?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Grakthis said:


> It's misleading. If you did it once on accident, I'd correct you and move on. But this has been corrected repeatedly, and anyone still repeating it is doing so out of malice at this point.


Again, Baloney!

It has not been "corrected" - you have stated your opinion and others choose not to go with your definitions. My opinion is that they do not compete, in the senses I mean. You are totally wrong when you state I am doing this out of malice. Please prove that I am doing it out of malice or stop making such claims about everybody who disagrees with you.

Legal competition needs a defined market. Do you deny that?

Do you and I compete for oxygen in the atmosphere? If your answer is yes, then I would claim your definition of competition is so broad as to be useless.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

As far as I know, I don't compete with any of you in March Madness bracket pools. There are myriad areas where competition can occur. The one that counts for this thread is what competition there is for providing me with cable TV service. There is none now (only TWC) and regardless of how this merger comes out it won't change that. We're too small a market to attract more than one provider. That won't change any time soon, and I think this situation applies to a large majority of cable TV markets.

So go ahead and debate the nuances of defining competition. It's not relevant to most of us.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Why not? You just can't include RCN and other overbuilders, as they actually compete... As long as they weren't vertically integrated with content, it might get them the power to finally reign the out of control content providers back in.


The larger a company becomes, the less they care about the consumer. That's why monopolies are bad and why Ma Bell was broken up. Currently Comcast may offer you an incentive to stay if you threaten to cancel service. The larger they get, the less likely that is to occur. Same goes with bundling deals and contracts.

Not that it really matters as most large cable companies already are already in collusion (including TW and Comcast). They don't even deny this.

Even Verizon and Comcast collude. I keep getting offers to add Verizon Wireless to my Comcast plan/bill.


----------



## BH9244 (Feb 10, 2009)

Wondering what if any change of policy might come about as a result of the merger, do present Comcast subscribers suffer the same almost blanket inability to transfer/stream limitations that current TWC subs endure .


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

BH9244 said:


> Wondering what if any change of policy might come about as a result of the merger, do present Comcast subscribers suffer the same almost blanket inability to transfer/stream limitations that current TWC subs endure .


No, they don't. Comcast only protects the premium channels. Though I do have to wonder which company will influence the other on this. Will Comcast's looser policy ever trickle out to former Time Warner customers, or will Time Warner's stricter policy infect Comcast's way of thinking on this issue. It remains to be seen which company's policy will be retained in the event of a merger.

This is an open question on other issues as well. Time Warner allows the use of Roku apps, such as HBOGO, Showtime Anytime, WatchESPN, as well as a TWC Roku app where you can access on demand titles and live TV streams through your Roku. Comcast allows nothing at all to work with Roku. Will these Roku services currently available to Time Warner customers suddenly be cut off after the merger?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> Legal competition needs a defined market.


Cite?

You keep saying this, and I keep calling you on it, and you keep redirecting. I'm going to keep calling you on it, over and over, until enough people have realized that you have no basis for saying it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> No, they don't. Comcast only protects the premium channels. Though I do have to wonder which company will influence the other on this. Will Comcast's looser policy ever trickle out to former Time Warner customers, or will Time Warner's stricter policy infect Comcast's way of thinking on this issue. It remains to be seen which company's policy will be retained in the event of a merger.
> 
> This is an open question on other issues as well. Time Warner allows the use of Roku apps, such as HBOGO, Showtime Anytime, WatchESPN, as well as a TWC Roku app where you can access on demand titles and live TV streams through your Roku. Comcast allows nothing at all to work with Roku. Will these Roku services currently available to Time Warner customers suddenly be cut off after the merger?


The Roku one is bizarre. I think Comcast will move TWC to the more open system of flagging, as they support TiVo to the extent that they will make money, and if it's one more differentiator from satellite, then they will keep TiVo support working well, and without copy flags.

They might roll some of TWC's technology into the X1 or XFinity online types of services, but that will probably take time.

WatchESPN on Comcast works on the Roku, because it's done through a website with ESPN and a confirmation code thing, not through Comcast on the Roku directly.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not too concerned about competition in the TV space. They do have Dish and DirecTV keeping prices in check and in reality it's just entertainment and not required for daily life.

I'm much more concerned about the internet portion. In most areas the cable company is the only viable choice for broadband internet. DSL is too slow and unreliable and cellular is too expensive and has low data caps. With the reliance we now have on the internet in our daily lives it concerns me that one company could control such a large portion of internet service in this country. In my opinion internet should be deemed a utility and regulated as such. These days it's almost as important to daily life as power or natural gas, and way more important then copper phone lines which are still regulated as a utility.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not too concerned about competition in the TV space. They do have Dish and DirecTV keeping prices in check and in reality it's just entertainment and not required for daily life.
> 
> I'm much more concerned about the internet portion. In most areas the cable company is the only viable choice for broadband internet. DSL is too slow and unreliable and cellular is too expensive and has low data caps. With the reliance we now have on the internet in our daily lives it concerns me that one company could control such a large portion of internet service in this country. In my opinion internet should be deemed a utility and regulated as such. These days it's almost as important to daily life as power or natural gas, and way more important then copper phone lines which are still regulated as a utility.


I totally agree with that. However, I don't see TWC and Comcast merging having a material effect on the internet space, as they don't compete with each other, and they are often monopolies now. If anything, it would put Comcast up against FIOS and/or RCN in more places. They are in a strange position where they compete in some markets, and some parts of some markets (and in U-Verse territory, some parts of some streets), but not in others.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not too concerned about competition in the TV space. They do have Dish and DirecTV keeping prices in check


Until the right politicians/regulators get paid off to allow Dish and DirecTV to merge. I can just hear the arguments now. "You let Comcast/Time Warner merge and now they have become too big for us to effectively compete against. We have to be allowed to merge too so we will be able to stay competitive with the Comcast/Time Warner monster that you created."


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I totally agree with that. However, I don't see TWC and Comcast merging having a material effect on the internet space, as they don't compete with each other, and they are often monopolies now. If anything, it would put Comcast up against FIOS and/or RCN in more places. They are in a strange position where they compete in some markets, and some parts of some markets (and in U-Verse territory, some parts of some streets), but not in others.


Yes but with one company controlling such a large part of the ISP business they could effectively put small startups out of business if they want. With the net neutrality stuff getting struck down they have a ton of control over which websites their customers are allowed to access and at what speed.

I guess they'd have similar influence over the TV market, but the landscape for that business is already comprised of mega corporations so the chance of there being a startup media company is pretty slim already. But the web is still a place where anyone can make it big and with one company in charge of too many people's access that could change.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not too concerned about competition in the TV space. They do have Dish and DirecTV keeping prices in check and in reality it's just entertainment and not required for daily life.
> 
> I'm much more concerned about the internet portion. In most areas the cable company is the only viable choice for broadband internet. DSL is too slow and unreliable and cellular is too expensive and has low data caps. With the reliance we now have on the internet in our daily lives it concerns me that one company could control such a large portion of internet service in this country. In my opinion internet should be deemed a utility and regulated as such. These days it's almost as important to daily life as power or natural gas, and way more important then copper phone lines which are still regulated as a utility.


Dan hits the nail on the head with the proper solution, but the issue here is that the FCC and Congress are looking the other way while HSI is dominated by a few. This is all due to the revolving door and corporate payoffs.

The sad part of HSI dominance by Comcast frex is that they are starting to reimpose data caps and raising prices every year as more TV business goes to the net, because they want to get their money no matter what. In a competitive or regulated environment this would be tough if not impossible to do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yes but with one company controlling such a large part of the ISP business they could effectively put small startups out of business if they want. With the net neutrality stuff getting struck down they have a ton of control over which websites their customers are allowed to access and at what speed.
> 
> I guess they'd have similar influence over the TV market, but the landscape for that business is already comprised of mega corporations so the chance of there being a startup media company is pretty slim already. But the web is still a place where anyone can make it big and with one company in charge of too many people's access that could change.


They could do that without being as big. I see your point in terms of overall market share, but I'm not convinced that their current size will stop them from doing whatever they want anyways...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You're probably right. And if the top 3-4 cable companies just teamed up and adopted the same policy they'd have virtually unlimited power. I mean if they really wanted to they could out Netflix out of business. Netflix accounts for huge amount of the traffic that flows across the net and the ISPs could bring it to it's knees if they wanted to because of the lack of net neutrality regulation. And if they feel Netflix is becoming a real threat to their core business then they migh actually do that.

It's actually quite scarry how much power so few companies already have, and this will only make that worse.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> You're probably right. And if the top 3-4 cable companies just teamed up and adopted the same policy they'd have virtually unlimited power. I mean if they really wanted to they could out Netflix out of business. Netflix accounts for huge amount of the traffic that flows across the net and the ISPs could bring it to it's knees if they wanted to because of the lack of net neutrality regulation. And if they feel Netflix is becoming a real threat to their core business then they migh actually do that.
> 
> It's actually quite scarry how much power so few companies already have, and this will only make that worse.


If that happened the resulting political firestorm would be so intense that ISP's would soon be regulated utilities (common carriers). I suppose that's where it's ultimately going, although having the gang that can't shoot straight controlling my internet scares me too.

After all, most of congress loves "House of Cards".


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dlfl said:


> After all, most of congress loves "House of Cards".


I'm betting they like their cable industry donations (i.e. bribes) more.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

morac said:


> I'm betting they like their cable industry donations (i.e. bribes) more.


I get your point but if they did something that crippled, or grossly overpriced, access to Netflix the political backlash would overcome any industry donations. The only way donations work to get them elected is that voters ignore issues that don't have obvious major impact on them and respond to campaign ads. Any candidate that threatens internet access will be defeated regardless of how much money they spend on ads. The internet is up there near food and fuel in importance to so many people.

I think the best strategy for ISP's (not for consumers) is to correctly calculate the maximum profit they can milk out of us **without** provoking that massive political backlash that will end up making them fully regulated utilities. So I expect in the next few years we will be like the frog being boiled in water with the temperature increasing slowly enough that we don't notice it.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Any candidate that threatens internet access will be defeated regardless of how much money they spend on ads.


I wish that were true, but if it was, half of congress would have been thrown out.

In any case, Comcast needs regulation approval for the merger so they aren't trying to rock the boat. They actually just made a deal with Netflix to directly peer with them and Netflix made a hefty profit on the deal since Netflix is paying Comcast now. The deal also benefitted Netflix as they had been paying Cogent and from news reports Comcast cost less.

In the future though, unless Congress passes a net neutrality bill or something, Comcast could charge it's customers to access Netflix or give lower priority to Netflix traffic. As such, they wouldn't be blocking Netflix (or any other service), but making customers pay for "better" access to it. All of that is now technically legal for ISPs, except Comcast which is still under terms from their purchase of NBC/Universal.

The later scares me more than anything since Comcast owns both the content and the pipes, which is a bad combination for consumers.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Absolutely, one of the pipe dream solutions here would be to force the providers to divest the HSI network from the content. Split them off into network providers instead of allowing massive conglomerations like Comcast today, and then allow open access to all comers (common carrier) or regulate them as public utilities. This is really no different than what a lot of states have done with natural gas and electricity delivery - the existing pipes/lines are run by the legacy delivery company with a fee for service but the gas and electricity is purchased on the open market (in GA we have an open market for gas but not electricity). HSI networks could be opened up the same way with multiple ISPs competing for your business.

I have some hope of a better future here in the ATL given the Google Fiber announcement that we're one of the proposed new cities for their rollout. Right now they're pretty much anyone's only hope.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Absolutely, one of the pipe dream solutions here would be to force the providers to divest the HSI network from the content. Split them off into network providers instead of allowing massive conglomerations like Comcast today, and then allow open access to all comers (common carrier) or regulate them as public utilities. This is really no different than what a lot of states have done with natural gas and electricity delivery - the existing pipes/lines are run by the legacy delivery company with a fee for service but the gas and electricity is purchased on the open market (in GA we have an open market for gas but not electricity). HSI networks could be opened up the same way with multiple ISPs competing for your business.
> ...........


Sounds good. The gas and electricity are metered and you pay more if you use more. That is the logical and fair approach for HSI also -- download or upload more packets and you should pay more. As with Gas and Electric, the cost of building more capacity into the distribution system must be apportioned as part of the fee for service charged by the legacy delivery company. This is done by approval of state PUCO's now and they don't always approve all proposed costs. Setting something like this up for HSI sounds problematic -- shouldn't be as bad as Obama care but ???. Sure wish there was a free-market approach.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Grakthis said:


> This would be like saying the Broncos and 49ers "don't compete" because the Broncos are in Denver and the 49ers are in... wherever they are now (Is the new field in SF? I don't even remember anymore).


The new 49ers stadium is in Santa Clara, about 50 miles south of San Francisco. For that matter, the old stadium at Candlestick is actually about 10 miles south of the rest of San Francisco, but they did some creating gerrymandering with a narrow strip of SF down the side of the freeway, so technically Candlestick is part of SF.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dlfl said:


> Sounds good. The gas and electricity are metered and you pay more if you use more. That is the logical and fair approach for HSI also -- download or upload more packets and you should pay more. As with Gas and Electric, the cost of building more capacity into the distribution system must be apportioned as part of the fee for service charged by the legacy delivery company. This is done by approval of state PUCO's now and they don't always approve all proposed costs. Setting something like this up for HSI sounds problematic -- shouldn't be as bad as Obama care but ???. Sure wish there was a free-market approach.


There is a fundamental difference between gas/water/electric distribution and internet bandwidth. Gas, water, and electricity have to be continually produced/refined/purified/generated in some way. Whereas with bandwidth, once you have it built out it's there and doesn't have to be continually produced. In that way, internet bandwidth is much more like public highways. Once you build them, the capacity is there to carry the traffic. There are maintenance and upkeep costs, but you don't have to continually rebuild the roadways. There are some toll roads, but the vast majority of roads are free to travel by the user, and broadband internet should be the same way.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is a fundamental difference between gas/water/electric distribution and internet bandwidth. Gas, water, and electricity have to be continually produced/refined/purified/generated in some way. Whereas with bandwidth, once you have it built out it's there and doesn't have to be continually produced. In that way, internet bandwidth is much more like public highways. Once you build them, the capacity is there to carry the traffic. There are maintenance and upkeep costs, but you don't have to continually rebuild the roadways. There are some toll roads, but the vast majority of roads are free to travel by the user, and broadband internet should be the same way.


I wouldn't say broadband should be free, but you're basically right. There's also not various geopolitical and environmental costs (beyond basically fixed electricity usage) to broadband like there is with energy and water.

I'd like to see the preservation of Unlimited with excellent speeds at the $60/mo price point, with reasonable metered options for users who don't use as much internet as me. Or just give me a 10TB cap!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is a fundamental difference between gas/water/electric distribution and internet bandwidth. Gas, water, and electricity have to be continually produced/refined/purified/generated in some way. Whereas with bandwidth, once you have it built out it's there and doesn't have to be continually produced. In that way, internet bandwidth is much more like public highways. Once you build them, the capacity is there to carry the traffic. There are maintenance and upkeep costs, but you don't have to continually rebuild the roadways. There are some toll roads, but the vast majority of roads are free to travel by the user, and broadband internet should be the same way.


Not really. If we compared the roadways of times past (e.g., 1940) you don't think we would see there has been a major build out in both miles and capacity?
Internet traffic is growing much faster than roadway traffic. Providing that increase in capacity will have a significant cost. I also think you are minimizing what it costs just to maintain the Internet. A lot of hardware and it doesn't have infinite life.

The capacity (bandwidth) of the internet is driven by the sum of all users' requirements. If everyone was satisfied with 10 Mbps, there would be much less need for build out than what is actually happening. But many folks are happy with 10 Mbps. Thus a metered system makes sense. Why should those who use less pay as much as those who use more? And the metered system automatically provides more revenue to fund capacity increase as more is used.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Not really. If we compared the roadways of times past (e.g., 1940) you don't think we would see there has been a major build out in both miles and capacity? Internet traffic is growing much faster than roadway traffic. Providing that increase in capacity will have a significant cost. I also think you are minimizing what it costs just to maintain the Internet. A lot of hardware and it doesn't have infinite life. The capacity (bandwidth) of the internet is driven by the sum of all users' requirements. If everyone was satisfied with 10 Mbps, there would be much less need for build out than what is actually happening. But many folks are happy with 10 Mbps. Thus a metered system makes sense. Why should those who use less pay as much as those who use more? And the metered system automatically provides more revenue to fund capacity increase as more is used.


The cost per GB is quite low for companies like Comcast (we're taking less a penny per GB) and they've rebuilt their systems many years ago with enough capacity for the future. Most cable systems are fiber optics which has plenty of bandwidth. There are last mile issues, but they are being solved through technology that doesn't involve rerunning wires (DOCSIS 3.0, dropping analog, SDV, MPEG-4, etc).

Believe me, Comcast makes a hefty profit off their Internet subscribers, which is why they can boost speeds every few years. I'm currently getting 50 Mbps down at slightly more than what I was getting 16 Mbps about 5 years ago. The cost per GB is going down, not up.

What costs cable companies is the TV side of things because they have to pay rising fees to media companies and even OTA broadcast channels, which is one of the reasons Comcast bought NBC/Universal.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Consumers Union (Consumer Reports) has taken a stand against the merger. If anyone wants a way to support that position, you can sign a Consumers Union petition:

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2879


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Which means it will sail through approval of course.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Which means it will sail through approval of course.


LOL. Yep, CU is for the relatively few well informed consumers. Decisions are made by politicians who ignore CU's opinions because most of the voting populace also ignores them (because they don't care to be well informed).


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Charter will be taking over TWC systems in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Alabama.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/tva...arner-comcast-charter-insight-spinco/8420587/


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Whether they go to Charter or Comcast I think for customers of TWC the change will be welcome. Both cable systems use way less SDV and only protect premium channels which are both good news for current TWC customers. However as a whole I'm still torn on whether the government should allow the merger to happen. Making Comcast that big is still scary for the industry.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mrizzo80 said:


> Charter will be taking over TWC systems in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Alabama.
> 
> http://www.cincinnati.com/story/tva...arner-comcast-charter-insight-spinco/8420587/





Dan203 said:


> Whether they go to Charter or Comcast I think for customers of TWC the change will be welcome. Both cable systems use way less SDV and only protect premium channels which are both good news for current TWC customers. However as a whole I'm still torn on whether the government should allow the merger to happen. Making Comcast that big is still scary for the industry.


Since I'm in one of those Ohio TWC systems I think I'm beginning to favor the merger!

Dan did your Charter system ever get to the point where you don't need a TA to get any channels?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Whether they go to Charter or Comcast I think for customers of TWC the change will be welcome. Both cable systems use way less SDV and only protect premium channels which are both good news for current TWC customers. However as a whole I'm still torn on whether the government should allow the merger to happen. Making Comcast that big is still scary for the industry.


I doubt TWC customers will see any changes. At least not for several years. Comcast as a whole is made up of lots of acquired systems, each with their own legacy issues and politics.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dlfl said:


> Since I'm in one of those Ohio TWC systems I think I'm beginning to favor the merger!
> 
> Dan did your Charter system ever get to the point where you don't need a TA to get any channels?


I disconnected my TA and could only find 2 HD channels I couldn't tune. There may be SD channels, but I don't care about them.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

"Comcast Announces Divestiture of Some Markets"

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2014/...Comcast-Announces-Divestiture-of-Some-Markets

"Comcast today announced that it will divest 3.9 million subscribers of Comcast and Time Warner to Charter Communications and a new spinoff company, after its planned acquisition of Time Warner."

http://www.cmcsa.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=842917

Here's the part that matters to me:

"Most of the divestitures are in the Midwest and South and currently belong to Time Warner."

Which means there's a faint glimmer of hope that we'll get someone smaller and more responsive to replace Time-Warner where I live.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

unitron said:


> Which means there's a faint glimmer of hope that we'll get someone smaller and more responsive to replace Time-Warner where I live.


Not according to the map they released:


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

unitron said:


> "Comcast Announces Divestiture of Some Markets"
> 
> Which means there's a faint glimmer of hope that we'll get someone smaller and more responsive to replace Time-Warner where I live.


All of the systems that are not going to Comcast will eventually be going to Charter.

The systems going to the new spinoff company will be "managed" by Charter, and I am willing to bet you'll even get a bill from Charter and the name on the truck will be Charter. They'll own the new company outright in a few years.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Not according to the map they released:


Dude, you're harshing my mellow.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Whether they go to Charter or Comcast I think for customers of TWC the change will be welcome. Both cable systems use way less SDV and only protect premium channels which are both good news for current TWC customers. However as a whole I'm still torn on whether the government should allow the merger to happen. Making Comcast that big is still scary for the industry.





morac said:


> I doubt TWC customers will see any changes. At least not for several years. Comcast as a whole is made up of lots of acquired systems, each with their own legacy issues and politics.


Who knows what will happen? Minimizing SDV usage (ideally to nothing) and losing copy protection are attractive. However as I understand it, Charter is going digital-only, which means I'll have to rent a STB for a bedroom TV that now uses the analog signals directly.

Come to think of it, that TV functions as a glorified night light, so I may just get an antenna for it and go OTA only on it. (It's a small LED TV so doesn't use much power, and this is in lowly fly-over country --- you know, where we have antique things like lower electric rates. )


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

"SpinCo".


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This makes no sense. It's a business and technological mess, and it doesn't solve anything, as there is still one cable company in any given place... And WTF is with SpinCo? Why not just actually divest to Charter?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> This makes no sense. It's a business and technological mess, and it doesn't solve anything, as there is still one cable company in any given place... And WTF is with SpinCo? Why not just actually divest to Charter?


You mean it doesn't solve anything for the consumer, which is correct. It does solve something for Comcast -- more clout dealing with everybody they deal with, including content programmers.

I haven't read whatever they're saying about how this will benefit consumers but I suspect it doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Bigg said:


> And WTF is with SpinCo? Why not just actually divest to Charter?


It's a tax avoidance structure.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

mrizzo80 said:


> "SpinCo".


The name "Kabletown" was already taken. 

http://www.kabletown.com


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm a TWC customer in an area where we literally just in the last 6 months started getting a bill from TWC instead of Insight. Now, under this plan, we'd become Charter customers.

TWC hasn't done anything bad to us yet. They basically have just done what Insight did. They have maintained my pricing, were a delight to work with w/r/t cable cards, do not require SDV and have the same copy-once flag that Insight had.

I oppose this merger strongly, but I guess I am wondering what would change with charter.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 19, 2010)

Grakthis said:


> I'm a TWC customer in an area where we literally just in the last 6 months started getting a bill from TWC instead of Insight. Now, under this plan, we'd become Charter customers.
> 
> TWC hasn't done anything bad to us yet. They basically have just done what Insight did. They have maintained my pricing, were a delight to work with w/r/t cable cards, do not require SDV and have the same copy-once flag that Insight had.
> 
> I oppose this merger strongly, but I guess I am wondering what would change with charter.


Charter uses SDV (but the CEO has stated several times he wants to get rid of it, and there is anecdotal evidence that all-digital conversion areas do not need it). Charter also have friendly copy-once flags, only flagging the premium channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

JosephB said:


> It's a tax avoidance structure.


Yeah, you're probably right. It's some complicated swap-around with a bunch of write-offs and the bean counters will make a killing bean counting this one...


----------

