|
Comcast, Time Warner agree to merge in $45 billion deal I did my best to pare it down, but basically everything in the article is important. quote:Comcast’s $45 billion bid for Time Warner Cable would create a cable television behemoth in an industry that has steadily increased prices for bundles of channels and services that many consumers dislike but feel forced to buy. TLDR: Comcast and Time Warner are proposing a merger that will give them around are 30% share of the market. Comcast claims that this will give them leverage to deal with programming companies (for television) and do "synergize" various sectors of the industry to drive down costs. Comcast has made a pledge to support network neutrality in the past when it acquired NBC and claims that FiOS and Google Fiber provide sufficient competition in the marketplace. Consumer rights groups point out how this will give Comcast a "Texas Textbooks" influence on multiple sectors, basically allowing them to dictate standards for hardware and services as well as control market rates charged by Tier 2 and 3 service providers. I think we're definitely headed toward another national telecom monopoly here, just like AT&T and Bell before them. And while I really don't give a poo poo about cable television, the implications for media control and the obvious threat to net neutrality are worrisome. I know that, at least in the Mid Atlantic, Comcast has managed to stamp out almost all local competition. At this point you're basically left with Verizon, Cox, and Comcast, with Cox servicing a much smaller area.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 11:57 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:06 |
|
Despite their talk about how this is good for consumers and they will reduce costs and poo poo, don't be fooled and think that this would do anything to lower prices for the consumer. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/comcast-no-promise-that-prices-will-go-down-or-even-increase-less-rapidly/ quote:"The impact on customer bills is always hard to quantify. We're certainly not promising that customer bills are going to go down or even increase less rapidly," Comcast Executive VP David Cohen said in a conference call today in response to a question on price. "Frankly, most of the factors that go into customer bills are factors beyond our control."
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 14:32 |
|
"Frankly, most of the factors that go into customer bills are factors beyond our control." Like the price of luxury yachts? Better crank up those bills for the CEO to afford a new Ferrari, too!
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:06 |
|
The profit margin on bandwidth is ridiculous. I'm not really buying their argument.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:19 |
|
Wasn't Charter rumored to buy Comcast a few weeks ago?
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:20 |
Time Warner is the only cable company I've had stereotypical comedy-style interactions with. Just a month ago they gave me a 3 day, 24 hour time frame to have a technician screw in the cable going into my apartment. If I missed it, I'd have to wait until next week. This is only because they cancelled my original two appointments for "reason: none! I can't believe there is no reason in the system sir this is highly unusual" I have extreme patience for things like that if only as a frame of mind to get what I want faster, but that made me laugh a lot. save us google edit: Also everybody is worried but I have a much more pessimistic view. They were already "working together" in the sense of mutual inflation of costs. Could it get worse? Of course, but it's already been happening. (I paid $15 a month for 100 mbit down and 100 mbit up in south korea :x) Ignoarints fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:30 |
|
Ignoarints posted:edit: Also everybody is worried but I have a much more pessimistic view. They were already "working together" in the sense of mutual inflation of costs. Could it get worse? Of course, but it's already been happening. No one cares about uplink unless you have a server at home (which is the one thing Google Fiber explicitly prohibits).
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:47 |
|
Bob Morales posted:Wasn't Charter rumored to buy Comcast a few weeks ago? Charter was trying to buy Time-Warner. Word is that Charter was offering to sell some of Time-Warner to Comcast after that deal was done, but then Comcast was like nah, we'll just take it all. Time-Warner rejected the Charter deal and Comcast offered the same price and got it. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-comcast-charter-20140213,0,3512470.story#axzz2tJ9lWD2W
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 15:50 |
|
computer parts posted:No one cares about uplink unless you have a server at home Not even true. Uploading YouTube videos, for example, backing up your personal data to an online service (extremely popular now, and I'd do it if I had amazing upload), online gaming, streaming, etc. Good upload speed is one thing I'm really sad isn't more widespread.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:00 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Not even true. Uploading YouTube videos, for example, backing up your personal data to an online service (extremely popular now, and I'd do it if I had amazing upload), online gaming, streaming, etc. Online gaming is perfectly fine with low speeds. And you especially don't need 100mbit speeds for it. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Feb 14, 2014 |
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:01 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Not even true. Uploading YouTube videos, for example, backing up your personal data to an online service (extremely popular now, and I'd do it if I had amazing upload), online gaming, streaming, etc. Traditionally, upstream was kept lower relative to downstream just because there were limited frequency bands on the wire and people use downstream bandwidth more often. These days, there's basically no excuse not to have symmetric lines.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:05 |
|
computer parts posted:No one cares about uplink unless you have a server at home (which is the one thing Google Fiber explicitly prohibits). Right, that's why my 12mb/768k DSL package was such an awesome deal.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:06 |
|
Bob Morales posted:Right, that's why my 12mb/768k DSL package was such an awesome deal. It's better than what I have, so yes?
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:18 |
|
Get ready for 300GB/ month data caps. Atlanta started 3 months ago and it blows to have to keep monitoring your usage and end up cutting the modem power 5 days from the end of the month so you don't end up paying ridiculous overages.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:33 |
|
psydude posted:These days, there's basically no excuse not to have symmetric lines. Except docsis isn't symmetric. The standard itself has higher downstream than upstream. You would have to dedicate more channels for upstream then you have for downstream. Also pretty much every cable modem allows for way more downstream channels than upstream. Don Lapre fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Feb 14, 2014 |
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:37 |
|
computer parts posted:No one cares about uplink unless you have a server at home (which is the one thing Google Fiber explicitly prohibits). No, you don't care about uplink, but anyone who uploads HD videos, does offsite backups or otherwise transfers large files would love faster upload. Last month I shot some video and had to transfer it to someone else over a VPN with my lovely 1Mbps upload. It took almost 18 hours to move a little over 7.5GB of data. I could have gotten in the car and made the 800 mile round trip faster than transferring it via the internet.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 16:48 |
|
Don Lapre posted:Except docsis isn't symmetric. The standard itself has higher downstream than upstream. You would have to dedicate more channels for upstream then you have for downstream. Yeah, I should have clarified that I was speaking about fiber.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 17:08 |
|
Comcast itself doesn't make any sense before this anyhow so I bet the regulators are going to bend over happily for this. I think my favorite part from the USA Today Article is quote:In a conference call with reporters, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts defended the deal, calling it "pro-consumer, pro-competitive and strongly in the public interest." He said the deal would benefit millions of customers through technological advancements and innovative products. He pointed out that Comcast and Time Warner Cable don't compete in any of the same markets, adding that the merger won't reduce competition in any relevant market. like no duh you dumb f***s, you wont share access lines and compete purely on the service level because you guys hate competing. I really wish the government would split them apart...
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 17:12 |
|
Dr. Jackal posted:Comcast itself doesn't make any sense before this anyhow so I bet the regulators are going to bend over happily for this. I think its a fair point.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 17:15 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 17:32 |
|
gohmak posted:Get ready for 300GB/ month data caps. Atlanta started 3 months ago and it blows to have to keep monitoring your usage and end up cutting the modem power 5 days from the end of the month so you don't end up paying ridiculous overages. Comcast? Also, do they not grandfather you into it?
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 19:14 |
|
brothertim posted:Comcast? Also, do they not grandfather you into it? No grandfathering. 300gb/m. $10 for each 50gb over that. Business accounts do not have the cap.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 19:17 |
|
Don Lapre posted:No grandfathering. 300gb/m. $10 for each 50gb over that. Business accounts do not have the cap. That's pretty stupid. 300GB can go extremely fast if you spend any amount of time on steam (endless updates). Are they trying to curtail the transition to digital downloading? Most people don't want to leave the house to rent movies/buy games these days.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 22:19 |
|
brothertim posted:That's pretty stupid. 300GB can go extremely fast if you spend any amount of time on steam (endless updates). Are they trying to curtail the transition to digital downloading? Most people don't want to leave the house to rent movies/buy games these days. Yes, they are trying to make it harder to watch netflix/hulu/hbogo/piracy
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 22:21 |
|
The joys of your TV provider having control over your internet. They want you to watch more of their TV and/or use their video streaming, which often doesn't count against the cap whereas Netflix et al do. Cable internet is a great invention but at this point it needs to be separated somehow.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 22:39 |
|
And a lot of times you don't even have a choice about which internet provider to use. Unless you live in a major city (and sometimes even then) you're usually restricted to one or two ISPs. Natural monopolies. Like utilities.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 22:44 |
|
drat it, I'm tired of calling up my congress-critters to bitch about something terrible about to happen.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 23:47 |
|
Why aren't cable companies allowed over each others lines? I mean, you could get DSL and phone service from multiple companies, why not cable? Some sort of sweetheart deal they struck with the government about laying down their own infrastructure over the years (which I'm sure was probably heavily subsidized...)?
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 00:06 |
|
chocolateTHUNDER posted:Why aren't cable companies allowed over each others lines? I mean, you could get DSL and phone service from multiple companies, why not cable? Mainly because cable carriers own the entire local loop and hate competitors. It's also tricky (if not impossible) to compete over the same cable infrastructure because cable is a shared medium - one end of the fiber is connected to the CMTS at the cable company's central office, and the other end of the fiber is in a tiny box on your street where it's converted to coax and shared with the entire block. Phone lines and DSL are a bit different - your phone line is a single twisted pair that runs all the way back to the central office, and it's yours and yours alone. From there, you've got an incumbent carrier that laid the lines or at least has legal possession of them (the ILEC), and you've got competitive carriers (the CLEC) who are given the right to lease lines from the ILEC at fair rates, and either one can take your twisted pair and give you service over it. Another factor preventing shared cable markets is that many municipalities offer a pseudo-"protected monopoly" status to cable carriers in exchange for the carrier agreeing to provide service to the entire area. The local government gets their constituents internet access, and the cable company gets so many years of almost guaranteed .
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 01:56 |
|
Cenodoxus posted:Mainly because cable carriers own the entire local loop and hate competitors. It's also tricky (if not impossible) to compete over the same cable infrastructure because cable is a shared medium - one end of the fiber is connected to the CMTS at the cable company's central office, and the other end of the fiber is in a tiny box on your street where it's converted to coax and shared with the entire block. I knew that Cable was a shared bandwidth medium, I guess I just forgot to connect the dots on that point. Also now that you mentioned the whole thing about municipalities, I remember how Verizon and Cablevision got into lawsuits and slapfights in my area over local exclusivity deals in certain towns and such when Verizon was heavily rolling out their fiber. The result is that I can get FIOS Internet and phone, but not TV. Man, this poo poo fuckin' sucks. This merger is going to gently caress so many people over (even more than they're being hosed over now).
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 02:06 |
|
The biggest contributing factor is that ISPs aren't regulated as utilities, so they aren't obligated to allow competitors to use their lines. Electric companies are required by law to do this, which is why you can usually choose from 4-5 different ones in your area. This was actually the reason why the recent ruling on Net Neutrality wound up the way it did: the FCC never bothered classifying them as such.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 02:23 |
|
chocolateTHUNDER posted:Man, this poo poo fuckin' sucks. This merger is going to gently caress so many people over (even more than they're being hosed over now). I refuse to let myself get hosed over. I live in Kansas City, I'm currently a Time Warner subscriber, and I happen to be in the market for a house. Now I'm restricting my search to places where Google Fiber has announced service, because gently caress Comcast. Google Fiber 4lyfe. (Once they get around to me in 2016 - oops, I mean 2116.) psydude posted:Electric companies are required by law to do this, which is why you can usually choose from 4-5 different ones in your area. Cenodoxus fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 15, 2014 |
# ? Feb 15, 2014 02:52 |
|
Cenodoxus posted:I refuse to let myself get hosed over. I live in Kansas City, I'm currently a Time Warner subscriber, and I happen to be in the market for a house. Now I'm restricting my search to places where Google Fiber has announced service, because gently caress Comcast. You pick a company. Ok done.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 03:20 |
|
deadtear posted:You pick a company. Ok done. From the consumer's point of view, sure, but how do four electric companies on the same block play nicely with each other? Four sets of lines on four poles? It's tough for me to imagine because everywhere I've ever lived, you have one choice, and it's either municipal public power ($0.07/kWh ) or a single private company.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 03:44 |
|
Cenodoxus posted:From the consumer's point of view, sure, but how do four electric companies on the same block play nicely with each other? Four sets of lines on four poles? Everyone feeds into the same grid.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 04:01 |
|
If this gets federal approval then I'll have no choice but to rent/own housing in FiOS-supported areas where I reside. It's either Time Warner or Verizon around these parts and the coverage area for FiOS is limited. Basically it's either steaming poo poo, or just a regular pile of poo poo (with a contract).
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 06:04 |
|
My specialty is bird law, so I'm not entirely certain what the government would think about two major companies merging, when the result would cause monopolies (whether anticipated or not) in a large amount of cities/towns. I was pretty sure that's illegal...
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 06:31 |
|
brothertim posted:My specialty is bird law, so I'm not entirely certain what the government would think about two major companies merging, when the result would cause monopolies (whether anticipated or not) in a large amount of cities/towns. I was pretty sure that's illegal... A monopoly isn't illegal. There would be no more a monopoly in cities and towns as there is now.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 06:32 |
|
Don Lapre posted:A monopoly isn't illegal. What. the. gently caress. So, creating the monopoly is legal, but using your market domination to then charge people $200/month for internet access would be illegal? edit: I gotta know where the line gets drawn by the gov.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 06:41 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 12:06 |
|
I pay for Time Warner's 110 Mbps service, and it's been great. Well, actually, it's been great ever since one of their employees gave me the VP for Southern CA's personal cell phone number and I called him at dinner and asked him why I was only getting 10Mbps. I hope this arrangement doesn't change; Richard, I hope Comcast lets you keep your job, my throughput depends on it.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2014 07:33 |