# Comcast to purchase Time-Warner Cable



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Business Insider:

*Comcast to purchase Time-Warner Cable*


> Comcast is set to buy Time Warner Cable in an all-stock deal that values Time Warner at $159 per share, CNBC's David Faber reports on Twitter.
> 
> At $159, Comcast would be paying an 18% premium to the stock's closing price. It would value Time Warner Cable at ~$44.4 billion. Comcast is valued at $146.5 billion.


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Also being reported by Reuters (through Yahoo), Bloomberg, and MarketWatch.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Ouch, glad I don't use Time Warner for Internet. Comcast is the one that lets other customers connect using your cable modem, plus the Netflix throttling, etc.

It's going to be a bit extra painful for ex Insight customers, some of which were in this area. They just dealt with the switchover to Time Warner.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

That's me, the guy that just made it through the switch from Insight to TWC. And now Comcast. 

This is awful. 

Cincinnati Bell has fiber cabinets all over the place in my area. Hopefully they'll pull it down my street soon. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

As a current TWC internet customer and former Comcast internet customer I'm sort of happy to see this. At least Comcast has been busy upgrading their networks while TWC's been doing zip,


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Doesn't the FCC still need to approve this?

If they get it, they'll have NY and LA, the #1 and 2 markets. Get ready for CSN-NY (SportsNetNY) and CSN-LA (TWCSN).


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

If this merger is approved, then what is there to prevent a Dish-DirecTV merger?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

RAD said:


> As a current TWC internet customer and former Comcast internet customer I'm sort of happy to see this. At least Comcast has been busy upgrading their networks while TWC's been doing zip,
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Same here;

So what does this mean for me, assuming government regulators allow it, TWC's service (and their weird logo) will disappear for Comcast?

Or should I prepare myself for a "Comcrap" experience as they're otherwise popularly known?

Presently have double play with TWC at ~$60.00/mo. for 12/1 internet which has stayed at this speed seemingly forever combined with their digital voice phone service i just signed up for at ~$15.00/mo. at a 1 year introductory rate + another $5.00/mo. for rental on a eMTA telephone modem.


----------



## 1953 (Feb 7, 2006)

After completed I'm wondering if the new Comcast could be a truly good techincal and economic alternative to satellite?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> If this merger is approved, then what is there to prevent a Dish-DirecTV merger?


Nothing. There's no way they'd be blocked if they allow comcast to buy Time Warner Cable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

1953 said:


> After completed I'm wondering if the new Comcast could be a truly good techincal and economic alternative to satellite?


Uh no. It won't change anything really except increase out costs.


----------



## john262 (Oct 26, 2011)

Mark Holtz said:


> If this merger is approved, then what is there to prevent a Dish-DirecTV merger?


Every proposed merger is examined on a case by case basis. Some are approved such as Sirius/XM and other such as Dish/Directv were not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mark Holtz said:


> If this merger is approved, then what is there to prevent a Dish-DirecTV merger?


Is Comcast merging with Time Warner a reduction in competition? It creates a bigger company which may be able to negotiate better deals but does it reduce competition?

DISH+DirecTV would be a reduction in competition ... especially in areas without cable and fiber where DISH is the only effective competition for DirecTV (and vice versa).

The biggest issue I see with the Comcast TWC merger is the same one that faces Comcast today - they are a content provider. The FCC will need to continue to monitor NBC Universial to make sure that the deals they make with Comcast's competitors (DirecTV, DISH and fiber companies) are as fair as the deals that they make with Comcast and cable systems that compete with DirecTV and DISH.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Is Comcast merging with Time Warner a reduction in competition? It creates a bigger company which may be able to negotiate better deals but does it reduce competition?
> 
> DISH+DirecTV would be a reduction in competition ... especially in areas without cable and fiber where DISH is the only effective competition for DirecTV (and vice versa).


I'm sure there are areas where only Comcast and TWC compete. If those are the only two cable competitors in an area, that eliminates cable competition. It would be hard to argue that that's not a problem because there's satellite, but two satellite companies couldn't combine in order to compete with a company the size of a Comcast+TWC.

Sure, there are places where satellite is the only option. But there are people like me, for whom cable is the only option. Trees prevent satellite, not just for me, but pretty much everyone for blocks in any direction, and my telco doesn't offer TV. There is only one cable company in town. I'm no worse off today than people who can only get satellite would be if Dish and Directv combined.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Variety:

*Comcast To Buy All Of Time Warner Cable In $44.2 Bil Deal
Deal to unite the nation's two largest cable operators to be unveiled Thursday*


> In a surprise twist in the hunt for Time Warner Cable, Comcast Corp. is closing in on a deal to buy its closest cable rival in an all-stock deal valued at $44.2 billion, or about $159 a share.
> 
> CNBC first reported news of the pact coming together late Wednesday. A source close to the situation confirmed that the sides are expected to announce the surprise deal on Thursday morning. However, execs from both camps were hammering out the final points on the deal even as midnight approached on the East Coast.
> 
> Media watchdog orgs were, not surprisingly, quick to condemn the deal as anti-consumer.


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

"Dear Customer, Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse we are informing you that your Time Warner Cable service has been purchased by Comcast, the nation's leading provider of aggravation. Our new name will be Timeless Comcrap. In the weeks ahead we will be notifying you of your new rates. Have a sparkling day!" :sure:


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

If this is allowed to happen, then I would anticipate (and, perhaps, expect) something similar with DirecTV and Dish Network.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Both Marketwatch and AP are stating that "Comcast, Time Warner Cable confirm $45.2 billion deal that would create cable giant", but I do not have a linkable article at this time.

UPDATED! From Marketwatch: Time Warner Cable, Comcast confirm $45 bln deal


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And Comcast is the one that lets other customers connect to the Internet using your cable modem. As far as I have heard, you can't turn it off yourself, you have to call them to connect in and do its are you absolved of all responsibility if a media company comes calling with a lawsuit because of a bit torrent share?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I'm sure there are areas where only Comcast and TWC compete. If those are the only two cable competitors in an area, that eliminates cable competition.


There are a lot of ifs that would be needed to make that a problem. It would need to be an area with line of sight problems and two cable companies. Two cable companies is not common. Areas that could have two cable companies are good targets for fiber. I'm not going to say "impossible", but can you tell me how many of TWCs customers can get Comcast?



slice1900 said:


> Sure, there are places where satellite is the only option. But there are people like me, for whom cable is the only option. Trees prevent satellite, not just for me, but pretty much everyone for blocks in any direction, and my telco doesn't offer TV. There is only one cable company in town. I'm no worse off today than people who can only get satellite would be if Dish and Directv combined.


Unless they are redwoods perhaps you just need more creative installers? For your narrow example a DISH-DirecTV merger would do no harm but do no good. The same would apply to the Comcast-TWC merger. You would still have one cable company.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

Just what we need, the least consumer friendly company in the world getting bigger. This may run into regulatory problems, especially without Arlen Spector to run interference.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Doesn't the FCC still need to approve this?
> 
> If they get it, they'll have NY and LA, the #1 and 2 markets. Get ready for CSN-NY (SportsNetNY) and CSN-LA (TWCSN).


They'll have Dallas #5 and many surrounding cities, too.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

The only areas that would cause the FCC to pause (in my opinion) are the markets that are overlapping with little to no third carrier availability (not including satellite), that could effectively reduce competition and/or monopolize a particular area. 

Say, for example, City X is only served by Comcast and TWC, without FIOS or another mitigating "land carrier." The FCC would take a hard look at that market (and other markets like it) and could potentially force Comcast to divest. 

In cities or areas where service doesn't overlap, the union probably wouldn't bother the FCC much. Like City Y, for example: it has TWC but Comcast is not present or its service there is limited. 

The extent and definition of overlap per market and/or actual reduction in competition, geographically, will probably be the biggest issue.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't have a data cap with Time Warner, while Comcast is busily rolling out caps with overages. 

Cap free fiber is coming to my neighborhood this year. Their price for 100/30 service is $20 more than my 50/5 for the first year, and $30 more after. 

I know what I'll be doing. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> "Dear Customer, Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse we are informing you that your Time Warner Cable service has been purchased by Comcast, the nation's leading provider of aggravation. Our new name will be Timeless Comcrap. In the weeks ahead we will be notifying you of your new rates. Have a sparkling day!" :sure:


Hopefully something good will come out of it!!


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

RAD said:


> As a current TWC internet customer and former Comcast internet customer I'm sort of happy to see this. At least Comcast has been busy upgrading their networks while TWC's been doing zip,
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Sorry to bust you're bubble guys, but when Comcast acquired Adelphia cable years ago in my area I was siked that finally we will get updated equipment and channels. But years later and talking to many technicians over the years on why we haven't gotten new updated equipment and channels, we are always told that we will be on the old Adelphia network because it is to expensive to update what we have now. I'm told that maybe 20 years down the road we will be ahead of the game when they finally do a major update. It is so frustrating


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

I can't see how this deal could ever pas, I hate even thinking it could, it sucks. FCC so NO to this DEAL


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

oldschoolecw said:


> Sorry to bust you're bubble guys, but when Comcast acquired Adelphia cable years ago in my area I was siked that finally we will get updated equipment and channels. But years later and talking to many technicians over the years on why we haven't gotten new updated equipment and channels, we are always told that we will be on the old Adelphia network because it is to expensive to update what we have now. I'm told that maybe 20 years down the road we will be ahead of the game when they finally do a major update. It is so frustrating


 Maybe they just didn't like you. At our prior home our original cable system was Jones Intercable, then Cox then TCI, none of them really did anything to upgrade the physical plant. Comcast did end up purchasing our system and started very shortly there after to upgrade the plant, so just like all cable thread, YYMV since each area is different.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

So does anyone one know if there are any potions up on this matter? I want to sign and looking at other responses across the internet most are pissed that this deal could even happen.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

APB101 said:


> If this is allowed to happen, then I would anticipate (and, perhaps, expect) something similar with DirecTV and Dish Network.


The argument that will be made is that TWC and Comcast don't overlap in markets, or where they do they will sell off those customers to make a deal go through. Or another way to put it, no competition had been eliminated because cable companies own exclusive territories anyway. There will still be Dish, Directv, Fios, Uverse as competitors. That will be the argument by TWC and Comcast. In my opinion.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

It's possible that the parties don't expect this deal to be approved. It could be that this is a ploy to stave off the hostile take over by Charter. While the FCC and FTC anguish over this proposed deal prior to rejecting it, Time Warner Cable shareholders are mollified into rejecting Charter's proposed Board of Director candidates.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

I have Brighthouse. I know they are partially run or in some way part of TWC. Does this do anything as far as BH is concerned? Would those areas become Comcast markets or still be BH?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> And Comcast is the one that lets other customers connect to the Internet using your cable modem. As far as I have heard, you can't turn it off yourself, you have to call them to connect in and do its are you absolved of all responsibility if a media company comes calling with a lawsuit because of a bit torrent share?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What are you talking about other customers connect with your modem?


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> The combined company would bring cable or Internet service to about 30% of American subscribers and *serve 19 of the country's 20 largest metropolitan regions*. That would give Comcast, which is already the nation's largest TV, Internet and home phone provider, an even more sizable lead on its rivals.
> 
> The Obama administration will weigh whether that could translate into higher prices, worse service and fewer TV channels for customers.
> 
> Comcast (CMCSA, Fortune 500) and Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) will have to gain approval from two regulators: both the Federal Communications Commission and either the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission. The agencies have not yet decided which will take up the case. (The FTC typically scrutinizes cable mergers but the DOJ usually handles media deals, including Comcast's 2010 purchase of NBCUniversal from GE (GE, Fortune 500).)


http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/technology/comcast-time-warner-antitrust/


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

oldschoolecw said:


> So does anyone one know if there are any potions up on this matter?


I guess you'd have to ask Samantha, her mother Endora, Sabrina or one of her aunts, or maybe one of the Charmed ones about that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> The argument that will be made is that TWC and Comcast don't overlap in markets, or where they do they will sell off those customers to make a deal go through. Or another way to put it, no competition had been eliminated because cable companies own exclusive territories anyway. There will still be Dish, Directv, Fios, Uverse as competitors. That will be the argument by TWC and Comcast. In my opinion.


I agree. However when you start looking at their full universal NBC content controlling they should not have been allowed to merge in the first place. Now it's even more so that they would control too much of the entire chain into many areas. At least that's what I hope you have cc realizes.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> What are you talking about other customers connect with your modem?


IIRC, if you got a new Comcast WiFi router/modem there was a public hot spot enabled by default that any other Comcast user could access but don't recall that you couldn't disable it on your own, just that it wasn't published. Also any usage on the open network didn't count against any of the users usage caps.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Comcast and TWC do not overlap at all. Less than 1% of all cable customers are in areas where two cable companies are available, anyway. Comcast and TWC do not share any zip codes at all, much less having customers that are offered service from both of them.

I don't think this changes the math on a Dish/DirecTV merger.

I do think there are interesting possibilities that probably won't happen but would make sense:

Comcast should buy T-Mobile. Wireless is the one area where cable still can't compete. Comcast and TWC dropped their idea of building their own wireless services, partially as a deal to stop Verizon from competing, but buying an established national carrier still seems compelling.

AT&T should buy Dish (or DirecTV, but really Dish). AT&T really dropped the ball, I think, with U-Verse. Getting a satellite platform gives them a compelling TV service that they can combine with their DSL and U-Verse services. Dish especially already has limited IPTV experience with DishWorld, and they could use those + U-Verse TV for OTT services such as DishWorld or core programming to customers who cannot have a dish on their premise, but use the satellite platform for as much TV as possible to free up bandwidth on their landlines. Finally, Dish has a ton of spectrum and AT&T always wants more spectrum

DirecTV should get into content, hard. Either by buying or selling to Viacom or CBS (tough, since both of those companies are family-controlled and not likely to sell) or by getting involved again with Fox since they split from News Corp. If none of those are options, then they should start buying up things like Discovery and anything else they can get their hands on. Obviously the FCC is ok with vertical integration, and with DirecTV as the biggest competitor to Comcast, that's going to be the only way they can truly keep Comcast in balance.

The only other company that can rival Comcast right now is Disney, and they don't strike me as the kind of media company who would want to get into the distribution business.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> I agree. However when you start looking at their full universal NBC content controlling they should not have been allowed to merge in the first place. Now it's even more so that they would control too much of the entire chain into many areas. At least that's what I hope you have cc realizes.


How many eye balls does Disney 'own' with all their cable channels and local O&O stations, same goes for CBS/Viacom? Where is the cut off point where cross ownership is too much?


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Comcast would also takeover the Laker's channel I presume, giving them an even bigger share in the sport's realm. 

I wonder if they start pulling an "ESPN/ABC," and combine all of their sport's package in future media deals, maybe even start combining it with their NBCU package? Granted, I have no idea when existing contracts lapse or if Comcast would be willing to force it somehow, but imagine the buckling and pressure such a deal would cause to other cable and satellite providers. 

Would DirecTV throw out another take it or leave offer under such a scenario? Would Comcast even care if DirecTV dropped everything, giving them a slight programming edge?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> IIRC, if you got a new Comcast WiFi router/modem there was a public hot spot enabled by default that any other Comcast user could access but don't recall that you couldn't disable it on your own, just that it wasn't published. Also any usage on the open network didn't count against any of the users usage caps.


Interesting. SO it didn't count against your usage, as long as it is completely segregated from your network, not sure if it matters to much.. But if it slows down yours in any way, then thats not acceptable. They should just put up hot spots on their telephone poles.

However, its odd I must admit.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> How many eye balls does Disney 'own' with all their cable channels and local O&O stations, same goes for CBS/Viacom? Where is the cut off point where cross ownership is too much?


There is a big difference between owning massive amounts of something horizontally vs vertically. And you now have a company that is now trying to own massive amounts in both directions.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

i wish directv would buy verizon fios tv ,then i woul have the option of using either thr genie or tivo roamio pro with all the channels directv and fios would combine! (i know i'm dreaming)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> > So does anyone one know if there are any potions up on this matter?
> 
> 
> I guess you'd have to ask Samantha, her mother Endora, Sabrina or one of her aunts, or maybe one of the Charmed ones about that.


Probably "petitions" ... but links to petitions and encouragement to sign would not fit well within our forum rules.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bambler said:


> Say, for example, City X is only served by Comcast and TWC, without FIOS or another mitigating "land carrier." The FCC would take a hard look at that market (and other markets like it) and could potentially force Comcast to divest.


That is how the FCC handles wireless service mergers ... although over the years the amount and type of spectrum companies are allowed to keep has changed.



Bambler said:


> The extent and definition of overlap per market and/or actual reduction in competition, geographically, will probably be the biggest issue.


I'd like to see a list of where there is overlap. I have not seen one community named that has both - but a lot of people assume that there is overlap somewhere.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

I'm also concerned that NBC/Universal/Comcast/Time Warner Cable along with the other media conglomerates have way too much control over what we see and hear. These mergers aren't good for a democracy because it reduces the number of voices that are heard by most people.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Comcast will definitely wield a lot of power after this merger. 

I think the regulators will definitely look at Comcast's entire holdings prior to making a decision. If anything, they may place additional restrictions and/or requirements similar to what happened when Comcast took over NBC in regards to conflicts of interest and ensuring they "play fair" in regards to their programming. At the very least, they could extend the existing measures put in place beyond the timelines initially set forth by the DOJ during the NBC merger. I think it was seven years? 

Although how much weight such measures will have will be academic, at least over the long run when those measures expire (they don't usually last long) and/or the other changes occur over time that allow them to make changes outside of those measures even if it against the spirit of the law/measure (i.e., loopholes). 

But the dangers of Comcast using exclusive NBC programming as leverage over other carriers will definitely grow. Whether it's by withholding it and trying to get people to switch or charging a ton for it, they really have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Interesting. SO it didn't count against your usage, as long as it is completely segregated from your network, not sure if it matters to much.. But if it slows down yours in any way, then thats not acceptable. They should just put up hot spots on their telephone poles.
> 
> However, its odd I must admit.


It's not unheard of for the provided routers to have security vulnerabilities that don't get fixed, so I'm not sure I'd trust it.

On their FAQ, for how to disable it, they just say to call them.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

zimm7778 said:


> I have Brighthouse. I know they are partially run or in some way part of TWC. Does this do anything as far as BH is concerned? Would those areas become Comcast markets or still be BH?


I was wondering the same thing. BH is technically separate from Time Warner, but it certainly is hard to tell since when Time Warner has a dispute, they take BH customers along for the ride.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jsk said:


> I'm also concerned that NBC/Universal/Comcast/Time Warner Cable along with the other media conglomerates have way too much control over what we see and hear. These mergers aren't good for a democracy because it reduces the number of voices that are heard by most people.


That's why I invented the internet!


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

APB101 said:


> If this is allowed to happen, then I would anticipate (and, perhaps, expect) something similar with DirecTV and Dish Network.


As others have pointed out, neither Comcast not TWC directly competes in any market -- the various cable companies have consolodated their holdings so that this is common. Dish and DirecTV compete directly everywhere.

If I were KIng, I'd allow the merger but require Comcast to divest all content companies. Make them a common carrier and a lot of the neutrality issues disappear. At that point they are pretty much parallel to Ma Bell.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, above all force the divestiture of sports teams!


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> That's why I invented the internet!


Al: I didn't know you were a lax fan! 

Even with the Internet most people get most of their information from media conglomerates and most likely will continue to do so. The conglomerates have lots of power to heard the masses to their products, including websites. If a non conglomerate owned website starts getting a lot of eyeballs, a conglomerate will soon purchase it. For example, I have used the Weather Underground website (and previously Gopher site) for decades and I guess it started getting too popular and The Weather Channel (NBC/Universal/Comcast) purchased it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

JS-

I totally agree with your first premise. Not a good thing! But at least the internet is there, which for practical purposes, was not even ten years ago for the masses.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, above all force the divestiture of sports teams!


Yes please, either force them to divest some of their RSNs or put a limit on how many major markets where they can have a combo of a cable system, RSN, NBC O&O and a Telemundo O&O.

Just take a look at what happened in Philly, you went from at least one Phillies game a week on WPHL to only 10 a year on the O&O NBC 10. Will the same thing happen in NYC when SNY's contract with WPIX expires?


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I hope they don't charge me more for emta rental fees, or a even more rise on HSI tiers on Comcast. But then again all providers do at some point.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> 1:45 p.m. CST, February 21, 2014
> 
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Dish Networks Inc Chairman Charlie Ergen said the proposed merger between Comcast Corp and Time Warner Cable Inc will cause a "seismic shift" in the media business and his company is considering how to respond.
> 
> Ergen said the transaction would concentrate broadband, video and content in a "nationwide player."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-dish-chairman-20140221,0,6888262.story


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Dish Network chairman Charlie Ergen said if the pending Comcast/Time Warner cable merger passes regulatory muster, it could make it easier for a combination of the two largest satellite TV players, Dish and DirecTV.
> 
> "If you take the No. 1 and No. 4 [pay TV] providers and put them together, it's hard to see why you can't put No.2 and No. 3 together," Ergen said on a conference call with analysts to discuss fourth quarter results. But the Dish chairman expressed some doubt that the Comcast/TWC deal would receive approval.


http://www.multichannel.com/satellite/ergen-comcasttwc-approval-could-make-directv-merger-more-palatable/148437


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> But, asked one analyst, what about the claim by the merging companies that the deal won't have much effect on the landscape, as the two don't compete in many markets (and plan to divest assets in the areas where they do)?
> 
> Ergen dismissed that, noting that all distribution companies are negotiating with the same content owners. Anything that gives one player more leverage to wrangle lower carriage fees will result in higher prices for those who lack such leverage, he predicted.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/02/21/dishs-charlie-ergen-im-nervous-about-comcast-twc-surprised-our-business-hasnt-been-worse/


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: **Comcast's merger with Time Warner Cable goes in front of the Senate on March 26th*

The final word on Comcast's merger with Time Warner Cable may be in the hands of the FCC and Justice Department, but that's not stopping other governmental bodies from weighing in. On March 26th, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to examine the deal's effects on the average consumer -- specifically focusing on its impact on market competition and TV and internet pricing. "The merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable touches on important policy questions bout how Americans access these valuable services," Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy wrote in a statement.

Full Story Here


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Wouldn't it be timely to review the ownership of sports teams and exclusive tie-ins!?!


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Comcast & Time Warner *DO* compete. Maybe very little at the consumer level, but they compete for local government franchise agreements.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Looks like Fox and DirecTV are speaking out against this.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Comcast will sell off current Time Warner customers in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Alabama and Wisconsin to Charter.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304893404579529262655682706?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304893404579529262655682706.html


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

Charter, Comcast Strike Deal to Swap Subs, Launch Spinoff

Comcast and Charter unveil system divestitures deal

Comcast and Charter Reach Agreement on Divestitures (Charter PR) (Comcast PR)

Investor Presentation (PDF download)










Here is a map of Charter's proposed footprint, post--TWC-Comcast merger.

Dark blue: Current Charter systems remaining in the new Charter footprint
Medium blue: Current Time Warner Cable systems to be taken over by Charter
Orange: Current Comcast systems to be spun off into new company
*Charter systems not shown will become Comcast systems.*










Charter's network map/footprint currently.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well now this affects me because my charter Internet would become Comcast Internet. That's based on the page saying any charter areas not listed will become Comcast, which I'm in one of charters Los Angeles area territories. NO! I want all this to fall apart!


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Funny how it was conveniently divided up to make sure Comcast gets all the Charter and Time Warner systems claimed by one of their RSNs and/or NBC O&Os.


----------



## Devo1237 (Apr 22, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Well now this affects me because my charter Internet would become Comcast Internet. That's based on the page saying any charter areas not listed will become Comcast, which I'm in one of charters Los Angeles area territories. NO! I want all this to fall apart!


Yeah, I am former Charter internet and current TWC internet. Charter is faster, cheaper, and more reliable. But there's no competition for anything over DSL speed so what's to motivate TWC?

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> Funny how it was conveniently divided up to make sure Comcast gets all the Charter and Time Warner systems claimed by one of their RSNs and/or NBC O&Os.


Yeah and it should be the opposite of that. Gee think they are trying to set themselves up for massive fee hikes for the RSNs for sat and uverse etc so they can leverage that to gain more subs for themselves? Ugh...


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

Guess if this goes thru, I will be relegated from a Comcast customer to a "forgotten step child status" as our service area isn't wanted by either company and will be relegated to a third TBD company that will be run and managed by Charter, but majority owned by Comcast.

Yep, I can see that company thriving and being cost competitive. :nono2: Never thought the day would come that I would want to continue to be a Comcast customer! :bang


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Couldn't help but chuckle at this one:

Comcast's Cohen To Regulators: 'Don't Make Us The Next Blockbuster'

Honestly, how can I take you seriously drawing this kind of comparison?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

He might as well have talked about the ABC Buggy Whip Co. being denied a merger with the Jiffy Buggy Whip Company. 

What a db.


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

dualsub2006 said:


> I don't have a data cap with Time Warner, while Comcast is busily rolling out caps with overages.
> 
> Cap free fiber is coming to my neighborhood this year. Their price for 100/30 service is $20 more than my 50/5 for the first year, and $30 more after.
> 
> ...


sounds like you'll be doing what i'll be doing from comcrap running like hell LOL. comcrap acts like the interwebs is a limited resource when it's really not. it's just a way to suck more money from consumers pockets!!


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

I hope that this don't go through!!! but it seems like it already has from what a TWC rep told me as she said that sometime next year it will be comcrap


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: **'Stop Mega Comcast' group aims to kill the Time Warner merger*

(engadget.com) - Comcast is already the largest cable provider in the U.S., but the Time Warner deal would make it even more of a juggernaut with 11 million additional customers and control of 50% of the home broadband market. "This much power concentrated in the hands of one company would be frightening even for the most trustworthy of companies," Public Knowledge's CEO Gene Kimmelman said in a statement. "And Comcast is definitely not that."...

Full Story Here


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

A stake in 44% of anything (in this case RSNs) is indeed something to be concerned about.


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

I know one thing i sighn up for high speed internet not bandwith caps!! i won't last on comcrap using terabytes every month for uploading vids and gaming Netflix


----------



## jeret (Apr 22, 2007)

Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger is no longer viewed as inevitable

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-opposition-20150127-story.html#page=1


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jeret said:


> Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger is no longer viewed as inevitable
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-opposition-20150127-story.html#page=1


Please don't post the same thing in _*multiple threads! *_


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

I hope it don't go through. though sometimes it seems like it will and sometimes it seems like it won't. I already informed TWC if it does go through then i'm done with there service!!


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer the justice department antitrust division is about to recommend blocking this merger
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Comcast-shares-down-on-report-US-wont-back-TimeWarner-deal.html


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

And according to Bloomberg Business *Comcast Plans to Drop Time Warner Cable Deal* with the announcement likely Friday.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

Someone in the FCC finally came to their senses!

Here is another article:

http://news.yahoo.com/comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-hits-setback-fcc-032029865.html;_ylt=AwrBT.UgWjlVOkYArzRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzMjRxOXNpBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQNjEyXzEEc2VjA3Nj


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Interesting... I kind of thought this might happen. I also think it doesn't make AT&T and DirecTV feel comfortable. The Comcast/Time Warner merger didn't really eliminate competition since their areas don't overlap... but AT&T/DirecTV should post similar other concerns + the reduction in consumer choice as the cherry on top.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There was more wrong with the Comcast deal and it was more complicated. I would not read the *apparent* death of one deal as the death of both deals.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I do hope the ownership of sports franchises were taken into account, and steps taken to prohibit them, but I doubt it.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Glad this deal is dead in the water. The only beneficiaries were Comcast and TWC.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Sounds like one issue is they ignored all the things they where supposed to do when they bought NBC and because of that where screwed here. I love it!

And I don't think this will stop DIRECTV merger. In fact may speed it along and make it happen faster IMHO.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*DISH Statement on Comcast Terminating its Merger Agreement with Time Warner Cable*

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- DISH Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Jeff Blum, issued the following statement in response to Comcast Corporation terminating its merger agreement with Time Warner Cable:

"Today's news is the best possible outcome for consumers, who deserve innovative, thriving video and broadband marketplaces. DISH appreciates the months of work by dedicated staff at the FCC and DOJ to conduct thorough, evidence-based reviews to safeguard the public interest and competition."


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Nice blurb! I wonder what he or his predecessor said when they and DIRECTV® were turned down! (Too lazy to Google).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... this and the ATT/DirecTV thing aren't an apples to apples comparison... but I still say those companies are more nervous today than IF the Comcast/Time Warner merger had happened. IF that one went through, it would be smoother sailing I think.

Now there is a recent precedent for scrutinizing and denying a merger... and at least one of the reasons seems to be Comcast not doing things it was supposed to do after merging with NBC so losing trust when it came to promises for the Time Warner merger. AT&T has a similarly poor track record of doing things they say they will do, so I could see this precedent being used against their merger as well.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

It was probably a combination of things that killed this, but a good deal of it was caused by Comcast themselves - shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now there is a recent precedent for scrutinizing and denying a merger ...


Was it denied or just withdrawm? It seemed like denial was near and the parties decided to withdraw before getting a denial.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> Was it denied or just withdrawm? It seemed like denial was near and the parties decided to withdraw before getting a denial.


Maybe the reasons for a denial would be embarrassing for both.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Was it denied or just withdrawm? It seemed like denial was near and the parties decided to withdraw before getting a denial.


True... but I figure it was withdrawn because they feared (or already were assured) being denied. Better to back out gracefully than be potentially smeared with whatever reasons for the denial might have come out.

Not to go political, and I bring this up for comparative purposes and NOT for the politics... Consider Nixon vs Clinton.

Clinton was impeached, and he fought for himself and won... thus remaining in office until the natural end of his presidency. He figured he could win and all the embarrassing stuff was already in the public eye.

Nixon, however, was never impeached. He was going to be impeached, and I gather he knew there was no way for him to keep his presidency AND probably more stuff was going to come out that would embarrass him, his party, and perhaps the nation... so he took his ball and went home (resigned) rather than complete the process.

In this case, I figure Comcast is Nixon... they know they are going to be denied, so no point in pressing forward and risking more bad press in the process. Better to suck it up, take the failure and move to their next business venture.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Pulling out did not keep Nixon in business. Comcast gets to stay in business.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Pulling out did not keep Nixon in business. Comcast gets to stay in business.


Yeah... the comparison fails at that point I guess... but for all we know it could have been worse for him if all the secrets came out.

Anyway... while there might not be a lot of connection, I still bet AT&T and DirecTV are a little less confident than they were a week ago.


----------



## grunes (Nov 13, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Sounds like one issue is they ignored all the things they where supposed to do when they bought NBC and because of that where screwed here


What did Comcast do with NBC that they weren't supposed to?

I mean, they left them independent enough that Universal Sports (part of the NBC at the time) had a long-standing price fight with Comcast, and made it impossible to order Universal Sports through Comcast for quite some time, including at least one Olympic cycle, during which Universal Sports showed more of the Olympics than anyone else. A lot of sports fanatics switched to Satellite service during that time. If Comcast had full control of NBC, they wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

They other point that some people miss is that there have been a lot of demands to break up Comcast. (I have very mixed feelings about that. Despite my objections, Comcast does a lot of things very well. There are very good reasons why they predominate.) By denying Comcast the right to take over Times Warner, etc., the FCC and the Justice Department makes it look like they have screwed Comcast - but Comcast is still intact. Maybe Comcast never expected to be allowed to take them over, they just wanted to divert attention away from the larger issue of whether Comcast is already too much of a monopoly. Maybe they were actually shocked that it took so long for the FCC and the Justice Department to block the merger.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I do t buy the last paragraph one but myself. They wanted Time Warner Cable. 

Universal sports has never carried a minute of actual Olympic Games. Where did you get that idea?

The philly RSN still isn't on hardly any providers. They basically committed to getting it on every provider but the never had any intention of that happening. 

Just look at the talk about how they interfered with Hulu after they said they'd stay out of it. 

I don't remember what all they said but it sounds like they felt they didn't do good on anything. 

Personally broadband providers need to be split up from mdus and also neither should be allowed to own any actual channels. That would create huge competition and we'd all be better for it because then you'd be able to choose any cable provider anywhere because they would all go to ip and work on any broadband connection.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

grunes said:


> There are very good reasons why they predominate.


Most of them owe to their identification of companies (or branches of companies in the case of AT&T @home) that are ripe for a takeover. This has little to do with value, service quality or benevolence and a whole lot to do with manifest destiny.


----------



## ground_pounder (Aug 15, 2014)

i'm glad that this deal didn't go through :righton: . now iv'e been reading that charter wants em :eek2:


----------

