Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Charter Said to Be Near Deal to Buy Time Warner Cable
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/business/dealbook/charter-time-warner-cable-deal.html
10 comments
Consolidation in this space, in my opinion, is putting the future of the Internet in great jeopardy. I'm not sure exactly where we're heading, but i have a feeling the days of a "free" internet are numbered.
I do wonder if the cable guys are going to go the way of the telephone landline via mobile. I can already get better speeds on my phone than most cable packages. They just need to increase the amount of traffic I can get and I'd drop the hardline service.
They're not even remotely comparable from a reliability or bandwidth standpoint, which is important for high quality streaming content (4k video from Netflix, for example).
These things will matter more as high quality content increases in availability. I also suspect you haven't recently tried to upload any amount of volume (photo albums, videos) on your mobile connection. I'd even consider it dangerous to compare the two, because the only folks I've ever seen consider them analogous are the ISPs themselves and only during takeover conversations, and only in reference to monopolies for service in particular areas (Comcast isn't your only option, you could also use your phone!).
Not to mention how completely untenable it is to play video games on a mobile connection.
These things will matter more as high quality content increases in availability. I also suspect you haven't recently tried to upload any amount of volume (photo albums, videos) on your mobile connection. I'd even consider it dangerous to compare the two, because the only folks I've ever seen consider them analogous are the ISPs themselves and only during takeover conversations, and only in reference to monopolies for service in particular areas (Comcast isn't your only option, you could also use your phone!).
Not to mention how completely untenable it is to play video games on a mobile connection.
>They just need to increase the amount of traffic I can get and I'd drop the hardline service.
Which they will literally never do. They have no incentive to. The absurdly low caps allow them to consistently charge overage fees/print money.
Which they will literally never do. They have no incentive to. The absurdly low caps allow them to consistently charge overage fees/print money.
They have no incentive to.
They do, though. I pay ~$50 a month for my cable - if an LTE mobile operator offered a higher cap for even $45 a month it would be tempting to switch over.
They do, though. I pay ~$50 a month for my cable - if an LTE mobile operator offered a higher cap for even $45 a month it would be tempting to switch over.
Consolidation can also be good because a big cost is acquiring content and a bigger company will have more negotiating power with content owners. And if people just watch TV over the internet, then the internet companies will carry the cost of acquiring content leaving cable companies to invest in infrastructure.
I want more options for broadband service providers, not less. I want competition and I want an end to the municipal franchise system.
edit: this is actually a more complicated issue and a large part of the blame needs to go to state/local governments who impede progress and competition in broadband infrastructure. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
edit: this is actually a more complicated issue and a large part of the blame needs to go to state/local governments who impede progress and competition in broadband infrastructure. http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
The real problem is that the telecoms companies (AT&T and Verizon in most areas) aren't putting up any competition at all.
AT&Ts UVerse VDSL rollout is flawed (the cabinets are generally too far from customers premises), so speeds are too slow. Verizon has given up with further significant FiOS rollout.
I don't really think this matters too much. TWC and Charter serve different areas, so there is no real change in competition. You could argue maybe there is some changes in bids for content, or perhaps peering and transit, but I think the much more important thing is getting a competitor on the ground.
Everywhere Google Fiber has rolled out (or even said they may roll out) has seen huge service improvements from the incumbents. Instead of bickering over these merges, there should be more thought on how to get more Google Fibers out there.
AT&Ts UVerse VDSL rollout is flawed (the cabinets are generally too far from customers premises), so speeds are too slow. Verizon has given up with further significant FiOS rollout.
I don't really think this matters too much. TWC and Charter serve different areas, so there is no real change in competition. You could argue maybe there is some changes in bids for content, or perhaps peering and transit, but I think the much more important thing is getting a competitor on the ground.
Everywhere Google Fiber has rolled out (or even said they may roll out) has seen huge service improvements from the incumbents. Instead of bickering over these merges, there should be more thought on how to get more Google Fibers out there.
Seriously -- you'd think with that $60billion in acquisition costs, they could just instead plow that in to increasing coverage and service; but to do that would upset the tranquil waters of telecom oligopoly.
What I don't get is that the genie is out of the bottle now. Google fiber exists and the more areas they roll out to where the encumbamts only bump service after the fact only further demonstrates the point that they don't give a shit about servicing their customers, they care about charging them for speeds that don't improve until competition forces their hand.
Is their plan to literally sacrifice their reputation for a few short term profits?
Is their plan to literally sacrifice their reputation for a few short term profits?
Sadly, you over-estimate the length of the memory of the masses. They forget very quickly, and will not consider "this company fucked me over for years" if the company currently offers them the best deal.
Sad fact.
Sad fact.
[deleted]
Is this decade-old (2003) analysis still relevant? From http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/06/theobserver....
"..possibly pave the way for another major acquisition - that of a sizable cable or satellite company - to create a vertically integrated business. Morgan Stanley's analysts note that: 'In effect, Liberty would be reverse engineering into the structure of the original TCI before Liberty was spun off.'
This would represent a monumental volte face for Malone. His New Age strategy and McKinsey thinking would have all been for nought. Far from being the freewheeling deal-making machine of its youth, Liberty would be a much more sober proposition. Malone would back where he began.."
"..possibly pave the way for another major acquisition - that of a sizable cable or satellite company - to create a vertically integrated business. Morgan Stanley's analysts note that: 'In effect, Liberty would be reverse engineering into the structure of the original TCI before Liberty was spun off.'
This would represent a monumental volte face for Malone. His New Age strategy and McKinsey thinking would have all been for nought. Far from being the freewheeling deal-making machine of its youth, Liberty would be a much more sober proposition. Malone would back where he began.."
This isn't any better of an idea than Comcast buying TWC was. It should be stopped for all the same reasons.
I’m a bit conflicted. First, Charter is nowhere near as large as Comcast, so no, it wouldn't create a situation where > 50% of American consumer broadband came through one company.
The other thing is, TWC is terribly managed, completely inept. Yes I know everyone hates their local monopoly, but I’ve lived all over the US in the past five years and can say with some authority that TWC is worse.
Rumor has it that the rank-and-file at TWC was hoping for the Comcast merger to go through because they knew their own management couldn't fix the company. Perhaps Charter could pull it off? They are the one broadband ISP I have no experience with.
The other thing is, TWC is terribly managed, completely inept. Yes I know everyone hates their local monopoly, but I’ve lived all over the US in the past five years and can say with some authority that TWC is worse.
Rumor has it that the rank-and-file at TWC was hoping for the Comcast merger to go through because they knew their own management couldn't fix the company. Perhaps Charter could pull it off? They are the one broadband ISP I have no experience with.
Charter is smaller but it's still a regional monopoly just like Comcast and TWC are. Yes the Comcast + TWC regional monopoly would have been more monstrous than the Charter + TWC one, but that doesn't mean that either is good. They're both bad.
TWC's internal issues are completely and entirely beside the point.
TWC's internal issues are completely and entirely beside the point.
Charter is generally better-behaved than TWC--less peering congestion, better customer service in general, etc.
If Charter cleans house I'd expect a pretty big improvement in service quality for TWC customers.
$WORK is a customer & competitor of Charter and TWC, they've sued $WORK for something dumb and lost. I'd still rather deal with Charter over TWC.
If Charter cleans house I'd expect a pretty big improvement in service quality for TWC customers.
$WORK is a customer & competitor of Charter and TWC, they've sued $WORK for something dumb and lost. I'd still rather deal with Charter over TWC.
Perhaps Charter could pull it off? They are the one broadband ISP I have no experience with.
Charter cable and internet seem pretty solid. Their business phone service has had terrible growing pains over the last year [maybe two years? my memory fails me], with multiple, multiple-hour outages during the middle of business days. Our sales guy told me they've recently decided to implement rolling switch restarts after future emergency outages, instead of trying to restart every switch in their network at once and getting their shoelaces tied together. I told him that sounded like a good idea, so good that perhaps they should have had it from the very beginning.
Charter cable and internet seem pretty solid. Their business phone service has had terrible growing pains over the last year [maybe two years? my memory fails me], with multiple, multiple-hour outages during the middle of business days. Our sales guy told me they've recently decided to implement rolling switch restarts after future emergency outages, instead of trying to restart every switch in their network at once and getting their shoelaces tied together. I told him that sounded like a good idea, so good that perhaps they should have had it from the very beginning.
I can't say I've had the same experience. They've made me miss Comcast - never thought I would say that.
>but I’ve lived all over the US in the past five years and can say with some authority that TWC is worse.
There is absolutely 0 chance TWC is worse than Frontier. I've had both, it's not even close.
There is absolutely 0 chance TWC is worse than Frontier. I've had both, it's not even close.
Look at the ratio in size WRT who would "infect" who.
For all the people despairing, I see plenty of reason to hope, and it comes in the form of wireless broadband. The hardware is getting quite powerful and inexpensive - for a few hundred bucks you can get a pair of dishes that will push a half gigabit, e.g. https://www.ubnt.com/products/
Basically anyone who can get locate a solid urban fiber backbone can build a network off it, in the same way that https://www.monkeybrains.net/ is doing in San Francisco.
There's no reason a city can't support multiple competing wireless line-of-sight networks, given that they don't face the same high infrastructure cost of wireline service.
Basically anyone who can get locate a solid urban fiber backbone can build a network off it, in the same way that https://www.monkeybrains.net/ is doing in San Francisco.
There's no reason a city can't support multiple competing wireless line-of-sight networks, given that they don't face the same high infrastructure cost of wireline service.
Except there is still a very limited amount of bandwidth in the air. Yes you can get 2 dishes that support half a gbit of traffic but you only get 4 or 5 of those up and running without interference. you still have significant scaling issues.
[deleted]
The bright house acquisition is the saddest part. They had a very odd relationship with time warner to begin with (sort of like a remora). They have some of the best customer service, and are about to be gobbled up by some of the worst.
Malone has been busy lately! Strategic thinker with an impressive track record.
[deleted]
It sure seems to have worked out well for TWC shareholders to have this merger take 18 - 24 months longer. Those are some big increases in valuation/price.