Bloomberg Report Suggests Comcast & Time Warner Merger Dead 99
andyring writes: According to Bloomberg News, the Time Warner/Comcast merger of raw evil is dead. Comcast plans as early as tomorrow to withdraw the merger proposal, "after regulators decided that the deal wouldn't help consumers, making approval unlikely" according to the story. If so, that means regulators won't have the chance to kill it themselves.
Bah ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.
Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.
Re:Bah ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
I'm sure someone is up for re-election, or wants a cushy job in the private sector, who can be "convinced of the merits of the case" with a suitcase full of cash.
Corporations don't stop doing crap like this just because the outcome would be bad for consumers.
Absolutely correct. The only way you would get those involved to back off completely is if you threatened them with incarceration.
Not even fines would deter them, since fines are usually so laughingly small they're worth paying basically every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you would get those involved to back off completely is if you threatened them with incarceration.
They laugh at your threats. Nothing less than actual incarceration is going to make them change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all. After discussion, the psychopaths at the top felt that Time Warner Comcast would have too much power and that they would all collude against them to destroy the merger. The US government as just another obedient media channel just gets told what to say, by the owners of the other media channels, does it and then pretends they decided what will happen.
Yes, they might collude for world domination against us but they want to dominate each other as well and hence do not in any way shape or f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more or less ok with that in that I was a Charter customer and liked them slightly better than Time Warner (who I have now). They still were overpriced with mediocre customer service, but at least their service was faster and than Time Warner and more reliable.
Of course if they merged, I'm sure it would end up screwing consumers in some way or other...
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed with sibling... Charter is among the least evil telcom corporations out there.
Now CenturyStink and Comcrap...
Re: Bah ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I was with Charter for about a decade and had good service. I always got more bandwidth than I was paying for and the service was stable. In ten years, I never had an outage.
Re:Bah ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we shall see if the FCC commissioners who leave office after the next administration takes office heads towards one of these players or not. I'm not so sure the next administration will be for this merger or not. Obviously the democratic ruled commission doesn't like this idea, but which party will be in the Whitehouse and what their position on this merger would be is an open question.
Suffice it to say, this deal is dead for at least two and likely more years.
Re: (Score:3)
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
So you don't think that Comcast knows who is responsible for approving the merger?
Re:Bah ... (Score:4, Interesting)
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
So you don't think that Comcast knows who is responsible for approving the merger?
It's not like it's hard to figure out who the FCC commissioners are. There are 5 total, 3 democrats and 2 republicans. Currently the chair is held by Thomas Wheeler, appointed by Obama who's term runs until 2018 who is a past industry lobbyist for the cable industry.
Unless there is some serious palm greasing between now and then, I doubt that the commissioners will be changing their stance on this and given their very public refusal to approve the merger I doubt that Comcast has enough money to grease enough hands to change enough commission votes as we barrel into a presidential election cycle. It would be too much of a scandal to be worth the political risk.
No, this deal will have to wait for the commissioners to start turning over after the current administration leaves office, which will mean a whole new set of palms to grease and/or politicians to support in the next election cycle so you can get commissioners appointed who are more favorable to your deal.
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
What the fuck kind of commie bullshit country has this become where an honest, hardworking corporation can't bribe his own Congress?
Fire (Score:3)
Kill it with Fire.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were mistaken. He was quoting the CEO of Comcast referring to Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but Comcast is part of the joint venture that owns Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
yes...
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue with the price, is your are paying for the Service and the Infrastructure.
I much rather have two bills.
One for the infrastructure, and one for the Service.
Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.
We may have had limited options for the infrastructure, but you could choose ISP.
The problem is that We have both bundled together.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yea, cause I *totally* miss paying long distance fees to send an email to the east coast.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably all selling access to the same set of DSLAMs at the CO.
The de-regulation of DSL was a mixed bag. On one hand, it produced competition and lowered prices. On the other, there was so much competition that companies were folding left and right. When I was doing SMB consulting in the mid-2000s we had one client who had to change providers four times in three years because they always went with the lowest priced provider and those providers kept folding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much like in the old dialup days. We paid for the Phone Line, then we paid for the ISP.
The good old days.
In the outer ring of suburbs where we lived, the only realistic and affordable Internet solution before broadband cable was dialup AOL --- combined with a unlimited regional calling plan.
Not much has changed in all the years since.
Yesssss!!!! (Score:3)
Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
No one who believes their lies would ever vote D or I for such a trifling issue.
Re:Dead until 2016 or 2020 anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Republians? Surely you jest. Take of the partisan hat and look at the actual data [opensecrets.org] for Hillary Clinton, presumed Dem presidential candidate.
Her top 10 career donors are mostly investment banks (all the big names are there), but Time Warner and Cablevision make the top 10.
Will we get a GOP candidate not already in the pockets of investment banks and cable companies? I'm not holding my breath, but it's theoretically possible, unlike the Dem side which is already bought and paid for.
Re: (Score:3)
The opposition party has obstructed the president 10 times as much as his own party has obstructed him? You don't say.
It's past time to stop caring about the "Democrat" or "Republican" labels! What matters is, on a critter by critter basis, which specific congresscritter is in the pockets of which specific corporations. Stop voting based on party, stop voting based on ridiculous emotional appeals about what sexual practice will be mandatory or forbidden, and pay attention to who owns the specific candidates. It's reasonably public, if we choose to care, and while every congresscritter may be owned by someone, there are plenty of corporate political agendas I don't give a fuck about (e.g., luxury taxes on yachts), and plenty that affect my life directly, and voting on that basis matters.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the real contribution from these companies are many millions, right? Except to the Clinton "charity" and a $300k speaker fees for Hillary, instead of on the books? (And it's not like the Clintons are especially corrupt here, compared to the rest, though they're more brazen than most about it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I disagree with the possible timing of when they might try again, that much you got right, but I disagree on how this works..
Comcast is grooming their next pick for who they want nominated for FCC commissioner by supporting political parties and candidates who are supportive of their cause. Republicans appointees would be no different than democratic ones. The question is did you grease the skids with the party who's appointing the next set of commissioners or not and can you get the commission p
Help me out (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?
Because the oligarchy doesn't all get along with each other. It is more complicated than that. Just matter of who owns whom and where in the food chain they are in the process.
Re:Help me out (Score:5, Insightful)
There are always limits when you're not a pure [insert government type here] in every sense. Sure, the US has oligarchical tendencies that are pretty strong. But it's not an outright oligarchy. The people with money can't just pay people off directly in the US. They have to do it under the table which adds a layer of complexity.
A secondary consideration would be competition from other interests who are "lobbying" against this merger. The bigger bribe wins. Or at least a competing bribe works to negate the initial bribe. Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.
Re: (Score:3)
Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.
Time Warner has 3 times the revenue of Charter. They're not going to be "gobbled up".
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that Charter is not buying Time Warner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking it was a combination of both..
Oligarchs aren't the Borg (Score:5, Informative)
The oligarchs in America work together on plenty of issues, this just isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Help me out (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's easier to get away with being a de facto monopoly if you technically are not a de jure monopoly.
It's all theatre.
Re: Help me out (Score:1)
Remember this when people say D vs R doesnt matter (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I feel disappointed and disgusted by things that Obama and other Democrats have done over the last several years, I still don't buy the whole line that some people here on Slashdot trot out all the time: that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing.
You know that this deal would have sailed through and there's no way the FCC would have pushed for Title 2 regulation, if a Republican were in the White House right now.
So remember, as dumb and crappy as some parties' actions have been lately, who you vote for still matters, even if only in limited ways. Yes, some large scale issues are pretty much a wash between the two, but there are still some issues that you can have an influence in with your vote. Pick the party and candidates who you feel are more likely to be on the same side of the issues you care about, regardless of what the naysayers say.
Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.
D vs R doesnt matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.
You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're different at the margins.
As it is the way with most things. All this political apathy is idiotic. Politics hasn't really changed all that much in over 200 years. People complained bitterly about politicians and politics in 1830 at least as much as we do today, except things like graft and cronyism were way worse. No student of history could legitimately say that there were no substantive differences in parties and policies in any decade that didn't change the course of American history.
Grow up, peop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the real world is more complex that two points of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Sometimes you have to give people a chance to come around to the good ideas if they're not popular or notable at first.
Think about it this way: if Al Franken had been on the Republican side and had spoken up in the same way, he would have been shouted under the table by his own party members and would have become a pariah, perhaps even losing the very next primary election to a more party-line candidate or a tea party challenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm surprised so much is happening on Obama's final term. Usually th
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather have two Satans than Satan^2.
Re:And Comcast's ad blitz... (Score:5, Funny)
"I didn't know what to make of the Comcast - Time Warner merger, but then I dug deeper. "
"How so?"
"You know my crippled mother? She really wanted to watch Game of Thrones, and Comcast remains committed to showing Game of Thrones."
"I did not know that."
"Yeah, and you know cute little Sally?"
"The stripper down at the club?"
"Yeah. Comcast has committed to showing soft core porn between the hours of 2 and 4 am."
"I remember that's something she's really been aspiring to do."
"And if the Comcast merger goes through, she might well get her chance."
"Hmm. I guess I have a lot to think about."
Hail Dorothy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hail Dorothy!
Re: (Score:1)
The first thought I had too "Ding Dong the wicked merger is dead!"
Chances are though that this is just to let our guard down and they'll merge anyway in 6 months once we've all forgotten about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, probably not. They'll just find another evil dance partner.
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, it's going to have to be at least 2 years before we can start appointing commissioners to the FCC to overturn this decision..
HAAAAAhahahahhaha (Score:2)
I'm just amused by the notion that anybody anywhere ever thought this would be "good for the consumers".
Both stocks up for the day! (Score:2)
The market is speaking to you Comcast and TWC! Perhaps it would behoove both of you to listen to what it is saying.
Maybe investors are just wising up (Score:3)
I'm kind of surprised that this deal had investor support. The larger business model is under attack on many fronts, content delivery by streaming video, Internet by municipal-backed and private fiber vendors who are seeing opportunity -- CenturyLink, one of the few companies who compete with Comcast for poor service, just strung fiber optic cabling on the poles behind my house which is supposed to support gigabit residential Internet speeds. And even NBCUniversal's strength in content creation is under assault by Netflix and Amazon original productions.
Even if you assume greater profits from increased monopoly abuse by a combined Comcast/TWC, huge mergers face big costs internally and I'd question whether they will have time enough even as a monopoly to recoup those costs and the investment expenses of the merger deal itself.
Plus, the larger the entity, the less it is able to adapt to the huge changes sweeping the video content and Internet markets. Cable is already a dinosaur, being a bigger dinosaur has never proven helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you assume greater profits from increased monopoly abuse by a combined Comcast/TWC,
Comcast Profit Margin (Quarterly):10.86% for Dec. 31, 2014.
Apple Profit Margin (Quarterly):24.16% for Dec. 31, 2014
Google Profit Margin (Quarterly):26.28% for Dec. 31, 2014
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, look! When people have choice instead of being faced with a monopoly, and the companies providing consumers with those different options have to compete against one another, quarterly profit margins increase. Who knew.
That is not dead... (Score:3)
And with strange dealings even death may die.
He's dead Jim..... (Score:2)
and for humanitarian reasons, I think we should leave him that way.
Dead ... (Score:2)
It keeps saying, "Braiiiins! Braiiiins!"
That's too bad (Score:2)
I would much rather the regulators had their chance to shut this down.
The message needs to be sent that we're not going to take it anymore!