Comcast-TWC Merger Review On Hold 88
An anonymous reader writes: When the U.S. Federal Communications Commission began reviewing the merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, it imposed a 180-day deadline on the review process. The agency has now pushed that deadline back a few weeks after learning that TWC withheld over 7,000 documents they shouldn't have. TWC originally claimed the documents fall under attorney-client privilege, but that appears not to be the case.
Perhaps more disturbing, the article says another 31,000 documents "went missing" because of a vendor error. (Perhaps even more disturbing is that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the sum total of information TWC dumped on the FCC — apparently over 5 million pages. How they can be expected to properly review that much material is beyond me.)
The FCC is also ready to close the public comment period for the merger, during which over 600,000 comments were filed. Critics are making their final arguments and Comcast is tallying up all the nice things people (and paid public relations agencies) had to say.
Perhaps more disturbing, the article says another 31,000 documents "went missing" because of a vendor error. (Perhaps even more disturbing is that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the sum total of information TWC dumped on the FCC — apparently over 5 million pages. How they can be expected to properly review that much material is beyond me.)
The FCC is also ready to close the public comment period for the merger, during which over 600,000 comments were filed. Critics are making their final arguments and Comcast is tallying up all the nice things people (and paid public relations agencies) had to say.
Oligopolies usually suck (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.
Google's acquisition of Android Inc. Q.E.D. (Score:1)
.
OK, Slashdot want's a longer comment than just the subject so, many would also argue that being acquired by HP was actually a good thing for Compaq, though perhaps a bad thing for HP, Compaq is still a potential example of "a" company. There are countless others, though, granted, they tend to be more the exception than the rule. Certainly more than one though.
Re:Google's acquisition of Android Inc. Q.E.D. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
sirius and xm radio? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this will make the resulting corp a monopoly for all intents and purposes
They are already monopolies in their respective markets, so it won't make anything.
Re: (Score:2)
If by that you mean it won't make anything except more money for the new Comwarner Cable for doing absolutely NOTHING, and removing a potentional compertitor from EVER becoming a threat, then yes it makes absolutely nothing.......
They're not potential competitors because in most markets they have monopolies on the right-of-way.
Also, there will be something REDUCED as a result of this merger. Comwarner CEO: "Hmm, we really don't need TWO marketing departments right? Or HR departments, or janatorial departments or........"
They will need just as much janitorial staff, but you're right, they won't need as many marketers, or HR employees. So that's a major win in my book. Are you sure you know what you're arguing?
Re: (Score:2)
True but do you really think they will lower rates or merely raise them?
The with 50% control of the nations ISP for end users do you really think thing will get better or will they try to turn themselves into AOL where you have to pay to access all forms of content and content providers have to pay even more to access the customers?
Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use. they get one choice. Why is it that google fiber has rolled out into two cities and o
Re: (Score:2)
True but do you really think they will lower rates or merely raise them?
I don't think they'll do either, actually. If they raise rates, more people will choose to suffer with crappy access from AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Partly right, partly wrong.
AT&T has publicly announced that it would like to abandon the old copper POTS network by 2020 [arstechnica.com]. And, yes, that means not upgrading something that they are trying to get rid of. The company's stated goal is to have fiber in the vast majority of areas by then to replace the copper, although I think at least in most cases the copper will still be the actual physical connection at your home or building's NID.
But the reason is almost certainly not to push cellular broadband on a wid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use. they get one choice
I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.
Re: (Score:1)
You're right as far as the choice between DSL/Cable goes, even then only sort-of. The rest is nonsense.
4G=Expensive and restrictive (data caps etc). Not practical for every day use unless you literally are only checking emails and reading the paper online (with adblock, of course, because those ads can be heavy).
Satellite=Expensive and horrible latency. Plus not viable for many because HOAs and apartment complexes won't let you put up a dish. Realistically, Satellite is a last resort I'd only suggest in a r
Re: (Score:2)
I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them :-)
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL. AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're ex
Re: (Score:1)
I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them :-)
Ah, so it seems we are, in fact, in partial agreement. Unfortunately the Cable-cos choose not to ignore 4G/Wireless when it comes to choices.
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL.
That seems to be a rarity, but that does explain why some of my wholesale pricing comes through as BH/TWC, and proves what I've said in various diatribes elsewhere on the web that even on DOCSIS, infrastructure sharing is possible, despite the cable cos (probably including Time Warner but I haven't checked) saying that sharing is not.
AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're expanding incredibly rapidly.
Verizon's FIOS growth has, as far a
Re: (Score:2)
"you're right, they won't need as many marketers, or HR employees."
Which means fewer offices are necessary.
"They will need just as much janitorial staff"
See above. Are they going to keep, maintain and clean empty buildings?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a shade of meaning there. Compaq wasn't a bad company (good companies can get into financial trouble too).
Re:Oligopolies usually suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.
Apple bought Next. The next decade and a half was pretty awesome for the computer industry, and no one can deny Apple's (Next's) role in that.
And in general, these mergers should be allowed. I also think Comcast / TWC should not have to release any territory as a stipulation for approval.
What should be stipulated is the removal of any "anti-competitive" agreements these companies have with various municipalities restricting competition in the local broadband market. If you want great service, make the providers compete for your business, and empower consumers with choice!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The apple next acqusition didn't matter much until apple mattered again with the iphone.
Steve Jobs even admitted the iphone was somewhat of a hail mary play.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPod was available years before the iPhone, and was what really started Apple's rise to where it is now. Additionally, the introduction of OS X was around the same time, and drew from NeXT's OS quite heavily.
Your history is wrong (Score:2)
The apple next acqusition didn't matter much until apple mattered again with the iphone.
Apple "mattered again" long before the iPhone hit the market. The products that made Apple relevant again was first the iMac followed a few years later by the iPod. Apple absolutely dominated the mobile MP3 market and still does even today. Apple's financial and mindshare picture was strong again long before the iPhone was ever released.
lots of failing companies, small, YouTube (Score:5, Insightful)
This particular cable merger would be bad. With that out of the way:
Tons of mom-and-pop shops with a good product but terrible process get bought by companies like Proctor & Gamble who have far better and more efficient processes. They then produce the same great product with more reliable quality at a much lower cost.
My own company may well become an example- we make terrible products, and have bad process, leading to very slow customer service, etc. That's because I'm very good at designing innovative new software systems, and very bad at running a business. I can think of a dozen well-run software shops that would make us better by taking us over. Their process, their customer service, billing department, etc and our products would be a huge improvement.
Aside from small companies who just never developed good processes, there have been many famous brands that have been bankrupt or on the way to bankruptcy before being aquired by a better company with a clearer vision or better execution. Given that these companies were going bankrupt, or already bankrupt, for them to survive at all (as a division of a larger company) is better.
One big, big name is Youtube, who was burning through other people's money faster than a drunk Kennedy and getting rightfully sued every 5 minutes for copyright infringement. They had a cool idea, and a completely non-sustainable business model that was guaranteed to put them belly-up within 36 months until Google bought them. Google brought to bear their expertise in funding a free service in a way that keeps customers happy (aka the best targeted advertising available) , allowing YouTube to survive and thrive rather than burning away investors' money until investors got sick of it and'the whole thing imploded.
Re: (Score:3)
Doh! TERRIFIC products , not terrible (Score:2)
TERRIFIC! We make terrific products, not terrible products. My last post is what happens when typos meet auto correct.
The products are great, the bookkeeping, support, etc is, shall we say "not world class". A vendor we've used for a long time provides great customer service , with a service that compliments what we do. Our customers would be better served if that vendor bought our company and offered our great products, with their customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One big, big name is Youtube, who was burning through other people's money faster than a drunk Kennedy and getting rightfully sued every 5 minutes for copyright infringement. They had a cool idea, and a completely non-sustainable business model that was guaranteed to put them belly-up within 36 months until Google bought them. Google brought to bear their expertise in funding a free service in a way that keeps customers happy (aka the best targeted advertising available) , allowing YouTube to survive and thrive rather than burning away investors' money until investors got sick of it and'the whole thing imploded.
YouTube's business model from the beginning was to get bought by Google, and so they focused their business towards that end and succeeded. Had that not been their primary goal, they may have done things very differently. In any event, using them as an example of a smaller company that needed to be bought isn't wrong, but the assertion that they needed the good processes that came from the larger company is false. They were very efficient at exiting for maximum return for their shareholders.
Not mergers, but purchases. (Score:1)
Technically, those are company purchases, not mergers.
Re:Oligopolies usually suck (Score:4, Informative)
most of the cellular carrier mergers
back in the day you got like 60 minutes a month, used it even if calling on the same carrier, no long distance included, no night/weekend minutes, no roaming unless you paid a lot more money, $.25 cents per text and no choice of text plan and a crappy small network where you drive 50 miles from home and you roam
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you live, but in Canada people get this at a premium rate. And .25 text messages(sending and receiving) was a thing here or may still be a thing.
Re:Oligopolies usually suck (Score:5, Interesting)
Today, the NFL runs the most popular sport in the United States, and everyone involved makes a boatload of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I am reading a biography about General Maxwell Taylor right now and I didn't understand why cancelling a game between West Point and Notre Dame would be such a huge deal. Your comment puts that into much better context!
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question. Why is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act no longer enforced? That's the question.
It is. That law was designed to encourage large companies to spend lots of money on Washington lobbyists, to provide plenty of private-money jobs for the insiders that like to slide between public positions and private ones. So it's working as designed. Microsoft went from spending the least amount of political influence money of any Fortune 500 company to spending pretty much the most.
Define bad (Score:2)
Somebody please provide ONE case of a merger making a bad company better.
Define "bad company" first. Bad according to what measurable criteria?
There is plenty of evidence that most mergers tend to destroy value [efinancialnews.com] for shareholders but that doesn't mean the companies were necessarily "bad" or "good" beforehand. There is also plenty of evidence that many mergers are not good for consumers. But again, that doesn't mean the companies were bad or good.
I can provide you examples of mergers improving the financial and/or competitive position of the companies involved. They aren't hard
The real reason (Score:5, Funny)
The politicians who are TWC customers found out that Comcast was giving away VIP support bypass cards [slashdot.org] but TWC wasn't, so they're retaliating. Temporarily, of course, until TWC promises to give them cards after the merger.
Re: (Score:2)
Documents vs. Pages
31 Thousand DOCUMENTS vs 5 Million PAGES
Depends on if they count each page as it's own unique document, summary specifically notes that the 5mil portion was pages, most any other use will have a document as being one or hundreds of pages; each of those 31,000 documents could themselves have as many as a million pages each.
Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I would like see one of two things happening:
1. Break up Comcast and make the new pieces share infrastructure (so they would have to compete with each other).
2. Allow the merger, but with the stipulation that laws would be put in place to spur competition. Such as allowing municipalities to bulid their own network (like Chatanooga).
While few people actually have a choice, I'm still left wishing I didn't have to choose between AT&T & Comcast.
Re: (Score:1)
Being someone who pretty much understands how this stuff works, I don't understand how this idea competitors "sharing" the last mile could work. Do most people here know exactly how granular the technology that is used by cable companies gets? It is not a piece of cable coming from the C.O. to your house. The way the technology used for the last mile (or hundred miles) works is a completely shared infrastructure. A single piece of stretched glass (fiber) carries multiple wavelengths (a few to several dozen)
Re: (Score:3)
But it doesn't currently work that way. Who is going to pay the billions of dollars it would take to deploy network hardware on the pole like you suggest?
I am all for competition, but there has to be a sane way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
On the technical side, they have the ability to control what load a single customer can put on the shared bandwidth. They tell the cable modem and router behind it where the gateway is. They can share the last mile by each provider renting a slice of the (virtual) connection between CO and customer and can recognize their customers by MAC address to give them the correct GW.
The rest is a matter of business. The local government could buy them out. They could be legally split like AT&T. They could simply
Re: (Score:1)
That's not how "shared infrastructure" (in terms of sharing the same infrastructure with multiple ISPs) works though.
In many countries, most or all ISPs offer their services through the same set of cables as their competitors. The ISP merely has some equipment at a central location (street cabinet, exchange or CO) which sends your data off to it's own network for distribution out to the rest of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Any good MBA would do this. (Score:5, Interesting)
When a company feels that they must stoop to such measures so as to bamboozle people like this they have made it clear that what they are doing is very very bad, legally, morally, ethically, and not acting in the public interest. This last bit is critical in that we allow them to use public goods such as the airways which are a limited good. I am sure that other companies could be found that would serve the public interest in a cleaner way. Simply put these companies should lose access to these public goods.
Re: (Score:1)
Simply put these companies should lose access to these public goods.
Not gonna happen while people continue to reward them by putting their puppets in office. Pavlov and Skinner proved how things work many years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Scapegoats and BS (Score:2)
One of the things that they teach at MBA school is that long badgering documents can make up for things like facts and logical arguments.
Really? At what business school and in what class do they allegedly teach this? Unlike you I actually have a business degree and strangely I can't recall that ever being a part of the curriculum.
You are making up a bunch of bullshit with no factual basis whatsoever.
If you look at the documentation in MBA paradises such as military procurement it easily runs into millions of pages for even the simplest of military kit.
The reason that military procurement has a lot of bureaucracy attached is because there is a long and proud tradition of people trying (and often succeeding) at ripping the government off. But you just keep going on trying to create your mythi
Re: (Score:2)
Now go back to twisting whatever company you work for into knots pursuing metrics that exist wholly to create reports that you can massage into powerpoints that you have to fly to HQ to present to your fellow MBAs denying that your MBA free competition is eating your lunch.
Merry Christmas
if TWC is hiding documents, deny the merger (Score:3)
seems like a no-brainer. punish weasels.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course while they like to point out that their service areas don't overlap so "competition" won't be impacted, they fail to note that because their service areas don't overlap, there has never been any real "competition" to keep prices down.
How do we comment? (Score:1)
Hey, does anyone know how to publicly comment? I briefly tried to figure this out and came up with filing a comment in a very legal manner, which I don't want to do. Do they have just online comments that they're going to ignore anyway and I can state my case and get all riled up for no good reason because it won't matter but it'll still satisfy my need to rail against the inevitable stupidity and greed and such that will be this planet's downfall? :)
Re:How do we comment? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fcc.gov/comments
Comcast / Time Warner Proceeding # is 14-57
To file a comment of up to several paragraphs, click on one of the proceedings listed below. To file a longer comment as an attachment, click on submit a filing and include the docket number of the proceeding both on the form and on the attachment.
If the proceeding you are looking for is not listed, you can go to ECFS and enter the proceeding number.
NOTE: The filing you are making is a public filing. Any information that you submit will be available to the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
public comment period, What is it good for? (Score:1)
Absolutely nothing! It is strictly a formality. A useless ceremonial process to pacify the public into thinking the government responds to them and not the lobbyists who put the money in their pockets.
They're just waiting for it to blow over (Score:4)
In other words (Score:2)
Re:Sigh yourself (Score:2)
They are not "pushing it forward." They are pushing it back.
It's a spatial analogy. When you push something [back], it moves further away from you. When you bring it forward, it moves towards you. So when you push back a deadline, it moves further away from you, into the future.
Comcast-TWC Merger Review On Hold (Score:1)
um... (Score:2)
Can someone explain to me what "7,000 documents" is? Or 31,000 even? are they 1kb sized documents? 1mb? Spreadsheets? Scanned pages?
I'm baffled by this use of measurement that has absolutely no meaning to the modern world.