Comcast and TWC Will Negotiate With Officials To Save Their Merger 101
An anonymous reader writes with news about Comcast and Time Warner Cable's attempt to keep their proposed merger alive. "Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. are slated to sit down for the first time on Wednesday with Justice Department officials to discuss potential remedies in hopes of keeping their $45.2 billion merger on track, according to people familiar with the matter. The parties haven't met face-to-face to hash out possible concessions in the more than 14 months since the deal was announced. Staffers at both the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission remain concerned a combined company would wield too much power in the broadband Internet market and give it unfair competitive leverage against TV channel owners and new market entrants that offer video programming online, said people with knowledge of the review."
And by negotiate ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we mean "bribery" or "campaign contributions"?
This just sounds like a company trying to ensure it gets to have its monopoly and eat our cake too.
Re:And by negotiate ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"bribery" or "campaign contributions"?
There's a difference?
Re:And by negotiate ... (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on the cleanliness of the bathroom stall the cash is slipped under.
Re: (Score:1)
No it doesn't. Thanks to Citizens United "MONEY IS A FORM OF PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH!" So bribe all you want. Fuck democracy, fuck liberty, for sanity, and most of all fuck the people.
Re: (Score:1)
more like the size of the round hole in wall...
Re: And by negotiate ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And by negotiate ... (Score:5, Funny)
"bribery" or "campaign contributions"?
There's a difference?
Of course there is. All campaign contributions are bribery, but only some bribes are campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And by negotiate ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That or "agree to concessions that they will only really abide by for a year or two and then will 'forget' about."
Re: (Score:2)
solution: both get out of the cable business (Score:2)
by providing free services and dealing with the baboons in cuss-at-tomer "service."
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, who am I kidding?
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah, the entire purpose for the merger is to be able to do this crap on a larger scale.
They don't give a crap about customers, they care about corporate profits, executive bonuses, and the price of cocaine and hookers.
They want to give worse service, and charge even more for it. With even more customers they can sit on their infrastructure for even longer without upgrading it, all while claiming to have cutting edge service.
Why do you hate America?
Re: (Score:1)
When you have the profits of a major corporation to draw upon you don't actually care about the price of cocaine or hookers. Megayachts sure. But not the roundoff errors. Ex-wives as a result of cocaine and hookers are another matter entirely.
Now if you are paying $10,000 per hour for prostitute, you are not actually paying for a prostitute, you are paying for a fantasy or status or something else. High end-sex prostitues are simply not expensive if you are make $10 million annually.
Re: (Score:1)
You're on the right track, but think about what this merger actually lets them do.
First off, they get to give half the management the golden handshake. Seems like a good deal for those leaving, and cuts management costs as well in the long run.
Secondly, this is two cable providers that don't have coverage overlap... so the actual service to customers isn't really an issue one way or the other -- and will likely stay exactly the same or devolve to the lowest common denominator.
What they want is to become th
Re: (Score:3)
I like that; and address the "Comcast customer service is the worst anywhere" problem; like people who call and say "I keep getting this 900|bla bla error while watching Game of Thrones on XFinity streaming" and customer service says "Streaming service? What's that?".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But for every one of us there's 100 or more people who call CS at the drop of a hat 'cause their compooter don't work or their screen won't come on or their Facebook won't come up. :(
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...Older people (60+) seem to have the hardest time grasping the the difference between the concept of the Internet and a local hard drive.. no matter how many times you explain it.
You are over-generalizing. Think of the pioneers of the industry: Don Knuth, Nicklaus Wirth, John McCarthy, Richard Stallman, Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, Grace Murray Hopper, and others. They were all doing innovative work after age 60 or (in some cases) are still doing it. If you had told Amazing Grace that she didn't know the difference between a hard drive and the Internet in 1966 (when she turned 60) she would have laughed in your face.
Re: (Score:2)
In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that simply because computers were not part of their life until recently. There are, as usual, exceptions in the form of people who actually worked in the field and so had access to computers (and a reason to access them) much longer.
It'snot that younger people are somehow smarter or better, it's just that they have had longer (in general) to learn about computers.
The experience thing goes both ways. I found it amusing in a "Kids React"
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just people who worked in the field. Personal computers began to be popular in the late 1970s. Anyone over the age of 24 who bought an Apple II or Commodore 64 when they first came out would be 60 or over by now. Such people have had a long time to learn about computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but they were slow, expensive, and didn't do anything that the average Joe needed to do, so most people in that era didn't buy one. $1300 was a giant pile of money in '77.
The C64 wasn't until '82. It really brought the price down but still wasn't cheap at nearly $600. Most of the adults who bought one did it for their kids. They became a lot more affordable a couple years later.
But even then, most adults had little reason to have a computer at home and most who used one at work did so by rote. They
Re: (Score:2)
They were slow and expensive by today's standards, but I don't agree that they didn't do anything the average Joe needed to do. I bought an Apple II for word processing and spreadsheets, Visicalc being the "killer app" for the Apple II. Those are still two of the major uses of personal computers today.
I also don't agree that most adults who used a computer at work did so by rote. That may be true today, but it wasn't true in the 1970s and 1980s. You had to know what you were doing to get any useful work
Re: (Score:2)
What did an adult in 1977 need a spreadsheet for at home? More to the point, what did they need it for badly enough to spend $1300 (in 1977 dollars) on?
I was there. I saw it. I helped them. It was certainly by rote. They understood the computer like they understood an instamatic camera. In the '70s, for the most part if there was a computer at work, it was a vt100 terminal connected to a mainframe or a mini. IT was still called "DP". In the '80s, the PC started to take hold.
Re: (Score:2)
I needed it to balance my checkbook. Keeping track of my expenses on paper was tedious and error-prone, and I knew computers could do better. That wasn't my only application; as I said, I also used it for word processing.
In the 1970s I didn't know anyone other than myself who had a computer at home. If I had been living in a city, or in Silicon Valley, I probably would have, but in suburban New Hampshire I was unusual. The people I supported in the early 1970s used computers at work. The application pr
Re: (Score:2)
AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.
I was still in Elementary school in the '70s. I knew exactly one family that had a computer and it was a TRS-80. Mostly because the dad was an electronics engineer. My dad used a computer at work (civil engineer) but really didn't know how it worked beyond th
Re: (Score:2)
AHH, I see the confusion. I *DID* say that people actually working in the field were the exception. I'm not speaking of them. I'm speaking of "muggles". Doctors, nurses, mechanics, engineers, lawyers, secretaries, etc. People not in the "DP" department.
Perhaps I saw a different type of "muggles" than you did. While most of the people I supported in the 1970s were in the computer department, some were not. They were generally the "best and the brightest" among the engineers, who used computers to do their jobs as they used every other resource they had access to. They might simulate a piece of hardware, for example, or compute the radiation pattern of an antenna.
Where I worked there were no mechanics, doctors or nurses, and the lawyers stayed in their o
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that, but that group was a small minority of people who are now 60+ years old. It's enough that one shouldn't assume a 60+ year old is a computer novice, but not enough to invalidate the claim that most 60+ year olds are less knowledgeable of computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, we are now in agreement. My original objections were to your statement that
Older people (60+) seem to have the hardest time grasping the the difference between the concept of the Internet and a local hard drive..
followed by
In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that...
.
I don't have any authority to back this up, but I suspect most pepole of all ages, even today, have trouble understanding the workings of computers, just as they do electricity or FAX machines. To most people, I suspect, these are simply magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it wasn't my statement, but I did defend it as not too far from true.
Because many over 60 have very little experience with computers, you have more knowledge to backfill in order to teach them about computers (starting with de-mystifying the magic box). Again, not a question of intelligence or educability, just a matter of experience.
That will be true for many (more often than not), but clearly is far from universally true.
I suspect, these are simply magic.
I have little doubt most of those things are magic to most people, but thro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)
There are so many times when I wish "Shibboleet [xkcd.com]" were a real thing.
Re: How about... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I work in phone support for a different ISP but I'll tell you that for every person that ACTUALLY has powercycled the equipment, bypassed 3rd party devices, etc. there are 5 that skipped some of the most basic steps and just lie. Whenever someone calls in and lists their references at the start of the call ("I work with all this for a living, I'm an admin for 500 computers and the network that connects them all, blah blah) the calls are more difficult than the people that call in that know nothing and will
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who does know something about networking and routers...I go along with all reasonable requests from support. They might just possibly come up with something I missed, and it's a lot more pleasant and productive to spend fifteen seconds power cycling the silly thing than to spend minutes arguing about it. I like to deal with people who are being pleasant, and a little courtesy and cooperation seems to make them reasonably happy about being on the call. (Do NOT start being unpleasant with me w
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt you will have a few id10t's calling rattling off (fake) credentials or actually meaning they managed people who did those things.
But honestly, is it so much to ask that the card flipper automatically ping the customer's router and others on their street before haranguing them to reboot their modem, router, PC, car, cell phone, and cat before even considering the possibility that they might know what they're doing?
Quite honestly, with some very basic training and proper tools, there's no reas
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have experience with Comcast TS personally (which I consider a blessing), but I've always found I can escalate myself to T3 pretty quickly, by addressing my problem at their level.
When T1 starts their script, I state my problem. There's usually a pause, and they ask the next thing on their script, at which point, I politely state "It appears your script isn't designed to handle my issue. Would you please connect me to your manager?"
They're more than happy to do so, as keeping me on the line guaran
Re: How about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No mutually acceptable options (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say it's unlikely to the point of ridiculousness that Comcast would ever accept the kinds of restrictions on the merger that would prevent things from getting worse than they are already, let alone start to reverse the merciless devastation of the public interest and regulatory capture that's already happened.
I think the most likely outcomes of this are the DoJ allowing the merger with some relatively superficial conditions (like the 5-year enforcement of net neutrality regulations that was imposed for the merger with NBC/Universal) or blocking it entirely. Much depends on how much the DoJ people in question actually value their role as regulators, versus their role as toll (aka bribe) collectors.
Dan Aris
Problem with Comcast (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you shouldn't be behind on your bill?
Split the Fckers! (Score:2)
I'm sick and tired of forced bundling from telecoms in general. I can't just buy what I want and only what I want; I have to buy crap I don't want and don't use to get it, and there is not enough competition to find one that doesn't ALSO force bundling.
They should be split up, not merged, dammit! Merging just makes them more bundly.
And don't even get me started about reliability and stealth billing "fees". ARRRRGGG.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be split up, not merged, dammit!
I personally volunteer to do the splitting up!
. . . with a chainsaw. I think it would be best to start at the top. With their executives. The normal foot folks can stay as they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, and less violent, lock the execs in a cell with spotty Internet and a bunch of channels they don't want. Let them watch the World Series, but have the picture and sound go all pixelly and choppy in the 9th inning in a close game.
Re: (Score:2)
No worry, they have plenty of campaign donations (Score:2)
Here you go politicians, these brib....ahem...."campaign donations" should alleviate any of your concerns.
Since they get to meet w/ the DoJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean that concerned citizens will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Department of Justice and express their concerns against this merger?
Seems only fair...
Re:Since they get to meet w/ the DoJ (Score:4, Informative)
There is usually a public comment period. That's as close as you're going to get. It's pretty good, though.
I'll let them merge... IF... (Score:2)
... They immediately break up again after the merger. They can swap bodily fluids or whatever gross thing conglomerates do when no one is watching. I won't peak or take pictures or put it up on the internet as revenge porn. But when they've got their hormones under control again, I want them separated off because we can't have just one fucking cable company in the US. It is already basically two for the whole country. That's pathetic. We should have a dozen at least. And they want to move it from two to one
Re: (Score:3)
I might be willing to say "let them merge" if their merger also meant a split by services rendered.
Company #1 handles ISP service.
Company #2 handles TV service.
Company #3 handles content ownership. (e.g. NBC.)
I'm not sure where phone and other services fall in that structure, but those three are the important ones. With a breakup like this, you won't have Comcast ISP's monopoly being used to advance Comcast TV's profits.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I care about is the wire itself. I care nothing for the tv service or the licenses. That's all dying anyway. The cable is all that is relevant. And what I want more than anything is for there to be a competitive environment for last mile ISP service. And for that, we need as much competition in the last mile as possible. I want more cable run... not less.
Re: (Score:3)
Without the TV service, the ISP service might actually improve speeds and remove caps (which are really designed to make streaming videos expensive).
Without the ISP service, the TV service might go IP-TV to widen their customer base.
In fact, if the latter happened, you could cleanly separate the TV portion of the company from the ISP portion.
Re: (Score:3)
Love the idea, it will never happen.
The ISP service is mostly a race to the bottom without the ability to manipulate the market via monopoly power, including blocking competition at the local level, extorting content providers you don't own to pay you for service delivery (a second time, really, since you already billed your customer for delivery of bits).
TV service via cable is a dead business. Streaming is killing it and if Comcast, et al, wasn't choking high speed Internet and restricting content provid
Re: (Score:2)
I'd break each one of those companies up 2-4 times as well. Merge Comcast/TWC then break them up into 6-12 separate companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, no... I get your point, but we don't want horizontal monopolies any more than we want vertical monopolies. Let's just say that perhaps they should be split BOTH ways.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Got Fiber? (Score:1)
Re:Got Fiber? (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll be happy to fleece the rest of the 99% of us that don't have fiber. And if the heat gets to be too much, they'll just charge those in single provider areas more and roll out fiber to compete where Google forces their hand, letting everywhere else languish, all the while pointing out that rolling out Gfiber is causing their rates to go up, up, up, and there's nothing they can do about it because the FCC keeps upping their costs through redefining broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How can companies TWC and Comcast continue to thrive?
You gave me a idea. TWC and Comcast could make an effort to provide reliable Internet connection speeds and cable TV service at reasonable prices, honor their contractual and regulatory obligations, and improve customer support. It's just crazy enough to work!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that the fact that Google Fiber exists may strengthen their case to go through with the merger. They may argue that Google demonstrates that it is possible for competitors to pop up.
Hopefully if they try such an argument, the Justice Department would be wise enough to realize that the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service. Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
... the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service.
Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service. There is a municipal monopoly for wired telephone service, but not for Internet OR cable TV. At least there are no municipal-enforced cable monopolies anyone has been able to cite. Every one that someone has tried claiming is a government monopoly wasn't when you actually look at the franchise ordinances.
Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.
This [broadbandnow.com] site says there are 25 providers, although it appears that they are listing different modes of delivery as different providers (U-Verse
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service.
Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.
This site says there are 25 providers
So? Your point is?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. I used to work for an ISP which had a monopoly in the town I lived because the town enforced that only said ISP could provide service to the town.
What town? Do you have a link to the ordinance that created that monopoly? What is the ISP? How in God's name did they get away with such a vast overstepping of their authority? How did they stop other companies from providing service?
If what you say is true, that would be the first and only such place I've ever heard of.
So? Your point is?
That there is no government-granted or enforced monopoly for ISP service. In that list of 25 providers are a large number of cellular services that exist nationwide. Those ISPs are why I
Teddy Rooseveldt and trust busting (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh how we need you now Teddy...
Comcast must be concerned (Score:2)
How is this even an option? (Score:1)
The Justice Department should be breaking up Comcast as it exists today, not contemplating approval of an even bigger Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TWC (Score:5, Funny)
Comcast TWC to negotiate with officials (Score:1)
More Blowjobs? (Score:2)
Let's see if they have any more backbone than the FTC.
Divest content from pipes (Score:1)
I still wouldn't be happy about it, but if Comcast/TWC divested their content business (comcast sportsnet for example) from their physical networks I could see it as being tolerable, with the content required to licensed at fair market rates to all purchasers and available for streaming.
Also make mandatory customer support improvement metrics. It's 2015, there's no reason you have to wait for more than 2 hours for a cable install.
translation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really rich guys are getting upset that their plan to become even more rich is being held up.