Either one is already a monopoly in the cities they serve. They don't compete in any way, so what difference does it make? Cable was built out as a necessary utility requiring a huge infrastructure: municipalities wanting happy voters gave them monopoly concessions. The only hope of competition is expanded wireless and Google Fiber.
TWC customer here, and basically what Sam said, it's not like it's going to HELP anything... and it will probably make it get worse, so I can't see this being good news. Wait does it mean I wouldn't have to pay for league pass to see Rockets in the Austin area?? That would be an improvement, but can't say I want in on that suckfest that has been how they treated Htown, so I will assume it will not happen that way.
Based on TWC's stock price trading at a 10% discount to the offering price ($144 vs $159), it seems there's a lot of doubt out there that this is going to go through anytime soon.
Perhaps... but I also feel that Comcast's on-demand/streaming/mobile options have evolved within the past 1-2 years (despite the "monopoly") to pass up any of the satellite or other pay tv providers offerings, and their broadband foothold can serve to continue the evolution of mobile/ala-carte TV (which is the future of pay TV as it is). What Comcast does shouldn't stop the satellite companies from trying to put out a better product... the thing that prevents them is that they aren't as big of a player in broadband access, just TV access. The company that controls the majority broadband (whether it is through coaxial cable, fiberoptic, or phone line) is going to have a leg up on the satellite companies regardless of what innovation/pricing structures they develop.
Threat title should be changed. Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two completely separate companies.
I think satellite does provide a better product. I used to be a TWC employee when I lived in Austin and worked at the head-end. Cable's HD is super compressed because they tried to squeeze channels into qam tuners. This is the reason why sports packages like NBA Leaguepass only have 1 game in HD per night on cable. Satellites HD is much more crisp and not compressed. Also, satellite has always had an edge when it comes to cable box technology. Most cable subscribers are still using piece of **** Scientific Atlanta 3000 boxes or some crappy Cisco box. Satellites use of DECA is fantastic. Now obviously there are downsides, rain being one of them. As much as DirecTV says they don't go out in the rain, it does so long as it's heavy. If it's drizzling or just mild rain, it'll work just fine. As far as on-demand goes, I use DirecTV's on demand service with Comcast and it works great. There are even 1080p options. The main issue for DTV is that all of this relies on having a really good and stable internet connection. Plus, some cable companies are throttling the CDN'S that host DirecTV's content.
Absolutely - my point is that when there are two different companies, there are two different sources of innovation for DTV/etc to compete against. TWC might develop one idea; Comcast might develop something different. DTV will then compete with the better of the two. You have more innovation going on. When you merge different players, you have fewer sources of innovation. As you mention, Comcast's services may have evolved while TWC's did not. If TWC buys out Comcast a few years ago, maybe those improvements never happen.
What I would like to see happen: Have Time Warner and Comcast spin off separate entities that own the cable infrastructure. Those 2 infrastructure businesses merge into essentially a giant cable infrastructure utility. It would be regulated by the FCC and possibly state PUCs and would sell carriage rights to cable companies without prejudice. It would essentially become inert as a market player and would earn a regulated rate of return. It would be incented to expand infrastructure to grow the base for their rate of return. It's similar in structure to Texas' electricity market, where you have utilities like CenterPoint owning the wires, but with independent generators to make electricity (like TV channels publishing content) and independent retailers handling customer relationships (like cable networks selling bundles of channels).
I have Optimum right now in Brooklyn. Paying $50 a month for 8MB...yay been told I can add another 10MB to my d/l if I opt for the Boost package...bleh
You make a pretty good point. There's something I'm missing that I just cant put my finger on though.
Agreed. At some point we have to separate infrastructure from delivery and content. The fact that the company that owns the infrastructure also owns the delivery really screws up the market.
Here is something to think about that might be more important than national cable market share: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-comcast-time-warner-could-be-stopped-2014-2 Here's Where The Comcast-Time Warner Cable Mega Deal Could Get Stuck LINETTE LOPEZ FEB. 13, 2014, 12:00 PM Comcast Cable is gobbling up Time Warner Cable in a $45 billion deal. But it can't go through without government approval. Among other things, regulators need to make sure that the merger doesn't violate anti-trust laws and create a monopoly. Since Comcast is the number one cable provider, and Time Warner is number two, the companies need to get a blessing from the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. For the most part Wall Street analysts think the deal will go through. There is one snag, according to Nomura analysts Adam Ilkowitz and Donald Chen. It's not about the fact that the companies will, together, control 29% of cable market share. It's that once they do, they'll be in the bulk of the markets. They'll also own a huge content provider, NBC Universal. Comcast bought NBCU back in 2010. "We don’t think the regulators (FCC, DOJ) will quibble with 29% video market share,but we think the pro forma company covering an estimated 66% of homes passed could present a problem," the analysts write. "Coupled with the vertical integration with NBCU, there may become a need for concessions around carriage of competing channels. We note the NBCU/CMCSA consent decree is being challenged by Bloomberg, and this may need to be solved as well." In other words, regulators may not want this massive TV distributor to favor the content it owns. It's unfair to other content providers. That could be what gets everyone fighting in Washington. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-comcast-time-warner-could-be-stopped-2014-2#ixzz2tEk0garh
You've changed my mind somewhat. I was initially against this deal because of the monopolistic implications, but there does seem to be some benefits to the consumer
I agree but we are not captains of capitalism, those guys absolutely want to use synergy to maximize profits. They absolutely want to create conditions where their infrastructure favors their content and influences your choice. I don't think with their money and political influence that will ever change. *did not know that about HD bandwidth being compressed. Our Direct TV at the beach house has fantastic picture while our Comcast at home is average.
You thought 1 Gbps was fast? How about 10 Gbps? http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/12/google-10-gigabit-internet-speeds/5421709/ Google working on 10 gigabit Internet speeds Alistair Barr, USA TODAY 2:12 p.m. EST February 12, 2014 Project to develop 'next generation' of the Internet is part of Google's broader obsession with speed, CFO says SAN FRANCISCO – Google is working on technology that will provide data transfer speeds over the Internet that are many times faster than its current Google Fiber service in Kansas City, an executive at the online search giant said on Wednesday. Google Fiber offers data transfer speeds of 1 gigabit per second currently. But the company is already working on speeds of 10 gigabits per second, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette said during the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet conference. Pichette called this the next generation of the Internet and said it was part of Google's broader, long-term obsession with speed. Faster speeds will increase the use of software as a service because users will be able to trust that critical applications that are data intensive will run smoothly over the Internet, he explained. "That's where the world is going. It's going to happen," Pichette said. It may happen over a decade, but "why wouldn't we make it available in three years? That's what we're working on. There's no need to wait," he added. Google is not the only one working on this. Last year, researchers in the U.K. announced that they achieved data transmission speeds of 10 gigabits per second using "li-fi" a wireless Internet connectivity technology that uses light. Pichette has experience in this area. From early 2001 until July 2008, he was an executive at Bell Canada, which offers a fast, fiber optic Internet service to homes in that country. Google Fiber is currently available in Kansas City, but Google has said it is bringing the service to Austin, Texas and Pichette told analysts last year that the project is not a hobby for the company. On Wednesday he was asked whether Google Fiber will be coming to more cities. "Stay tuned," Pichette answered.
so does that imply fiber plans on rolling out nationwide? i thought i read awhile back they are only bringing it to select cities and then stopping. google wasn't about expanding it nationally
I'll use my pop culture knowledge to illustrate. Comcast owns E! (Universal, NBC, Telemundo, Hulu, etc) E! biggest cash cow is the Kardashian clan. Let's think about that for a minute.
