Comcast Expects Time Warner Cable Deal To Close In Early 2015

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How many of you think that this deal will end up being blocked by regulators?

Comcast Corp said on Tuesday it was “optimistic” that it would close its $45 billion deal to buy Time Warner Cable Inc in early 2015. Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts said during a conference call on Tuesday that lots of information-gathering was taking place between Comcast and U.S. regulators.
Click to expand...
 
They presented more of a monopoly threat on the internet front than on the cable front ... if they properly divested some of the high risk areas to one of the other companies in that area then there is certainly a possibility of the merger approval ... I am not sure that it is guaranteed yet though
 
TWC sucks. I can only imagine how much worse they'll suck when combined with Comcast.
 
Old_Way said:
TWC sucks. I can only imagine how much worse they'll suck when combined with Comcast.
Click to expand...

TWC is a bit slower than Comcast in upgrades but at least you can use the connection. When I was on Comcast they tried to shut me down for an "invisible" cap which lead me to waste a ton of money on a business connection. On TWC, back when I had a 30mb and 50mb connection, there was several months where I was maxed out 24/7, recovering many TB of lost data and they never once complained.

So you are correct, they will only become worse if the merger does go through.
 
Can anyone even remember the last time the government actually broke up a monopoly? That's one of their few crucial economic functions. You don't micromanage, but you break up Googles, Microsofts, Comcasts, Walmarts, etc. into smaller specialized businesses to encourage competition and innovation in their respective industries.
 
jschuricht said:
TWC is a bit slower than Comcast in upgrades but at least you can use the connection. When I was on Comcast they tried to shut me down for an "invisible" cap which lead me to waste a ton of money on a business connection. On TWC, back when I had a 30mb and 50mb connection, there was several months where I was maxed out 24/7, recovering many TB of lost data and they never once complained.

So you are correct, they will only become worse if the merger does go through.
Click to expand...

My experience was the opposite. In WI I had Time Warner and they threatened to shut me down after using 157GB in a month (back in 2009). Now in CO with Comcast I've regularly gone over 400GB over the last 3 years and haven't heard a peep with faster speeds at the same price. Both of them still screwed with my bill a lot, though.

Of course, that could be a regional thing as well. Where I live in CO Comcast has a few threats to it, while back in WI Time Warner had nothing worth noting except a handful of even slower DSL providers.
 
Ducman69 said:
Can anyone even remember the last time the government actually broke up a monopoly? That's one of their few crucial economic functions. You don't micromanage, but you break up Googles, Microsofts, Comcasts, Walmarts, etc. into smaller specialized businesses to encourage competition and innovation in their respective industries.
Click to expand...

It isn't the government's job to break up monopolies unless they are really really bad ... the last major monopoly they broke up was Ma Bell and look how that turned out (the baby bells are now more powerful than ever, although they don't have an overwhelming monopoly anymore)

Preventing monopolies is probably good if the only impact is to the domestic market (regional monopolies) but could be harmful if it hurts a company's competitiveness on the global market (preventing the efficiency gained by economies of scale)

I like the current system where monopolies are not illegal but they may affect a company's ability to buy other companies and the abuse of a monopoly position is illegal
 
Seventyfive said:
But Obama cares about people like you and me, he's different from other politicians. Democrats have never been about the money. That's why we can trust them to make the government bigger and better.
Click to expand...

I hope that’s sarcasm, considering Obama raised more money (mainly from bankers & wall street firms) than any other candidate in history.

Democrats are the party of the rich and of handouts for the lazy.
 
I have little hope of this being blocked.

They are still paying the hands that will eventually sign this away.

We are fucked.
 
Ducman69 said:
Can anyone even remember the last time the government actually broke up a monopoly? That's one of their few crucial economic functions. You don't micromanage, but you break up Googles, Microsofts, Comcasts, Walmarts, etc. into smaller specialized businesses to encourage competition and innovation in their respective industries.
Click to expand...

AT&T... 35 years ago?
 
nutzo said:
Democrats are the party of the rich and of handouts for the lazy.
Click to expand...

Some yes, the Republican lite Democrats, the ones who disenfranchised their party in the 2014 election and mostly got kicked out of office to real Republicans, yes. The true progressives Democrats, the ones who won all their elections in the 2014 election, no.

Republicans, rather the real deal or the fake ones with a D behind their name are the party of the rich. They say the rich need more money and even more record low taxes to achieve even higher record breaking profits, otherwise they'll lose their incentive to invest.(Which any real economist will tell you isn't where job creation comes from) They say we need failed trickle down economics (aka redistribution of wealth to the top). But when it comes to the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much... So we must cut back on feeding children, giving the homeless shelters, providing medical care, refusing to raise the minimum wage, instituting a class war against the poor and unions, cut veterans benefits while buying more useless weapons systems generals say they don't want/need, created an artificial deficit, etc. Which all drains the system more from the problems doing the above causes, taking more money away from the real job creators of the middle and lower classes. Less money=less spending=less demand=less jobs.
 
If the govt is involved then the corporations will win. Saying you represent the constituents and doing everything in your power to bend to corporate America isn't fooling anyone. Unfortunately it will never change.
 
5icko said:
AT&T... 35 years ago?
Click to expand...

Technically Microsoft was ruled against too... not quite sure what changed there though, maybe they did something to stop, obviously they didn't get broken up... or perhaps they just said "What are you going to do about it?" to the government.

Most companies don't get broken up because they are not monopolies, or they aren't allowed to become one in the first place.
 
Steve said:
How many of you think that this deal will end up being blocked by regulators?
Click to expand...

Tough call. I'm sure people want it blocked, but I'm not sure what we want matters. Unless Google or other big companies get behind it, we're probably screwed.
 
Sp33dFr33k said:
Saying you represent the constituents and doing everything in your power to bend to corporate America isn't fooling anyone. Unfortunately it will never change.
Click to expand...

It did in the 1920/30's, though we needed to go through the Great Depression that the robber barons caused first after decades of misconduct, along with electing populist/progressives in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Afterwards regulations and a high 90% corporate tax rate gave us the ability to spend massively on infrastructure across the board along with practically free higher education, public banking, etc. We were also able to pay ever increasingly higher wages for even more productive/educated workers. This all eventually led to The Great Prosperity where wages steadily climbed at all brackets for decades until Reagan came into office and introduced trickle down economics and deregulation, leading to today's redistribution of wealth to the top, and an ever increasing gap in wages even as workers are at the highest productivity levels ever. ;)
 
Chunder said:
It did in the 1920/30's, though we needed to go through the Great Depression that the robber barons caused first after decades of misconduct, along with electing populist/progressives in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Afterwards regulations and a high 90% corporate tax rate gave us the ability to spend massively on infrastructure across the board along with practically free higher education, public banking, etc. We were also able to pay ever increasingly higher wages for even more productive/educated workers. This all eventually led to The Great Prosperity where wages steadily climbed at all brackets for decades until Reagan came into office and introduced trickle down economics and deregulation, leading to today's redistribution of wealth to the top, and an ever increasing gap in wages even as workers are at the highest productivity levels ever. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh yes it's all Reagan's fault. Never mind that the Dems controlled Congress for eons, and Obama had autonomy for two years after his first election.

Good grief grow up.
 
5icko said:
Oh yes it's all Reagan's fault. Never mind that the Dems controlled Congress for eons, and Obama had autonomy for two years after his first election.

Good grief grow up.
Click to expand...

Obama really didn't have autonomy. There was enough Democrats from conservative districts that he couldn't do what he wanted. The entire AHCA is a testament to the fact that he had to compromise (arguably doing so before negotiations began).

For that matter, he was fought on spending throughout those first 2 years. And 2 years later, virtually all of those House members were gone...hindsight being 20-20, I suspect many of those House members would have just told Obama, we'll do whatever needs to be done, reelection be damned, but like all house members, as soon as they're elected, they're worried about being reelected.
 
Chunder said:
Some yes, the Republican lite Democrats, the ones who disenfranchised their party in the 2014 election and mostly got kicked out of office to real Republicans, yes. The true progressives Democrats, the ones who won all their elections in the 2014 election, no.

Republicans, rather the real deal or the fake ones with a D behind their name are the party of the rich. They say the rich need more money and even more record low taxes to achieve even higher record breaking profits, otherwise they'll lose their incentive to invest.(Which any real economist will tell you isn't where job creation comes from) They say we need failed trickle down economics (aka redistribution of wealth to the top). But when it comes to the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much... So we must cut back on feeding children, giving the homeless shelters, providing medical care, refusing to raise the minimum wage, instituting a class war against the poor and unions, cut veterans benefits while buying more useless weapons systems generals say they don't want/need, created an artificial deficit, etc. Which all drains the system more from the problems doing the above causes, taking more money away from the real job creators of the middle and lower classes. Less money=less spending=less demand=less jobs.
Click to expand...

Quit it with your facts. They have no place in political discussions. This is ideology based opinion area sir.
 
5icko said:
AT&T... 35 years ago?
Click to expand...
Which was a good thing, but didn't last either, as AT&T settled for a much more favorable breakup (they maintained various local monopolies unchecked and got waivers on anti-monopoly laws already on the books), and ended up reacquiring many of the divisions it was forced to break up under.

Bell/AT&T was split into 7 companies, of which AT&T reacquired 4:
Ameritech, Bell South, Pacific Telesis, and Southwestern Bell are now all absorbed right back into AT&T.

We really need to see a LOT more of that, as vertical integration is hitting insane levels with these mega companies, and they are becoming so huge that any startups can simply be bought off by the big players. Take Google for example, can anyone really argue with a straight face that Google isn't a monopoly in 2015?
 
Time Warner: I've got a really bad producc
Comcast: We can make it shittier!
 
5icko said:
Oh yes it's all Reagan's fault. Never mind that the Dems controlled Congress for eons, and Obama had autonomy for two years after his first election.

Good grief grow up.
Click to expand...

Look at the data judge for yourself, it seem rather obvious and common sense to me. Have you seen Robert Reich's Inequality For All?
 
timta2 said:
Look at the data judge for yourself, it seem rather obvious and common sense to me. Have you seen Robert Reich's Inequality For All?
Click to expand...

OMG Robert Reich? REALLY?

That's like asking if I read Ann Coulter from the other side.

Only when people realize it's two sides of the same coin will they be awake. Until then, you're a pawn like 80% of America.
 
Ducman69 said:
Which was a good thing, but didn't last either, as AT&T settled for a much more favorable breakup (they maintained various local monopolies unchecked and got waivers on anti-monopoly laws already on the books), and ended up reacquiring many of the divisions it was forced to break up under.

Bell/AT&T was split into 7 companies, of which AT&T reacquired 4:
Ameritech, Bell South, Pacific Telesis, and Southwestern Bell are now all absorbed right back into AT&T.

We really need to see a LOT more of that, as vertical integration is hitting insane levels with these mega companies, and they are becoming so huge that any startups can simply be bought off by the big players. Take Google for example, can anyone really argue with a straight face that Google isn't a monopoly in 2015?
Click to expand...

There's some okay competition in the phone and search engine arena. Microsoft should have been split up 20 years go; Comcast and Time Warner are full-on monopolies, along with a boatload of utility companies.

Nothing will change, however. Follow the money.
 
5icko said:
OMG Robert Reich? REALLY?

That's like asking if I read Ann Coulter from the other side.

Only when people realize it's two sides of the same coin will they be awake. Until then, you're a pawn like 80% of America.
Click to expand...


Robert Reich attacks both Republicans and Democrats equally when they propose an idea that'll go against most Americans benefits. Generally having the well being of average Americans in mind, while being a strong advocate of the regulations that were put in place after The Great Depression which led to The Great Prosperity of the 50's - 70's until Reagan rolled them back. And incase you're not familiar with him, which appears to be the case, Robert Reich was part of the Ford and Carter administrations, and was last involved in DC as the Secretary of Labor under Clinton. He was the man who created Clinton's "Putting People FIrst" campaign platform together. It was through his ideas and policies of people over corporate profits that led to a lowering of our debt, the first budget surplus in 60 years, and a lowering of economic inequality while creating millions of high paying jobs.

The only way you can compare Robert Reich to Ann Coulter is if you're doing a polar opposite comparison. One just talks junk out of their mouth on the only network that will let her, while the other has decades of experience and history of support for the average people, even going up against the biggest bankers and corporations.
 
nutzo said:
I hope that’s sarcasm, considering Obama raised more money (mainly from bankers & wall street firms) than any other candidate in history.

Democrats are the party of the rich and of handouts for the lazy.
Click to expand...


Democrats are the party of the rich? Are you serious? If that wasn't sarcasm that's quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read this year....
 
I like Time Warner up here. I'm scared of this transition. I've always had awesome support and deals from CS.
 
Chunder said:
Robert Reich attacks both Republicans and Democrats equally when they propose an idea that'll go against most Americans benefits. Generally having the well being of average Americans in mind, while being a strong advocate of the regulations that were put in place after The Great Depression which led to The Great Prosperity of the 50's - 70's until Reagan rolled them back. And incase you're not familiar with him, which appears to be the case, Robert Reich was part of the Ford and Carter administrations, and was last involved in DC as the Secretary of Labor under Clinton. He was the man who created Clinton's "Putting People FIrst" campaign platform together. It was through his ideas and policies of people over corporate profits that led to a lowering of our debt, the first budget surplus in 60 years, and a lowering of economic inequality while creating millions of high paying jobs.

The only way you can compare Robert Reich to Ann Coulter is if you're doing a polar opposite comparison. One just talks junk out of their mouth on the only network that will let her, while the other has decades of experience and history of support for the average people, even going up against the biggest bankers and corporations.
Click to expand...

It is you that is uninformed. Do a search for his name plus left wing and you'll see his bent is far left. A card carrying member of The Victimhood People of America.

His crazy notions have been debunked plenty. Here's a small sample.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/refuting-robert-reich/
 
Ducman69 said:
Which was a good thing, but didn't last either, as AT&T settled for a much more favorable breakup (they maintained various local monopolies unchecked and got waivers on anti-monopoly laws already on the books), and ended up reacquiring many of the divisions it was forced to break up under.

Bell/AT&T was split into 7 companies, of which AT&T reacquired 4:
Ameritech, Bell South, Pacific Telesis, and Southwestern Bell are now all absorbed right back into AT&T.

We really need to see a LOT more of that, as vertical integration is hitting insane levels with these mega companies, and they are becoming so huge that any startups can simply be bought off by the big players. Take Google for example, can anyone really argue with a straight face that Google isn't a monopoly in 2015?
Click to expand...

AT&T didn't acquire the bells, Southwestern Bell (or perhaps SBC) acquired them and eventually acquired AT&T itself and at some point renamed itself as AT&T, because it sounds better than SBC or whatever they were called prior to that. Same goes with using AT&T instead of Cingular Wireless. The wireless company you call AT&T was called Cingular prior to that, which was, as I recall, a wireless network that was co-owned by several baby bells, but eventually bought about half the RBOCs.

Regardless, it's hard to argue that AT&T is a monopoly. They are part of an Oligopoly that includes Verizon (the largest wireless provider, AFAIK) and to a lesser degree Sprint and T-Mobile. If you don't consider Spring or T-Mobile competitors then they're part of a duopoly. I think it's more of an oligopoly. If Sprint can fix their network, people would use them again, but they've got a long way to go. Same with T-Mobile (though they're great in the areas that they cover, by most accounts).
 
5icko said:
It is you that is uninformed. Do a search for his name plus left wing and you'll see his bent is far left. A card carrying member of The Victimhood People of America.

His crazy notions have been debunked plenty. Here's a small sample.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/refuting-robert-reich/
Click to expand...

I love people like you. You make me richer. The rules are stacked against the common man, but the commoners fight to give me more money. I argue they shouldn't, but you're not willing to fight for laws that are more equitable, I'm not going to give you the money.

I sure hope you're making 400k or more annually (on your own...your wife's wages don't count). If not, you're just hurting yourself. But hey, thanks. I do appreciate your fighting for my comfort (seriously no sarcasm at all).
 
nilepez said:
I love people like you. You make me richer. The rules are stacked against the common man, but the commoners fight to give me more money. I argue they shouldn't, but you're not willing to fight for laws that are more equitable, I'm not going to give you the money.

I sure hope you're making 400k or more annually (on your own...your wife's wages don't count). If not, you're just hurting yourself. But hey, thanks. I do appreciate your fighting for my comfort (seriously no sarcasm at all).
Click to expand...

Retired at 35. That's why I have so much time on my hands. Thanks for looking out for me!
 
In addition, Comcast will sell Time Warner Cable subscribers to Charter Communications. Comcast would also divest subscribers to a new public company which will be owned 66% by Comcast shareholders, and 33% by Charter, which will manage its network and customers. Finally, Comcast and Charter will swap subscribers with each other.
 
5icko said:
OMG Robert Reich? REALLY?

That's like asking if I read Ann Coulter from the other side.

Only when people realize it's two sides of the same coin will they be awake. Until then, you're a pawn like 80% of America.
Click to expand...

^^This and couldn't have said it any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top