Charter Strikes $56B Deal For Time Warner Cable 206
mpicpp writes with word that Charter Communications has struck a $56 billion deal to buy Time Warner Cable; if the deal goes through (which the article says is likely, according to Macquarie Research analyst Amy Yong -- at least more likely than the recently scotched Comcast-Time Warner deal), it would mean that the second- and third-largest U.S. cable companies would share a letterhead, and more than 20 percent of the country's ISP market.
From the linked Reuters article: The Federal Communications Commission immediately served notice that it would closely scrutinize the deal, focusing not only on absence of harm but benefits to the public. Charter, in which Malone-chaired Liberty Broadband Corp owns about 26 percent, is offering about $195.71 in cash-and-stock for each Time Warner Cable share, based on Charter's closing price on May 20. Including debt, the deal values Time Warner Cable at $78.7 billion. A key area of regulatory concern would be competition in broadband Internet.
Cost of even purposing (Score:2)
Re:Cost of even purposing (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what the legal cost of even attempting this merger is above and beyond the cost of acquiring assets/debt. Though I guess it's not nearly as much as a they gain by grabbing the huge monopoly if it goes though.
Doesn't matter. The consumer ends up paying for it in the end.
I honestly wish these mega-mergers in cable would just be stopped. Flat out.
And before someone starts quoting combined numbers of Comcast+TWC vs Charter+TWC, understand this. The final number of subscribers is largely irrelevant due to geographic monopoly.
We have enough of these mega-monopoly ISPs as it is. And all the mergers do is concentrate the money so they can afford bigger and bigger bribes to buy a permissive atmosphere in which the best interests of consumers/constituencies are not looked after.
And the only recourse? Try to vote out these money-grubbing incumbents with their newly marble-lined solid platinum warchests...
Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock?
Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.
Somehow I wonder if Time Warner isn't selling the farm for a couple of magic beans (again).
And you can bet your ass this single entity will not do anything to lower prices or foster competition ... it will be more "we're screwing you because we can".
The only people this will be good for are executives who get huge severance packages. But I'm betting in the long run it hurts consumers, and quite possibly shareholders.
Re: (Score:3)
Betting?
More like it's a foregone conclusion...
Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)
This is part merger, part purchase.
"Time Warner Cable shareholders can choose $100 a share in cash and about $95 in Charter stock, or $115 in cash and the remainder in stock."
So, the TWC shareholders can choose from one of two real cash options which include retaining shares in the new Charter/TWC combined company. Since stock is just equity, and is "funny money" until it's sold, I don't know how it makes any difference between holding TWC stock before the merger or Charter/TWC combined after the merger stock so long as the stock price is valued properly. They're both large cable/internet/phone companies with similar assets and valuations based on those assets -- unlike the dotcom companies that no one knew how to put a dollar value on because they were so new and had such high growth potential until the bubble burst.
TWC was trading for just below $160 for over a year before the merger talks. Now, it's at $178. The merger offer puts a premium on it at $195 in cash and stock combined. Both Charter and TWC stocks are trading higher on news of the merger, so it complicates finding the value/number of shares TWC shareholders will get of the combined company when the deal goes through unless that's already pegged in the deal.
Looks like a TWC shareholder should be very happy taking $100 to $115 per share in cash for their pre-merger stock that was $160/share recently... in addition to stock in the combined company. There may be tax advantages to taking stock over cash to avoid capital gains.
I don't see how this would hurt shareholders - they get the benefits of combining brand names, services, call centers, media contracts, marketing, etc. There will be lots of benefits, thus the stock price surge. Customers... well, customers will get the shaft as always, but that's no different than any other day in a world of local cable monopolies.
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be good for lawyers and shareholders. But yeah, that's about it.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easy to be cynical about this, but Time Warner is so customer surly that a ultra-huge mega-merger might actually be better for existing Time Warner customers.
For example: Time Warner abuses the broadcast flag / CCI DRM schemes to flag everything they legally can as "copy-once", locking out lots of DVR competition because the additional features don't work. Charter does not do this, and only flags content as "copy-once" or "do-not-copy" as contractually required by the content providers.
A Charter merger with Time Warner would make my service better and more enjoyable the instant they flip that bit to comply with Charter's current policy regarding CCI tagging [charter.com] because I would no longer be required to watch content only on the device that recorded it.
Time Warner is the worst cable company out there from a customer perspective. When the best news you get about someone providing you a service is that they are selling out to competition, that tells you how bad the service is.
Re: (Score:2)
You poor, naive fool! A Charter merger with Time Warner would inevitably degrade Charter's customer service to Time Warner's level, not the other way around.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Creating a business is all about mergers and acquisitions. You build a customer base and become attractive enough to one of the larger players to be gobbled up. The C-level execs all get golden parachutes, the mid-management get completely axed, and the peons see a reduction of 60% and a pay cut; which pays for the parachutes.
In the end, the consumer gets necessarily screwed as there is either a reduction in competition, or a preclusion of competition; unless you own stock in the company being purchased.
This has been the predominate business methodology in the U.S. since the mid-80's (admittedly, conjecture on my part), and requires a major shift in thinking to stop this nonsense. But truly, mergers and acquisitions should be the exception not the rule, if fair-market competition is to be nurtured.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because many companies in the US exist as paper instruments to enforce government-granted monopoly
No.
And you managed to toss the Import Export bank in there too, without understanding what it is [pbs.org]. (hint: it not only does NOT stifle competition, but strengthens the country's exports and ability to export, and turns a profit for the government (which reduces the deficit))
Not the same companies (Score:2)
Surely Time Warner has learned the lesson of not being bought for funny money stock?
Time Warner Cable [wikipedia.org] is not the same company as Time Warner Inc [wikipedia.org]. They have been separate enterprises since 2009.
Because when AOL bought them with trumped up stock, somehow AOL was worth more than an entity with cable, programming,network infrastructure, move studios.
The two transactions couldn't be more different. In addition the buying entity here is Charter Communications [reuters.com], not TWC.
Re: (Score:2)
Trumpet #2 (Score:2, Interesting)
The second angel billowed and something as a great mountain of ember and smoke was doused in the oceans and seas of the Earth and a third of the world's water became blood, a third of life living within them was annihilated; and a third of the ships were destroyed - the souls scattered to the wind....
Former Charter employee here (Score:5, Interesting)
The merger is a bad idea, Charter is a poorly managed company and has been for a long time. Management treats their technical employees with callous disregard for personal boundaries, does not recognize or reward technical expertise or professionalism and in my case, is in the habit of lying to job reference inquiries to the point of being criminal. This is just scratching the surface of what is wrong with this company. As an internet service provider, they are sub standard in terms of providing working, reliable equipment and they are notoriously slapdash with protecting their customer's privacy and options to protect their own privacy.
My bad experience at the company aside, if an entity cannot handle and demonstrate integrity in small things, it follows that they should not be trusted with larger responsibilities.
Re:Former Charter employee here (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, they are still better than Time Warner.
THAT is how bad Time Warner is.
Re: (Score:2)
I have Time Warner here in Ohio and I don't have any complaints. Service interruptions are very rare, speed is great for a semi-rural area (I have neighbors with goats, alpaca, chickens, geese, and horses - I'm not in a metro area at all), and on the occasion that I've had problems I've had a truck out, with a technician that knew what he was doing, the same day.
It's a little pricey, but then again, I'm in a semi-rural area. I'd be surprised if TWC breaks even doing business here.
Re: (Score:2)
But TWC is better than Comcast? :P
Re:Former Charter employee here (Score:5, Insightful)
IF they are lying about you to prospective employers and you can prove it, hire a lawyer and sue. I'm serious, don't mess around with these types, MAKE THEM STOP. If the company is worth anything, you will find it easy to get a lawyer to take the case on commission and I suggest you do, even if you have to give the lawyer 100%.
I had a former employer do this to me too. I had them on tape saying untrue things about my job performance to someone they believed was a prospective employer, so I threatened to claim damages, lost wages and the like. Now, they will only say that I'm ineligible to be rehired by them and confirm the dates I worked for them. I know, because I've checked.
Your reputation is most important here... Don't let them mess it up for you.
Most Stunning Fact (Score:2)
Charter is a poorly managed company and has been for a long time
When I heard about the merger and thought back on Charter's past and what I've heard from friends about them and my personal experience in dealing with them on behalf of friends and family, I was left wondering:
well that was sudden (Score:2)
What the hell is wrong with the FTC?!
Re: (Score:2)
It escalated quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is wrong with the FTC?!
I think you're under the false assumption that Federal Agencies actually do things with the budgets they are given. Oh, sure, every once in a while, they have to justify their existence, but on the main, are just big suck of taxpayer money.
However, in this case, it is government regulations that are causing the government to have to regulate more. Government regulation isn't complete until it has thoroughly broken everything in its path.
Comcast is a content provider (Score:2)
Charter is not. The vertical integration is thus not an issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
A few facts (Score:2)
No, you can't merge with Comcast. That would be too big of a company....suuuure, you can merge with Charter! That's fine.
First, the merger hasn't been approved yet. Second, Comcast is larger than TWC and Charter combined. TWC+Charter is roughly the same size as Comcast and in theory could be a competitor though in practice I doubt that would be the case. Third, Comcast owns content like NBC. TWC and Charter do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said this was approved? Answer: nobody.
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
A summary rejection, now that would demonstrate the slightest concern for preserving competition.
Re: (Score:2)
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.
Re: (Score:3)
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.
In general I would agree with you, but not in this case. That they are natural monopolies would be grounds for a summary rejection. There's no reason that cannot be a special exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though I'm opposed to this merger, I'd be afraid that a summary rejection would result in some sort of lawsuit and overturned. Better to let it go through the process and THEN kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!
Re: (Score:2)
Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!
That's why we must preserve what little is left, for its rarity makes it finite and precious.
I like that better than adopting a defeatist attitude and assuming all is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!
Non-exclusive franchises are not "government-granted monopolies." I have yet to see an exclusive franchise, and I've asked people to point me to one. Every one that I've been told was exclusive turned out to be non-exclusive when you look at the actual agreement.
It is a reasonably easy mistake to make. You see one company, you see "franchise", and you assume it is exclusive. But you need to read the fine print to find out the truth.
The monopoly comes from the barrier to entry that is called "infrastruc
Better than the Worst? (Score:3)
Personally, I have used both companies for coax services in the DFW area, and I prefer Charter. Business services are similar, but Charter is much cheaper (currently $40/mo promo for 60M/4M versus Time Warner at over $300/mo for 50M/5M). Time Warner's aging infrastructure in Dallas definitely does not warrant the premium. Plus, Charter service is no-contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have had Charter in FW for going on 10 years and it's been good. The customer service had a bad period but has gotten good again. We had a storm come through a couple weeks ago; a neighbor's tree limb fell and took out our cable line. I called them at 9:45 p.m. on Saturday night, got a friendly, not-outsourced person who scheduled an appointment, then got a confirmation call from dispatch about 15 minutes later. The tech was there at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday morning.
The actual internet service has alw
Re:Better than the Worst? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Time Warner subscriber, this is definitely a good thing.
Their equipment is trash - I no longer use their DVR or their cable modem because they are both fucking garbage. I built a media PC with an HD tuner / cable card set up that has already paid for itself by not having to "rent" their shit DVR box that I would have to reboot 2 or 3 times a week, at a 10-minute boot up time. I dumped their garbage "rented" cable modem because I'd have to power cycle it once a week or so, and replaced it with a $60 unit from Amazon that also actually increased throughput speed. That change will pay for itself in about 7 months.
They abuse DRM flagging on everything that isn't available with an over-the-air tuner. If you have to go to one of their offices to trade in equipment, or get replacement, schedule two hours because they only ever have one or two people at the counter, and there's a line of people waiting to trade in broken shit for stuff that isn't broken yet, but will be. They charge more for the same services from other cable providers, because they can - when you don't have any competition for high speed internet, you don't have to worry about other lines of business being threatened (satellite TV).
Fuck Time Warner. I hope this merger goes through and Charter fires the TWC management and starts cleaning up the huge mess they've left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, current business pricing is:
$501.95/mo for 100/5 from Time Warner in Dallas
$199/mo for 100/20 from Comcast (not in DFW)
$99/mo for 100/7 from Charter in Ft Worth
You can't have less competition in broadband unless you start with some.
Previous charter subscriber (Score:3)
Honestly... my experience with Charter was nothing short of great. Their pricing was better than my alternatives, I got decent speed which was doubled at one point without a price increase, and my customer service experience was pretty good. Had I not moved, I would probably still be a customer of theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
A year from now: TWC on Overstock.com (Score:2)
"Please buy me! Won't someone please buy me?" How FUBAR is TWC that they're so ready to sell to someone, anyone? Either a) they had this in the pipeline before the Comcast deal fell through, in which case how many other deals are on standby?, or b) they brokered a major corporate sell deal entirely within the last month, presumably under immense pressure.
In my opinion, TWC is desperate to sell because there's an internal house of cards that's about to fall over. Someone needs to unload it quickly so that a
Wouldn't we be better off if.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Timing is rather interesting on this one...
Re: (Score:2)
With apologies to Godwin, but is this something like Nazi Germany aligning itself with the Soviet Union instead of Italy?
Re: (Score:2)
Which they DID, initially...
Germany started out with a non-aggression agreement with Russia because they needed to be free to engage the bulk of Europe without having to worry about getting stopped from the east. Hitler's intent was to conquer Europe and possibly Brittan before turning to the east, break his agreement with Russia and move into Asia.
Of course Hitler eventually broke his agreement with Russia and invaded, which really was his undoing. He got caught with his preverbal pants down when winte
How about this test? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there are currently fewer than 3 options for services in any areas they are proposing to merge or if their merger would drop the competition
Cable companies do not share their infrastructure, and they usually have exclusive "franchise" agreements with municipalities. Are there actually any areas where buying service from your choice of Time Warner, or Charter was an option?
I believe this in the past has been the big cable co's argument that mergers between companies servicing different areas don't
Re: (Score:2)
and they usually have exclusive "franchise" agreements with municipalities.
They usually have non-exclusive franchises, but don't compete because it would be economically foolish for any newcomer to try to capture a significant (i.e. profitable) percentage of the market. It is an economically-driven monopoly, not a legislated one.
Re: How about this test? (Score:2)
My town has two providers.
But my point is that there isn't enough competition now, so any consolidation of top competitors should be blocked at least until there is a healthy free market.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad we were spared the bad hangover after it...
Re:I think they mean.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
Re:I think they mean.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been my proposal for a while now. It would solve, or at least provide choice in "Net Neutrality" issues, like that of Comcast v Netflix.
The problem is that nobody really wants to tackle the FIOS rollout that would be needed to make this work. However, I do believe it would work, and a small municipality, one that is geographically isolated, would be a great case study in how it would work.
The thing I believe most about this scenario is that we'll start to see new products and new services that are currently missing like "a la carte" ordering.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is that nobody really wants to tackle the FIOS rollout that would be needed to make this work. However, I do believe it would work, and a small municipality, one that is geographically isolated, would be a great case study in how it would work.
Hello, I'm in Chattanooga, TN. Our electric utility has run fiber on its existing power poles.
They haven't expressly set it up to have independent ISPs, but the fiber? Done. The other part? Would be at the head-end and maybe the ONTs, it would be easy to arrange.
Of course, in large part, it was actually done by a private contractor, Adelphia, I believe, but I've not seen their trucks in a good while, so I don't know for sure, I may be misrecalling the name. A-something anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not! Can you imagine how responsive a government run infrastructure would have been to say the Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers? Yea, its got to be better to let the government run stuff... (sarcasm off)...
Where I think you are onto something, government is not the answer. Maybe what's needed is to separate the "providers" from the companies that own the infrastructure. Sort of like the electric distri
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Corporations are even LESS of an answer, they exist SOLELY for profit, and they rape the consumer every chance they get.
The government is SUPPOSED to be responsive to the citizen, but legalized bribery has upset that that check and balance...
Re: (Score:2)
Government is NOT the answer in most cases....That's why we have a Constitution that limits government's power over it's citizens and not the other way around.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me. My local city government has a hard time maintaining even their simple IT infrastructure so they can keep balancing their checking account.... I don't want them running some distributed network infrastructure that I depend on for my
Governments contract private companies. (Score:5, Interesting)
Government is NOT the answer in most cases
Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.
That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.
Re: (Score:3)
Government is NOT the answer in most cases
Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.
Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.
That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.
So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a hor
Re: (Score:2)
I second that motion. PASSED!!!
Re: (Score:2)
we already let the private sector take of it.
we ended up with the situation we have now.
next question.
Re: (Score:2)
Why change it now... Seems to be working fairly well to me...
Oh? You don't think so?
Well, I have TWO separate options for 100Mbps internet connections at my home, one from Time Warner Cable and the other from Verizon FIOS. PLUS, I have at least four wireless carriers that offer 1Mbps service (or better) if I choose to use them (and a whole host of WiFi based ISP's if my memory is correct). I seem to have a LOT of choices actually...
So what problem are you thinking we have?
Re: (Score:2)
One data point is not good enough. And are you really happy with the choice of TWC or Verizon? Neither company is really known for great customer service.
Where I live it's $30/mo minumum for high speed at 7mbps, and if you want any more you go with the cable company that won't even tell you up front what the cost is after the first year (it's something like $70/mo from what I've gathered, but it also has a tendency to hike another $5-10 every year for no good reason).
Where my parents live - in (rural) SOUTH
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to add that this is the reason to bring whatever service down to as local level politics as possible.
The elected officials are still accountable, and can be fired in the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
because we learned history.
Re: (Score:2)
corporations need to balance short-term profit and long-term profit, and this may mean raaping or kissing customer azz, as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do corps kiss any customer's ass?
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of companies in the relationship industries (lawyers, accoutnants, real estate agents, other) will kiss azz to keep their clients. a lot of people are loyal to certain brands because the brands "take care of them". eg Nordstrom.
Re: (Score:2)
apples to oranges
Re: (Score:2)
which apples to which oranges? you said corps raape customers at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nordstrom is a retailer, there are millions of retailers.
Most people are lucky to have 2 or 3 choices for internet access and cable TV, nice try thoguh.
Automatic presumption of govt incompetence... (Score:3)
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!
Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations? This meme that government is automatically incompetent is tiresome and demonstrably false in numerous circumstances. I have precisely one practical ISP option where I live (Comcast) and I assure you that their customer "service" is less than amazing and their prices are not even close to cheap. Would a government run ISP be any worse? Maybe, maybe not. I could see it going either way. Your assumption that they would
Re: (Score:3)
I have one ISP choice also. In my case, Time Warner Cable. I've got to not only agree with your points, but expand on one of them. Cable ISPs not only offer Internet access but also offer TV/Video services. They want to push their video services and will often engage in various shady practices to promote their video services above alternatives (Internet Video, satellite, etc). For example, they might institute caps to prevent you from streaming "too much" (as defined by them). Overage fees might make
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!
Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations?
The VA is a prime example of inefficiency of government, as is MOST of what government dabbles in. Ever heard of the Department of Defense? Department of Education? Department of Energy? The EPA? NONE of these are efficient organizations, but HUGE money sucking entities that literally waste billions.... Now there are things only the government can do, but you want to add another thing to their job jar? It's really not a good idea.
Government should NEVER be used in place of private enterprise.... Trust
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, do YOU have the cart before the horse...
Of course I'm discussing the worst of the government, but I won't hesitate to make the blanket claim private companies are better at efficiency than just about ANY government effort. They have to be, or they won't survive very long. That's not to say there are not things that only the government can and should do, only that one must recognize that the use of government should be limited as much as possible.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that private
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Are we thinking about the same country?
China may be an emerging capitalistic economy, but they are very much un-capitalistic in their governance. That they choose to ignore the environment and don't care about the health and safety of their workforce is NOT what we have here in the USA and we never will.
But China is NOT an argument for government control, because China's government has absolute control, they simply do not care. China's quest is for power, economic and military, and they will use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the government is cheaper, you are sadly mistaken. Even with profit built into the equation, government is never going to be cheaper, better, faster. Now, you might be able to make your internet bill cheaper, but overall it will cost more for government to run this than a private company. The difference between what you pay and the actual cost will just come out of some other place, parks, roads, garbage pickup, police, fire or it will drive up your taxes.
There ARE some things that only gov
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked my entire career in the private sector, and there is a huge amount of inefficiency (in addition to the profit which, as you mention, comes off the top).
Dead weight in the organization, people who are worthless but protected, executives playing turf wars for budget, leaders who block change so they can watch each others' backs, sabotage against competitors inside the organization. The worst are managers who are great at "managing up" but not actually good at leading their teams. They can caus
Re: (Score:2)
Are those "Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers" the ones where traffic from Netflix was being throttled to force them to pay extra for Verizon's customers to receive the data from Netflix that the customers were already paying both of them for?
Re: (Score:2)
The "Verizon" problem was about link speeds... Verizon was asking for more money to provide a larger pipe into their network. It got worked out quickly...
How long does it take to build a road? I've lived in a house for 15 years and the local city has had plans since BEFORE I moved in to widen the main road though town from the two lane blacktop it had been for more than 40 years. Traffic was horrible, making it impossible to ever make a left turn out of my subdivision onto this road during daylight ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the la
Re: (Score:2)
We've had success with these types of infrastructure problems in the past using the cooperative approach. This was a regulatory thing and not direct government activity or take over to build and maintain this infrastructure. I suggest we stick with what's worked for Telecommunications and Electrification of rural areas in the past over the idea that local governments just do their own thing.
This approach keeps private investment and innovation flowing while providing incentives for the private sector an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right.... Look, I have a 25/25Mbps connection to my ISP and it comes over a connection that is fully capable of doing 10 Gig if Verizon really wanted it too. As it is, they offer 250Mbps using the existing hardware, which is more capacity that the bulk of the world has available. Not to mention that the local cable company ALSO offers service, up to 100Mbps which would enter my home on a different bit of infrastructure. I have two choices which offer service up to 100Mbps. This doesn't sound too shabby t
Re: (Score:2)
"separate ..."
Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.
Here's the thing about free market competition: When a market has a natural monopoly built into it, like power, water, natural gas, roads, fiber connections, government, ... You can't just magically legislate a free market into existence. Of course they do it all the time, just badly.
So a suggestion is, that the local government owns the fiber, and you have 'com
Re: (Score:2)
"separate ..."
Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.
It means that the company that owns the wires that lead to my house (Oncore Electric delivery) is a different company than I buy my electric power from (TXU). I have the choice of retail electric providers, all of which pay Oncore for the use of the electric distribution network, but offer varying rate plans and terms.
I don't hear anybody suggesting that what we need is multiple pipes into my home, but competition for the service that comes over the pipes we already have. So, I suggesting that it's not a
Re: (Score:2)
"but offer varying rate plans and terms"
Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.
Whatever the lowest price is for that; that's the plan. There's only one set of wires coming to my house. The name on the bill is quite irrelevant to me.
It's a completely made up, bullshit, 'market', and there's no getting around that.
"broadband infrastructure development"
Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on g
Re: (Score:2)
"but offer varying rate plans and terms"
Really? What is the point of that? I need 240V @ 60Hz, 24/7, about 200 amps worth at any given time. Exactly that; nothing else.
Quite so, however in the "free market" of Texas retail electric providers there are multiple rate plans to choose from. Do you wan electricity from windmills? They have a rate for that.. Do you want to pay for "time of use rates" so you can get nights and weekends nearly free? They have rates for that. How about a fixed rate for a known term or one monthly bill that never changes.... Yep, they have rates for that. How it gets delivered? Never going to change.
"broadband infrastructure development"
Is that still actually going on? I thought we sort of standardized on gigabit fiber. That should hold everyone for a long time, no?
Maybe, maybe not, but how will you financ
Re:Competition? (Score:4, Funny)
I have plenty of choices where I live. I can choose from Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, or even Time Warner Cable!
Re: (Score:2)
... to cable conduits and poles. So other companies could lay cable.
Rights of way can be obtained by going through the franchise process. If you have a specific city in mind, go look up the franchising ordinance to see what the requirements are.
Once you have access, where do you get the money to run your cable, and how do you pay back the people who loaned you that money when you can't cover your fixed costs with the limited subscriber base you have? That's your limiting factor.
Oh, and be prepared for a legal battle if you want to skip some of the requirements. Not from
Re: (Score:2)
No it can't in most cases. Century Link and Google have both been complaining about cities that won't let them run cable.
The franchise ordinances spell out the requirements for any cable franchise agreement. If you try to avoid those requirements, then you aren't operating under that ordinance and have no reasonable expectation to getting access to the public rights of way based on it.
But what you're talking about is an issue of the local government -- people who are elected by and responsible to the local voters. In the vast majority of cases, that won't include you.
your argument is either that century link and google are lying or that they're not competent enough to file this paperwork.
You are putting words in my mouth in an attempt at winni
Re: (Score:2)
As to "Do a bunch of stupid shit we made up to lock small companies out of the conduits or we don't let you run cable in the conduits"... no. Those are often not reasonable.
Interesting use of quotation marks. But what you refer to as "stupid shit" is actually the concerns of the public towards what the cable providers are expected to provide in return for access to their right of way. "Stupid shit" things like customer service quality levels, service area coverage, technical standards for installed plant, PEG channels for public and government information paths, wiring for schools and libraries, money for equipment to do PEG, and other things that are in the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
As to whomever owns the poles or conduit, I'm not saying they shouldn't be compensated for permitting someone to run cable. Be reasonable about it. But do not obstruct it either.
Here people say "but it would be messy with all those wires"... it won't be messy if it is just a couple companies doing it. If it is a lot more than that, then you'll be collecting enough money in fees to convert from poles to conduits at which point the way it looks will be irrelevant.
As to private developments allowing people to
Re: (Score:2)
And really, a better way of dealing with that conflict of interest is to have them sell the poles or conduits to a neutral third party with no conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, the companies that have poles in place in the public rights of way do so because they have franchise agreements that require them to provide specific services in return. The ordinances that cover those franchises don't say "selling space on a pole" is a service that deserves a franchise to access the rights of way. And no city in its right mind would give away control of the rights of way so someone could sell an unlimited number of wires to every comer. There's a liability issue just to sta
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing whether or not some idiot wrote down something stupid on a piece of paper. I'm arguing that it was a stupid thing to put on the paper.
You think that it is stupid that a local government would define the requirements for a cable system operator to be able to obtain a franchise to use the public rights of way. Fine. That's your opinion. But most folks understand, and understood, that cable companies weren't going to do a lot of things unless they were forced to.
Some people had a view that a system that was intended to replace broadcast TV as an information source for the public should have a requirement to "serve the public interest", jus
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone hates Comcast because they're number 1. People hate Comcast because they're Comcast.