Comcast Offers To Shed 3.9 Million Subscribers To Ease Cable Deal 154
An anonymous reader writes "In a bid to win regulatory approval for its proposed $45 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable, Comcast has offered to sell 1.4 million pay TV subscribers to Charter Communications for $7.3 billion. From the article: 'Comcast also said it would divest another 2.5 million subscribers into a new publicly traded company, dubbed SpinCo for now, to be one-third owned by Charter and two-thirds owned by Comcast shareholders. The deal will make Charter — whose own bid for Time Warner Cable was thwarted by Comcast's higher offer — the second-biggest U.S. pay TV company with 5.7 million customers, overtaking Cox Communications Inc.'"
Never going to work (Score:1)
Until Comcast gets split into NBC and ISP again, no one will ever support them in expanding their business.
Re:Never going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Until Comcast gets split into NBC and ISP again, no one will ever support them in expanding their business.
Sure they will...
For the right price.
Comcast users are the new currency (Score:5, Funny)
To think that I was wasting money on bitcoin ... when I should have been trading Comcast users ...
Don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the subscriber base. It's the control of content creation.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Also, content distribution at the levels above last-mile/individual subscriber.
On the other hand, it seems reasonable to accept that content distribution, and internet/TV service providing, are natural monopolies, and we may as well turn it over to a single company with tight consumer-interest regulation.
On the third hand, and way old-timers help me out here, it seems that telephone service under Ma Bell was somewhat expensive when compared with today's prices (even accounting for inflation). I supp
Re: (Score:2)
> and we may as well turn it over to a single company with tight consumer-interest regulation.
BUHAHAHAHAHA
let me catch my breath.. Comcast regulated?!?1
HAHAHAHBu hahahaha
You're serious?
BuHAHAHA
Re:Don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
There's the UK approach: We have the 'company that runs the wires' and the 'company that moves the data.' The BT infrastructure division is obliged to allow any ISP to rent their telephone lines on equal terms*. The company running the last mile service doesn't care about content - they just connect the end users and the ISPs together.
I can't see it taking off in the US though. The political situation isn't favorable to that sort of regulation, and the lobbying influence too strong.
*Though there have been many problems with unofficial sweetheart deals for BT internet, as they are another division of the same company.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The US approach: cozy up to the guys in charge of regulating you. Contribute to their campaigns and run a 24-hour propaganda network for their benefit (MSNBC). Then they'll allow you to do whatever you want.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you picked just one network (MSNBC) as an example of a "24-hour propaganda network run for their benefit". Gee, I wonder which way your political leanings flail. /sarcasm
MSNBC was politically left-wing long before Comcast even started talking about buying them, and in fact, before we even had a Democrat president. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP then, and the executive branch. But nice try.
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop frami
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
I guess that make you the problem then. I didn't mention any political parties. I didn't mention left vs right at all. You did. My post is exactly "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us". The partisan talk is all you.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast doesn't own Fox News. Comcast owns MSNBC.
None of the cable providers own Fox News. Except for broadcast TV (which is off-topic), Fox News is independent of any regulated industry and News Corp. is not seeking merger approval. Any discussion of Fox News is off topic. Also, unlike MSNBC, Fox News is not friendly to the Obama Administration. So what's the point of bringing them up? To scratch the itch of Fox-News-haters?
Re: (Score:2)
You act like the two sides vying for control are Democrats and Republicans. I submit that the two sides vying for control are the entrenched political parties, and the rest of us that get just enough to placate while being wholly ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the solution, right there.
The day before the merger goes through, the FCC announces that all ISPs are common carriers.
And the minute they open their mouths to speak, tell them they're being broken into regional companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to compare costs for dissimilar services over an undetermined time span. How did you come to the conclusion that Ma Bell was expensive?
First, I don't fully know, which is why asked for the old-timers assistance. May I conclude from your statements that you do not agree?
I think we could probably identify some sort of social equivalence. Say, late '70s, one residential line, two-three phones, touch-tone, per minute long distance service. How would that compare to a bundle of low- or mid-tier internet service + phone service (which now probably includes unlimited long distance)?
Also, I wonder how that price (and actual cost) breaks down goin
So lets sell off the unprofitable areas. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling that the Rural locations are going to be part of this group. You know the group that may have miles of cable to maintain, for a less populated group of people. And giving up that group, to the competition prevents them from keeping their costs down, as they are covering more expensive areas to maintain. Thus making them seem less appealing. Causing people in that region to try to get a more affordable service in that area. Thus making Comcast look like the savior coming in to save the day!
Re: (Score:3)
and why would another company want to buy these customers?
Re: (Score:2)
I love how people STILL assume that Comcast competes on a level playing field.
I am sure there is leverage there. I am sure they have something to hang over the heads of the smaller providers/ISPs.
Look for them to divest their rural Indiana holdings. They hate it here.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, and then you spend all your money on 2 cars, gas and whatever else instead of rent or mortgage and property taxes
Re:So lets sell off the unprofitable areas. (Score:4, Informative)
Telecommuting is becoming more common and you can do it from anywhere, which is what makes the sticks appealing.
I live in a rural place but not so rural that I can't get gas or go to a grocery store 24/7 and telecommute to work. I drive my car a few times a week and rarely over 50-60 miles/week. I enjoy a small mortgage payment, lower property taxes, and less crime. I'm much better off financially than co-workers in higher cost of living areas.
I spend time throwing BBQs and tending my lawn which is much bigger than anything you get with a city apartment {when I was in college the dorms where barely larger than my patio}. This week end I may go fishing if the weather is good... it's not far to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
SHHHH!!! Don't tell the city dwellers how great it is!
Re:So lets sell off the unprofitable areas. (Score:4, Insightful)
The smaller companies, tend to pick up the less profitable areas, because the big guys get them all. Think of it as an Easter egg hunt. The more aggressive stronger boys will often get all the easy to find eggs, leaving the little smaller kids, trying to find the harder to find eggs...
However they usually end up with something so they are happy. The same thing with cable companies. If they can expand their range all the better. If they get lucky a particular area could start growing thus give them something more valuable. However more people who know their name the better.
They don't... (Score:2)
That's why Comcast and Charter are creating a "new" company.
Re: (Score:3)
The divestments, mostly in the U.S. Midwest, would deliver about $19.5 billion in value to Comcast shareholders, the companies said.
So yeah, they're "divesting" flyover states.
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said, they hate it here.
They have spent very little money keeping their systems up in Indiana. They constantly oversell their services with push salespeople who don't know their product. Their local offices spend their days on the phone with angry hicks.
In some ways I am fine with seeing the backside of Comcrap, but Charter has a pretty bad reputation itself.
Fiber is supposed to go into my town... and this just wears my patience thinner...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh God, please let it be true. Deliver us from the Scourge of Comcast, and make haste unto thy busom of Charter.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us in the flyover states can't wait to be rid of both Time Warner AND Comcast. Between Comcast's bullshit bandwidth capping and Time Warner's liberal use of the CCI "CopyOnce" flag, I don't want to have anything to do with either of them; to say nothing of the mutated twisted infrastructure wreck that combining the two would bring.
Re: (Score:2)
This also allows Comcast to absorb Time Warner while aligning their interests with Charter. It helps the continuing solidification of the industry into a cartel of a small number of businesses.
Re: (Score:1)
It's just the wrong direction in which they offer to split themselves. They should be split between infrastructure and content, i.e. one company that runs the cables, another that brokers the TV deals, a third that runs the internet services, and possibly a fourth that sells their own content, possibly via one of the other content companies. The infrastructure company should also be required to offer their services to any other ISP at the same conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast sets some free (Score:3)
This is a good deal for those who are getting Charter or Spinco (will be managed by Charter) out of the deal. Charter has a fairly open peering policy https://www.charter.com/browse... [charter.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a fan of Charters billing. Their bill has two items (cable, internet) so I have no idea what I pay for what, and when the bill creeps up there is no itemization to show why.
Good deal ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, in a situation where a city authorizes a monopoly service, why aren't the people of that city consulted when that service is to change hands.
Maybe they are consulted by consulting with the city council or commissioners, but we all know that's just as good as no oversight at all.
You'd at least think there would be public hearing...
Very few cities authorize monopoly service... (Score:2)
While they charge cable operators franchise fees. Very few prevent competitors from coming in. It's just most of the telcos in this industry have behind the doors non-compete agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
offer (Score:1)
translation screw 3.9 million customers with even crappier service....
Re: (Score:3)
Straight from the Book of AT&T (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mind being sold (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure the people in question don't mind being sold to a different company.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas my friends who are still on Charter, since it can actually handle streaming, have their Internet service cut out regularly (about an hour or two once
Don't the subscribers get to choose? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that the TOS offers a way for this to happen outside of the customers' control. Even if not, they could just say, "Sorry, Mr. Comcast Customer, we're not longer servicing your address. If you would like to continue receiving cable service, please sign up with SpinCo."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
usually one cable company is in a given market a lot of times due to expansion in the 90's some companies will have a town or part of a town where another company owns most of that general area
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. The cable companies have a monopoly in each area. Comcast will simply sell off some minor operations in some locations to a new owner. That new owner will then focus of how to get back over $5200 per subscriber that just bought, as well as dealing with an infrastructure that Comcast knew they were getting rid of and might have stopped investing in. Guess where that money comes from.
The choice those subscribers have is to stay and pay, go "free-air" and have access to a lot less programming a
Worth of a cable subscriber (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean a cable subscriber is worth ~ $5000 to a cable company?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds plausible to me. Keep in mind that many of those customers - especially in rural areas - have no other option for high-speed Internet, so the buyer is also receiving a near-monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine this... Two choices in a city. Comcast and perhaps Charter. I assume this exists in some places.
There is no economic incentive for this to happen. It costs a lot of money to build plant. Nobody is going to build plant where they can get only, on average, half the customers, and if they cut prices to lure the other company's customers they'll lose money.
Now, consider Charter divesting (am I using this word correctly?) their customers over to Comcast.
This is called "selling", and I've lived through it a couple of times. First with I forget their name, who sold to AT&T, who sold to Comcast. Same wires, same boxes, same local office. The only difference was the name on the check.
Now, for current Comcast customers, don't you think it will be harder for them to say, "Well, hey, give me a good deal, because Charter offers it for $... here." ... "Oh wait, Charter isn't available here anymore?" No more leverage.
You can always
Re: (Score:2)
There is no economic incentive for this to happen. It costs a lot of money to build plant. Nobody is going to build plant where they can get only, on average, half the customers, and if they cut prices to lure the other company's customers they'll lose money.
That is verifiably wrong. If it were true, there would be no need for monopoly deals that prevent competition from moving in. Also, there would be no need for the incumbents to try and derail the competition from entering cities.
Re: (Score:2)
That is verifiably wrong. If it were true, there would be no need for monopoly deals that prevent competition from moving in.
Whether there would be a need for a "monopoly deal" or not, the economics is the practical reason that the existing non-monopoly deals don't result in multiple cable companies covering the same place.
Also, there would be no need for the incumbents to try and derail the competition from entering cities.
There is no need for a cable company to try derailing another cable company from entering a market. The "derailings" you see happening are when other modes of network provider try to enter without following the same rules. E.g., an incumbent cable company vs. Google (which isn't).
Re: (Score:2)
That's about 3 years of billing on an average subscription. Given the nature of the business, that sounds about right. With a few exceptions, business tends not to look more than that into the future when it comes to financials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Great Customer Swap (Score:5, Informative)
Comcast is trying to spin this as being some kind of big "we won't be a monopoly thanks to this so don't regulate us" concession.
It's effectively carving up the markets between Comcast and Charter, though.
Comcast "gives" Charter 1.4 million subscribers. In addition, Comcast swaps 3 million subscribers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Alabama to Charter in exchange for 1.6 million subscribers in "New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Maryland, and some smaller areas contiguous to existing Comcast or Time Warner Cable systems." [Source [dslreports.com]] Then, about 2.5 million customers will be served by a new company that is run 2/3 by Comcast and 1/3 by Charter.
Effectively, Comcast is "dropping" about 4.5 million customers but what they are really doing is carving up the market with Charter so that each won't need to compete with the other. They'll each stay in their own little geographic area and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" means the cable companies, of course. Not the customers who will see higher and higher bills with little to no competition.)
Re: (Score:2)
what they are really doing is carving up the market with Charter so that each won't need to compete with the other. They'll each stay in their own little geographic area and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" means the cable companies, of course. Not the customers who will see higher and higher bills with little to no competition.)
When was there ever competition? In the vast majority of service areas, cable (like telephone) is a monopoly with exclusive access to end-users granted by the local governmental authorities.
Years back, the locals kept the worst of the monopoly abuses under a lid by regulating the cable outfits. When cable started serving up networking, the FCC took over and essentially deregulated the business, which is why the old ISP business is dead -- it's telco or cable today, or do without.
Re: (Score:2)
And even without the government franchise grant, it'd still be a natural monopoly. Once the first company to market has laid the cable and signed everyone up, it'd be near-impossible for a second to win over enough customers to pay for their own build. Laying cable is hugely expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
An issue that might be a problem for any incoming cable company is not the local government franchise, but the licensing of the content (even ignoring who originates it.) Has that local television station signed an exclusive contract with the exis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't planning to make money on their investment. It's more strategic for them. Faster internet promotes their other services, and undermines the ability of ISPs to extort money from them as they are for Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It is not. If it was a natural monopoly, there would be no need for cities to grant legal monopoly to existing cable companies.
Then explain why there aren't multiple cable companies all over the place. The existing non-exclusive franchises would not prevent it from happening, so there must be some other reason.
You would also not have companies like Google and Sonic trying to lay their own cable.
Google et.al have to lay their own cable because the existing cable technology is not sufficient to allow them the unfettered access to their own plant that they want. You don't imagine that Google wants to build expensive head-end plant and get only limited access to the limited bandwidth left over on current cable system
Re: (Score:2)
You just acknowledged that there are competitors that want to lay their own cable. Not only their own cable, but even better cable than what the current monopoly has. This is exactly the opposite of a natural monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
What non-exlusive franchises?
Every franchise I've known.
You just acknowledged that there are competitors that want to lay their own cable.
I'm sorry, what? No, they don't want to lay their own. They know that they can't make any money doing it. That's what keeps them from getting a franchise and doing it.
Not only their own cable, but even better cable than what the current monopoly has.
Those that want to "lay their own cable" are not cable television companies, they are companies like Google. And as someone else has already pointed out, they aren't doing it for the money, so the economic rules don't apply.
This is exactly the opposite of a natural monopoly.
Different company doing a different thing for a different reason, trying to avoid the fran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and get 7 billion out of Charter for their troubles.
They're only shedding the 1.4 million subscribers (Score:1)
Come to me Google Fiber! (Score:1)
Got the news earlier this year that the area I live in is on the short list for fiber next year.
Crapcast can bite me if it shows up.
Scratch that itch (Score:2)
need to have better cableTV they can't even show (Score:2)
need to have better cableTV they can't even show of there local RSN feeds in HD in big markers but u-verse and directv can.
on 4/25 Directv and U-verse had all 3 HD feeds of CSN chicago on but comcast cable only had 2 of them.
Comcast still dose not have the BIG TEN alts in HD, goal line HD, pac12 HD (out of market), Game 3-9 HD, Team 2-9 HD, nbc premier league extra time feeds as real channels, and more that other cable systems have (TWC does have them).
They consider their customers to be inventory. (Score:2)
So can we call it an oligopoly now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ridiculous one company can just 'sell' its customers. Customers should have the choice. This is ridiculous and unfair and shows any semblance of 'regulation' of the field is a joke. Regulation in name only.
How about if I just sell a couple of 'bought' Congressmen? Because they weren't doing much anyway, other than pissing me off.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm the king of Spain, I suppose I'm going to want to SELL the serfs living in lands held by Napoleon.
If Comcast gets rid of people who HAVE A CHOICE to the competition -- they can just raise rates where there is no competition and overlap.
Yeah this is bullshit and the emperor has no clothes but the media and the bought out government are all there to tell the King of Comcast that he looks very regal in his birthday suit. It does not matter that anyone paying attention knows this is a bogus deal to screw
Re: (Score:2)
Government doesn't HAVE TO approve monopolies -- they happen naturally if government does not regulate commerce. The regulation is faulty because the government depends on money to get elected and regulators are allowed to become lobbyists and lobbyists to become regulators.
Yes, this is fascism, on that I'll agree. And in our world, regulations are coddling and protecting the powerful from everyone else -- though that is because of corruption, not due to the nature of government.
I'm all about free markets but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? So we are going to let a company (Comcast) placate the regulators by doing two things? First, by selling some of their customer base to a competitor and then spinning off another competitor. This should NOT happen.
Fist, anytime you have to sell off part of business in a merger to keep the regulators happy it should be a HUGE red flag. It means that you fully realize that your proposed merger is going to create a company that is too large. I hear shades of Microsoft trying to *GIVE* M$ Money to a competitor in order to buy Intuit in a deal that got rejected by regulators (if I recall correctly). Even if the competition is OK with the deal, any horse trading like this should pretty much be considered an admission that the resulting company is too big.
Second, can anybody imagine why you'd want to create some new company when doing a deal like this? Why do they want two separate companies? Usually it is expensive to split a company and unless the two businesses are TOTALLY different kinds of business it usually is more expensive to run two companies over one. So what are they going to gain? One reason they spin off similar companies is to restructure debt and position future liabilities. You take the bad parts of a company (that nobody wants to buy) and spin them off to rid yourself of debt and liabilities, which you dump into the spinoff. So if you see a segment of your business is dying, or the future liabilities are looming (like expensive Union pension plans and older employees) you unload them. Then the child company dies a slow and painful death trying to deal with the debt while the parent lives on.
Both of these actions tell me that Comcast knows that the merger will not be approved so they are grasping at straws in a vain attempt to placate regulators. This merger may still happen, but if it goes though it will be a bad deal for consumers and I'll bet that we find out that Comcast dropped some serious money behind the scenes in the form of bribes, campaign contributions, and lobbying to make it happen. Crony politics are in play and I guess Comcast didn't donate enough to campaign coffers in the last round, or they really need money badly this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a Monty Python skit here, Comcast forms the new company and they send out their agents in chain mail; "Bring out your pensioners, bring out your pensioners!" They throw all the older workers in the new "Omega Righteous Liabilities inc."
"But I'm not dead yet!"
The club him and continue dragging the cart to the next lucky employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Just before they come to the troll who asks "How much liability have you assumed with all these bodies?"
"Why... I don't know.. "
Woooooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that depends on where you live. I have three choices for cable where I live. 1. Time Warner Cable, 2. Verizon FiOS, and 3. Dish.
The first two compete for phone, internet and cable services while the last one only for TV and possibly internet if you don't care about latency much.
Not that this makes it a free market, but it's better than nothing. You do understand the alternative to giving the vendors access rights is pretty much no service at all right? But I'm sorta with you in that I think
Does it really matter? (Score:2)
If I only have access to a single cable company, does it really matter if that company is Comcast, Time-Warner, Charter, or SpinCo?
Net neutrality and Comcast (Score:2)
Comcast aired a radio commercial in DC Metro this morning saying that the Comcast-TWC merger would guarantee "net neutrality", higher speeds and more Internet for everyone. This tells me most people think that 1) Net neutrality is a good thing and 2) They have no idea what it really means.
Plus, there's a another front on the net neutrality battle - some companies are claiming that net neutrality allows freeloading - using capacity without paying for it. But what's the reality? That everyone pays for usag
Loss leader (Score:2)
I'm sure that they are counting on their improved monopoly position post merger to allow them to make up any temporary loss of subscribers.
This is a loss leader intended to distract the regulators.
Can this finally leverage competition? (Score:2)
Do this in a way that you end up with a mix of Charter and Comcast customers in each market. True competition in cable never took place because once the cable was strung, no one else wanted to do it - and cable companies were not subject to the same wire-sharing that phone companies were. So every market currently has one carrier, and no company has any incentive to provide greater value. Our cable bill increases 5% every year and the number of channels is reduced every year. The only way to switch is t
Google Fiber or no deal (Score:2)
Here's a crazy idea (Score:2)
Keep the customers (Score:2)
Spin off the content part of the business.
The best way to give these guys "the finger" is (Score:2)
Just start dropping cable. I did 4 years ago and haven't gone back. I'm strictly "over the air" now I get 11+ channels in the new 'digital" airwaves, plus streaming video/tv series over the internet. WTF do I need cable for? If enough people DROP their cable subscriptions - they will get the hint real quick. The ONLY thing these guys understand is $$$$$$. If you have one area where they suddenly lose %50 or more of their subscribers dropping their service, they will eventually have to listen to US!.
Like it matters (Score:2)
They'll just end up buying Charter in a couple years anyway.
Netflix? (Score:2)
It's funny how they can keep a straight face and request a merger that'll make them bigger when they are currently actively abusing their literal government granted data transmission (as opposed to MS's 'virtual' OS) monopoly to extort money from other content providers like Netflix.
The only condition I would put on this merger is that Comcast separates wholly from NBC/Universal/etc. content providers, and becomes just a data pipe common carrier.
Approve the merger... (Score:2)
Then regulate the hell out of them...
Break them into three separate companies. One ISP, one television, and one that owns the lines. And anyone can lease the lines.
Heck, could even allow Netflix to become an ISP. Get your Netflix+Internet.
How do I get in on that deal? (Score:2)
I'd like to be one of the subscribers they shed. Where do I sign up?
Oh for fuck's sake! (Score:2)
'Comcast also said it would divest another 2.5 million subscribers into a new publicly traded company, dubbed SpinCo for now, to be one-third owned by Charter and two-thirds owned by Comcast shareholders.
In other words, Comcast STILL owns them. They're just revenue sharing with Charter at that point and we now have an even NASTIER Trust issue as Comcast and Charter would now be FINANCIALLY tied together by this erstwhile "third company".
This would probably be even WORSE for consumers than if Comcast just kept the clients and told Charter to go suck a dick.
The problem here is not competition between Charter and Comcast.
As has already been pointed out, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMPETITION in ANY of these ma
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, you might be way off too low. I currently have Time Warner Cable TV and Internet. The only reason we've kept TV so far is that Time Warner gave us a good deal on the TV. We pay $85 a month with this "good deal." If we paid full price, we'd likely be paying $120 or more a month. Of course, at that point, we'd cut cable and save the money. As it stands, cable is hanging on by a thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there are associated costs. "Gross income" is a poor metric on subscriber value. Honestly, I think it is a terrible deal for Charter (though I pay Charter close to $200 per month as a customer).
Charter has to pay a multitude of companies for the programming they carry, on a per-subscriber basis. I'm sure they have a decent profit margin, but after infrastructure costs, access fees to programming, and other costs, how much profit is actually being made per month, per subscriber? I suspect it would tak
Re: (Score:2)
Of course as a non-cable customer I may be way off on the $100/month bill.
No. That's a good guess.
You* could try running those numbers through a present value calculator with assumptions about inflation and interest rates. That will give you an idea of how much Comcast expects to grow this $100 figure.
*I would, but I'm too lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can.
As a part of a 'market', companies can buy, sell and trade you. You thought Lincoln put an end to that?
"You will do as you are told. Until the rights to you are sold." - F Zappa
Re: (Score:2)
What in the fuck are the regulators even REGULATING?
The new theory on regulation (since approximately the 80s) is that it's bad, and thanks in large part to an economist and a Federal judge (both named Posner) the new theory is that there is no such thing as monopoly abuse -- so there's no need to regulate monopolies, because a monopoly that abuses its position will always have a competitor spring up and underprice them.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
If corporations were really people, we could send them to prison.
Corporate "personhood" is a laughable fiction, embraced only by our insane Supreme Court and business conservatives, Though, granted, it would be nice to think we could have lead Enron away in handcuffs the way we could have a real person.
Re: (Score:2)
If corporations are not people, then they cannot be greedy (as greed is a human vice)....