Charter Reorganization Gets Ugly > This could get interest

reply to hottboiinnc

Re: This could get interest

either company time warner or comcast will be able to offer services. broadband users will be fine.
--
* don't fear the penguin *

I will be really surprised if TWC buys a significant portion of Charter(assuming it is sold off). TWC is still paying off all the debt it incurred from its split from TW. Since it did not pay a dividend this year, I suspect its stockholders would balk at them getting further into debt(pushing dividends even further out). Just look at the huge drop in TWC's stock price earlier this year.

I would expect that most of Charter would go to the smaller players. Just like everything they have sold off in the last year or so. Maybe some of the bigger players would consider picking up Charter's more densely populated areas (St. Louis). There is also always the possibility that some venture capital group will take them over in entirety. Depending on how bad the creditors want out, it could be a pretty good deal.

Personally I hope Charter hangs on. They have been improving their systems (admittedly slowly, D3) and they seem to have backed off the cap issue(at least for now) after the huge backlash. If they can essentially eliminate analog cable(the direction they have been headed for the last year), it will free up enough bandwidth to give them a much wider choice of options.

reply to iansltx
Anti-trust? HA!

Cinci Bell owns a cable company here.

ATT only got out of the business when SBC took over Americast and then WOW took over the failing and cheap network.

It most places, ATT Broadband (cable) is now Comcast.

As to CinBell owning a cable company, is it your only one? Charter tends to be in single-cableco markets...

Cinci bell bought the cable company to expand their offerings.

They bought it from a Muni. It was HUGE news just never put on here.

And just because charter is in single cable markets doesn't mean a telco couldn't buy them and offer services. They can move all of their services to that network and get rid of the copper plants that are way past out dated. and the best part is they wouldn't have to share this network.

They would be basically doing what they're already doing.

Also there are several Co-Ops that own the local cable company AND the Telco side. go google SherTel in Sherwood, Ohio.

reply to iansltx
The former ATT got out of the broadband business after @Home went out. Comcast took over in most of their markets and sold which ones they did not want. A few of them are in Michigan. Those went to Charter.

You can get cheap bandwidth any where if you know how to play your cards right. Any company the size of Cablevision could get bandwidth as cheap as they are now even in STL. STL is a HUGE city and home to Nestle Purina USA.

VDSL may put fiber as close to homes as HFC but you have to build out the VDSL network. with the HFC network from Charter its already done in place. Why build a system in an area where it's already built if you can just buy it and take over.

There is no law that says ATT or VZ can't buy that network and use it. It would be better than just leaving it rot or the City to try and run/manage it.

reply to Lazlow
TWC would pick them up on the auction block for pennies on the dollar the same as they did with Adelphia. But yes it would make sense for TWC to take over networks that belong to charter when they are close to the TWC network. Like the ones in Ohio. They're bordered by TWC and would make for an easy take over and move everything over to the TWC data centers. Nothing big there.

Venture Capital groups always have high prices- look at WOW they're prices are way higher than what TWC charges and the Internet side is slower for the same price of money.

MediaCom is the most likely company to take over STL though.

reply to hottboiinnc
There are co-ops that own cable companies, true. Just up the road from my hometown is GVTC territory. Fiber (up to 20/3 residential, 25/3 or so commercial) in some places, otherwise cable (up to 12 Mbps) or DSL (up to 5 Mbps). But they're a coop, and TWC is now competing with them.

As for Charter and the big telcos, the telcos can't get rid of copper plant; they'd be breaking regulations if they did so. Plus, ripping stuff out is expensive. Not to mention the fact that telcos no longer do cable generally and it would require a retraining of the work force to fix this.

Additionally, copper phone lines are unshared all the way to the DSLAM. They could mess with technology to get decent speeds out further or whatever. Case in point: extended range DSL and VDSL...

reply to hottboiinnc
There's no law against Microsoft or Google buying out other companies, right? Do they still get in trouble for it? very yes.

As for cheap bandwidth if you play your cards right, name me a big data center in STL. Seriously, look around. Cheap bandwidth is available in internet hubs. NYC is one of them...transatlantic cables and an internet exchange or two mean that Cablevision is in a major market for every provider. The providers compete for CV's money, or CV peers with the smaller ones. End of story.

The nearest big IX...and it's not the biggest one...to STL is KC. Several providers are there, but it's not as much of a major market except for budget providers. Or maybe Chicago's nearer. It has good deals on bandwidth, but it's still a ways away.

Again, see which companies offer STL as "on-net". The list is smaller than you'd think, and thus bandwidth may be more expensive.

reply to hottboiinnc
hottboiinnc

I think TWC would have to talk a really good game to get their stockholders to go along with them spending any more money. They are already looking at a considerable reinvestment in their systems (upgrading to D3) which they have already shown reluctance to do, reason for low caps. Their stockholders already got mad when they found out that there were not going to be any dividends this year(look at the massive drop in TWC stock earlier this year). I just do not see the stockholders allowing TWC to incur more debt than is absolutely necessary, no matter how good the deal could be. The other thing to consider is that credit is MUCH more expensive and harder to get now, than it was when they got Adelphia. In addition to that they were part of TW at that time and had a lot more assets to back up the purchase.

I did not say I wanted a venture capital group to buy, just that they could. Especially if they can get it for "pennies on the dollar".

You should go look at the reason for the drop. That wasn't their problem with the payouts.

reply to iansltx
VZ is getting rid of the copper plant.

SO it's not against regulation. They're replacing with Fiber. ATT could do the same if they took over an HFC network. move everyone over and BOOM! no more sharing. Sell the network off and or close it. There wouldn't be a need for it as they could upgrade the entire HFC network cheaper than what laying full FTTH or VDSL would be.

You wouldn't have to train anyone. Cable Companies are non-union and the telcos would love that.

Plus how hard is it to train someone to hook up a cable modem? screw the coax into the cable modem...hook the ethernet cord to the modem and into the computer plug modem in. good to go.

reply to iansltx
Cogent is there. Just because you don't have ATT or Sprint bandwidth available doesn't mean anything. Hell look at my city. We have Cogent and many others that have On-net buildings. L3 even has several centers here.

And out of getting in trouble the only real trouble anyone got into was Google and their shady business of DoubleClick. MSFT doesn't really have any problems in the US only in the EU.

reply to hottboiinnc
There's more to running a cableco than user installs. If there wasn't, cable guys would get paid $10/hr.

As for HFC vs. DSL the network topology is different. Cable is a shared bus, and thus all equipment would have to be replaced from where the fiber stops to get unshared.

As to VZ getting rid of copper plant, they're just leaving it hanging. Fiber is too expensive to install unless someoneis going to get fiber based services with it, at least while your copper plant is still good.

Again, if it was easy to run a cableco, everyone would do it. Oh wait...WindJamer...let's discount that joke. Sorta like Fairpoint with DSL I'm afraid.

And why would you buy a network, then sell it off? Not sure I'm getting you on that.

Also, found any big cheap datacenters in St. Louis yet? There are a few but the bandwidth prices reflect being a secondary market.

reply to hottboiinnc
Shady with DoubleClick? I'm rejoicing over the fact that DoubleClick's pure evil is being diluted.

As for Cogent, please give me real bandwidth. Don't get me wrong, Cogent is cheap, but look at the fiber path; you're not at a hub. With the peering disputes Cogent has had (they say they're over but they've got Tiscali, AT&T, Verizon and Savvis to tick off next) you just don't want to single-home. St. Louis is thus a secondary market; being Cogent-lit is nice but doesn't mean as much as you'd think.

reply to iansltx
If you want your data centers to search for them. Many are not listed as a Data Center or a Colo. and some are not listed period.

DSL is shared as well. It is shared at the DSLAM. The old claim that DSL is not shared needs to be given up on. ALL internet is shared and DSL CAN be slowed down if you add to many people to the DSLAM if there is not enough available bandwidth for everyone.

And as far as WindJamer? What about Charter now? they're a joke too. They're the stupid ones for buying all the areas they could for a prem. and then losing their ass on them. Broadstripe must be a joke too. They went to file for bankruptcy and came back with a new name- Just that. Broadstripe. Nobody would want to do business with the old name. What about Suddenlink? they changed their name several times and bought several small markets for a prem. and customers pay out the ass for those services.

Also Fairpoint DSL is only considered a joke by the people on this site and the Unions.

reply to iansltx
Cogent is in the same buildings as others. You should go search it out before knocking them. And it's not their fault they compete on dollar where ATT and VZ won't and charge a prem. for services. Hell I can get a Qwest T1 cheaper than going direct. And that's sad. Price is everything. Not provider.

On the whole datacenter thing, the burden of proof is on you since you mentioned cheap bandwidth in STL. Might be, but you mentioned it

As far as Cogent pricing goes, the problem is with sites that aren't right on their network. Cogent peering points are few and far between, so you might have to take a circuitous route to get to a given website. Additionally, in some cases you can get Level3 cheaper than Cogent, and L3 has a vastly superior network.

I have bought a few virtual private servers. One is on a Cogent-only connection. Others use a combination of networks that includes Comcast. One uses Level3 as a main carrier. Guess which one has the slowest connection to most sites?

Price isn't everything, otherwise everyone would be on Cogent. Then again, Cogent ain't the cheapest anymore in many locations. Check out iptelligent.com. Problem: nothing in STL.

»www.isp-planet.com/img/backbones···kMap.jpg

Cogent may not be the cheapest(do not know) but they are definitely in St. Louis.

»www.cogentco.com/us/network_pops.php