|
iansltx
Member
2009-Aug-28 12:59 pm
My PredictionComcast will now buy Charter and spin off Charter's more rural assets.
Then they'll buy Time Warner Cable and possibly spin off TWC's more rural assets (like that hasn't happened already with Windjammer).
They *might* even buy Cox, though that company seems to be a bit of a loner.
The upside: by the end of 2010 anyone originally Comcast or bought by them will have 50/10 internet available.
The downside: Comcast will have a lot of lobbying weight and can tell programmers what to do. Blessing and a curse due to the fact that Comcast is still first and foremost a cable company.
What do y'all think? | |
|
| Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL 1 edit |
Robert
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 1:03 pm
Re: My Predictionsaid by iansltx:What do y'all think? I think you are crazy. Just because Comcast CAN buy TW or Cox or Charter, doesn't mean any of them will actually sell their company. I don't think Comcast is ready to buy out any other MSO. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: My PredictionTWC serves major markets. Charter and Cox do as well.
Three years ago nobody though Alltel would get bought out by anyone in particular. I thought a year ago that Sprint would buy them. Verizon did.
Charter is in bankruptcy. Comcast could purchase them for a low price, finish retrofitting their more urban networks with DOCSIS 3, sell off the rural areas and end up with over 40% of the cable market in all likelihood. | |
|
| | | |
Re: My PredictionI really wouldn't rule out any acquisition. I wouldn't rule out everybody being served by AT&TCast by 2015 at this rate. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: My PredictionI don't see that. There are areas that aren't profitable enough for those companies. Though I'll bet all major cities will be served by either AT&T or Verizon on the telephone side (once Qwest gets bought out by one of the two) and Comcast on the cable side. | |
|
| | | | | 1 edit |
Re: My PredictionI was joking, but yes.
I imagine these new rural supertelcos (CenturyLink) get acquired within a decade. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: My PredictionI'll bet the opposite. If I win the bet, you talk about it on BBR. If I lose, I'll pay my then-current internet bill to you for a month. Should only be about $150 | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: My PredictionHah. It's a deal. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to Karl Bode
VZ nor ATT want Qwest nor CenturyLink. ATT is happy with what it has and VZ is as well (for the most part). Qwest should take and merge with CenturyLink the others. Maybe even take on a cable company with the merger (After all CinciBell bought an Overbuild Muni cable company about 2years ago) | |
|
| | | | |
to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I really wouldn't rule out any acquisition. I wouldn't rule out everybody being served by AT&TCast by 2015 at this rate. I would personally rule out Comcast taking over Charter. I don't think even they would be willing to take on that much debt, not to mention signing a personal check to Paul Allen who does literally nothing but just that: sit back and collect. | |
|
| | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2009-Aug-28 1:40 pm
Re: My Predictionno one in their right mind will pick up Charter until their debt is at a managable level. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: My PredictionYes, it's not like Comcast won't be willing to wait. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to morbo
that's what the Court's are for. | |
|
| | | | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:said by Karl Bode:I really wouldn't rule out any acquisition. I wouldn't rule out everybody being served by AT&TCast by 2015 at this rate. I would personally rule out Comcast taking over Charter. I don't think even they would be willing to take on that much debt, They wouldn't have to buy Charter as a whole they could buy certain areas. | |
|
| | | | Ulmo join:2005-09-22 Aptos, CA 1 edit |
to Karl Bode
Comcast is more competent than AT&T. I doubt anybody's going to keep AT&T around as a good name. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |
to iansltx
The Alltel VZW deal was in talks long ago. You would know this if you knew people that worked in the ACTUAL company offices and actually read their memos. This is why neither of them deployed GSM in their network, except for roaming. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: My PredictionThey've been CDMA carriers from the outset (though Alltel had some legacy TDMA areas if I remember correctly) so why would theyswitch to GSM networks? | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: My PredictionGSM is pretty much a world Standard. the USA is the only country that has not adopted that standard. Go to Every other country and they use GSM and unlocked cell phones. Pop in a new SIM card and off you go.
If they would have gone to GSM they would have had one of the largest in the country. Roaming on ATT, T-Mobile, Cent USA and other small carriers who built out with GSM or changed.
Alltel started out as a TDMA carrier as 360* Communications and then later switched to CDMA when they changed to Alltel and became nationwide. Otherwise they were a regional carrier. | |
|
| | | | | | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Re: My Predictionsaid by hottboiinnc4:Go to Every other country and they use GSM and unlocked cell phones. Pop in a new SIM card and off you go. That's not an entirely accurate statement, the majority of markets still have locked cell phones due to subsidizing, although there are a few notable countries which outright ban the practice. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: My Predictionsaid by AVonGauss:That's not an entirely accurate statement, the majority of markets still have locked cell phones due to subsidizing, although there are a few notable countries which outright ban the practice. I think the point is that in those countries they give you the option of bringing your own phone (by buying a phone outright) and paying *much* smaller monthly fees, or receiving a "subsidized" phone in which you pay much higher monthly fees, in the end causing you to pay twice as much as you would have for the phone if you had just bought it outright. It's kind of like leasing a car. | |
|
| | | | | | bsoft join:2004-03-28 Boulder, CO |
to hottboiinnc4
Verizon is moving to LTE, the successor to UMTS (which is the successor to GSM).
Interestingly, there is no GSM in Japan (UMTS - yes, GSM - no). And several other countries (China, South Korea, Mexico, Canada) have major CDMA2000 carriers.
Fortunately it seems like UMB (Qualcomm's CDMA2000-family alternative to LTE) is dead, so everyone is going to standardize on LTE. Everyone except Sprint, at least. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: My PredictionCanada is GSM. ATT Canada was GSM. That's NOW Rogers Wireless they offer the iPhone.
If i'm not mistaken Bell is even GSM. As for VZ we all know what they're using. Why keep bringing it up? Especially since it's not here and the technology is still in "testing" and won't be deployed anytime soon. | |
|
| | | | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 5:30 pm
Re: My Predictionsaid by hottboiinnc4:Canada is GSM. ATT Canada was GSM. That's NOW Rogers Wireless they offer the iPhone. If i'm not mistaken Bell is even GSM. As for VZ we all know what they're using. Why keep bringing it up? Especially since it's not here and the technology is still in "testing" and won't be deployed anytime soon. » 74.125.113.132/search?q= ··· nk&gl=usMajor CDMA players in Canada include Telus Mobility and Bell Mobility. Top Canadian GSM providers are Rogers Wireless and Fido. There is more CDMA coverage in Canada than GSM. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 11:16 pm
Re: My PredictionWhen I go to - » www.cdg.org/worldwide/index.aspIt says there are about half a billion CDMA users in the world. That CDMA is used in North America, including Canada. I see Mexico, India, China all listed as CDMA countries, in addition to the U.S. and Canada. Over here - » www.cdg.org/worldwide/cd ··· iber.asp they provide the percent of CDMA subscribers by region. In North America (the U.S. and Canada) it is 32.5%. In Asia it's 51.8%. For the rest of the world it's under 10%. Europe is .8%, Middle East is 1.2%, Africa is 4.9%, Latin America is 8.8%. China and Japan appear to have national CDMA coverage, India seems to have extensive CDMA coverage. I don't think that is quite as bad as the GSM folks make it out to be. | |
|
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
to Robert
said by Robert:said by iansltx:What do y'all think? I don't think Comcast is ready to buy out any other MSO. I don't know, Time Warner recently spun Time Warner Cable (TWC) off and as it stands, Comcast (CMCSA) has a little over 3x the market cap of TWC. That would be a VERY quick way to add the 20 million plus customers to their existing 25 million or so ... That's not even taking into account the 7 million Road Runner or 1.9 million digital phone subscribers. I'm not sure if the FCC would allow the country to essentially have one choice of a "cable" provider, but of course, with FiOS TV and U-Verse as choices for some, plus the satellite providers, they just may. | |
|
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 2:00 pm
Re: My Predictionsaid by Matt3:I'm not sure if the FCC would allow the country to essentially have one choice of a "cable" provider, but of course, with FiOS TV and U-Verse as choices for some, plus the satellite providers, they just may. I don't think the FCC will have the say in that anymore. But the Justice Dept will and I don't see them letting Comcast get TWC. But I do see them letting Comcast get control of other smaller cable operators. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: My PredictionTWC can spin off smaller areas and give them to Comcast. After all Windjammer appeared pretty much over night for those areas, they still even use the RoadRunner and Digital Phone brands. It would be easy for Comcast to pick those up. | |
|
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3 to FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 2:39 pm
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Matt3:I'm not sure if the FCC would allow the country to essentially have one choice of a "cable" provider, but of course, with FiOS TV and U-Verse as choices for some, plus the satellite providers, they just may. I don't think the FCC will have the say in that anymore. But the Justice Dept will and I don't see them letting Comcast get TWC. But I do see them letting Comcast get control of other smaller cable operators. You are correct, I meant the Justice Department. | |
|
| | | | Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
to FFH5
I see Comcast buying the remaining parts of Insight that they didn't take after the partnership was split. They already would have same headend/setop box equipment, and the markets are within a few hrs of existing Comcast areas, and easy to be added to the Comcast network/backbone. | |
|
| | | |
to Matt3
The FCC has NO Legal right to say how much Comcast can own. The Courts have ruled several times in Comcast's favor with this "cap". As of today there is NO Market Cap. | |
|
| | 3 edits |
to Robert
said by Robert: Just because Comcast CAN buy TW or Cox or Charter, doesn't mean any of them will actually sell their company. At the right price, everything is for sale. | |
|
| Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:Comcast will now buy Charter and spin off Charter's more rural assets. Then they'll buy Time Warner Cable and possibly spin off TWC's more rural assets (like that hasn't happened already with Windjammer). They *might* even buy Cox, though that company seems to be a bit of a loner. The upside: by the end of 2010 anyone originally Comcast or bought by them will have 50/10 internet available. The downside: Comcast will have a lot of lobbying weight and can tell programmers what to do. Blessing and a curse due to the fact that Comcast is still first and foremost a cable company. What do y'all think? I seriously doubt CC would try to buy TW... | |
|
| | •••••••••• |
| |
to iansltx
I sure hope Comcast will buy Charter. Not because I like Comcast any better as a company, but I think they'll offer more than what my Charter service does. | |
|
| AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
to iansltx
I doubt the 2010 DS 3 goal would apply to any acquisitions that may or may not be made since that goal was published. | |
|
| cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:Comcast will now buy Charter and spin off Charter's more rural assets. Then they'll buy Time Warner Cable and possibly spin off TWC's more rural assets (like that hasn't happened already with Windjammer). They *might* even buy Cox, though that company seems to be a bit of a loner. That's preposterous. What on earth makes you think that Comcast wouldn't also spin off Cox's rural assents too? | |
|
| | ••• |
| NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills Americans Premium Member join:2002-03-05 |
to iansltx
You forgot to add one downside:
By the end of 2010 anyone originally Comcast or bought by them will have Comcast.
I do, however, absolutely agree with Comcast on one point: the FCC never should have allowed many of the mergers they permitted over the past few years.
I would much rather have many smaller operators to potentially compete against each other for business than one (or maybe two to three) gigantic operators who couldn't care less about their customers. I'm not a big fan of government regulation in any sense of the word, but if Comcast is going to get bigger then consumers need some protection from nasty rate hikes and other cable company crap. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to iansltx
resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. | |
|
| | |
Re: My PredictionUnless you're unprofitable, then you'll be spun off. | |
|
EPS4 join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA |
EPS4
Member
2009-Aug-28 1:02 pm
Future MergersI predict that, despite this ruling, Comcast will find huge difficulty in getting future mergers approved.. | |
|
| ••••• |
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 3 edits |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 1:03 pm
A couple links with more details on the storyHere is the actual decision released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: » pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/ ··· 3454.pdfThe key words were these: Commission failed adequately to take account of the substantial competition cable operators face from non-cable video programming distributors. So, the court agreed that the FCC should have taken in to account competition from Sat TV and telco TV and NOT just based competitive environment on other cable companies alone. And the news story on the decision by the main source of news coverage on the cable industry: » www.broadcastingcable.co ··· _Cap.phpAnd then the judge slaps the FCC around for being especially stupid about not listening to the courts order from 2001: "The Commissions dereliction in this case is particularly egregious," wrote Judge Douglas Ginsburg. "In the previous round of this litigation we expressly instructed the agency on remand to consider fully the competition that cable operators face from DBS companies...The Commission nonetheless failed to heed our direction and we are again faced with the same objections to the rationale for the cap. It is apparent that the Commission either cannot or will not fully incorporate the competitive impact of DBS and fiber optic companies" | |
|
|
Uhh yeah but but...AT&T got the hand holding because they were in bed with the NSA and Bubba Bush. Comcast got shafted cause all they could offer was reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies which GW could see in the mirror on the ceiling anyway. Now if Comcast has offered to show the feds who all was watching TFTN (The Foreign Terrorist Network) instead of reruns of Barnaby Jones then surely the FCC would have played much nicer with them. | |
|
i1me2ao Premium Member join:2001-03-03 TEXAS |
i1me2ao
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 1:39 pm
greatcant wait for the 3.28 expansion tax added to bill.. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 2 edits |
And I just eat lunchWe applaud the court's decision to reject an unnecessary rule that can no longer be justified in a market where consumers are enjoying robust competition that is producing a wide variety of world class services at affordable prices.," similarly crows NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow. "Today's decision is further affirmation that consumers are benefiting from a vibrant and competitive video marketplace that has undergone dramatic change and is providing more choice and better value than ever before." Consumers weren't aware they had it so good.
Excuse me while I genuflect into a porcelain idol This is a illustration of why I watch so much Television from England. | |
|
caco Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK |
caco
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 3:24 pm
2 OPTIONSCharter which might not come/go/come out of bankruptcy and Cox cable which is privately held.
My money would be on Cox first and later on Charter especially if it can't come out of bankruptcy and would not be surprised to see it split up between TWC and Comcast ala Adelphia. | |
|
| EPS4 join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA |
EPS4
Member
2009-Aug-28 4:13 pm
Re: 2 OPTIONSIf Cox Cable is privately held, does that really make it more of a takeover target? (Unless the Cox Enterprises Corporation is having money troubles, which I haven't heard- of course being private I probably wouldn't hear anything like that anyway)
Comcast is also a family-controlled company- they have publicly traded shares, yes, but those have less voting power than those held by the Roberts family. (Google and other companies work in a similar fashion- technically even Amtrak, there are common shares of Amtrak floating around (not publicly traded), but the federal government has all the voting shares) | |
|
|
Bbandland
Anon
2009-Aug-28 3:27 pm
This ain't your grandma's "Cable TV" anymore"Comcast was happy with the decision." Yeah, I bet.
Apparently in the eyes of the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals, and from the looks of it the FCC, Comcast only serves TV to their subscribers.
Is Comcast going to expand beyond 30% and ONLY serve TV in those markets? Doubt it.
Now there's apparently no cap at all on how big Comcast's "TV" (read cable broadband) customer share can be, meaning more and more Americans will get Comcast "programming", but what about other internet protocols? If Comcast complained about bandwidth shortages in the past to justify caps on certain IP activity, what will they try when they expand their customer base?
Comcast Internet is quite large enough, thank you. | |
|
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Majority or Minority, I don't know...I don't know if I would be in the majority or minority for feeling this way, but I think the original directive while good intentioned was counter to the way our market works and I agree completely with the courts system. That does not mean I don't want to see competition, as a matter of fact I want to see a lot of it, I just believe that the government (i.e. the people) should go about it in a different manor. | |
|
|
by 2020 comcast and att will be the only cable/telcosI see comcast MERGING with Time Warner like they did when they merged with att broadband. I don't know they would want cox, suddenlink or cablevision though. Maybe they could sell internet service to them at a fixed rate or sell the programming to them like the nrtc does. I also see att and verizon merging eventually as well. As much as the bush white house was anti-merger the obama and clinton whitehouses are mostly hands off. Look at all the mergers approved while good ol' bill was in office. Of course he was gettin some from most of his female staff/cabinet members so he was too "busy" to worry about little things like letting companies gobble each other up. | |
|
| ••• |
Murdoc49 Premium Member join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI |
Murdoc49
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 5:14 pm
sounds almost like demolition manEverything will be at&t and comcast! Ahhh! Kind of scary. | |
|
| |
Re: sounds almost like demolition mandoubt it. | |
|
| | Murdoc49 Premium Member join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI |
Murdoc49
Premium Member
2009-Aug-28 5:21 pm
Re: sounds almost like demolition manPossibilties are endless here in america! If you got the cash it can happen! | |
|
|
Ioweyou
Anon
2009-Aug-28 5:43 pm
This is business garbageThe whole idea of being in business is to be in business and make money. The way you do that is to sell your widgy-do to every person in the known universe and I don't think ANYBODY has the right to say how many customers a company or business can have.
If Comcast has 80 million customers and Cox has 12 then Cox obviously needs to look at their business model. Note: I am using Comcast and Cox as examples only. | |
|
|
Given Comcast or AT&TI'd go with Comcast any day. Their normal support fails, but they have a much stronger Internet presence (Frank Eliason the twitter guy, ComastSteve, the Comcast Direct forum, etc). I'd much rather Comcast be a monopoly than AT&T. Of course I'd rather neither be a monopoly But given the choice... I know if I had a problem with my Comcast cable connection, it will be possible to get it acknowledged and fixed. For AT&T on the other hand, good luck. | |
|
| |
Re: Given Comcast or AT&TYou could get your issue fixed with ATT back when it was SBC. All you had to do was call Texas and get the right person on the phone that's all it took. But now they don't even do that. | |
|
| David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
to graycorgi
And we don't exist? I guess I forgot we have a direct forum here!
Funny thing is the front page here even links to it! | |
|
bUU join:2007-05-10 Kissimmee, FL |
bUU
Member
2009-Aug-28 6:28 pm
FCC effectively Spanked for Favoring SatelliteThe main point here is that the FCC has been effectively spanked (again) for capriciously favoring satellite services, and indefensibly punishing cable companies.
And in no uncertain terms, the courts have yet-again confirmed that satellite is material competition for cable, and therefore, as I have said time and time again, there is effective competition for subscription television service in every locality in the United States. | |
|
| |
cork1958Cork Premium Member join:2000-02-26 |
cork1958
Premium Member
2009-Aug-29 5:48 am
Bad move, periodOnce again the government got bought out. Comcast wasn't try to buy anyone, yet They just wanted to buy their way into being able to buy everyone up first! | |
|
| fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
fiberguy2
Premium Member
2009-Aug-29 10:27 pm
Re: Bad move, periodsaid by cork1958:Once again the government got bought out. Comcast wasn't try to buy anyone, yet They just wanted to buy their way into being able to buy everyone up first! While what you just said may sound good to you, it doesn't make much sense and just sounds like a fan-boy rant... You make a very one sides, slanted, biased argument.. did you even care to read the entire story? .. did you not see how the FCC pretty much is rubber stamping Ma'Bell back together again while holding down another industry under the .. what was the term you used again...? oh yea.. the telco company that "bought their way" into unfair markets. There are two sides to this story - and I could care less what any name anyone wants to call me, .. I'M DAMN glad the FCC got it's ass handed to it by the courts as they should have. Their prior ruling was exactly as the courts stated. Besides, the FCC has FAR over reached it's alleged authority and needs to be knocked down a peg or twenty. If the government is going to apply the law, it has to be applied FAIRLY to ALL sides if competition is going to work. And this includes ALL laws that are deemed un-fair on either side.. ie: if they place a law or rule for one player, they all should be playing by the same rules. | |
|
|
Good thing......Good thing i'm jumping ship to FTV!
- A | |
|
nitzan Premium Member join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2009-Aug-29 7:35 am
Great.Just what we need - even more of less competition. (not that there is any real competition anyway - in most areas you have only one cable operator to choose from) | |
|
Ulmo join:2005-09-22 Aptos, CA |
Ulmo
Member
2009-Aug-29 12:28 pm
Fairness yes, overall topic no.Win for fairness, lose for one of the few purposes of government: to avoid problems. In this case, preventing excessive largess seems like a pretty good cognitive prelude to preventing excessive control of communications. However, I do agree with the court on the narrow topic of fairness and therefore market directness.
I wonder if Comcast actually believes the stuff they say in court? (I don't mean the people saying it; I mean the forces that put them into place to say it.) | |
|
·PenTeleData ARRIS SB8200
1 edit |
There's no problem with thisIf a company is successful and they want to grow, let them. It just so happens that Comcast was able to work their way to the top first. Good for them. They must be doing something right. Only the strongest survive in this world, and if you want to survive, well you better learn how to become strong.
It doesn't stifle competition. Dish Network, DirecTV, Verizon Fios, AT&T U-Verse, and whatever other municipal or telco providers are out there. | |
|
1 edit |
Destroying competitive ISPs with regulation is a bad ideaThis is why destroying competitive ISPs via "network neutrality" regulation is such a bad idea. All that would be left is a duopoly: the re-assembled Bell System and Comcast. Karl, if you have consumers' interests in mind at all, you'll realize that regulation will lead to this. You need to support small and competitive ISPs -- not lobby to put them out of business. | |
|
|
|