 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | wow what a mess it would be if cc took over tw. | |
|
 | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | Re: wow Not the cable company but the media company. In case you had them confused.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| |
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: wow i did; i had assumed twc | |
|
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | One of those two companies should really change their name now that they've separated (I'd assume it'd be the cable company, since they own neither Time nor Warner) | |
|
| | | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by EPS  :One of those two companies should really change their name now that they've separated (I'd assume it'd be the cable company, since they own neither Time nor Warner) One of those two companies will change their name if Comcast buys it. Same as the days when we had "AT&T Broadband Internet", and "AT&T Corporation". Comcast bought ATTBI, and AT&T went on to be ... bought by SBC!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: wow There was also "AT&T Wireless Services", which became part of Cingular, and now is at&t again... (It seems like the "AT&T is now Cingular" ads only stopped when they started "Cingular is now 'the new' at&t")
Initially the AT&T Broadband + Comcast was intended to be called "AT&T Comcast", since AT&T Broadband was larger than Comcast was at that time... Now that really would have confused things! | |
|
| | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: wow said by EPS :There was also "AT&T Wireless Services", which became part of Cingular ... Did not become part of anything. Was sold off by AT&T (which was ever trying to reinvent itself, since 1984, but never quite succeeding). AT&T Wireless was jointly bought by SBC (60% interest) and Bellsouth (40% interest). However, AT&T kept the rights to the AT&T brand, and SBC/Bellsouth had to come up with a new brand for the wireless venture. Hence, "Cingular Wireless".
AT&T eventually went on to be financially troubled, while SBC was in top financial shape; so SBC bought AT&T. Then SBC rebranded itself as AT&T. Then SBC bought Bellsouth (a company which wasn't really financially troubled), thus giving the old SBC (now rebranded as, "AT&T") 100% stake in "Cingular Wireless". So Ed Whitacre (who is now in charge of "Government Motors") rerebranded Cingular Wireless as AT&T Wireless.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: wow Cingular existed before the AT&T Wireless Services buyout... SBC and BellSouth formed the joint venture out of their pre-existing wireless arms. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME | If they changed it to Slime Warner then it would be a differenmt name. | |
|
| | | 
Mike Wolf
join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ | Would be expensive to have to rebrand all of their cable boxes, equipment, trucks, remotes, uniforms and so on. | |
|
| |
| |
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: wow i think youre the first on this site to be excited to be aquired by comcast.... | |
|
| | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: wow said by baineschile :i think youre the first on this site to be excited to be aquired by comcast.... Second, but as others have said, this would be a media acquisition, not an ISP acquisition. | |
|
| | | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | I've been wishing for Comcast back ever since they swapped my area for Houston with TWC.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |
| | |
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: wow see posts above.... | |
|
| | |
| | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: wow said by iansltx :Uh, actually TWC doesn't cap anywhere at this point. Did they finally stop capping Beaumont? | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: wow Yes they did. The backlash from trying to cap Austin, Rochester, et al made them backpedal significantly. | |
|
| | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by iansltx :Uh, actually TWC doesn't cap anywhere at this point. Also, TWC connections here are faster than Comcast connections in areas that haven't upgraded to DOCSIS 3. And cheaper; I can get 15/2 for $50 here. On Comcast that same tier would be $65-$75 IF Blast was available in my area, which it isn't. That is most definitely not the norm. Only a few select areas have 15/2 service, a few more have 10/1, and then the remaining large percentage still has 7/384. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: wow I'm talking about 15/2 as the "Turbo" service. I thought that all areas were upgraded to 10 Mbps down and 512+ kbps up for Turbo at this point. | |
|
| | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: wow said by iansltx :I'm talking about 15/2 as the "Turbo" service. I thought that all areas were upgraded to 10 Mbps down and 512+ kbps up for Turbo at this point. My apologies, you are correct. I was referring to the standard tiers. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: wow Yeah, our tiers are cheaper here I think than in other places. We get 7/512 for $40. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: wow said by iansltx :Yeah, our tiers are cheaper here I think than in other places. We get 7/512 for $40. I only have basic cable ($9.99/month) so I get popped for $55 for the 7/384 tier ... yikes! I think it's $45.95 if you have any other service but basic, here that is. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | 
bentheexo
join:2009-04-09
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Comcast
| said by iansltx :Uh, actually TWC doesn't cap anywhere at this point. Also, TWC connections here are faster than Comcast connections in areas that haven't upgraded to DOCSIS 3. And cheaper; I can get 15/2 for $50 here. On Comcast that same tier would be $65-$75 IF Blast was available in my area, which it isn't. I pay only $62.45 per month for my 22/4 Comcast Tier | |
|
| | 
whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
| Negative. Seeing as how we currently don't have a cap. :P | |
|
| | 
andy555
@rr.com | I agree with you. I do miss Comcast (price/service). | |
|
| | 
Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
1 edit | No, I would not rejoice being acquired by Comcast. Time Warner's lack of caps are far superior to Comcast's ridiculous 250 GB caps and throttled service. | |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| How does this matter to subscribers or internet users? Commenters elsewhere are deploring the prospect of more vertical integration, but why should we care if Comcast owned, say, some TV production as well as cable?
On the other hand, cableco consolidation would reduce competition when we need more of it. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA | disney just as long as they dont own Disney.... I can just seem them destroying that company... | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Will the FTC pay attention? maybe with the change in administration and new people in place, the FTC will actually pay attention and do their job.
then again, maybe not. | |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Another MSG HD? Do any of these channels fall under a similar terrestrial loophole that Cablevision enjoys with MSG HD?
Is this how the cable conglomerates will fight back the better picture quality and superior bandwidth of the telco provided TV services, by gobbling up the content and keeping it to themselves?
I'm sure these are all satellite fed channels, but I still don't like the idea of a provider owning the media content. | |
|
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Another MSG HD? comcast owns a few stations, e!, v.s. at the top of the list. i believe most other companies offer those in HD; comcast doesnt horde their content like cablevision is doing. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Another MSG HD? G4 was crap
TechTV and ZDTV were much better till comcrap gutted them | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Another MSG HD? said by elios :G4 was crap TechTV and ZDTV were much better till comcrap gutted them Targeting non-geek teenage basement dwellers who live with their mom and skateboard and goto anime conventions is more profitable than targeting IT geeks. | |
|
| | | | 
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| Actually, Comcast owned neither.
TechTV was owned by a JV of Jones Communications (Comcast *did* acquire a lot of the Jones cable systems, but not the production arm) and ZD (which owned ZDTV outright and spun part of it off to CNET, Inc.) and used to be Jones Computer Network.
A lot of that failure was part of the general meltdown of ZD under SoftBank ownership. (Softbank was a Japanese media conglomerate that attempted to become a *global* media conglomerate, by purchasing everything from ZD to COMDEX.)
Sorry; you can't blame that on Comcast.
(Most of the current Comcast footprint in the Washington, DC cluster is, in fact, ex-Jones Intercable; the exceptions are Montgomery County, MD, Arlington County, VA (both ex-Prime Communications), Washington, DC proper (ATTBI) and Loudon County, VA/Frederick County, MD (Adelphia).) | |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC | Cause you know Comcast did a fantastic job with TechTV.... | |
|
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Cause you know TechTV didn't even do a good job with TechTV. It got old. | |
|
| |
Mike Wolf
join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ | Re: Cause you know thats bull, techtv was one of the few actual good tv networks out there, i agree that comcast utterly ruined the brand and all of their followers. i miss my screen savers, i miss my call for help! | |
|
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: Cause you know Hey, thanks for replying to a month old thread. Way to be on top of things! | |
|
Da Man
join:2008-05-08
Hanover, PA | AOL Is Comcast going to pay extra to not take AOL with TW. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
jkeelsnc
join:2008-08-22
Boone, NC
| Ridiculous Acquisition Risk is not a concern for Comcast? What kind of a dummy says that? This is exactly the attitude of people like Madoff, AIG, and a bunch of failed banks. Haven't these morons on Wall Street learned anything!
NO, Comcast needs to back off and leave other companies alone. They saved their pennies did they? Well instead of worrying about other companies they need to worry about themselves and TAKE CARE of their customers with that money by investing in Docsis 3.0 and other technologies.
No instead, we have a bunch of standing Slot Machine Morons in the company whose eyes spin like the dials on a slot machine every time they get a whiff of the acquisition addiction. Idiots. They should be fired and the SEC should step in to stop it. The only thing executives hear these days is the bell of a cash register. Cha Ching!
Furthermore. Control Content? WHY!? Who ever said it was comcast's or anyone else's job to control content. These guys need their behind kicked up between their shoulders. Selfish, Greedy, Controlling jerks who only think about a dollar sign and a decimal point.
Thanks. Thats my rant for today. | |
|
| 
Time
Premium
join:2003-07-05 | Re: Ridiculous They are investing in DOCSiS 3, more so than any other cable provider out there. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by jkeelsnc :Well instead of worrying about other companies they need to worry about themselves and TAKE CARE of their customers with that money by investing in Docsis 3.0 and other technologies. They are. DOCSIS 3 rolled out to all customer by EOY 2010 said by jkeelsnc :They should be fired and the SEC should step in to stop it. The only thing executives hear these days is the bell of a cash register. Cha Ching! What's illegal about companies acquiring other companies for strategic and financial gain?said by jkeelsnc :Furthermore. Control Content? WHY!? Who ever said it was comcast's or anyone else's job to control content. Karl, in his standard editorializing manner. | |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | I don't want I don't want my access provider to be a content provider. Too much conflict of interest. Too much put into the content side while the access is left for later. | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't want said by SLD :I don't want my access provider to be a content provider. Too much conflict of interest. Too much put into the content side while the access is left for later. Indeed. Just look at the mess created when the access provider is merely a partner with the content provider.
<whisper>
(AT&T. Yahoo!. AT&T. Yahoo!. AT&T. Yahoo!.)
</whisper>
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| More cable mergers? Doubtful. If your talking about CC acquiring/merging with TW.. that is NOT likely.. they'd own TOO much geography and market share for the lynchmob of public opinon to kill the deal in and of itself. As for acquring Disney.. not likely either.. this is not a merger of equals and the two companies have some conflicts of interest and overlapping/competing businesses which will destroy (utlimately) value of the separate entities.
Tell me how many content companies who merged lately have become a better value to the consumer?
You could ask the same for Telecom too.. On that note there is mixed news.. AT&T is a slow failure in progress and Verizon is leaning that way in it's coordinated duopolistic practices.
We can also be skeptical of a cable company which cried poor for so many reaons.. be it content negotiations, sparking a mini war with consumers over 250gb data caps, targeted duopolistic practices (not just broadband, video and phone service too!), and overall price increases in at least the past decade. Now they're flush with cash to acquire another business? Hmm, that doesn't smell right! One last thing, a CC/Disney deal has the potential to make TimeWarner/AOL or Sprint/Nextel look like a merger made in heaven.
There is only ONE cable merger that has a remote chance of happening.. and that's TW & Cablevision.. but not likely.. the Cablevision family isn't interested in selling off the business and there is a potential backlash in the customer base if the competitiveness of the Cablevision product becomes closer to the Time Warner product lineup. Not to mention, CV has enough failing businesses (ahem, Newsday, cough, cough) to write off losses against profits in Cable assets for some time to come. | |
|
| |
rick4769
@rr.com | Never Happen The FCC would not let this ever happen since it would basically cause a monopoly in the cable television industry.
When the government gets involved in private enterprise through the FCC, you are asking for a disaster of biblical proportions. | |
|
|
|
|
Comcast Eyeing Viacom, Time Warner?
·
TW customers would rejoice if Comcast acquired TW, particularly if Comcast raised TW Customers CAP to 250GB. You will know when it happens because you will see TW Broadband Customers dancing in the streets. 
I'd rather have 5/1 than the 7/~400ish I have now. 
·