& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
msilbey
msilbey
10/3/2013 | 9:13:26 PM
Re: TWC merger
Love this idea, but I'm not at all convinced it's something TW would do. Not in their DNA.

Maybe Cox? I have zero basis for such speculation, but at a gut level I see Cox as more likely to go the infrastructure route than Time Warner. 
DOShea
DOShea
10/3/2013 | 9:50:48 AM
Re: TWC merger
That's a really interesting idea, though Level 3 supposedly has sworn off mergers and acquisitions for a while as they try to make the most of what they've got.
Voodookungfu
Voodookungfu
10/3/2013 | 12:55:39 AM
TWC merger
TWC needs to think about the future instead of the past. If they are going to merge or buy it should be with level3. A merger like this would make them the only cable company with a national back bone, thus pushing the other cable companies to move upmarket with their business services by utilizing their backbone. It also gives them the products they desperately need such as VoIP, collocation and cloud service. Not to mention they would pull millions of dollars from the ilec's who level 3 is currently using to service their last mile, all those end users would/could end up on the mso's last mile and in turn they would receive customers back. The first cable company with a national backbone is going to be the winner, not the company who can save the most on programming. Anyone who has been paying attention to the industry in the last 5 years can see that.
brookseven
brookseven
10/2/2013 | 8:13:17 PM
Re: Larger means less service
Phil,

 

How many fewer cable companies will serve your area?

 

That is the only question that the DoJ will ask.

 

seven

 
Phil_Britt
Phil_Britt
10/2/2013 | 5:29:29 PM
Larger means less service
I'm not in the area served by Time Warner, but the larger any of these companies gets, the more the customer is a nuisance. I had one of the nation's other large cable providers for one year (length of a low-priced deal) and quickly switched back to a regional competitor when the deal was up.

If DoJ doesn't try to stop any such merger, it should. Satellite and OTT might offer options for some, but not for enough subscribers who would likely be stuck if any such merger was to go through.
MordyK
MordyK
10/2/2013 | 4:44:36 PM
Re: Anti-trust implications?
I'm not sure what real difference these cable mergers will have on pricing, as they are all already pretty much monopolies in their home markets. To me this is simply about bulking up and getting the financial benefit of a converged network
brookseven
brookseven
10/2/2013 | 1:01:28 PM
Re: Anti-trust implications?
Duh!,

Not sure that will be a problem.  When I have dealt with the DoJ on those issues, their questions were around who will have fewer competitors for the products and services.

Since Cable Companies, in general, do not have overlapping customer bases that this is not an issue.

The FCC might be different but I see the people impacted as suppliers not customers.

seven

 
Duh!
Duh!
10/2/2013 | 10:59:47 AM
Anti-trust implications?
And of course the FCC and DoJ are going to have no problems with further consolidation in the Cable industry.  Really?


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 1-2, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana
October 10, 2019, New York, New York
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events