
Comcast Plans to Drop Time Warner Cable Deal - coloneltcb
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/comcast-plans-to-drop-time-warner-cable-deal
======
walterbell
From a discussion of the open issues, [http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-
sausage-factory/comca...](http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-
factory/comcasttwccharter-looking-good-but-too-early-to-pop-the-champagne/)

 _"..as someone who has played regulatory poker with Comcast for 15 years now,
I can say from personal experience that no one counts Comcast out until the
game is well and truly over. Even if the rumors are true (and I have no way of
knowing), these would only be staff recommendations. Comcast still has plenty
of opportunities to plead, cajole and bully DoJ and FCC into submission.

Which is why it’s important to remember my advice from last February with
regard to Title II reclassification: DON’T BE THE SEA HAWKS! We need to
continue to keep the pressure on to get this over the goal line..

• The Antitrust Case Is Much Stronger Than People Initially Assumed.

• The Three Legs of the Antitrust Stool: Access to Programming, Access To Set-
Top Boxes and Access to Broadband.

• Recent Win By The DoJ Supports Key Elements of the Potential Theory Against
Comcast/TWC.

• Nobody Else Really Likes This Merger — And Most People Hate It.

• Conclusion — Still Too Early To Call A Win, But Path To Victory Clear."_

~~~
Artistry121
Great Seahawks reference. Haha

It is important to stay vigilant.

------
FrankenPC
Proof that some portion of the Federal government still works properly. This
was a terrible idea from day one. It may be populist low hanging fruit to kill
the merger, but populism certainly hasn't stopped other terrible ideas from
coming to fruition (Citizens United)

~~~
aaronbrethorst

        populism certainly hasn't stopped other
        terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United)
    

What does a SCOTUS justice care about populism? They're appointed for life.
They care about their legacy, or the legitimacy of the institution[1], but
it's not like Americans are going to show up at the Supreme Court with
pitchforks and torches in hand. If you want to make sure another _Citizens
United_ decision doesn't happen any time soon, it would be worthwhile to think
carefully about your choice for President next year.

edit: also, as others have noted, this deal wasn't under the purview of the
Supreme Court, but instead the FCC, FTC, and DOJ.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/06/john_roberts_broke_with_conservatives_to_preserve_the_supreme_court_s_legitimacy.html)

~~~
Retra
Who have you chosen for president next year? Or are you also waiting to be
told who the actual candidates are?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Barring some astonishing calamity, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, former key aides of three of the top tier
candidates have established Super PACs in support of their former bosses[1],
basically eradicating any air gap between the campaigns and 'dark money'[2]
that used to exist.

Clinton, at least for now, is pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-
of-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-of-campaign-
finance-craziness-is-already-underway.html)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money)

[3]
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_cl...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_clinton_says_she_d_want_to_overturn_citizens_united_her_super_pac.html)

~~~
avn2109
>> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..."

Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so
thick.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I'm exceedingly skeptical as well, but it's also notable that the SCOTUS
decision on Citizens United was 5-4, split down the expected lines, with
Kennedy concurring with the conservative bloc. It seems highly likely that
somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be
replaced:

Conservative:

    
    
        Scalia
    

Swing:

    
    
        Kennedy
    

Liberal:

    
    
        Ginsburg
        Breyer
    

Had Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all stepped down and been replaced
either in the two months before Citizens United was first argued (or in the
following six months before it was re-argued[1]), we would have likely seen a
6-3 decision _in favor_ of the FEC.

So even if Clinton doesn't manage to get campaign finance reform legislation
moved through Congress[2], a reshaped Supreme Court would be enough to undo
Citizens United for at least a couple decades.

If Clinton were elected for two terms, you'd see roughly the following makeup
of the court in 2025:

    
    
        Thomas     78 years old 
        Alito      75
        Roberts    70
        Sotomayor  70
        Kagan      64
        Clinton Appointee 60-68
        Clinton Appointee 60-68
        Clinton Appointee 60-68
        Clinton Appointee 60-68
    

In other words:

    
    
       Conservative: 3
       Moderate-to-Liberal: 6
    

So, even if a Republican won the White House in 2024, it would take until
sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be
reinstated.

[1] Some interesting speculation on why this happened:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/citizens_united_justice_david_souter_s_dissent_in_the_supreme_court_s_momentous_campaign_finance_case_.html)

[2] Which, given current circumstances, seems unlikely, as it would take
another Democratic wave election, even bigger than 2006's to happen
([http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html))

~~~
byuu
> It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the
> following Justices will be replaced: > Conservative: Scalia

Don't tease me. That would literally make my decade. I wonder what Thomas
would do without being able to blindly concur with everything Scalia says? He
might actually have to start talking again during trials.

> it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned
> Citizens United could be reinstated.

One major issue is that the USSC can't just go back and reverse bad decisions
(Citizens, Voting Rights Act) on day-one of a new 5-4 liberal majority. They'd
have to get a case, stretch standing (again), and then explain why they were
reversing course, which they're usually really against doing until a
significant amount of time has passed.

But this is probably the only realistic option we have. We'll never see
another constitutional amendment, let alone for something that would harm
conservative election prospects.

~~~
pliny
> I wonder what Thomas would do without being able to blindly concur with
> everything Scalia says?

Are SCJs allowed to call a friend during deliberations?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
He could flip a coin: Heads, Alito; Tails, Roberts. Or, he could watch
Scalia's future show on Fox to learn what his opinion ought to be.

------
mathattack
It says something about a deal when the stock price of both companies rises
after an announcement like this.

~~~
jessaustin
Mergers are often more about executive nest-feathering than about "synergy" or
whatever, aren't they?

~~~
emodendroket
They also tend to drive up stock prices.

~~~
mathattack
Usually the acquired gains most of the boost. There's a net gain if there is
an increase in market power. It's rare to get positive synergies, unless you
consider layoffs a synergy.

~~~
emodendroket
Don't most shareholders? Labor is an expense.

~~~
mathattack
Poor wording on my part - I wasn't putting in a value judgment.

By positive synergy I mean on the revenue side. "They have A sales people
selling B per year on product set C. We have D sales people selling E per year
on product set F. If we allow their salespeople to sell F and ours to sell C,
our revenues will grow from A * B and D * E to A * (B + E) and D * (B + E)."

That's a long way of saying revenue promises rarely materialize, but cost ones
usually do.

~~~
emodendroket
Well, you're right, but whether or not they do shareholders seem to behave as
if they do (in the same way shareholders seem to think offshoring is a sure
thing but increasingly people are finding it's not, necessarily).

------
sandworm
Give them a couple years. After a few more "government is bad" TV spots, and
under a republican president, they will try again. Whether they merge today or
then doesn't really matter.

They are effectively merged already. They stay away from each other, treating
customers like each other's property, and offer comparable services at
comparable prices. They aren't in any real competition with each other. I'm
not saying that they should merge. Rather, I'm saying that them not merging
isn't a quick fix of the underlying issue. Americans need actual choice of
providers within a given technology.

~~~
lighthawk
> under a republican president

Democrat or Republican doesn't matter. Lobbying and who is offered and
receives campaign contributions, etc. matter. It's about manipulation, money
and power/getting re-elected, plain and simple.

Notice the Reps and Dems on this list of campaign contributions from Comcast:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461)

Top Recipients from Comcast:

National Republican Congressional Cmte, John Boehner (R-OH), National
Republican Senatorial Cmte, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte, DNC Services
Corp, Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte, Ed Markey (D-MA), Democratic
Municipal Officials, Cory Booker (D-NJ), Fred Upton (R-MI)

Comcast spent $16,970,000 on lobbying in 2014. They likely lobbied both Reps
and Dems.

Those noted who own Comcast shares:

Barber, Ron (D-AZ) Boehner, John (R-OH) Cohen, Steve (D-TN) Collins, Susan M
(R-ME) Cooper, Jim (D-TN) Dingell, John D (D-MI) Frankel, Lois J (D-FL)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ) Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) Hanna, Richard (R-NY) Heck,
Dennis (D-WA) Holding, George (R-NC) Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) Kelly, Mike (R-PA)
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX) McCaul, Michael (R-TX) McDermott, Jim (D-WA) Pelosi,
Nancy (D-CA)

~~~
rayiner
Note that Comcast, as a corporation, is prohibited from donating money to
political campaigns:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/07/supre...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/07/supreme-
court-political-donation-corporations/7417035).

OpenSecrets has been sweeping that disclaimer more and more under the rug, to
the point where now I'd accuse them of lying.

~~~
deciplex
Is this a matter of direct contributions versus PAC contributions?

~~~
snowwrestler
Corporations cannot donate money to campaigns at all, either directly or
through PACs. A corporation can have a "captive" PAC whose expenses it can pay
(for example, letting it operate out of their corporate offices), but all
donations that pass through to a campaigh must come from individuals.

When you hear that "Company X gave money to candidates", what you're really
hearing is "people who reported that they work for Company X gave money to
candidates."

------
higherpurpose
It's a shame TWC didn't ask for $4 billion merger rejection fee, like T-mobile
did with AT&T. Maybe it could've used that money to compete in Comcast's
markets now.

If Comcast's plan was to "expand", then it might be forced to get into TWC's
markets soon anyway, which means TWC will also respond by going into Comcast's
markets. At least that's how I'm hoping it will play out.

~~~
rhino369
Being the second cable company in any given location is a terrible investment.
Being the third is even worse.

The only company I know who does it is RCN, and they only do it in big cities.

~~~
yellowapple
This isn't universally true. In my town, for example, the second was (if I
understand correctly) Suddenlink (the first was AT&T), and Suddenlink is
easily the dominant cable company in the area; AT&T's best offering is 3Mbps
DSL, while I just got bumped up to 100Mbps with Suddenlink (and that's
apparently not even the fastest residential anymore; I wonder if they'll
eventually offer a gigabit plan here?).

Meanwhile, the town's also considering municipal fiber now that the whole net
neutrality stuff happened (and having watched another nearby town implement
its own locally-grown fiber).

~~~
rhino369
AT&T was a phone company and Suddenlink was a cable company. They both had
separate networks used for non-ISP service (telephone and video TV). They both
moved into ISP service when it got popular, but they didn't have to build a
new network to do it.

------
yeukhon
I live in NYC, so in general I am lucky to have cable Internet service. I
lived in SF for a brief period of time, and Comcast was expensive and slow.

I am quite glad this deal is off. I have been TWC Internet service user for
many years and it used to be so-so compared to FiOS. When I finally had the
chance to switch to FiOS I was very excited, but after comparing customer
service, speed, and price, I just couldn't move away. I couldn't move to RCN
because so many instability (probably due to over provisioned pools). TWC's
new plan is cheaper and pretty reliable where I live.

I did invest some serious cash on getting my own modem SB6141 and a very good
wireless router, which definitely has boosted bandwidth and performance. TWC
and Comcast's stock modem sucks (and now you either buy or rent). I was
surprised to see how many people were willing to rent because of simplicity;
go to Amazon, spend $100-$130 on the modem, ship it, and install the modem.

As a customer, I just hope we can have more reliable options. Technically, $40
for up to 100 Mbps is still a little high (but 3-5 years ago it would be like
$70, $80 a month). The day when we are offered 100Mpbs at "DSL" plan price
range, I will be really happy. Actually, I'd be even happier if we can build
out the cellular data technology... "4Gb for $40? Yes, first 1G at 4G speed,
the rest, like 56kpbs." I want to see the day when cellular data can be just
as quick as my home network.

I am not very concerned with other monopolies (search, TV, , music etc), but
telecom monopoly is a big concern to me.

~~~
shmerl
NYC still doesn't have gigabit for $70.

~~~
rayiner
Think about what a marketing coup it would be for Google to wire up San
Francisco or New York City with Fiber. And think of how awful the red-tape in
those cities must be for even Google to steer clear.

~~~
shmerl
I think they should do it at some point. It's just too major of a potential to
ignore.

~~~
rayiner
You think there is any money in building fiber in NYC at $70?

~~~
pyvpx
not when those dollars can be spent on LTE/wireless and see a far greater
return. just because something is profitable doesn't mean there is something
even MORE profitable to spend dollars on (in VZs case, wireless wireless
wireless)

~~~
rayiner
So why isn't that profit enough to entice a non-Verizon fiber company? You
can't sensibly argue it's because NYC is in the pocket of TWC/Comcast, when
they're out trying very hard to get Verizon to come in and compete. You think
if Google came a knocking de Blasio would turn them away?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
For the same reasons that companies aren't prospecting for oil/gas in the US
right now.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
How much oil and gas exploration do you think has gone on in the US in the
last five or so years.

------
ab
It's interesting how Comcast's track record in complying with regulatory
requirements from past deals may be a major factor here. I wonder if they
would have been able to muscle this through had they been just a little bit
less awful in the past.

------
istvan__
Thanks guys! - The customers

