OT: Comcast set to buy Time Warner Cable - is there any way this makes it through the courts?
In my apartment building we are only allowed to use Comcast by the landlord's rule (except for DirecTV or Dish, but I don't want to have a satellite on my balcony).
The internet is way slower than advertised despite me being on the phone with them every other day, they charged $30 to replace a bad coax cable, their service guy was unprofessional (took a personal call in my living room, complained how hungry he was, was texting the entire time, kept saying he couldn't wait to be out of work, and sighing the loudest sighs I've ever heard).
Also, they're expensive.
I'm not sure about the legality of such a merger, but I can tell you that more Comcast can't really be a good thing.
However much you think Comcast sucks, Time Warner tops their suckage by a wide margin. I've had experience with both, and Time Warner is by far the worst company I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. You have to try to have as terrible of customer support as they do.
time warner is the worst company regardless of industry. every month we get new creative charges added to our cable bill and every month i have to call, and wait on hold for an hour, to get it removed. the service itself is also terrible. the boxes are terrible and the internet, even with their "boost" is slow.
that said, this merger likely will be approved. the FCC and DOJ are just going to want to see that comcast and TWC don't already compete in the same markets, which for the most part, they don't. the divestiture will just move that along.
"Divest" subscribers? What does that mean - "fuck you, here's a dish"? It seems to me that "as part of this merger we're going to cut people off" is more monopolistic, not less.
More than likely means that TWC will survive in some form for that small subset of people. I had Alltel a few years back when Verizion snatched them up but they "divested" a bunch of Michigan customers for this reason. Of course we ended up with a zombie of a company providing us service and locked into a contract. Fun.
a while back. I had Charter when I lived in GR, Comcast in Flint, and TWC here in Columbia SC. Charter was the best cable company of those 3 by a mile. But on a scale I'd say Comcast is a 0, TWC is a 1, Charter a 3/4, and Directv is an 8. This will likely be great for DTV.
Nick Saban must work part time for Comcast - it's their way of handling "oversigning" of customers.
Comcast is an absolute nightmare. I decided to finally cut the cord a year ago and haven't looked back. I have to go up the street to watch games, but that's a small price to pay.
I know apples been in talks with time warner about tw integration with the new Apple TV. Comcast won't negotiate with apple, so it'll be interesting to see how a potential merger will affect the new Apple TV
Time Warner Cable and Time Warner Inc. are two different companies. Apple is in talks with Time Warner Inc. to include the content they own on the Apple TV somehow (CNN, HBO, etc.).
Pretty sure on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being Elmo and 10 being some unholy alliance of the antichrist, global warming, and world hunger, that Comcast scores a solid 13.
You must mean Elmo's on-screen persona.
Let me tell you, I've hung out with the real Elmo, and the real Elmo is a real dick. I went out partying with him one time in NYC, and he was just poppin' pills and snorting coke the whole time. Really mean to the bar staff, really entitled, selfish, and narcissistic. Just goes to show that you can't judge a muppet/puppet by his on-screen personality.
everybody knew about his "Kramer" moment on the Jon Stewart show during the Helen Thomas flap:
You think you know someone, and then . . .
I am not primarily an antitrust attorney, but I've looked at mergers. I have no history with either company.
As I recall, in general, a regulator or court would try to define a "market". In this case, the market would be "cable," though the companies will argue that it's something broader, e.g., all media. They would also look at the geographic market. Not just all of the US, but break it into smaller units, e.g., metropolitan areas.
Once you have the market defined (or markets in this case), you calculate the HHI, which in essence tells you how concentrated a market is. In general, it's how many competitors there are, and the number goes up if there are fewer competitors with higher percentages. So if you have 10 competitors, but 2 have 90% of the market, it's a higher HHI than 10 competitors each with 10% of the market. They then look at how much change there will be to the HHI from before and after, and whether the after picture is ugly. They have guidelines on how high the HHI can go and how much change is acceptable.
What the companies are probably saying is that in a few markets, Comcast and TW will have too much concentration. To get around this, after the merger the surviving entity would sell off the customers of one of the prior entities, spin off a separate company, or somehow make sure someone else is handling enough customers to make the HHI palatable. The regulators would have input on how they would divest the customers.
This was a good post.
Market definition will be key to this, and I think the DOJ/FTC won't put in a lot of effort into stopping this merger.
Comcast and Time Warner each provide three basic services: TV, Internet, and Phone. While they are national companies, I doubt they would define the market nationally. Rather, I expect market definition will be defined regionally or locally.
In the vast majority of local markets that offer one of Comcast and TW, there are already limited options.
TV: Comcast/Time Warner, DirecTV, Dish, Uverse/Verizon Fios
Internet: Comcast/Time Warner, Uverse/DSL/Verizon, possibly 4G, possibly Google
Phone: Comcast/Time Warner, Uverse/Verizon/Other, Mobile
In any of the above markets, market share or market power will not increase beyond its current level. Only in the few markets where a customer has a choice between Comcast and Time Warner in any of the three markets would there be a danger of an increase. It seems clear that in these markets Comcast will divest customers by selling their infrastructure to another provider.
This proposed merger is far different than Sirius/XM, or T-Mobile.
The first step of market definition is looking at areas in which the companies compete. Comcast and Time Warner don't compete, for the most part, except for the markets where divestment is planned. The question would then turn to whether a merger would result in a price increase. This would occur in the limited markets where they compete. In typical markets, price won't increase because they are still held in check by the same competitors as before.
I'd be surprised to see an effor to block this given Comcast's plan to divest in the limited markets in which they compete with TW.
I overlooked the role of Comcast and TW as pseudo-customers of the various channels that actually create the content that they distribute.
That is a very real national market issue. For example, a merged Comcast/TW would have increased negotiating power with HBO or ESPN or the like. But this type of power would result in the ability to demand lower costs from the HBOs and ESPNs out there. The end users would theoretically benefit from this at the expense of HBO/ESPN.
Would the DOJ/FTC have a problem with this? I doubt it. The point is to protect consumers, not providers.
If they, say, drop CBS for a month as a hardball tactic, that's not consumer friendly.
Except that's not the market strategy for a combined Comcast/TWC. The strategy is to keep control of content, which means keeping content tied to cable. They will use their market power to prevent the transition of TV from a subscription bundle model to an internet a la carte model.
This is an entirely incorrect way to look at their market power. The market power of comcast/twc isn't in their EXISTING monopoly control of markets, but their increased bargaining power and control of the nation wide internet and content markets. The combined entity would have 1/3 or greater of the TV and internet content market under their control, allowing them to dictate terms to pretty much any other entity.
This would allow them for instance to lock in deals that no competitors would be able to get or simply and effectively block out competition like netflix from having access or effective access to customers. We won't even get into their market power over content providers like Disney/ABC/ESPN or HBO. The main hurdle to HBO having an online only option is companies like Comcast et al as an example.
I'm not advocating for either side -- and to be honest, as a consumer, I agree with your argument -- but in their (TWC/Comcast) view, that only works when looking backwards. They will likely argue that, in the coming years, cable/satellite will be just one way of accessing things like Netflix/HBO, and that their actual cometitors include mobile networks, wifi, Google, Amazon, smaller fiber providers, and any other company capable of providing access to content in the home. This is (in their view) more of a hedge against competition from outside the traditional cable/satellite market, than it is about creating a monopoly within a traditional home-access market.
Yes and no. First, I apologize, I haven't read all of the posts below, so this may have been said already / corrected, and, as a disclaimer, I have actually represented one of these two companies, but not for several years. That said, I'd be shocked if they make an argument based on any national vs. regional distinction. Instead, I'm fairly sure they will make a product-based distinction -- i.e. that, looking at the national market, cable is just one way of accessing programming, the Internet, etc., and that, when looked at not as competitors in the cable market, but as players in the overall content market, they are not able to control the pricing, message, etc., to which consumers are subjected.
Also, I apologize for all the commas -- I type how I talk...especially after a few beers.
I think that 30% market share is the threshhold for competition in licensing negotiations, or at least I remember reading that somewhere, so that's probably why they are willing to do concede on that particular point. Still, any merger would create a cable company that had over 30 million customers before such divestment. I believe the Washington Post mentioned that Comcast and Time Warner do not have overlapping markets, so regulators would not treat this quite like the AT&T / T-Mobile situation.
Oh, you don't want us to gain even more control over an already unfair market? Ohhh, that's too bad...
And while I'm not aware of the specifics of this merger, I would be surprised if this went through. The DOJ antitrust division has been pretty aggressive of late.
Also, divestiture means that they will try to find another company to run Time Warner's businesses. This is done because sometimes mergers are analyzed at the local market level, and they find that while nationally the merger won't hurt competition too much, some local markets will be hurt. I would be surprised if significant harm isn't found at the national level, especially with all the content that Comcast controls. If Comcast and Time Warner are already offering divestments from the getgo, that means that a) they know this isn't a slam-dunk and b) they're arguing the cable industry is a lot of local markets, to try to get away from the national market analysis which will doom the merger.
Again, I'd be surprised if that argument worked here. Also, the FCC is feeling particularly emboldened after the rejection of AT&T and T-Mobile, as in the past year, T-Mobile has started price wars in the industry. The last merger they rejected had positive outcomes for consumers, so they'll be more willing to risk this one.
The newly-installed chair of the FCC is, believe it or not, a "former" lobbyist for the cable industry.
Mind you, FCC decisions are always political. But the politics may be that Wheeler (new FCC chair) disapproves of this merger partly to show his independence.
Comcast and Time Warner have to prove to the FCC that there will be public benefit. I'm very curious to see that argument.
Instead of finding someone else to run a portion of TWC's business, I'd think they'd be more likely to make the combined company divest more of the content they control -- specifically, some of their regional sports programming rights.
As an ex-Time Warner customer (now Direct TV) I can tell all you Comcast haters that life with TW was no box of chocolates either. The two companies should merge cultures seamlessly.
They both seem to hate customers and employing American call center employees equally.
Living in Wisconsin, we have TWC. I lived in Chicago for 18+ years and had Comcast.
Both suck, but TWC sucks less.
If this happens rates will go up, and there is little competition.
Bad deal for consumers.
Someone needs to start MGOCABLE.
a couple hundred million my way, I volunteer to start it.
happy as hell. Massive wait times onn the phones and service that absolutely sucks. They dropped a drill with a 2 foot bit through the ceiling on the second floor. They promised to come back to fix it and of course never did. Since they are all independent contractors, to save Comcast money, they could care less. They could never get the internet working right and every time a new person came to look into the problem they would talk about how the other people screwed it all up. Classic.
I don't have much to add but also don't want to pass up an opportunity to agree that Comcast is the worst thing in human history.
If this goes through, and you combine it with other industry trends like the courts ruling against net neutrality, it all spells out a bleak future for consumers
I hate Comcast as well, but mostly due to continuous outages that follow me wherever I go. Today I lost picture on NBCSP in the second period of the USA hockey game and has not come back yet. On the bright side, due to their continuous outages, I usually am able to only pay half my bill each month due to credits.
As someone who lived in New York for almost five years, I never thought TWC could get worse...and then: enter Comcast. What a crapshow this will be.
Think down the road on a National level.
After the rejection of Net Neutrality rules the game has changed a bit. Now Comcast, which owns NBC, can start slowing down and charging more for companies like Netflix. With their current market share they don't have much leverage with Netflix, but if they control most of the cable internet market then they are bringing a very large stick to the negotiations.
They want to get money from both ends on high volume internet traffic.
Also, we all have see how contentious the negotiations with individual stations like AMC have gotten over the last few years. If Comcast control so much of the cable pay TV market then they have an unfair leverage in their contract renewals.
On a local level the cable companies are a natural monopoly. So they don't truly compete with each other locally.
I think they get a pass on the local monopoly but can't get past the national monopoly. It is too strong a position for them to be in, not with their customers but with the content providers. Content providers that Comcast competes with by owning NBC.
Hopefully this gets blocked.
The Cable/broadband industry is consolidating. Centurylink has been merging companies on the telco side and John Malone from Charter has been looking to buy TWC to do a similar thing as what was done with Liberty Global in Europe. Cox was supposedly interested in TWC as well.
If Comcast has 26M subs and TWC has 14M subs and there are 101.9M TV households in the U.S., how does 26M + 14M - 3M equal 30%?
The 3M sub divestiture will probably be a sell off to Charter, Cox or someone else.
I live in a neighborhood where my only high speed option is TWC. Unless I want to go to DSL ( I don't) I'm stuck paying their jacked up rates after the initial offer.
Maybe there are like 7m people who have both.
Just kidding. No one is that masochistic.
Seriously though, it could relate to how those two numbers are defined - "subscribers" might count every single subscription, while the "households" number might only count residential subscriptions, excluding businesses, etc?
I wonder how this will impact the next contract cycle, specifically as it relates to the New York-area acquisition that still seemed so certain (for 2017) when we went to sleep last night. Must anything change?
By the way, anybody here use Aereo? Their website shows that they might be coming to Cleveland sometime this year, and I'm very interested in their service. How is their picture quality?
From what I've read, this might have a decent chance to make it through the DOJ since their coverage markets don't overlap. This is two regional monopolies (in different regions) joining up to form a monopoly on a larger region. It isn't like this is two competitors joining up to limit competition; it was physically impossible for any TWC or Comcast customers to switch from one to the other. It'll still be the same evil of both old companies, just combined under one name.
then you have read some very naive views of the merger. The real reason behind the merger is not leverage directly at the customer side where both companies already have either real or de facto monopolies, but in the back side where the combined entity would have even more market concentration over both the internet as a whole and content providers. This will allow the combined entity to stiffle or outright kill any competition such as netflix et al and to prevent any competition from sprouting up in the future. It will also allow comcast to outright kill any potential of an existing content provider adding an unbundled internet option in the future. These three things are certainly significant incentives for Comcast to complete the merger.
Its all about increasing their market power and concentration on the back end. And a significant enough amount of people can see that very clearly already. This merger will likely be opposed by a who's who of the internet along with various content providers (though likely covertly).
This deal is actually pro-consumer. The reason your cable bills are getting jacked up is because the likes of ESPN, BTN, SEC Network and even the CBS's of the world are producing more and more content and successfuly negotiating with the Cable providers (Comcast and TWC) to charge higher per subscriber fees to show their programming to their cable subscribers. So Comcast and TWC have been raising prices in order to cover the increased costs they have to pay to the ESPNs of the world. With this merger, Comcast is now in a much better negotiating position to lower the growth of the fees it pays to the content providers. If they are successful in doing this, your cable bill should actually increase less than if the deal didn't happen.
As far as regulatory approval, Comcast and TWC don't actually compete in any of the same markets, so competition will not increase in say LA or NYC and with the increased offerings from NFLX and Amazon Prime's, I think it has a pretty good chance of closing. In market speak, the current annualized return is ~6% on the CMCSA/TWC spread (assuming deal actually closes in one yr vs end of yr) which seems tight given the regulatory questions/magnitude of deal...meaning that the investors who follow this space more closely than I do are not as skeptical of the deal getting approved as one may think.
Thanks for the PR post. Do you get an email notification if Comcast is mentioned on a forum or something?
Or, he's just telling the truth:
The Worldwide Leader’s current per-household subscription fee: $4.69. The next-closest national cable network? TNT, at…$1.16.
This isn’t strictly an ESPN phenomenon, by the way: Summers notes that some regional sports networks charge up to $3.36 per household. ESPN’s merely the biggest by a longshot, and therefore their costs have the most impact.
Your first post (despite being a member for a while), happens to be one backing up a deal/company in a thread where everyone is bashing it. You either chose a very awkward time to start contributing, you are a Comcast or other Cable company employee/supporter, or you just happen to be quite knowledgable on the topic and figured now was finally your time to shine. In either case, welcome to the board...I think...
But the more I think about it, the less concerned I am that this will have any actual impact on cable and internet service provided by Comcast or TWC.
The AT&T/T-Mobile merger was problematic because those two companies are in direct competition for customer business. If you don't like your cell phone provider, you can switch to a different provider which (a) gives your current provider an incentive to try to keep you and (b) gives all other providers an incentive to try and lure you away.
This is VERY different from how the cable world works, where every cable provider is a government-protected regional monopoly. There is nowhere in this country where a consumer actually has a choice between multiple cable companies, the only choice is cable from the one available provider or not-cable. It's basically what national telephone providers looked like when Bell was first split up. "Oh, we're totally independent companies working for our consumers and fostering competition. This isn't a front for a well-organized oligopoly at all!"
With any luck, the court's recent ruling invalidating the FCC net neutrality rules will actually have a positive impact. It will (hopefully) force the FCC to either re-classify cable broadband providers as the monopolies they are, or even better put an end to the practice of regional cable monopolies all together. I'm not holding my breath for the latter, but the former at least seems likely at this juncture.
And I haven't even gotten into what a ridiculous ripoff channel bundling is yet. As you may have guessed, the shittiness of cable companies is one of my favorite rants. This and how crappy Christopher Columbus was.
While you are correct in that the regional coverage of the 2 companies doesnt overlap with regards to cable...that's not what this merger is about. This is 100% about internet and net neutrality.
The cable industry is coming off one of it's worst years in...god who knows how long. Every provider is losing subscribers by the hundreds of thousands as customers flock to Netflix/Hulu/Aereo. So while you may not like the merger and cable pricing...what if you just want to go to full time streaming? Great! Just sign up for our internet offerings - all with either built in broadband data caps or throttling to make those video streams ever so laggy! (I believe companies like Verizon and Comcast already do this) Allowing one super company to control what content we view as well as how we view it and the quality with which we view it at is just...I mean...lol.
Frustrating customers to the point of jumping ship won't matter to TWComcast, because they'll own the ocean too.
I guess my point is that there's really nothing stopping Comcast or TWC from doing all of that right now. The merger/takeover will put them in a better bargaining position when they're trying to squeeze money out of Netflix and Google for better bandwidth treatment, but from the consumer perspective it doesn't change much.
Comcast currently has just as much of a stranglehold over its internet-only customers as they will if/when this merger goes through. If they wanted to implement bandwidth caps and block content and all sorts of other terrible things, they could start doing it right now. This merger just takes two smaller regional monopolies and makes one larger regional monopoly. But all of the problems that come with a monopoly are present either way.
And I could be wrong on this, but in the wake of the federal net neutrality ruling I remember some analysts saying that Comcast was on something like a 3 year probationary period after purchasing NBC that would prevent them from violating net neutrality anyway. So maybe it's best that Comcast be as big as possible right now, since they're basically the only ISP that's actually beholden to net neutrality at the moment.
It's time for the public to take back control of things like access to television channels and the Internet. Make this country a hot spot and license stations that will be available at no charge (supported by advertising) on a network of cable infrastructure owned by the public.
TV was free and can be again, or at least a helluva lot cheaper. The Internet can be delivered at a lower cost by one public network. Call me a Commie, but if you think you will ever be better served by an outfit like TWC or Comcast you are a #$%^ing idiot.
But I think a better solution is closer to something we already have: the wireless coverage market. Now, not everyone likes their plan with AT&T or Verizon, but if you look at the price of wireless service over the past 10-15 years (very little change, maybe increasing a little) and the level of service offered with each plan (huge, monumental, unbelievable improvement) in that same span, it's impressive. Do the same comparison to cable companies and you'll see rates go up while service provided stays basically the same.
I guess the point here is that in quite a few markets, the best possible thing for consumers is just some good old-fashioned capitalist competition. The issue in the cable world is that there's no real competition for these companies, so they can just do whatever they want. End regional telecom monopolies!
No need to call yourself a commie. Let's just call it a cable cooperative. A nice little co-op that allows us to avoid dastardly entities like TWC and Comcast. I'm onboard.
I just want a cheaper alternative to watch my sports. Without sports, I would be off the cable/satellite TV bandwagon in a heartbeat.
Ditto. I'd be a cord-cutter, but the fact is the "providers," through television and not the Internet, remain the best way to get sports. Until I can get the exact same HD programming off the Internet and onto my big screen, and I don't just mean whatever ESPN3 provides, but the whole laundry list from ESPN to NBC to CBS to local Fox stuff to CBS College Sports ... (you get the picture) I'll bend over for the cable company.
I'd like to think that "a la carte pricing is the future!" as tends to be the dominant theme, and I could then pay less for cable, but if that ever happens I suspect the pricing will be such that I end up paying the same anyway.
Thank god google is coming to my neighborhood. They are our only hope against these dicks. Wish Apple would find a way into this market. At least my dvr would work.
I use T-Mobile and Comcast.
T-Mobile has the worst coverage imaginable---but I stay with them, in part, because they are also fairly priced, but mostly because both their sales and tech departments are consistently nice and helpful. I have never had a single issue with T-Mobile.
I only have issues with Comcast. And those issues are only exacerbated by the unhelpful and (often) rude manner of both the sales and tech departments. I imagine almost every Comcast subscriber has found the monthly bill to be undecipherable (if you made any changes) and just wrong--shockingly, to Comcast's advantage. And, unlike virtually every other phone/online business, Comcast refuses to give you a confirmation number. So when you call back to fix an error, you are likely to hear--"I don't have a record of that", I don't say this anedotally, it happens almost every time.
Comcast already functions like a monopoly. I can't imagine the proposed merger doing anything but making it worse.
To be honest, it is a joke. They have so many different support deparments where one hand has no idea, nor any way to know, what the other is doing. If you want to have multiple departments, that's fine. But how can you not reference notes taken or account changes made from a prior call? Really? Is Comcast so incompetent and cheap that they can't invest in a unified crm for all support staff? Besides clear systematic issues, I hate to attack individual employees, but they are often undertrained, not only in their own products and services, but in basic customer service and human interaction skills. The turnover rate must be out of control on the support level there, leading me to believe the company is filled with incompetence and indifference not just towards their customers, but their own staff. Like I said, they are an utter joke and that is why I deal with in the inferior products of ATT uVerse to avoid giving a cent of my money to Comcast.
makes it through obamas courts and JD and FCC? brian roberts very publicly supports this admin and has funneled countless funds via fundraising, dinners, etc not to mention he prob lets o cheat whenever they tee it up together. if theres ever a 45 bil mega merger to go through its this one. i for one hope not though, i think comcasts service is bad enough as it is
nice trolling--I'm only surprised you didn't mention birth certificates
There's been a lot of pressure on DirecTV and Dish to merge given some satellite subscription losses recently. This will probably only increase the pressure. As a loyal DirecTV customer who really likes their customer service, I don't want to see that happen. On the other hand, thinking about Comcast and TWC merging two of the worst customer service organizations on the planet seems mildly comical. There's no where to go but up, right?
When the market concentrates, it can either help or kill others in the market. If DirecTV is directly competing, they just lost a competitor, and buyers have fewer choices. They may pick up customers who don't want Comcast or TW. On the other hand, if it gives the resulting Comcast/TWC entity additional market power, e.g., the ability to aggressively price or lock up exclusive agreements, then DirecTV could be screwed. I don't know the industry well enough to predict, but DirecTV may be happy. Stock went up a bit at the open but is relatively flat, so could be a bit of "meh" or folks not know where it will shake out.
is that I should just bite the bullet and get a dish? I've hated the past 3 months of comcast, and I don't even watch the "basic" tv package that came with my internet subscription. Which is better- DirecTV or Dish?
I dropped Comcast for DirecTV about 8 years ago and have been very happy. I like DirecTV much better than Dish, but part of that is b/c you can get the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV only. Customer service is really good, too (in stark contrast to comcast).
I have DirecTV and my parents have Dish. I strongly prefer DirecTV. I think they have better interfaces (not everybody will agree) and outstanding customer service. There have been a number of times I've called to address something and had them just randomly offer $10 off my bill for the next 6 months. The web based apps they are starting to roll out (like many) are pretty useful and allow me to stream a lot even when I'm not at home. My only complaint is that I do occasionally lose signal during heavy storms (or when snow accumulates on my dish).
I've had both Dish and DirecTV. I have liked DirecTV much better than Dish, and that doesn't even take into account the NFL Sunday Ticket issue. Dish, though, was still far better than cable. FWIW, I've had numerous DVR issues with both satellite providers.
The only reason I have satellite is sports. I would love to drop everything and go to internet-based, a la carte programming. Sigh.
I agree with one thing above all: DirecTV has a much, much better interface than any cable company I have ever used. I will give DirecTV a try.
Comcast fucks you in the ass and doesn't even have the goddamn common courtesy to give you a reacharound.
keeping Charter internet, have Roku's, Apple Tv's, and the account name and password of a friend who uses Xfinity (comcast) to tap ESPN when necessary. I had it with Charter some time ago, and Comcast was actually nailed by the feds in years past for throttling bandwidth illegally. It would be great to see a mass of consumers cut the cord to send a message. Unfortunately, ESPN has so much good content, and BTN has alot of necessary content, it makes cutting the cord quite difficult for many.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this was the cable company guy from south park. ''Oh you want to switch to a different cable company? Oh that's right we're the only one in town.''
So they destroyed Net Neutrality which means bottlenecking sites like Netflix and now this? LOL
I have Internet through a Time Warner subsidiary. Now I'm back to paying Comcast filthy lucre unless I want to get in bed with AT&T. Fantastico.
Worth reading Here of the calls between Comcast and TWC prior to the merger.
It's amazing what we'll tolerate in this country. Technology has long passed the point where we could get much better phone, internet, and tv service than we get now, for far lower prices. Look around the globe if you don't believe me. Ask someone from Japan or South Korea or Sweden how these services compare to what they've got back home. They'll tell you it's like taking a time machine 10 or 15 years into the past. And our bills are much bigger than theirs.
There are two different potential solutions to this issue, depending on your political preference: Competition or regulation. But choosing neither and handing the big media companies unlimited ability to gouge us, giving us less for more, obsolete technology, shitty customer service, and ever increasing expenses.... it's insane and infuriating.
The only things I would run on are 1) Net Neutrality; 2) opening up Internet provider competition; 3) infrastructure or something.
I still get Verizon internet, phone, cable options here. Comcast was horrible for service, prices were the the but quality was terrible.