Welcome to San Diego HDTV!

If you like what you see, join our community.

Register Log in

Time Warner/Comcast merger

I for one am not happy with their proposed merger. if you search aroud you can read horror stories on Comcast. I recently called a TW tech support number and got reps in another state who openly complained they were stuck with Comcast and are unhappy. Basically we can expect poorer service, longer wait times, higher bills, potential data caps, signal issues, deleted channels, etc. and in just the last two days alone there have been stories in our local paper and other places about the merger. Lets just hope some legislators and independent media groups send strong objections. If anyone finds an address for us to send complaints about the merger, please post it here and be sure to mail in your concerns. Here's highlights and links of some of those stories from the last two days. It's a lot to read but informative.

"Departing Time Warner Cable executives are in line to receive “golden parachute” compensation totaling around $135 million as part of Comcast’s $45 billion acquisition of the cable operator. Shareholders are being asked to vote on the packages in a nonbinding advisory vote. The details were contained in a securities filing Comcast made Thursday...."

http://nypost.com/2014/03/21/ex-twc-execs-set-for-big-paydays-after-comcast-merger/
______________________________________________
Broadband companies should be required to connect their networks to major content providers such as Netflix for free, Netflix Inc. CEO Reed Hastings said Thursday.

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/netflix-chief-still-wants-free-web-connections-with-broadband-providers--update-20140320-01183#ixzz2wboSX1Du
________________________________________________
The rise of cord-cutting — pay-TV customers who switch to Internet-only video and disconnect services — isn't stopping cable, phone and satellite companies from raising rates, even after strong revenue growth in Q4. Rate hikes and add-on fees, while a sore point for consumers facing higher bills, are music to the ears of investors in cable, satellite and phone companies.

http://news.investors.com/technology/032014-694039-pay-tv-pricing-power-boosts-growth-for-wireless-companies.htm
______________________________________
A bigger Comcast? Bad idea

If the merger is permitted, Comcast would control what programs a large percentage of the country sees. It could refuse to pay market prices for content and refuse to carry some channels. We have already seen cable companies drop popular channels, including local news and weather, because they wanted to pay less.

A merger would mean consumer bills would likely rise even faster. The cable bill could equal the monthly mortgage payment. Consumer complaints about poor customer service would not decrease. Good luck searching for a better deal on expensive Internet service.

http://www.adn.com/2014/03/20/3384298/ann-mcfeatters-a-bigger-comcast.html
 

Admin65

Administrator
Staff member
Yea, but with the way rates are increasing, it would likely equal a mortgage payment even without this merger. Comcast is quite good with paying content providers in retransmission deals.
 

Marco

New Member
If this deal goes through, it won't be without some kind of restrictions. In order for this deal to benefit the consumer, the feds need to impose the following: 1.) extend net neutrality, 2.) Impose a moratorium on fee increases for a x-amount of years and 3). Require Comcast to provide quality customer service/product(s), and have a way for the consumer to complain to a neutral party if they are not satisfied with Comcast's treatment, and have the ability to rectify the problem. There are other things that the feds can do, but at the very least these need to be imposed.
 
Marco said:
If this deal goes through, it won't be without some kind of restrictions. In order for this deal to benefit the consumer, the feds need to impose the following: 1.) extend net neutrality, 2.) Impose a moratorium on fee increases for a x-amount of years and 3). Require Comcast to provide quality customer service/product(s), and have a way for the consumer to complain to a neutral party if they are not satisfied with Comcast's treatment, and have the ability to rectify the problem. There are other things that the feds can do, but at the very least these need to be imposed.
Good start. How about no data caps ever for TW customers.
 

Admin65

Administrator
Staff member
fblack_111 said:
Marco said:
If this deal goes through, it won't be without some kind of restrictions. In order for this deal to benefit the consumer, the feds need to impose the following: 1.) extend net neutrality, 2.) Impose a moratorium on fee increases for a x-amount of years and 3). Require Comcast to provide quality customer service/product(s), and have a way for the consumer to complain to a neutral party if they are not satisfied with Comcast's treatment, and have the ability to rectify the problem. There are other things that the feds can do, but at the very least these need to be imposed.
Good start. How about no data caps ever for TW customers.
That would be swell!
 
Another story concerning Comcast and assigning customers caps and assigning overage charges.

I have been watching my monthly TW usage lately as a test. Between using Netfix, VUDU, Pandora, and occasionally HULU etc. And sometimes on more than one TV or tablet, my always on wi-fi router, my tablets and cell phone always checking for emails, etc. I often get close to or over nearly 300 gb a month. Now one Comcast exec said caps are essentially inevitable. Let alone their push for high and low speed pipes to the likes of Netflix which will eventually drive up the price of content servicers. While they said few customers will be affected, (their opinion) cord cutters, some members of congress, and other users disagree. Who knows will happen to streaming services down the line. Wait until 4K is streamed more frequently in a few years. Interesting reading below:

May 15, 2015: Comcast Users, Prepare to Say Goodbye to Unlimited Internet Data. Paying more for Internet usage over a certain amount — having a “data cap,” in common parlance — will soon be universal for Comcast users, company executives predict.

"Speaking on a call with investors Wednesday, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said, “I would predict that in five years Comcast at least would have a usage-based billing model rolled out across its footprint.”

Data caps are already the norm for Comcast users in Huntsville and Mobile, Alabama; Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, Mississippi; Knoxville and Memphis, Tennesse; and Charleston, South Carolina...."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/15/comcast-users-prepare-to-say-goodbye-to-unlimited-internet-data/
 
And now the FCC has approved "their" brand of Net Neutrality. Rather than true neutrality, where all content providers are give free unfettered reign to send content over the Interment that we already pay for, the FCC will allow ISP's (like Comcast ot Tw or Charter) to charge content providers a separate fee to assure fast connection to their customers. I already pay for 30/5 speed to TW to assure little buffering and have a solid connection to all my TV's. phones, tablets and computers. Would this save me some money? Probably not. Now Netflix, Vudu, Youtube, HBOGO, Google, Amazon, Ebay, etc. may be forced to get deals with ISP's to assure fast connection. I don't suspect they will "eat" the extra costs. The FCC now has an open comment period on their new proposed rules. But in the end we will pay more.

May 15, 2014: Obama Backs Away From Net Neutrality Campaign Promises After FCC Vote

"..Barack Obama was crystal clear during the 2008 campaign about his commitment to ensuring equal treatment of all online content over American broadband lines. “I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” (Then)

"..But on Thursday, the President made no public statement when three Democrats he appointed to the FCC voted to move forward with a plan to allow broadband carriers to provide an exclusive “fast lane” to commercial companies that pay extra fees to get their content transmitted online..." (now)

"..On Thursday, the Internet Association, a trade group representing Google and other Silicon Valley giants, restated its belief that the Wheeler plan appears to violate the principles of net neutrality. “We are opposed to all discrimination,” ... "Discrimination, he continued, included any regime that allowed prioritizing commercial content for a fee, “even if existing speeds are not downgraded for everyone else.”..


http://time.com/101794/obama-backs-away-from-net-neutrality-campaign-promises-after-fcc-vote/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2155720/fcc-moves-forward-with-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal.html
 

kevinc

Member
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
 

Rick Shaw

Member
kevinc said:
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
Let the higher bandwidth users pay more. Let the "Netflixes" of the world contribute a bit of their profits to those companies maintaining the access roads to those profits.
 
Rick Shaw said:
kevinc said:
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
Let the higher bandwidth users pay more. Let the "Netflixes" of the world contribute a bit of their profits to those companies maintaining the access roads to those profits.
I understand your points. But we essentially are stuck here with very few if any options for higher speed Internet providers. TW and Comcast already charge customers more money via tiers if they want or need higher speeds. You can pay for 3 Mbps or 30, or 50 and soon 100+.

But then if the ISP's start charging content providers more too for a "fast lane", it has to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. On-line game companies are next. They will have to pass on costs to their players. I use Etrade as an example and stream data all day and trade at discounted prices. They may have to raise rates. There is talk of ISP's charging for emails. Who can predict where it's all going. I just want to decide on a speed and pay the monthly fee and not worry about overages. That's also why I keep my Verizon unlimited plan even if I cannot get a discounted/subsidized cell phone.

One story in today's paper said that the "pipe" is just so wide to carry data, and if some companies pay for high speed lanes, then it follows that those who don't may be relegated to slow speed lanes. They used a toll road with toll booths as an analogy where some commuters using a transponder so as to bypass toll booths.

Bottom line to me, I am pretty sure rates will be going up and we have few alternatives.
 

Rick Shaw

Member
fblack_111 said:
Rick Shaw said:
kevinc said:
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
Let the higher bandwidth users pay more. Let the "Netflixes" of the world contribute a bit of their profits to those companies maintaining the access roads to those profits.
I understand your points. But we essentially are stuck here with very few if any options for higher speed Internet providers. TW and Comcast already charge customers more money via tiers if they want or need higher speeds. You can pay for 3 Mbps or 30, or 50 and soon 100+.

But then if the ISP's start charging content providers more too for a "fast lane", it has to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. On-line game companies are next. They will have to pass on costs to their players. I use Etrade as an example and stream data all day and trade at discounted prices. They may have to raise rates. There is talk of ISP's charging for emails. Who can predict where it's all going. I just want to decide on a speed and pay the monthly fee and not worry about overages. That's also why I keep my Verizon unlimited plan even if I cannot get a discounted/subsidized cell phone.

One story in today's paper said that the "pipe" is just so wide to carry data, and if some companies pay for high speed lanes, then it follows that those who don't may be relegated to slow speed lanes. They used a toll road with toll booths as an analogy where some commuters using a transponder so as to bypass toll booths.

Bottom line to me, I am pretty sure rates will be going up and we have few alternatives.
Do you have any idea as to what the data rate comparison is between you streaming Etrade all day and your neighbor streaming Netflix HD movies all day? To be sure, as the traffic continues to increase on a freeway not designed to carry an infinite amount of increased traffic, something's gotta give. Be it HOV lanes or whatever, those of us content with the regular lanes will still suffer. I say let Netflix and the other bitrate hogs build their own infrastructure, and leave me out of it.
 

kevinc

Member
Rick Shaw said:
I say let Netflix and the other bitrate hogs build their own infrastructure, and leave me out of it.
I think ultimately a major part of the problem is "last mile" delivery - the ability to deliver Netflix in high quality to every neighbor who wants it while others simply surf email. That's in the ISPs' hands to invest/provide, and they need either us or Netflix to pay them to be able to do it.
 
Rick Shaw said:
fblack_111 said:
Rick Shaw said:
kevinc said:
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
Let the higher bandwidth users pay more. Let the "Netflixes" of the world contribute a bit of their profits to those companies maintaining the access roads to those profits.
I understand your points. But we essentially are stuck here with very few if any options for higher speed Internet providers. TW and Comcast already charge customers more money via tiers if they want or need higher speeds. You can pay for 3 Mbps or 30, or 50 and soon 100+.

But then if the ISP's start charging content providers more too for a "fast lane", it has to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. On-line game companies are next. They will have to pass on costs to their players. I use Etrade as an example and stream data all day and trade at discounted prices. They may have to raise rates. There is talk of ISP's charging for emails. Who can predict where it's all going. I just want to decide on a speed and pay the monthly fee and not worry about overages. That's also why I keep my Verizon unlimited plan even if I cannot get a discounted/subsidized cell phone.

One story in today's paper said that the "pipe" is just so wide to carry data, and if some companies pay for high speed lanes, then it follows that those who don't may be relegated to slow speed lanes. They used a toll road with toll booths as an analogy where some commuters using a transponder so as to bypass toll booths.

Bottom line to me, I am pretty sure rates will be going up and we have few alternatives.
Do you have any idea as to what the data rate comparison is between you streaming Etrade all day and your neighbor streaming Netflix HD movies all day? To be sure, as the traffic continues to increase on a freeway not designed to carry an infinite amount of increased traffic, something's gotta give. Be it HOV lanes or whatever, those of us content with the regular lanes will still suffer. I say let Netflix and the other bitrate hogs build their own infrastructure, and leave me out of it.

Actually I have no idea really what uses all the data I use each month. You can check you data usage on the TW website if you log on to your account. I do know I used over 300 GB last month. At my house, I have two Smart Samsung TV's that occasionally both are using Netflix. Sometimes I watch a Vudu movie. I have wi-fi on 100% of the time. From that I have two Smartphones, and two tablets that are always on. One an Android tablet and one a Windows RT tablet. 1 Tablet and both phones are always checking emails all day. My main computer streams stock quotes all day plus it checks Outlook for 4 email addresses. My wife also likes to Skype with her sisters who are out of state.

To me, I am paying now for 50Mbps from TW. I don't want to worry about data limits or slow downs. If they do go to a data limit system like the Cell phone providers, I just hope it's high enough so i don't have to worry about extra charges.
 

Rick Shaw

Member
fblack_111 said:
Rick Shaw said:
fblack_111 said:
Rick Shaw said:
kevinc said:
At the moment we are experiencing an explosion of bandwidth usage which requires massive investments by the ISPs. Who is to pay for this? Ultimately obviously the consumer, just like if we suddenly start consuming more electricity/water/gas/food. So should we consumers pay the ISP in which case should we pay based on what we each use or should your 90 year old granny using her connection to send email on her ipad continue to subsidize someone who uses Netflix and the like every day? Alternatively should Netflix and the other content providers pay the ISPs to upgrade their networks in which case surely they're just going to have to pass that on to the end users again either based on your Netflix usage or a flat rate? It seems to me that the concept of neutrality is out of date if we want ISPs to invest the way we all want/need. What we should be debating is metered vs. flat rate and whether we should pay via our Netflix bills or via our TWC bills. I think that paying metered to the ISP is ultimately the most transparent, accountable and fairest approach. It also avoids the risk that new entrants - tomorrow's equivalent new Netflix say - cannot grow and compete because they cannot afford to buy the ISP capacity they need to succeed and that we cannot all then simply switch from one older form of bandwidth usage to something new. We've already been through this with the cell phone carriers and unlimited use plans there are virtually a thing of the past - broadband must be next. The latest FCC position is just a party lines fudge and the administration's approach is just an attempt to kick the can down the road presumably beyond the next elections...
Let the higher bandwidth users pay more. Let the "Netflixes" of the world contribute a bit of their profits to those companies maintaining the access roads to those profits.
I understand your points. But we essentially are stuck here with very few if any options for higher speed Internet providers. TW and Comcast already charge customers more money via tiers if they want or need higher speeds. You can pay for 3 Mbps or 30, or 50 and soon 100+.

But then if the ISP's start charging content providers more too for a "fast lane", it has to be passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. On-line game companies are next. They will have to pass on costs to their players. I use Etrade as an example and stream data all day and trade at discounted prices. They may have to raise rates. There is talk of ISP's charging for emails. Who can predict where it's all going. I just want to decide on a speed and pay the monthly fee and not worry about overages. That's also why I keep my Verizon unlimited plan even if I cannot get a discounted/subsidized cell phone.

One story in today's paper said that the "pipe" is just so wide to carry data, and if some companies pay for high speed lanes, then it follows that those who don't may be relegated to slow speed lanes. They used a toll road with toll booths as an analogy where some commuters using a transponder so as to bypass toll booths.

Bottom line to me, I am pretty sure rates will be going up and we have few alternatives.
Do you have any idea as to what the data rate comparison is between you streaming Etrade all day and your neighbor streaming Netflix HD movies all day? To be sure, as the traffic continues to increase on a freeway not designed to carry an infinite amount of increased traffic, something's gotta give. Be it HOV lanes or whatever, those of us content with the regular lanes will still suffer. I say let Netflix and the other bitrate hogs build their own infrastructure, and leave me out of it.

Actually I have no idea really what uses all the data I use each month. You can check you data usage on the TW website if you log on to your account. I do know I used over 300 GB last month. At my house, I have two Smart Samsung TV's that occasionally both are using Netflix. Sometimes I watch a Vudu movie. I have wi-fi on 100% of the time. From that I have two Smartphones, and two tablets that are always on. One an Android tablet and one a Windows RT tablet. 1 Tablet and both phones are always checking emails all day. My main computer streams stock quotes all day plus it checks Outlook for 4 email addresses. My wife also likes to Skype with her sisters who are out of state.
And just think: You're probably paying about the same as someone watching CNN, buying stuff on Amazon, and sending emails to Aunt Belle. [BTW, *I* average about 15GB per month.]
 
Here's the newest scheme from Comcast. More of what we can look forward to. Another article says Comcast plans to do this with 8,000,000 customers.

6/11/2014: Comcast Is Turning The US Into Its Own Private Hotspot

"...Comcast is quietly turning on public hotspots in its customers’ routers, essentially turning private homes into public hotspots. ...Fifty thousand users with Arris Touchstone Telephony Wireless Gateway Modems – essentially basic modems that cable providers drop off at your home – have already been turned into public hotspots in Houston, and there are plans to enable 150,000 more. ..

"But here’s the problem: Comcast is essentially using your private residence as a corporate resource. They’re using your electricity. They’re using your Internet connection (although they claim they aren’t) and they’re opening up your private browsing to potential hackers. While Comcast will claim that these two streams are independent, there is nothing to stop a dedicated hacker from figuring out how to snoop data passing through the router. There is also nothing to stop someone from downloading illicit material, software, and other junk from your hotspot and then reporting you for theft or worse. Again, it’s all ostensibly secure, but, like all things, it really isn’t..."

Read the full article for a great McDonald’s analogy.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/11/comcast-is-turning-the-us-into-its-own-private-hotspot/
 

Admin65

Administrator
Staff member
This is why you should use your own modem and separate router. With my own router, Comcast could not that sort of stuff on it.
 
Admin65 said:
This is why you should use your own modem and separate router. With my own router, Comcast could not that sort of stuff on it.
I also have my own modem and router for their cable service. But my Voip phone has a separate modem provided by TW. I wonder if that can be turned on to provide a wifi hotspot for the cable company.

I just don't like that they are turning on modems to provide a public hotspot as a "default" and customers must opt out.

I have noticed lately that I really only watch about 5 or 6 non-local channels. And since I have Netflix and Vudu I could probably go without most of those cable channels. I would miss a Business channel and a News channel however. Too bad their business model is based on providing hundreds of mostly unneeded channels.

It will be interesting to what happens when the "Aereo" Supreme Court decision comes down in the next two weeks. It could have an affect on the old style cable model. Word is that in addition to Aereo providing low cost OTA broadcast channels and a DVR service for those local channels, they may try to cut broader deals and sell one cable channel at a time. So theoretically, one could subscribe to their local channel with a DVR service and say one News Channel and one Business channel. But I have a feeling they will be driven out of business with an adverse Court ruling.
 
It's getting interesting again. Months ago Comcast announced they wanted to buy and merge with Time Warner valuing Time Warner at about $45 Billion. Now 21st Century Fox is offering $80 Billion. It's just getting fun to watch again.

July 16, 2014: $80 Billion Offer From Rupert Murdoch Is Rejected, but Time Warner May Be in Play

"The media giant 21st Century Fox, the empire run by Rupert Murdoch, made an $80 billion takeover bid in recent weeks for Time Warner Inc. but was rebuffed. The bold approach could put Time Warner in play and might again ignite a reshaping of the media industry, prompting a new spate of mega-mergers among the nation’s largest entertainment companies...."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/rupert-murdoch-said-to-have-made-offer-for-time-warner/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
 

DRB

Member
Time Warner stock (symbol TWX) shot up 17% today to a new high after that news came out too...
 

kevinc

Member
Time Warner Inc (stock ticker TWX) = content company owning HBO, CNN etc, recently bid for by Murdoch's Fox.

Time Warner Cable (stock ticker TWC) = cable company merging with Comcast.
 
Top