I would hope this gets shot down in 2 sec. We need more providers not less.

This whole thing makes me sick. Not just the inevitable TWC/Comcast merger being approved, but the FCC's recent tail-tuck re: Net Neutrality. The current head of the FCC (is an OSU Grad, which pisses me off because he's a dbag) is going to be proposing a rule that will allow ISPs to segment the internet into 2 lanes (current state, and "fast"). This is literally the worst thing that they could do. This will stifle innovation and basically sanctions the ISPs to steal from you. We're already paying them to deliver content at a certain speed. How much content for a certain speed and you pay a price. But they're now slowing that content down (they don't actually need to...) so that you have to pay them again for it to be "Fast". This is fucked. Thanks Obama.

Glad I switched to Direct TV 2 years ago, FUCK YOU TWC

Just heard yesterday that The Time Warner Cable subscribers in my area will become Charter Communications. (Dayton, Springfield, Cincinnati, and Cleveland)

Curly J;1610549 wrote:Just heard yesterday that The Time Warner Cable subscribers in my area will become Charter Communications. (Dayton, Springfield, Cincinnati, and Cleveland)

You live in all of those areas?

dlazz;1610558 wrote:You live in all of those areas?

Yep. I have houses in all those areas. (I'm 'Sleeper' rich) :RpS_flapper: I was just letting other TWC customers know that live in those areas that they will be going to Charter.


Here's the article --> http://www.journal-news.com/news/business/time-warner-in-this-region-become-charter/nfjqQ/

I have RCN...hope this helps.

There was an article in the Charlotte (TWC corporate office located here) newspaper yesterday that said Comcast has to sell a lot of its customers to Charter (can't remember exact number) for the Comcast/TWC deal to be approved. It said that this Comcast/TWC merger had to stay less than 30% of all total cable subscribers in USA to be approved.

arnie palmer;1611098 wrote:It said that this Comcast/TWC merger had to stay less than 30% of all total cable subscribers in USA to be approved.

Doesn't really matter, though. Most markets are lucky if they have even two providers to choose from. This just means Comcast will be the only game in town in 30% of markets instead of 45%...

Just came thru on my WSJ notification, but AT&T has approached DirecTv on a possible merger. Now that's a fucking blockbuster

Classyposter58;1611475 wrote:Just came thru on my WSJ notification, but AT&T has approached DirecTv on a possible merger. Now that's a fucking blockbuster

Will probably get the same scrutiny, at least. I thought about mentioning Dish and DirecTv as they add "competition" to most markets even when there might only be 1 hard-line provider...but in terms of price and quality for tv/broadband they seem to be 2nd rate (assuming you apartment or HOA allows you to have satellite).

I'm not sure about the infrastructure actually connecting us to the internet, but in 5-10 years most people will be connecting their home to that infrastructure wirelessly. And cable will pretty much go away with content being delivered over high-speed internet. That significantly lower investment if people connect wirelessly from a mile away or more. Might also mean the end of satellite.

I Wear Pants;1580440 wrote:
Also, the regional monopolies are complete bullshit, who defends these politically?

Democrats.


See the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

An ATT/DirecTV merger wouldn't change a ton, as they already work with one another to sell ATT internet to DirecTV subscribers, and DirecTV to Uverse internet customers where Uverse TV isn't available yet. This just changes it from a partnership to one company.

I'd assume the TV services would still exist as they do now ( considering they're not the least bit compatible with one another). DirecTV customers would just have a new address to send their bill to.

gut;1611479 wrote: I'm not sure about the infrastructure actually connecting us to the internet, but in 5-10 years most people will be connecting their home to that infrastructure wirelessly. And cable will pretty much go away with content being delivered over high-speed internet. That significantly lower investment if people connect wirelessly from a mile away or more. Might also mean the end of satellite.

I don't see that happening in 5-10 years. Why would ISPs spend a crapload of money on new infrastructure when one already exists? Wireless internet has been around for quite some time, and hasn't evolved like many thought it would. I worked for a wireless ISP back in 2000-2003. It really hasn't evolved much at all since then. Unless you are talking about 4G type wireless.

WebFire;1611505 wrote:I don't see that happening in 5-10 years.

Me neither. 20 years maybe.

WebFire;1611505 wrote:I don't see that happening in 5-10 years. Why would ISPs spend a crapload of money on new infrastructure when one already exists? Wireless internet has been around for quite some time, and hasn't evolved like many thought it would. I worked for a wireless ISP back in 2000-2003. It really hasn't evolved much at all since then. Unless you are talking about 4G type wireless.

No, there's two parts. One is connecting homes wirelessly and that's already pretty close (basically your cellphone). Yeah, 4G or probably advanced LTE.

The second part is the actual backbone, but now you're just building super highways instead of side streets and alleys - the cost drops maybe 90% and that removes a significant barrier to competition. Cities and states might even build that themselves, deciding it's a more valuable public asset.

Cost to build and maintain the connection all the way to the home is significant. But the existing internet infrastructure can't handle delivering everyone's capable, too. But like I said the economics become much more favorable if you only have to upgrade a super highway. And actually a big part of declining investment is the refusal of cities to grant necessary easements.

10 years seems optimistic, but with technology it usually happens much quicker than expected.

gut;1611648 wrote:No, there's two parts. One is connecting homes wirelessly and that's already pretty close (basically your cellphone). Yeah, 4G or probably advanced LTE.

The second part is the actual backbone, but now you're just building super highways instead of side streets and alleys - the cost drops maybe 90% and that removes a significant barrier to competition. Cities and states might even build that themselves, deciding it's a more valuable public asset.

Once again showing your "knowledge" on the matter. Bringing lulz to the thread.

Tell me more.

gut;1611648 wrote:No, there's two parts. One is connecting homes wirelessly and that's already pretty close (basically your cellphone). Yeah, 4G or probably advanced LTE.

4G/LTE and ISP networks are two completely different things. I don't see cell companies taking over the internet market. If I can get unlimited data from cable, or limited data from cell phone company, I am going with choice A. And the cable companies will be in no hurry to change to a wireless infrastructure (because, why would they?).

dlazz;1611650 wrote:Once again showing your "knowledge" on the matter. Bringing lulz to the thread.

Tell me more.

What, you mean like the fact that you know jackshit about business and economics? I think maybe I need to tell you less so you are able to process and learn.

Tell me what I said that was wrong? Or are you going to claim that 4G/LTE magically connects to the internet and not the same infrastructure as home broadband? Or are you attempting to claim the last mile isn't by far the most numerous and expensive part of the cost structure?

gut;1611671 wrote: Or are you going to claim that 4G/LTE magically connects to the internet and not the same infrastructure as home broadband?

According the FCC and the government they don't.

Throw your Business degree at that one, big guy.

Hope this helps.

WebFire;1611652 wrote:4G/LTE and ISP networks are two completely different things.

Sure they are. The cell companies pay access fees to connect their mobile users to the internet. Spectrum and bandwidth issues aside (which plenty of tech in the pipeline to address), my point was you already have the means and widespread adoption to connect homes wirelessly. Maybe not the best or optimal solution, but it's the one that has been adopted and well-beyond critical mass.

dlazz;1611672 wrote:According the FCC and the government they don't.

Glad you mention the FCC...they appear to agree with me on "network neutrality". I guess I wasn't the one who didn't know what he was talking about.

gut;1611681 wrote:Glad you mention the FCC...they appear to agree with me on "network neutrality". I guess I wasn't the one who didn't know what he was talking about.

Tell me more about major backhaul providers and the trend, Dlazz. I admittedly don't profess to have expert knowledge because I empty executive's trash cans, so I'm eager to hear you enlighten us.

Nope you're 100% right. Keep on preachin'. You're so smart.