A3N 996 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 They said they are prepared to divest up to 3 million subscribers. Comcast wants to keep the east coast footprint so they are keeping New York and North Carolina. Who gets thrown under the bus? In another article I read Comcast doesn't really want to be in LA ... Map showing cable provider footprints: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/12/picture-1000-words-us-cable-provider-map/78308/ There are conflicting reports on that. Some say that Comcast has no interest in markets like L.A., but other articles have pointed out that they are interested because of the untapped potential that the new Dodgers/Lakers Sports Networks bring. I think that they will end up ditching most of the 3 million subs in those smaller East Coast markets. Also, from that map it seems like the Pacific Northwest is an odd fit for Comcast. Time Warner Cable serves a good portion of Southern California, which includes L.A. county and the northern part of San Diego County among other areas, getting rid of those subscribers will still not add up to 3 million. Not to mention that Comcast already operates in the Bay Area, so the So Cal properties fit in nicely to their portfolio (and they happen to just have O&O's there as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It's official. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/investing/comcast-time-warner-cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammy9 26 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Are they the only cable outlet in the market? I don't know these cities. Here in the DC market, no. Comcast is in most of the counties in our area except for parts of Northern Virginia, which has Cox. Fios is also available here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asomrjsurf 6 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It means Comcast finally takes over KC area and TWSCP Channels can be in Surewestkc. All channels with TWC like TWCSP and the Lakers Network get a new name and if BHN is part of it CFNEWS13 would be on Comcast Lineup in Orlando. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I this article from the BBC reflects how seriously TWC execs took Charter's offer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729 ): Comcast has confirmed a deal to acquire Time Warner Cable for about $45bn (£27bn), creating a company that could control three-quarters of the US cable industry. Comcast will pay about $159 per share for its rival in an all-stock deal. The deal comes after Time Warner Cable rejected a $60bn bid from Charter Communications last month, calling their offer "grossly inadequate". So $40 billion is ok but $60 billion is "grossly inadequate"? This quote from a TWC exec just adds to the humor and absurdity of the whole thing ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25723203 ): But Time Warner said Charter was trying to buy it for a "bargain" price. "In essence, these guys are just trying to get a premium asset at a bargain basement price," Rob Marcus, chief executive of Time Warner was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency. "This makes the job of fending it off rather straightforward. Our shareholders will see it as what it is, an attempt to steal the company." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I this article from the BBC reflects how seriously TWC execs took Charter's offer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729 ): So $40 billion is ok but $60 billion is "grossly inadequate"? This quote from a TWC exec just adds to the humor and absurdity of the whole thing ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25723203 ): In the Charter deal, they were getting stock in a crap company with a lot of debt. Comcast's finances are much better. It's like being paid for something in American dollars versus pesos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Can Comcast own stations like KNBC and WNBC in markets where they control the cable systems as well? The cable cross ownership rule was eliminated in '02-'03. And, as has already been pointed out Comcast owns stations within markets where they have cable ops. Cox has some markets as well if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I this article from the BBC reflects how seriously TWC execs took Charter's offer ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26166729 ): So $40 billion is ok but $60 billion is "grossly inadequate"? This quote from a TWC exec just adds to the humor and absurdity of the whole thing ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25723203 ): With all do respect you are misunderstanding the figures. The deals are structured differently. The Charter deal for $60b included assumption of debt. If you eliminated debt it was valued at $37.3b. So, Comcast's deal is a much better deal for shareholders. And, yes Charter was trying to aquire TWC on the cheap. Although a good deal it's really a defensive move on TWC's part. None of these CEO's want John Malone anywhere near their company. With him looming around you are always under threat of loosing control. Malone after being beaten back was ready to nominate a slate of folks to TWC's board. And, seeing the writing on the wall (ie: the company being sold) wanted to maintain control. The Comcast deal was engineered behind the scenes to maintain some control of who the company goes to and at what price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3444 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 They said they are prepared to divest up to 3 million subscribers. Comcast wants to keep the east coast footprint so they are keeping New York and North Carolina. Who gets thrown under the bus? In another article I read Comcast doesn't really want to be in LA ... Map showing cable provider footprints: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/12/picture-1000-words-us-cable-provider-map/78308/ Based on that map...Time Warner literally DOMINATES Ohio and a good portion of North Carolina. Comcast looks to be more piecemeal but makes up for it in dense urban areas like Chicago and Philadelphia. I'm hoping the Mobile system is divested. I'm sure Comcast has its good clusters but this has been one of the worst systems I've ever encountered. Everything from customer service to picture quality is abysmal. They also seem to be mailing it in here....contractors do all the work, they shut down their local production efforts a few years back, and Mediacom handles all of the sales efforts through their On Media division. Plus, Comcast only serves the cities of Mobile whereas Mediacom covers the rest of the county and most of the other counties on the Alabama side of the market. Cox has the cities of Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach as well, with Mediacom filling in the gaps. Add to the fact Cox and Mediacom advertise heavily on local TV stations while Comcast doesn't spend a penny has me praying that Cox picks up the Mobile system.... As for the former Rollins and Heritage systems, are these the same companies that merged and now have most of their former tv stations owned by Sinclair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 With all do respect you are misunderstanding the figures. The deals are structured differently. The Charter deal for $60b included assumption of debt. If you eliminated debt it was valued at $37.3b. So, Comcast's deal is a much better deal for shareholders. And, yes Charter was trying to aquire TWC on the cheap. Although a good deal it's really a defensive move on TWC's part. None of these CEO's want John Malone anywhere near their company. With him looming around you are always under threat of loosing control. Malone after being beaten back was ready to nominate a slate of folks to TWC's board. And, seeing the writing on the wall (ie: the company being sold) wanted to maintain control. The Comcast deal was engineered behind the scenes to maintain some control of who the company goes to and at what price. I'm still surprised TWC went down. I was expecting it to be one of the survivors. For a cable company, they are a decent outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Based on that map...Time Warner literally DOMINATES Ohio and a good portion of North Carolina. Comcast looks to be more piecemeal but makes up for it in dense urban areas like Chicago and Philadelphia. I'm hoping the Mobile system is divested. I'm sure Comcast has its good clusters but this has been one of the worst systems I've ever encountered. Everything from customer service to picture quality is abysmal. They also seem to be mailing it in here....contractors do all the work, they shut down their local production efforts a few years back, and Mediacom handles all of the sales efforts through their On Media division. Plus, Comcast only serves the cities of Mobile whereas Mediacom covers the rest of the county and most of the other counties on the Alabama side of the market. Cox has the cities of Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach as well, with Mediacom filling in the gaps. Add to the fact Cox and Mediacom advertise heavily on local TV stations while Comcast doesn't spend a penny has me praying that Cox picks up the Mobile system.... As for the former Rollins and Heritage systems, are these the same companies that merged and now have most of their former tv stations owned by Sinclair? I don't know what their philosophy is. It looks like Comcast tends to like clustering around big cities whereas TWC likes to put a lot of contiguous areas together. Maybe there isn't enough profit in the rural areas and small towns and that's what took TWC down? I know a lot of people hate TWC because of all their battles with programmers, but as a cable subscriber who already thinks the bill is high enough I appreciated their diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This story led the local newscasts this morning. I wasn't shocked that Comcast is buying Time Warner, rather how quickly they announced it. I could see this going through. There's not much overlap. I hear Comcast is a decent cable company. I'm guessing Mobile would be divested if they had to. If they had to divest San Antonio, I would like to see Suddenlink buy them (they serve some portions of the DMA where Time Warner does not operate). In fact, I think Suddenlink will buy the smaller systems from Comcast. Charter might buy the major markets if they were forced but I've heard bad things about them. In any which case, cable TV in S.A. (which did not arrive here until 1979) has been formed by series' of acquisitions: UA-Columbia Cablevision (who built the system here) > Rogers (yes the Canadian company who bought the SA system from UA in 1981) > Paragon > Time Warner (who bought Paragon in 1999 but did not fully change branding until 2001, for a while they were branded "Time Warner Paragon") > now Comcast This is interesting to say the least and looking to see how this will go down. As for the former Rollins and Heritage systems, are these the same companies that merged and now have most of their former tv stations owned by Sinclair? Yes, same company. I don't know what their philosophy is. It looks like Comcast tends to like clustering around big cities whereas TWC likes to put a lot of contiguous areas together. Maybe there isn't enough profit in the rural areas and small towns and that's what took TWC down? I know a lot of people hate TWC because of all their battles with programmers, but as a cable subscriber who already thinks the bill is high enough I appreciated their diligence. Retrans battles are bad no matter what. the price still goes up. A-la-carte cable is the way of the future. I think with Comcast your cable bills will go down, because they own a major content provider, and so they don't have to pay retrans to NBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Retrans battles are bad no matter what. the price still goes up. A-la-carte cable is the way of the future. Mixed feelings on a-la-carte. I have a feeling it is going to be a lot like shopping for cellular carriers where they're all essentially the same price. When all's said and done, I bet a-la-carte will cost almost as much but without the selection of channels. Maybe that's the way it should be - maybe some of these niche these channels need to be advertiser supported or they need to wither away. And maybe that might lead to quality program back on the Big 3 networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfuego35 89 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This story led the local newscasts this morning. I wasn't shocked that Comcast is buying Time Warner, rather how quickly they announced it. I could see this going through. There's not much overlap. I hear Comcast is a decent cable company. I'm guessing Mobile would be divested if they had to. If they had to divest San Antonio, I would like to see Suddenlink buy them (they serve some portions of the DMA where Time Warner does not operate). In fact, I think Suddenlink will buy the smaller systems from Comcast. Charter might buy the major markets if they were forced but I've heard bad things about them. In any which case, cable TV in S.A. (which did not arrive here until 1979) has been formed by series' of acquisitions: UA-Columbia Cablevision (who built the system here) > Rogers (yes the Canadian company who bought the SA system from UA in 1981) > Paragon > Time Warner (who bought Paragon in 1999 but did not fully change branding until 2001, for a while they were branded "Time Warner Paragon") > now Comcast This is interesting to say the least and looking to see how this will go down. Yes, same company. Retrans battles are bad no matter what. the price still goes up. A-la-carte cable is the way of the future. I think with Comcast your cable bills will go down, because they own a major content provider, and so they don't have to pay retrans to NBC. It wouldn't shock me if Suddenlink winds up with the Eastern North Carolina (East of Raleigh, North of Willmington) cluster either. Suddenlink is already in the Moderate size areas of the region, and I would think would like to hold the entire region, especially if they can get a deal because of a forced divestiture of some of the properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToriElectra 291 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Canada's Shaw also used to own US cable holdings, in Florida; they had them as late as 2003. Maclean-Hunter, a company acquired by Rogers in the mid-90s, also had US cable holdings; those were sold to Comcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It wouldn't shock me if Suddenlink winds up with the Eastern North Carolina (East of Raleigh, North of Willmington) cluster either. Suddenlink is already in the Moderate size areas of the region, and I would think would like to hold the entire region, especially if they can get a deal because of a forced divestiture of some of the properties. When Comcast was negotiating with Charter on how to split up TWC, Comcast specifically said they were going to take the systems in New York and North Carolina because they wanted a footprint along the Eastern Seaboard. TWC also has a "headquarters office" and huge data operation in Charlotte so I think the Carolinas are safe. TWC have a good cluster in Ohio and Kentucky, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the subscribers are shed. But then again, Ohio is a big gaping hole in Comcast's territory (see map), so they may want to keep it to have connectivity from Chicago through Detroit, Erie and Pittsburgh. Ohio is also a slow growth region, but it is relatively wealthy even if the income statistics don't say so. TWC has a major office operation (I think it's for billing and there is also a Road Runner call center) in Columbus, too. Kansas City and Omaha look like candidates to be shed from the looks of the map. I still say cold weather climates watch more TV and use the internet more so if I were Comcast I would take that into consideration. (I have nothing to base this on other than living in Ohio. If I lived in a warmer place, I wouldn't be wasting my time on the internet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4164 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Retrans battles are bad no matter what. the price still goes up. A-la-carte cable is the way of the future. I think with Comcast your cable bills will go down, because they own a major content provider, and so they don't have to pay retrans to NBC. Mixed feelings on a-la-carte. I have a feeling it is going to be a lot like shopping for cellular carriers where they're all essentially the same price. When all's said and done, I bet a-la-carte will cost almost as much but without the selection of channels. Maybe that's the way it should be - maybe some of these niche these channels need to be advertiser supported or they need to wither away. And maybe that might lead to quality program back on the Big 3 networks. Considering how awful the cable TV landscape is, a la carte really is the only way to go. I have little to no loyalty to any network, mainly because almost all of them have put forward lowbrow reality programming (call it either network decay or channel drift), which unintentionally proves that their purpose for existence was never going to work. If I don't want CNN, HLN, Fox or MSNBC but want BBC, the CBC News Channel, or AJA, I should legitimately have that choice. Of course, ESPN, Fox and NBC will be vehemently opposed to a la carte, as it would single-handedly destroy the sports cable bubble. That bubble is why Comcast wanted TWC... the PBP rights to the Dodgers and Lakers are a gold mine. And we will all pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Interesting to see what will happen to Time Warner Cable SportsNet (Lakers channel) and SportsNet LA (Dodgers channel). It seems pointless to have both. They really should merge as the basketball and baseball regular seasons only have a minimal overlap in the beginning of April. They should just merge and become Comcast SportsNet Los Angeles. They could probably even fit Kings broadcasts on there too. Don't see a need for two channels unless they also pick up Angels, Clippers, and Ducks. Wonder if SNY will now become Comcast SportNet New York now that Comcast has an increased percentage in ownership (though not majority yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 With Comcast buying TWC, it makes me wonder if the Central PA cluster will be sold? As far as the RSN's in New York and LA go, I would assume that SNY will be rebranded to Comcast SportsNet New York since Comcast and the Mets would be the only ones owning it. And in LA, I think Time Warner Cable SportsNet should be called Comcast SportsNet West. Yeah, I know that name was used for one of the sports channels in the Bay Area, but I think that name would make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Of course, ESPN, Fox and NBC will be vehemently opposed to a la carte, as it would single-handedly destroy the sports cable bubble. That bubble is why Comcast wanted TWC... the PBP rights to the Dodgers and Lakers are a gold mine. And we will all pay for it. Now you're talking. I resent the $6 they confiscate from me every month to send to billionaires. I would love to see that income stream nipped in the bud. Nothing more annoying then ESPN trumped-up controversies, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I'm still surprised TWC went down. I was expecting it to be one of the survivors. For a cable company, they are a decent outfit. First, TWC was seen as "underperforming" versus their peers. So, that made them an "easy" target even if everything was running well. And, John Malone's stake in TWC via Liberty provided another avenue of attack. Basically if the offers were rebuffed he could use his stake to nominate folks to the Board of Directors at the shareholders meeting that might be more favorable to his position. The latter was being set in motion and is why this deal seemingly dropped so quickly. I am curious as to if there is a "break-up fee" if the deal doesn't go through. If there isn't one (or, it's nominal and worth the risk to Comcast) TWC will be back to status quo and will have effectively held Malone at bay for several months. So, worst case scenario the deal doesn't go through and TWC has bought time to engineer another deal with someone else and/or Malone has moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I'm going to try to post another graphic. The merged entity is everywhere except Phoenix, St. Louis, Greenville, SC, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Birmingham and Norfolk. If my link doesn't work, here is the link to the entire article. Check out the graphic at the bottom of the page (Top - 50 Markets): http://www.zdnet.com/comcast-buys-time-warner-cable-for-45-2-billion-is-deal-pro-consumer-business-7000026303/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Now you're talking. I resent the $6 they confiscate from me every month to send to billionaires. I would love to see that income stream nipped in the bud. A-la-carte would still work. If I were running cable you pay yearly for the infrastructure/equipment (around $50-75). then you just buy which channels you want. If you want ESPN, you pay $6/mo (actually I would charge $15 to make up for their loss of subscribers), local station 15 cents, etc. Basically the amounts they negotiate during retrans discussions, you as a subscriber pay that price directly. But only if you want to watch that channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 First, TWC was seen as "underperforming" versus their peers. So, that made them an "easy" target even if everything was running well. And, John Malone's stake in TWC via Liberty provided another avenue of attack. Basically if the offers were rebuffed he could use his stake to nominate folks to the Board of Directors at the shareholders meeting that might be more favorable to his position. The latter was being set in motion and is why this deal seemingly dropped so quickly. I am curious as to if there is a "break-up fee" if the deal doesn't go through. If there isn't one (or, it's nominal and worth the risk to Comcast) TWC will be back to status quo and will have effectively held Malone at bay for several months. So, worst case scenario the deal doesn't go through and TWC has bought time to engineer another deal with someone else and/or Malone has moved on. Several articles have indicated that there is no breakup fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 This Is Why Comcast Is Buying Time Warner Cable In one sentence and six charts. http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/this-is-why-comcast-is-buying-time-warner-cable-20140213 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.