Comcast /Charter/ Time Warner deal

Why do you assume that means higher prices? Does that mean when/if AT&T buys Directv we will all get higher prices? It's good to like your the service you have but to mislead people based on your personal opinions doesnt belong on a public forum.

---

@jhy1978 wrote:

Why do you assume that means higher prices? Does that mean when/if AT&T buys Directv we will all get higher prices? It's good to like your the service you have but to mislead people based on your personal opinions doesnt belong on a public forum.

---

@why assume it means higher prices?  If you've followed your cable bills, you should already be able to answer that.  Back in 2005, before U-verse came along, I was paying ... and I still do a major facepalm when I see this ... $205 a month to Comcast for internet service (6Mbps down at the time), digital with all the premiums, HD DVR (was $13.95/mo at the time), two additional digital boxes (no DVR access @ $6.95 ea), and sports tier.  And that was way before the proliferation of HD that's available today.  (Don't even suggest the satellite 'alternative', because it'd be just as expensive.  I priced it out.)

U-verse came to my area in around 2010, and it was still a work in progress.  However, I could now tell Comcast that, unless they become competitive with what AT&T was offering, I would walk.  My price with them dropped to ~$150 a month, with the only change being I dropped Cinemax and The Movie Channel.

If you look at the proposal Comcast put forth last week in regards to "working" with Charter, they will form a company called (appropriately enough) "SpinCo", where, allegedly, Comcast doesn't really control things yet "helps" Charter in management of new territories.  Huge swaths of real estate across the country would change from Time Warner into the "SpinCo", others would go to Charter itself, and others would be a blend of Comcast/Time Warner.

Let's take this into the programming arena.  Comcast already has NBC Universal -- channels like USA, SyFy, NBCSN, Bravo, etc.  Time Warner has Turner Networks -- TBS, TNT, TRU, TCM, CNN, etc.  Now although that "division" isn't SUPPOSED to be involved in the cable-side of a Comcast/TWC deal, do you REALLY think it's going to be kept at arm's length?  Look carefully at those examples.  TNT is currently the highest-priced per-customer network after ESPN/other sports.  TBS and USA along with TNT are in the Top 5 most-watched lists perennially.

Also in the programming arena:  Comcast operates their "MediaServices" at a huge satellite compound in Colorado.  That fortess feeds at least 70% of Video On Demand platform programming out to various cable operators, including U-verse.  It's also the central location for ComcastSpotlight, the local advertising purveyor for anyone who wants to advertise on cable in local-insert markets.  Guess what ... AT&T is letting them control that part of their business as well.  And let's not forget their out-of-market premium sports packages through iNDemand (MLB Extra Innings, NHL Center Ice, etc.).  Currently, that "partnership" is made up of Comcast, Time Warner (which includes Bright House), and Cox.  Can you guess who would be calling the shots even more for those OOM sports, pay per view, and the "subscription" OnDemand services through iNDemand?  (Charter used to be a minor partner in iNDemand, but IIRC that was dissolved during bankruptcy in 2009.  However, in the proposed "partnership", they'd more than likely become involved again, in some fashion.)

If you consider the above, you can see the writing on the wall, in regards to what consumers will be paying.

AS TO THE AT&T/DirecTV purchase that's rumored:

It's been cited in practically all of the coverage that it would be to DirecTV's benefit to partner with AT&T, not the other way around -- particularly in customers having internet access. There's the "spectrum" side that's also important, but that gets a little too complicated for most people to understand.

U-verse would still be a price leader even if DirecTV were to come under AT&T's umbrella.  The DirecTV customer base is really outside of U-verse areas, where cable is either still in a monopoly position or non-existent.

Thats odd, I uverse 450 with 3 additional STB's and I pay 160.00 a month just for TV. With Charter I have the same package (all channels and premiums) 4 DVR's, 30meg internet, and home phone for 165.00. So pricing really depends and can be higher or lower depending on a number of factors. One provider isnt ammune to rate increases or lack of promotional offerings. (yes I have both Charter and U-verse). I'm sure I could get U-verse TV cheaper if I bundled but 24meg just isnt enough speed for me (24 minus however many TVs are on for a average of about 15megs).

Actually pricing out what Charter has on their site versus U-verse comes out practically the same, EXCEPT that Charter never says what the REGULAR price after a two-year promotional rate really is.

If they are anything like Comcast, the regular phone rate would be ~$35-40/mo, internet at 30Mbps would probably be around $55/mo.  Bundling at regular rate with all TV channels would still be running close to $249-269 -- and that's WITHOUT regular DVR or "Whole Home" DVR.  U-verse, at regular triple-play price, would be at least $20 cheaper, but WITH Total Home DVR.  ("Whole Home" runs ~$19.99/mo, and 2-tuner DVR runs ~$11.99-13.99/mo, with additional boxes ~$7-8/mo each.)

As to the internet speed, I've "maxed-out" my U-verse as a test, with 4 HD recording, running WiFi on my phone, and doing stuff on my desktop as well, yet have not encountered problems with any of them.  And that's on, what you'd probably call, "slow" 18Mbps down (which has consistently run at ~20Mbps since I got bumped up as part of the latest deal I got).  NO, I don't do Netflix or any streaming, because I have plenty of programming from this "stone-age" TV called "cable" (no nitpicking, please) and STILL don't have enough time to watch it all.

You might be interested to see how much you "share" your connection on Charter amongst your neighbors by checking out the FCC's COALS database here.  Even though cable has upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0, and tries to brag about "no slowdowns", it's just plain not true.  Heck, one business I go to offers Comcast-provided WiFi, and when everybody comes in and jumps on, speed goes down TREMENDOUSLY (one time I was only getting 3Mbps down and getting bumped off).  It doesn't help that they're on the same node as a bunch of other restaurants and businesses offering the same Comcast WiFi, and were sold by Comcast on "fast speeds all the time".

BTW .... if you were paying attention to the latest "great idea" from the FCC, in that the internet would basically be up to the highest bidders, you would have noticed who is a big supporter of that idea.  Well, and who on the FCC used to "be friendly" with ... and that company would be called Comcast.  And just WHO is Comcast getting all cozy with?  That's right, Charter.  Still think higher prices aren't somehow on the horizon when all the dust settles?

Yeah man I hear ya. I work online doing social media marketing and web design which requires allot of uploading large video files, PSD files etc. so I'm stuck with Charter for my internet needs. If gigapower was here I would jump on it in a second even it was only the 200/200 plan.

In addition to what I previously posted about higher prices when the companies negotiate with the content owners/providers, it also means fewer options for us.

For example, if AT&T and DirecTV fully merge, then we may not be able to claim DirecTV as a possibility when talking to AT&T reps about better prices. For example, right now, I can switch to DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner, or a rinky-dink cable provider. If Time Warner becomes Charter (in my area), and DirecTV and U-Verse merge, my options may be Charter, Dish, rinky-dink provider, or DirecTV/U-Verse. So, all of a sudden, that's one less provider for me to switch to AND one...actually TWO fewer providers for companies like Disney, Viacom, Universal, etc. to negotiate with.

IMO, this probably isn't a good situation...and even if they were to merge, there'd still be negatives with all providers...fewer providers to compete against *may* mean less incentive to provide more options and better service.

---

@baseballisback wrote:

In addition to what I previously posted about higher prices when the companies negotiate with the content owners/providers, it also means fewer options for us.

 

For example, if AT&T and DirecTV fully merge, then we may not be able to claim DirecTV as a possibility when talking to AT&T reps about better prices. For example, right now, I can switch to DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner, or a rinky-dink cable provider. If Time Warner becomes Charter (in my area), and DirecTV and U-Verse merge, my options may be Charter, Dish, rinky-dink provider, or DirecTV/U-Verse. So, all of a sudden, that's one less provider for me to switch to AND one...actually TWO fewer providers for companies like Disney, Viacom, Universal, etc. to negotiate with.

 

IMO, this probably isn't a good situation...and even if they were to merge, there'd still be negatives with all providers...fewer providers to compete against *may* mean less incentive to provide more options and better service.

---

---

@baseballisback wrote:

In addition to what I previously posted about higher prices when the companies negotiate with the content owners/providers, it also means fewer options for us.

 

For example, if AT&T and DirecTV fully merge, then we may not be able to claim DirecTV as a possibility when talking to AT&T reps about better prices. For example, right now, I can switch to DirecTV, Dish, Time Warner, or a rinky-dink cable provider. If Time Warner becomes Charter (in my area), and DirecTV and U-Verse merge, my options may be Charter, Dish, rinky-dink provider, or DirecTV/U-Verse. So, all of a sudden, that's one less provider for me to switch to AND one...actually TWO fewer providers for companies like Disney, Viacom, Universal, etc. to negotiate with.

 

IMO, this probably isn't a good situation...and even if they were to merge, there'd still be negatives with all providers...fewer providers to compete against *may* mean less incentive to provide more options and better service.

---