Gallons of ink have been spilled in the two days since the merger deal was declared, trying to sort out what it means for telecomm and the consumer. Just about everything I read smacks of reflex opinion like "big companies are BAAAD." Maybe, but I would like to understand the dynamics of the merger better. E.g., what is in it for Comcast ?? My suspicion is that this is not a direct play against the consumer, or an attempt to gain efficiencies; but rather, a play on content. It seems to me that cable companies are fast losing their foothold as quasi-monopoly TV providers due to landline and LTE internet provided media. If Comcast owns enough content, or owns enough influence over the other content providers, perhaps they can hobble netflix. Is that the goal ? Or, how does a merged TW-C affect advertising ? I watched football playoffs through the internet this winter, and was amused to see adverts from Europe since my (illegal, I presume) stream was Europe based. I can well imagine internet streaming wrecking havoc with the current advertising model, but I am less clear how the major players today can respond. This article is interesting. The suggestion is that the merger is in anticipation of an end to the net neutrality era. Put 2018 on your calendars. Or even better, lobby the regulators to agree to the merger only if net neutrality is guaranteed through 2025.
Why the Comcast-Time Warner Deal Is Far More Dangerous Than You Think | Wired Business | Wired.com What Comcast Will Own After Time Warner Cable Merger - Business Insider "In agreeing to pay $45 billion for Time Warner Cable, Comcast hopes to create not only an enormous cable TV provider, but the largest broadband internet provider in the United States and a company that controls about half of all “triple play” services, which bundle cable TV and broadband alongside internet-based telephone connections. And that only begins to describe the magnitude of the deal."
