AT&T, AOL In Talks To Merge Cable Systems 109
Paintthemoon writes: "The deal of the week: ATT & AOL are in talks to merge their cable systems, with each company owning shares of the other but AOL being in control of the joint venture. Coming on the heels of the AOL-TimeWarner-Amazon announcement, this just shows the further consolidation of broadband & information systems."
Re:Unstoppable!! Bwahahaha! (Score:1)
It's not over yet. The US government hasn't used the military yet. Just send some heavy armor and gunships to Redmond. I'd approve it.
You know things have gotten *really* bad when... (Score:2)
---
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:2)
I live in Salem, Oregon, and I have a static IP and I'm pretty sure they don't block ANY in or out ports.
They said they'd probably switch to DHCP at some point, but that was 6 months ago and no sign of it yet.
Of course I'll probably still switch to DSL when I move to an area that supports it (only near downtown in Salem).
---
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:2)
One thing we had a big problem with: we had a fast ethernet card connected to the cablemodem. As many of you know, autodetection is very unreliable when the other end of the cable is wired down to some speed. As it turns out, the cable modem was using 10 base T half duplex (normal slow ethernet) while our cards were autodetecting full duplex. Once we wired down our card to 10bt half the connection improved about 1000x.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
One potential Good Thing out of this could be... (Score:5)
If the two companies merge their cable operations, AOL would certainly be the driver (I hope - the article was already slashdotted when I clicked it - a new speed record for sure!). If so, then @home would probably get the boot and RoadRunner would be the default ISP - a much better situation for the average broadband customer.
- -Josh Turiel
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
--MD--
Cable sucks. (Score:1)
This mom&pop company was reselling time warner provided cable I believe, then they were bought by another mom/pop.. eventually they got sold to AT&T, and now to Comcast. We still don't have digital cable or cable modems, just basic cable and some "premier channels" such as comedy central, hbo, etc.
I am hopeing that with the recent purchase by Comcast we will finally get digital cable here, but I'm not placing any bets. I really liked my fiancee's sat.
Re:Absolutely no way (Score:1)
Re:slow down (Score:1)
Not only that, but you have to wait 20 seconds between announcing the merger and closing the deal. Lousy frickin' slashcode!
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:1)
I've had @Home in the bay area for about 6 months, since moving to a new apartment meant I couldn't keep DSL. It's been an incredibly frustrating experience, with entire weeks in which we saw downtime for large periods of time every day. Our connectivity still has a tendency to migrate into a 70%-packet loss, 1000ms+ latency state and stay there for a while.
Not only that, but everyone in the apartment is frustrated by ATT @Home's tendency to treat us like idiots during every stage of our relationship with them, from the initial installation to complaints to customer service.
I'd switch back to DSL in a heartbeat (now that it's available in my area), except I really can't afford the extra cost to get PacBell's "Enhanced" service, nor do I want to fool around with the evil dynamic-IP PPP-over-Ethernet garbage they give with the Basic service these days.
Given that @Home needs more funding in order to stay afloat past the end of the year, according to an article yesterday in the San Jose Mercury Times, I wouldn't be surprised at all if their assets were acquired or if ATT switched partners.
My cable modem experience (Score:2)
2. MediaOne buys local company, cable modem service because MediaOne Express
3. MediaOne buys out RoadRunner, cable modem service becomes MediaOne RoadRunner
4. AT&T buys out MediaOne, cable modem service becomes AT&T BroadBand
And I must say, the service has gotten slightly (gradually) suckier with each buyout. I don't know if the two are related or not, but I'm still basically satisfied despite their lame customer service.
At least after AOL/TW take over AT&T's cable modem service (if they do anyways), there's no one left really to buy them out.
All your cable are belong to us. (Score:1)
The bigger question to me is, now that AOL is acquiring all these internet providers(TWTC, ATT) are they planing on removing themselves as a customer from MCI Worldcoms UU.net, seeing that UUnet provides AOL with just about all their dialup ports and internet connections.
All your cable, are belong to us.
Re:My cable modem experience (Score:1)
I believe it was a Road Runner / Cox Communications merger, and a seperate Mediaone / ATT merger.
Re:All your cable are belong to us. (Score:1)
Re:Which means... (Score:1)
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:2)
________________________
Re:AOL vs. Comcast? (Score:3)
________________________
Meet the new Borg, same as the old Borg... (Score:3)
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:2)
Re:Which means... (Score:1)
--
Which means... (Score:3)
Go AT&T!!!
------
That's just the way it is
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:3)
AOL Time Warner vs. Viacom (Score:1)
-Jon
More buyouts (Score:2)
[nytimes.com]
AOL Time Warner Set to Buy IPC
it's a 1.64 billion $$$ deal, IPC is a UK magazine publisher.
-Jon
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:1)
AT&T's "native" ISP is @home - generally considered sucky and clueless by most. The AOL/TW ISP is RoadRunner - who runs a very solid ship by comparison, and is, as far as I can tell, the most homenet/geek friendly cable ISP out there.
I haven't had any experience with Roadrunner, but I've had @Home in the SF bay area for 2 years. They let me install on a Sun Workstation, and gave me static IP's, which I still have. The only problem I have with them is they can't seem to automatically bill my credit card correctly.
I'm worried that AOL will force me to DHCP, and some silly client. Geek friendly for me is two static IP's, and leave me alone. Somehow I think AOL won't be able to deliver that.
Temkin
AOLTIMEWARNERAMAZONAT&T (Score:1)
slow down (Score:4)
The U.S. Government requires you to wait 2 minutes between each monopoly.
It's been 120 seconds since your last merger!
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:2)
Disney/AOL's re-purpose in life (Score:1)
if you replace Disney w/AOL, this article [msn.com] in slate explains why this merger "will benefit consumers".
If Only... (Score:1)
Now, Corporations don't dominate the world, do they? That's ok, Companies like these just swap Board Members, that's all. honest.
AOL Time Warner... (Score:5)
--
mrBlond (I don't email from Malaysia)
Re:Time for satellite... (Score:1)
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:2)
Re:Absolutely no way (Score:2)
Just remember, this is the same FTC that allowed AOL and TW to merge.
---
Too bad AOL can't flood us w/ free cablemodems (Score:1)
..or maybe the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (Score:2)
Isn't this the setup for a James Bond movie?
D
Mad Scientists with too much time on thier hands
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
Ignorance is Strength
Monopolies offer Choice
*Blatently stolen from a Tom Tomorrow [thismodernworld.com] cartoon that I can't seem to find right now.*
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
Monopoly? (Score:2)
____
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
Absolutely. Do you have any idea what kind of social upheaval we would face if the Cartoon Network were interrupted?
Well, seriously. I didn't really mean the content, which is 99.9 percent hogwash, but rather the connection; the cable itself. Don't you remember the Emergency Broadcast System? It's essential during civil disasters to contact citizens as quickly as possible so that they can avoid harm. Cable stations (in my area, at least) already do this by broadcasting storm warnings and such.
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
But even when the roads are "privately owned" the public still demands performance constraints, such as meeting minimum safety standards, and not arbitrarily restricting passage (say, on the basis of race, or whatever). The contracts with these private companies are probably filled with regulations and standards and red tape anyways, as well they should be. You don't just give public property away without some serious guarantees that quality and other public concerns won't be compromised.
I do think co-ops are a pretty good idea. I believe the city of Tacoma, WA forced some co-op like provisions (free access for libraries and schools, no redlining of certain neighborhoods) on AT&T when it acquired TCI.
I think co-ops are a very good idea. Another poster mentioned co-ops earlier. I'm not saying that we should give all this power directly to a (perhaps) corrupt government, just that we should not sit idly by while our government is giving away the farm to huge corporations. They're not much better, in a lot of cases, than big governments.
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
The FBI may have saved your skin more times than you know. You should really have a look at your file.
the return on investment of Social Security
I don't think Social Security was intended to provide anyone with a return on investment, other than to maintain the value of the fund on an inflation-adjusted basis. What were you expecting? A VA Linux IPO?
the service commitment of the Interior Department
I don't really know much about the service committment of the Department of the Interior, but if it's anything like the service committment of my DSL provider (two full days out of every month have been lost to technical failures) they probably deserve whatever rap they've gotten. Just because you're a private company doesn't mean you're immediately service oriented. Have you ever visited the reception area of a towing compound? They don't exactly greet you with smiles...
the customer-friendly payment policies of the IRS
Hey, don't bite the hand that feeds you. The IRS collects taxes that enable the government to do what you elected them to do, even if they do it badly or not at all. If that's the case, then go out and get involved in politics and make the system better. Nothing's stopping you from doing that.
the fine management practices of the Senate
Once again, I'm not really sure what the in joke is here, but the management practices of the senate cannot be a lot worse than the management practices of Union Carbide at Bhopal. Or those of Royal Dutch Shell, Pfizer, Exxon-Mobil, Adobe, Microsoft, IBM, GE, GM or any other big company you can think of. Good management involves more than just making a profit. That's why we need a force in civil society to balance the immense (albeit sometimes well-earned) power now held by corporations.
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
Check out the co-operatives that undoubtedly exist in your community. There are lots of ways to skin a cat. People always have different interests, motives, backgrounds, vision, but they can find a way to bridge their differences if they each benefit enough from the relationship to make the effort worthwhile. It doesn't always work, much less work perfectly, but neither do the alternatives.
I'm really unclear on how you would set this up in a way that doesn't amount to a government -- it's going to be too large to be directly representative (remember we're talking about users here, not coders).
So what if it gets set up in a way that amounts to a government? Am I supposed to unflinchingly agree with you that governments are evil in principle? The problem with this kind of ideological tunnelvision is that in order to support your statement, you have to provide evidence taken from history, which your opponent (should they be as ideologically anaemic as you) can discount as being flawed for one reason or another. The tiresome debates over "Capitalism vs. Communism" fall into this category. Capitalist ideologues say "See, the Soviet Union collapsed -- communism doesn't work" to which the Communist ideologue replies "But the Soviet Union wasn't a true example of communism. It was just a flawed attempt to realize the communist ideal."
So where does this leave you? With a big headache. Stop thinking in terms of how you can turn the debate into one for which you already know all the lines. Start thinking about solving people's problems in the most efficient way possible, i.e. the way which incurs the least amount of pain, suffering, and loss.
Never mind the fact that it already takes nearly that long (just kidding, Linus). Your suggestion involves lawsuits. My suggestions (might) involve lawsuits. So that leaves only the "redtape beforehand" as the difference between the two. I suggest that a good city planning document can forestall lawsuits and cut red tape at the same time. Since the standards are widely distributed and published (as long as they aren't prohibitively expensive, like ISO standards) you have no excuse not to follow them. Any red tape you have to deal with is probably your own fault.
Re:Networks MUST NOT be government run (Score:2)
As for corporations being 100% accountable, what do you mean? Corporations depend on private property ownership which in turn depends on one of two things: a naturally harmonious populace, or the threat of violence. The government supplies the latter so that companies (and individuals) can maintain their ownership of private property. In return for this protection, Companies (and individuals) must be accountable to the general public as well as to their workers and customers. So not all of what they must be held accountable for is subject to market pressures. And that is what concerns environmental activists and labour activists.
Re:Networks MUST NOT be government run (Score:2)
So what if it's the "direct democracy of the free market". That's just a name; just a bunch of words. The result might end up being the same either way. If the particular government in question happens to have bad people leading it, then that doesn't mean that the idea of government is bad. But what I'm saying doesn't even depend on whether you accept what I say about government. If the end product is the same, why would you care what name I use to describe the entity that brought about the desired end? If you say tomayto and I say tomahto, aren't we talking about the same thing? Doesn't it seem trivial to be making a big deal about the difference?
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:2)
That's becaue the government is stuck delivering all the mail that people depend on even if it's not profitable. The courier services have taken all the profitable delivery services away, leaving the government with stuff that's bound to be less profitable.
Fuck off you socialist eurotrash wannabe.
That really improves your credibility.
Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:3)
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:3)
Why have such a limited view of ownership? You could create cooperatives (as one previous poster suggested) which would own property that the community required to conduct its business. It would be good because it would prevent any entity from utilizing market power to reduce consumer surplus for its own gain. It doesn't matter so much in manufacturing where network effects aren't quite so strong, but in areas which require common ground, it would enable the lowest possible transaction cost.
So we have to file a "codebase impact statement" before we can write code? Will there be permits, approved contractors, minimum minority ownership requirements?
Why not? We put up with these forms of red tape and bureaucracy because even private works such as buildings (which often require municipal approval) make a significant impact on the surrounding area. If you decide to build a pig barn in the middle of a residential neighborhood, how do you propose to deal with the complaints of your neighbors? With a shotgun?
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:1)
Also, Demolition lost the tag titles.
Re:Absolutely no way (Score:1)
The business aspects (Score:1)
All of you "know" that AT&T is a large company that has been profitable for somewhere in the region of a century. In reality, AT&T has been having some troubles and is trying to "unlock shareholder value" by splitting into 4 companies. One of these, the wireless division, is already a publicly traded company. The Wall Street types beleived that this was the gem of the company, the division most likely to be in a growth industry when all was said and done. These same Wall Street types also think that the cable division is the dog of the group. AT&T assigned it all the debt they could get away with. And as anybody who has AT&T Broadband knows, they suck more than the average cable company. I could tell stories but hey, anecdotes are not data.
Bottom line, if AOL/TW is stupid enough to take this deal on, then more power to them. That is, assuming that the regulators allow it. I'm just glad I don't own part of it.
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:1)
Remember what some people said on
I think what may happen is that we may see a counteroffer from Comcast in conjunction with another major media company (e.g., Disney's name has been bandied about) to match the AOL Time Warner offer for AT&T Broadband.
maybe congress will get it right this time... (Score:1)
And maybe pigs will fly too, although, with genetic engineering, that might not be too long...
Great. All that's left... (Score:2)
Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Sirius Cybernetics Corporation whose complaints department now covers all the major landmasses of the first three planets in the Sirius Tau Star system.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
Bless, you, Doug...
Talk about Evil Empire... (Score:1)
Controlling, say, my stupid Operating System is lousy when compared to the amount of control that such a conglomeration could bring to bear. Leveraging my phone, long distance, cable, tv programming, and internet access is a bit more drastic than, say, putting an IE icon on my desktop.
This is not to say that the MS situation is good... It's just to point out that considering how big a deal the
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:2)
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:1)
Add another to the list (Score:1)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010725/bs/media
--
Market Power or just saving face (Score:3)
--CTH
--
Everytime (Score:1)
please RTFR (Read the Friendly Ruling) (Score:1)
The appeals court decided that since the lower court judge acted as if he may be biased to let another judge decide how to punish Microsoft.
This is a huge loss for Microsoft.
StoneWolf
Again, RTFR (Score:1)
Also, being a monopoly is not illegal as long as you don't use the power of the monopoly to hurt competition. The court ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly and that they did use their monopoly power to hurt competition.
No matter what you might WANT to think, looking up a definition in a dictionary is no substitute for reading the ruling and seeing how the court used guidance from 100 years of supreme court decisions to come to the conclusions they came to. You have to consider what is happening in the historic context of US monopoly laws.
Reality is a lot more complex than you seem to want it to be. Get used to it.
StoneWolf
Comcast to AT&T to AOL? (Score:1)
Scary Thought... (Score:1)
Who the internet? (Score:2)
This statement, bold as it is, was funny then, but mostly ironic now. AOL owned the number one dial up ISP in the world, bought (along with a shitload of cartoon characters and a vast media empire) the number one cable ISP in america, and now they're venturing their tendrils into the number two cable ISP...which also holds a dial up ISP in the top 5.
The internet, as we're proud to say, is a free entity -- it has no real rules, no real restrictions and no real governing bodies, and anybody who ventures into these usually gets laughed at. But everybody has to connect through the same draconian entity, that freedom lapses. AOL/TW doesn't like you doing anything but web browsing and reading e-mail (they tried a dozen times to shut down the web server I was running, but were tied because I signed a user agreement in 1995 that said they couldn't update their terms and didn't block serving); if it decides to block information across its network, it affectively closes off that information. You already can't swear in an AOL chat room...what if they begin to apply the same filter to web content? You wouldn't be reading this fucking page, that's for sure.
Normally I think ideas like this are just inane paranoia. But AOL has already integrated censorship into its network, and has not had any real opposition. Market factors don't affect it, becuase there's never a large enough share held by the opposition to hurt the giant. When 40 million people give you $21.95 a month, a thousand saying that they won't if you aren't nicer to them just don't matter to you. For this reason, AOL should be blocked in any way possible from absorbing relatively decent ISPs like AT&T's...even if it means a viscious anti-trust suit.
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:2)
Re:Concentration of control does not exist (Score:2)
I think the 1996 act itself said it best,
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:2)
Really? Don't count on that-- AT&T's cable operation is significantly bigger than AOLTW's. AT&T already owns a chunk of Time Warner Cable, for that matter (and an even bigger chunk of @Home, which gives them a stake in keeping it alive). I don't see AT&T giving up complete control of anything to AOL.
Absolutely no way (Score:2)
AOL Investment in Amazon a Potential Buyout (Score:1)
A Seattle TV station [komotv.com] is reporting [komotv.com] that the deal between AOL and Amazon leaves a loophole for a "quiet" buyout by AOL.
Re:USA Inc. (Score:1)
1) Nothing in the US is as big, powerful, or monopolistic as the nation's largest employer, the US government.
2) They'll all be selling out to Disney, Sony, and/or MicroSoft.
3) This thing has been going on for well over a century. In fact, of the original business in the Dow Jones index, only one is still there: GE. The rest have been bought out, gone under, etc. This in no way guarantees success.
4) It may make the odds stiffer, but it certainly doesn't prevent a new company rising in a new niche in the ever-changing business environment. Who, twenty-five years ago, had heard of Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Palm, Swatch, Eddie Bauer, etc etc etc? Corporate congolomerates, by their nature, are inefficient and have a lot of inertia. This inertia leads to opportunities for smaller, more nimble players.
5) Given the choice of buyout by an American firm or an overseas firm, I'd prefer the American firm. Call me protectionist, jingoistic, xenophobic, etc, but I'm looking at it from a strictly economic viewpoint. I'd rather see that capital generated in my country stay in my country.
6) There is no point #6.
7) No pooftahs.
Holy Poop on a Stick (Score:1)
__________________
Re:Absolutely no way (Score:3)
AOL already had the ISP market. Then they took TW cable. The regulators we worried this would prevent other companies from competing. So, the government said AOL-TW had to allow other companies to access their cable lines, sort of like the deal the regulators made when they made AT&T share all their wiring with competitors.
If you throw in AT&T's cable, you have one huge cable company. Who is left to compete? AOL already has so much of the market. It will be a hard sell for AOL-TW to convince the regulators that getting a bigger share of the market will not tend to make AOL-TW a monopoly or stifle competition.
Re:One potential Good Thing out of this could be.. (Score:2)
YAY! (Score:1)
No way (Score:1)
SUPERCORP (Score:1)
--
Woe is me (Score:1)
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:1)
As with any service which is essential to the economy, leaving network infrastructure in the hands of private companies doesn't work.
Cable TV is essential to the economy?
-jimbo
Re:AOL Time Warner... (Score:1)
Oh.. wait..
What next? Superman! (Score:1)
Probably, at this date, at any given time, 4% of AOL media traffic is devoted to Gary Condit news.
Exploding set-top converter boxes (Score:1)
AOL will get its day ... (Score:1)
----
Re:AOLTIMEWARNERAMAZONAT&T (Score:1)
----
What's bad about this ... (Score:1)
The Media Monopoly
Re:YAY! (Score:1)
Actually 23 huge multi-media corporations were doing just that since 1982. The figure filtered down to approx. 9 media conglomerates in 1992. I think it's probably down to less than 6 now. They own and control the distribution of *news* internationally. In who's best interest?
Re:Concentration of control does not exist (Score:1)
Next test... considering you get your news from pop media, try switching channels between all the pop channels. What? It's all the same news? Imagine that!
Re:Monopoly? (Score:1)
You mean this one [thismodernworld.com], I believe.
--
#/usr/bin/perl
require 6.0;
Scary, not just for Americans... (Score:3)
Just the thought of AOL owning any part of Rogers doesn't sit well with me. Now, when the contract with @home expires, we can look forward to Rogers@AOL.
And then, when the CRTC allows for another round of digital TV channels, we can look forward to AOLTV.
Come to think of it, Rogers also owns the Blue Jays, and Sportsnet too. Start selling tickets now for the 2005 AOLJays.
Those of you who don't pray, start now... (Score:1)
Re:Monopoly? (Score:3)
And I believe the same principle will apply to information systems, as one company has the ability to determine what the prevailing technology will be. This is the underlying principle behind anti-trust legislation in this day and age.
Re:Unstoppable!! Bwahahaha! (Score:1)
Re:Try an accurate comparison - OK, here (Score:1)
For ANY OS to make inroads in the home desktop market that OS must be compatible with MS Windows, hence a monopoly.
Microsoft is in fact a monopoly, this has been proven in a court of law. Do you think all those lawyers and judges don't realize that "words mean something"?
Re:Are you blind? (Score:1)
Re:..or maybe the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (Score:1)
I think so - didn't you see 'Tomorrow Never Dies'?
Re:Networks MUST be public utilities (Score:1)
Unstoppable!! Bwahahaha! (Score:3)
I guess our only hope is a little penguin named Tux.
:)