WSJ.com Could Lose 25% of Its Traffic if Murdoch Blocks Google [View article]
In response to the post that wsj.com makes a tidy penny from a $150 subscription fee: I canceled my wsj.com subscription just this morning. I paid $99/yr. the first year, $119 the second and they wanted $197 for the current year. I don't know what kind of price elasticity exists for wsj.com subscribers, but I'm not willing to pay double within two years for the product.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the issue with Google could be remedied by tweaking the ratio of content that is free vs. behind a pay wall.
On Nov 10 10:57 AM Ricard wrote:
> This move makes sense. > > As it stands, Google basically controls media content by making all > the money from it, while publishers like WSJ and the NYT make next > to zero (outside of their own advertising streams). > > A corollary would be for phone books to make the profits that would > normally go to the plumbers and etc that actually perform the service. > Doesn't make any sense. > > Of course, wsj.com makes a tidy sum off the outlandish $150/year > subscription fee.
There isn't a lot of value added with this post since you mainly just regurgitate the Barron's article.
A few points: 1. The CVC board and shareholders would have to approve a Dolan buyout. With the company generating more free cash flow now that capex is declining and soon to be free of MSG, it's would command a decent premium. The Dolans are unlikely to get financing in this environment for the price they'd need to pay.
2. The government cap had nothing to do with cable networks. It was a FCC ban on the amount of pay TV subscribers that a company could control (30%). Also, no one took the cap seriously since it had been struck down before.
3. Time Warner Inc. was never really an impediment to Time Warner Cable's potential to do deals. The big factor is their desire to keep their debt ratio at 3.25 cash flow so that they can retain an investment grade rating. They're above that at the moment as a result of the special dividend related to their separation from TWX, but are do to get back to 3.25 by early next year. However, since it operates in NYC, buying Cablevision would indeed be a good fit.
I believe that Comcast will continue to pursue content in a more evolutionary way rather than make a bid acquisition. In this economy it is concerned with its investment grade rating and isn't interested in taking on a lot of debt. I also don't think it would be too interested in situation involving a big integration effort.
Also, Time Warner, Inc.'s ticker symbol is TWX, not TWC.
I think you made a keyboard mistake when you said, "As Moffett notes, the initial investment included a commitment from Microsoft to buy set-top boxes from Microsoft. " I believe it was a Comcast commitment.
Anyway, it's an interesting piece of news. I would read it more as Microsoft pruning some dead wood after it's become obvious that the strategy hasn't worked out than any great negative against Comcast.
Comcast Limits User Downloads: Wrong Solution [View article]
Comcast and other ISP's already charge different prices for different speeds. That being said, I still believe that an application agnostic management of the network is preferable to a download limit.
Cablevision Soars; Will the Dolans Try Again? [View article]
While I agree that the Dolans at some point may make another play for privatizing CVC, I don't make the connection between Jim Dolan's comments and that course of action. In my opinion, I believe he's just addressing shareholder dissatisfaction with the gap between value and market price, which may be caused more by the company's non-cable holdings. My guess is that he's going to make more of an effort to convince the market of the value of the non-cable businesses.
I agree wholeheartedly with idepops. I was a triple play customer in California but had only minor issues technically. However, the customer service was so bad that I went running back to DirecTV for video and dropped IP phone altogether (I reluctantly take Comcast internet now). The CSRs have only gone from arrogantly rude in the old days to indifferently rude now. One definitely gets the feel that one is dealing with "the cable company".
Comcast has made a few public comments about improving customer service, but it's either just noise or the comments aren't translating into action at the operational level. CS improvement needs to be made a high profile priority within the company with active involvement from top management.
Sprint Nextel Expands Mobile Cable/Telephone Partnership [View article]
"Comcast announced in January its plans to capture 20% of the small business market with bundled wireless services."
Your facts are a little off. Comcast indeed plans to capture 20% of the small business market, but with their traditional triple play product offering, not with bundled wireless. It has repeated stated that it does not intend to compete "on minutes" in the wireless arena, and is still trying to figure out what to do with the product.
From their Q4 earnings call: "We have no announced plans for any activity out of Spectrum Co. that you haven’t already heard about. But it’s an area that I think we have a lot on our plate in ’07. We will be doing some work with Sprint in a couple of markets to roll out wireless, to see if Quadruple Play has a meaningful difference than Triple Play, better or worse to the consumer.
Other cable operator partners will be doing different versions of that, but one of the benefits of working in partnership with Sprint is we are going to get to see what ideas work and what ideas don’t work, and we continue to monitor it."
Sort by:
Latest comments | Highest ratedStay Away From Charter Communications: Bankruptcy Filing Looming? [View article]
WSJ.com Could Lose 25% of Its Traffic if Murdoch Blocks Google [View article]
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the issue with Google could be remedied by tweaking the ratio of content that is free vs. behind a pay wall.
On Nov 10 10:57 AM Ricard wrote:
> This move makes sense.
>
> As it stands, Google basically controls media content by making all
> the money from it, while publishers like WSJ and the NYT make next
> to zero (outside of their own advertising streams).
>
> A corollary would be for phone books to make the profits that would
> normally go to the plumbers and etc that actually perform the service.
> Doesn't make any sense.
>
> Of course, wsj.com makes a tidy sum off the outlandish $150/year
> subscription fee.
Murdoch: We Don't Need Google [View article]
Dolans to Sell Cablevision? [View article]
There isn't a lot of value added with this post since you mainly just regurgitate the Barron's article.
A few points:
1. The CVC board and shareholders would have to approve a Dolan buyout. With the company generating more free cash flow now that capex is declining and soon to be free of MSG, it's would command a decent premium. The Dolans are unlikely to get financing in this environment for the price they'd need to pay.
2. The government cap had nothing to do with cable networks. It was a FCC ban on the amount of pay TV subscribers that a company could control (30%). Also, no one took the cap seriously since it had been struck down before.
3. Time Warner Inc. was never really an impediment to Time Warner Cable's potential to do deals. The big factor is their desire to keep their debt ratio at 3.25 cash flow so that they can retain an investment grade rating. They're above that at the moment as a result of the special dividend related to their separation from TWX, but are do to get back to 3.25 by early next year. However, since it operates in NYC, buying Cablevision would indeed be a good fit.
Is Comcast Eyeing Mickey Mouse? [View article]
Also, Time Warner, Inc.'s ticker symbol is TWX, not TWC.
Microsoft Sells Stake in Comcast [View article]
I think you made a keyboard mistake when you said, "As Moffett notes, the initial investment included a commitment from Microsoft to buy set-top boxes from Microsoft. " I believe it was a Comcast commitment.
Anyway, it's an interesting piece of news. I would read it more as Microsoft pruning some dead wood after it's become obvious that the strategy hasn't worked out than any great negative against Comcast.
Comcast Limits User Downloads: Wrong Solution [View article]
Cablevision Soars; Will the Dolans Try Again? [View article]
Comcast: Expect a Consumer Revolt [View article]
Comcast has made a few public comments about improving customer service, but it's either just noise or the comments aren't translating into action at the operational level. CS improvement needs to be made a high profile priority within the company with active involvement from top management.
Sprint Nextel Expands Mobile Cable/Telephone Partnership [View article]
Your facts are a little off. Comcast indeed plans to capture 20% of the small business market, but with their traditional triple play product offering, not with bundled wireless. It has repeated stated that it does not intend to compete "on minutes" in the wireless arena, and is still trying to figure out what to do with the product.
From their Q4 earnings call:
"We have no announced plans for any activity out of Spectrum Co. that you haven’t already heard about. But it’s an area that I think we have a lot on our plate in ’07. We will be doing some work with Sprint in a couple of markets to roll out wireless, to see if Quadruple Play has a meaningful difference than Triple Play, better or worse to the consumer.
Other cable operator partners will be doing different versions of that, but one of the benefits of working in partnership with Sprint is we are going to get to see what ideas work and what ideas don’t work, and we continue to monitor it."