Even Wall Street Is Nervous About Comcast's Latest Bid To Grow Bigger For Bigger's Sake
from the growth-for-growth's-sake dept
Comcast's latest effort to grow even larger is spooking even the company's investors. "Growth for growth's sake" has been the mantra of the telecom and TV sectors for years. Once growth in any particular market (like broadband) saturates, companies begin nosing about for efforts to grow larger in other sectors, even if it it's well outside of their core competencies (see Verizon Sugarstring, Go90). Unfortunately for the end user, such growth isn't accompanied by any meaningful parallel investment in quality product or customer service, a major reason so many users "enjoy" Comcast services today.
At the same time, this growing power results in increased efforts to thwart any effort to rein in this power, leaving oversight of the natural monopolies more precarious than ever (see: net neutrality). That's exceptionally true for Comcast, where the one-two punch of fading state and federal oversight, expiring NBC Universal merger conditions from its last 2011 megadeal, and a growing monopoly over broadband is forging a perfect storm of trouble.
Comcast's latest gambit came over the weekend, when the nation's biggest cable operator toppled 21st Century Fox with a $39 billion for Sky broadcasting, Europe's biggest pay TV operator. But even Wall Street stock jocks, traditionally more than happy to cheerlead mindless growth for growth's sake, have become nervous about the expansion, worrying that Comcast's overseas exploits are little more than a pricey distraction:
"Craig Moffett, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC, downgraded Comcast’s stock Monday to neutral, saying the company had “grossly overpaid for Sky.” Timothy Horan, an analyst at Oppenheimer, also downgraded Comcast’s stock, citing the company’s need to invest instead in the U.S., where it faces growing competition from wireless and online TV rivals."
“It’s going to be incredibly hard to justify having paid such a high price,” Moffett said in an interview Sunday. “This is an asset that neither Disney nor Comcast investors wanted to win.”
Comcast stock price took a major tumble as a result. The biggest problem for many investors is debt. Like AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, the deal saddles Comcast with so much debt it's going to be forced to cut corners on other fronts in order to shore up the losses. Usually, at least in telecom, that results in cuts to customer service. It also results in companies nickel and diming captive customers harder than ever, whether that means usage caps and overage charges, bullshit fees, or even charging users more money if they want to protect their own privacy.
As you might expect, Comcast tried to put a more positive spin on its latest looming acquisition, company CEO Brian Roberts bubbling over about the overseas expansion:
"This is a great day for Comcast. Sky is a wonderful company with a great platform, tremendous brand, and accomplished management team. This acquisition will allow us to quickly, efficiently and meaningfully increase our customer base and expand internationally. We couldn’t be more excited by the opportunities in front of us. We now encourage Sky shareholders to accept our offer, which we look forward to completing before the end of October 2018."
The problem, of course, is the same one Comcast has always faced. Its ragingly incompetent customer service has made it the laughing stock of the tech industry for the better part of the last decade. What Comcast actually needs is to pause, invest in overall quality and support, and focus on its core competencies. But because traditional broadband is never profitable enough, quickly enough for Wall Street, Comcast executive eyeballs are always fixed everywhere other than fixing some of the company's many, fatal flaws.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acquisitions, wall street
Companies: comcast, sky
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, Comcast has a problem then. You can't cut what already doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sky last straw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It has been fascinating
Why is the government that allows this to happen not evil? How about all the politicians, regulators, judges, courts, agencies, and citizens allowing this to exist? How are they not evil?
What sort of "evil" is notable about this one company vs every other company out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It has been fascinating
Really now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It has been fascinating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is what you guys have been fighting for
it is just to easy to get you guys to help the enemy.
This is what regulation of the kind that you all support brings, monolithic structure and hierarchy.
It is a shame you are too "political" to realize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Please advise who the enemy is.
Please advise which regulations you are referring to. Be specific. Once you've specified, we can start digging deeper.
Please define the term "political" as you are using it.
Until you've done these things, there is nothing more to discuss. I look forward to your prompt and well-thought out response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
One should never go full Donald, did you see the UN laughing at him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
The idea behind questions and requests of the type I used is to attempt to get people to actually discuss. Present your views, be specific, present your arguments, and think about what you and others are saying. Ask questions to clarify what people have said, rather than assuming you know what they mean.
The first post by this AC was vague and aimless, and would only have resulted in the good old fashioned flame war (and thus I flagged it even as I responded).
The response to my inquiries has the potential for more.
If we could dispense with insults and accusatory postures, then maybe the potential could be realized.
The other possibilities of the outcome come down to a response of equally little substance, at which point, yes, just move on and ignore the whole thing, or no response, which is enough of a signifier that there was nothing there that everyone can move on and have done.
So I will keep responding to things in the way I did here. The way I see it, there's no downside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Everyone that supports government regulation that gives a "must do" power rather than a "cannot do" power. Example, the founding of the FCC to not only "legitimize" telecom-monopolies, but to also governmentally "enforce" their existence as monopolies and to "regulate" them as such.
The original regulations were "anti-monopoly" and "anti-trust". They failed because the "regulators" failed because it makes more sense for a regulator to be corrupt than for a regulator to do anything the people want.
"Please advise who the enemy is."
Regulators and the people that "blindly" support them and politicize "regulations" just like how TD and many that support TD does.
I like TD for the fact that it calls out many things that need to be called out, but TD is dog shit with their solutions "just like the scum they are are bitching about".
"Please advise which regulations you are referring to. Be specific. Once you've specified, we can start digging deeper."
NN regulations for example... worthless, pointless, and a waste of energy. Let's remove the specific regulations that allow Telco's to OWN private property on public land. This would be all the poles and wires. Should be "regulated" just like roads are. This is what created the "faux natural monopoly" problem.
Lets strengthen the "anti-monopoly" and "anti-trust" laws, lets strengthen the "truth in advertising laws", lets strengthen the "truth in billing laws" as if any even exist. Lets scrape the endless chain of bullshit regulations that needlessly waste court resources. These bullshit regulations are mostly Dazzle and Disguise. TRASH the vast majority of them.
Lets prevent local government entities from being able to enter into exclusive contracts and completely remove legal avenues for Telco's to sue places building their own fiber, municipal or competitive businesses like Google Fiber ENTIRELY!
"Please define the term "political" as you are using it."
Most specifically, no desire to support the waste of time that is NN as being either "republican" shilling for the business, or Anarchist.
I do support regulations, just nothing of the likes of the regulations that TD supports. I like strong anti-monopoly/trust regulations and view the vast majority of others where the government tells businesses what they must do rather than just what they cannot do as a huge waste of effort and contrary to a free as possible market place.
"Until you've done these things, there is nothing more to discuss. I look forward to your prompt and well-thought out response."
Shortly after I have posted this people will soon again say that I never said/posted them. Hopefully you will not join their ranks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Simple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Government is bad, but anarchy is worse.
The problem with morons like you, is that you are not able to use them to balance, but instead allow them to be used to oppress and create the exact problem that this article is about and you are too stupid to understand this nuance. You are a simple mind, weak, and lazy. You choose to have a politician solve your problems because you won't help solve them yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
To be clear, this is entirely because of the "morons like you" line and similar statements.
I applaud you digging deeper and providing more detail when asked for it. If you can stop insulting all your readers with each post, and drop the accusatory stance towards people that you don't know anything about (for example, do you know what my views on regulation are? The answer is "no" - because I haven't shared them, and you don't know who I am) you might get somebody to listen to you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
You have proven yourself incapable of intelligent discourse. I hope you one day correct this, but it is a faint hope.
May this day be the worst day you ever experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Simple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
Drugs are bad for your body, but they help it more than hurt it. regulations are the same thing.
The benefits have to outweigh the drawbacks, but under no circumstances are the drugs good for you. They are just MORE bad for the problem then they are for you, and because stupid people like you exist, you cannot be trusted with having access to drugs and you must see a doctor. You fundamentally do not know how to "think about the problem". Doctors are trained differently and are a little less dumber than you.
It appears that advanced nuance is not something the collective menagerie of animals here are able to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: this is what you guys have been fighting for
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how, for all the detail you went into with your other answers (which I happen to appreciate, regardless of whether I agree with what you said), this is the one place where you do not explain the substance behind the style. If Network Neutrality regulations are those things you say they are, explain why they are instead of just telling us they are those things and expecting us to believe you without hesitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NN came with the "Zero Rating" loophole. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the monopolies. In addition to this is does not help the cramming problem and the rules are too ambiguous and allows the "current" incarnation of the whoever the Next Wheeler/Pai will be to wield to much arbitrary power over which businesses are breaking the rules, and which businesses are breaking them enough to warrant action.
There is already more than enough arbitrary power in regulation based on when when enforcement action is taken and against who. We don't need any more laws where the words "reasonable" are codified as part of it's rules.
"Reasonable" in legal language is "unreasonable" because what you find to be reasonable another does not.
NN is pure crumbs from the table and entirely designed to pull shallow people in to support it.
Until we destroy the monopolies and until we get rid of their ability to keep new competition beat in the courts this problem does not go away. And things like NN are completely designed to sucker you into pursuing distractions rather than trying to actually solve problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Telecoms, electricity, gas, sewage, roads are all natural monopolies, and should be provided and regulated as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What made you think Network Neutrality was ever supposed to “stop the monopolies”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
NN does nothing to stop a monopoly from spawning as it was never intended to, it might stop existing corps from becoming worse but until the AG starts doing their job ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the biggest problem right now is the monopolies and until you resolve that, there is nothing you can do to stop them. They own you, your politicians, and your data.
They will give the money you gave to them to politicians you did and did not vote for to take your liberty in the marketplace away.
In order to protect you from the "evil corporations" they will tell you what you get to have and they will allow them to take your data and sell it! The idea that you think you are going to get it back with regulations just shows how "not sure of anything" you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I said the problem is that NN does nothing to address which is what makes it worthless.
If you cannot even understand basic English no wonder you idiots are getting fucked over by the telcos relentlessly.
Why would a politician need to take your stupid ass seriously? They are much more intelligent that you are and more intelligent than you give them credit for, which is why they rule over your ass and not the other way around. Not only they, they pay plenty of people well beyond your intellectual level to write laws in such a way that you are easily taken for a fool.
They have been doing it for years and you never learn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Network Neutrality was never designed, nor supposed, to prevent monopolies. In what way besides that is Network Neutrality “worthless”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that premise is accepted, the fact that the network-neutrality regulations were not designed, intended, or supposed to deal with the monopolies is itself a condemnation of those regulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- such juvenile style in discussions will not provide the results you want .. unless what you want is an excuse for more insults, but that is demented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The key move was the Title II classification. Techdirt likes it because it starts with a light touch approach, but can escalate if the market does not improve. And most of the heavy handed moves you really want involve Title II classification. Local loop unbundling? Title II. Zero Rating? Title II. Title II had a bunch of other powers designed to restrain the monopolistic power telecommunications has due to high investment costs - as repeatedly shown in the history of Telecommunications monopolies.
Breaking up the monopolies ala AT&T and the Bell System does little, at the local consumer level where it matters, to resolve the monopolistic concerns. And does little to drive build outs or foster competition. NN is not the Wheeler regulation, the wheeler regulations are an implementation of NN. Monopolies in America are considered bad if they harm the market and/or consumers by virtue of their monopoly. NN is a name for principles designed to prevent harm to consumers and the market. Allowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, nothing I propose is perfect, just the closest "possible" thing to it. There is nothing perfect.
"Net neutrality was not an attempt to break the monopolies, the most heavy handed of regulation."
Why do people think I am claiming that it does? I am saying that because it does not makes it a pointless effort. It has already been defeated, if it does come back, it will be defeated again. I told everyone when Wheeler did it, that they are still not going to win. I have been proven right, but no one will still listen to me because it offends their politics. It's not about what is correct or not, its about dogma.
"Techdirt and its usual commenters have, contrary to your criticism, criticized the current rules for not going far enough."
Not the problem, like I said... I like that TD points out problems, they just don't have good solutions and those rules not going far enough is NOT a good solution.
"it only highlights they are not perfect in the opinion of the writers and commenters."
no one is perfect, no me, no TD, but giving government this kind of power implies that someone thinks government is perfect, it's practically a religion now. Everyone seeks to have government replace their religions to care for them. Well... government will definitely "take care" of you, the problem is "obey or die" is the result of that care.
"Your claims that Techdirt 'blindly' supports net neutrality is contrary to thousands of words written on the subject laying out explanations, reasoned argument, and a change in position after examination of the evidence that actually supports your position to a degree, contrasted with your position which appears to blindly state dogma which appears contradictory, because you are loose with terms and definitions, and fails to rationally address the Techdirt position."
And those results have been successful how? The results of TD's efforts instill MORE POWER in government right in the face of them looking at a regulatory captured agency. How can you not see how insane it is to go to one oppressor for salvation from another oppressor? You get oppressed either way. One just happens to lube you up first.
"Breaking up the monopolies ala AT&T and the Bell System does little, at the local consumer level where it matters, to resolve the monopolistic concerns."
Monopolies are bad, in fact the reason for creating regulations was to stop them. How is it now you are okay with monopolies if they just get regulated by government? News flash, the monopolies are buying your voices! Reddit posted a big long list of politicians that accepted telco money. You have been sold out and you keep wanting to be sold out? That makes no sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Competition between cable and DSL for Internet access is an accident of history, because cable TV and phone lines used to be incompatible analogue networks. With digital they became more or less interchangeable, and with fiber, indistinguishable a the infrastructure level, and the copper phone network is being abandoned in favor of fiber where it is economic to install, and mobile elsewhere. You keep claiming that telcos are an artificial monopoly, when the evidence before your eyes is that they are a natural monopoly, in that the system converges on a single supplier for fixed lines.
When the heads of regulatory agencies are short term, 5 to 10 year, appointees from the industry that they are meant to regulate, and will be looking to go back to that industry after their tenure as regulators, they will become pawns of that industry, unless they ate looking to retire after government service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“It’s true, but he shouldn’t say it.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]