It won't be Comcast that lays out the dough to upgrade their system once they are back in the fold, T will have to pull the line itself.
CMCSA wants to become a major media player, not just a cable system operator. They already own several very attractive media assets, e.g. sports teams and home shopping to name two--it is very much in CMCSA's interest to proceed with the upgrades, i.e. CMCSA is going to upgrade/lay their own cable plant, not T.
The only way AOL can get involved is through the open back door that T forgets to close while in the act if the FCC lets them shoot themselves in the foot. AOL gets nothing out of the arrangement you have suggested.
Perhaps you can suggest some of these consortia that might step into the fray, as you mentioned in your previous post--I'd be curious to know your thoughts. I was simply throwing out a pie-in-sky combination (AOL/TWX/CMCSA/UMG) that I still believe makes strategic sense. What AOL would get: 1) access to broadband cable and a major one at that; and, 2) become the portal and main WWW site for potentially over 22MM cable subs, a hedge. Without a sizeable broadband cable ally, they might be "stuck" w/xDSL w/in 5 years w/o regulatory intervention--who'd need AOL at that point when others such as RR and ATHM/XCIT will have replaced AOL?
You're trying to claim apples are oranges, because both are fruit. It is like the Sultan of Brunei buying UMG just because he has a big pile of dough. Same with Gates. This isn't the game, "Monopoly".
These cable MSOs are trading cable properties all the time to leverage their existing operations ("clustering" as its known in the industry), which, when watered down, is very much like the game Monopoly, with more strategy involved, however. Do a simple news run and see how many assets have been swapped or purchased between cable "rivals." In fact, it somewhat reminds me of how the McCaw/AT&T Wireless cellular network was pieced together several years ago. Maybe a combination of the games Risk and Monopoly. If you're referring to T having grand plans for a monopoly, then that's a different story...yes, it does have the potential, but again, not yet.
T shares economic ownership?
Absolutely. It really basic and works most of the time--align everyone's incentives. Many of the points that you bring up about Comcast might be resolved--I'm not suggesting that T will come out and offer CMCSA a number of ATHM shares, but there would be some arrangement that would have to be negotiated, played out to the fullest.
Are we on the same page? This isn't public sharing time. You have to clarify what you mean because what it sounds like is grade school idealism.
Idealism? I think not--common sense is more like it. The shareholders of many of the most successful companies do it all the time. I know that I part with some of my economic interest to MSFT employees each year.
I do find your posts enlightening, but your condescension is not appreciated. |
