Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.24.226 with SMTP id 95csp2578057lfy; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.157.101 with SMTP id wl5mr11252492lbb.88.1453227200351; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <ssolow@hillaryclinton.com> Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m206si12009958lfd.84.2016.01.19.10.13.20 for <john.podesta@gmail.com> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ssolow@hillaryclinton.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c07::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c07::234; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ssolow@hillaryclinton.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c07::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ssolow@hillaryclinton.com; dkim=pass header.i=@hillaryclinton.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=hillaryclinton.com Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id m198so191482969lfm.0 for <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Qx8kASqj5cCCq6r2nNwl36Ba5Ql/J5VW2gU8+S4W3Es=; b=hlueMyaemgDNBghL4XHskYiiW1ri7nViZB6FFOq6AMpz1Ivwi5J6eCtq3dzCvqyIju Q2NdLROiTTHSI7IYPbJQ+7ScyWj6sp3pFGglK779w8H2jfpfq+5u2c1UAOXWSdoLKDAD yY6IhuGPLE9j2vtYTbyWf6rQg2Jtij0axhluE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Qx8kASqj5cCCq6r2nNwl36Ba5Ql/J5VW2gU8+S4W3Es=; b=Ejpx8WWR2/E4zSzMleJnoQhT3lkDCxFTXTqgXXH87yHjUTRR5UzpenAToV/j+Klita pBxnyeTmpKyclVN49fZne5M7HYdCEd93oM7yJ8U9J+R06RuQo4CVaKZ7ncz8CumhIwy7 A2E1smfcW8Xvjk43dzQVSWEuyMJnV2i4D4djE/Wt1ub6IDE3clm1P1NfUqeEVEQgbTSy buVc/meGbKt91Ye0h8DFYyZ2kI9mERHf/L71AdMB/bnKWC+Xd+4rZZWczbl0SD9Zm9Lx +Q0k1OTLz7a42AM9FFuoxRGIH3GW7tGfwX1kri+KBFldgpVUVrMsQigrqmszLaPZLzCf GxCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkOhRPvQSUC/mwE0Kxh8eoL1QwMLCLAraxa9doOp7XnjuaQlJq6g6Wfd4QRQG/tQa4Ygm49XzWWXF3fk2DeOKbdFu6YK+EIihLXfFyR9l5uVjK2EnY= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.42.16 with SMTP id q16mr9350758lfq.58.1453227200210; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.219.136 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAE6FiQ9FVCJUVAy2n0yn6VbkBDLkTKuvvKu5gEuXcr=6PLRrXA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALGS4wSsGr6Dct8hMUvp60ReNhp-O5iHAPB4fCHVN4fteBsRgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE6FiQ9FVCJUVAy2n0yn6VbkBDLkTKuvvKu5gEuXcr=6PLRrXA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:13:20 -0500 Message-ID: <CALGS4wSDvFZjHvW8U9SZ+87o9w-4X7D+CLWx6eZEz=3rH9Vbqg@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: charter-time/warner From: Sara Solow <ssolow@hillaryclinton.com> To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> CC: Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>, Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>, Michael Shapiro <mshapiro@hillaryclinton.com>, Kristina Costa <kcosta@hillaryclinton.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114039b00c01350529b3d3d1 --001a114039b00c01350529b3d3d1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes - I definitely do not think we should support it. But when it comes around, my impression is that we should pause before holding it up as a bogeyman merger. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:04 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > See no reason to have a view at this point. Don't think there is any > pressure to oppose and make this another example of consolidation; on the > other hand no upside in supporting. > > > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Sara Solow <ssolow@hillaryclinton.com> > wrote: > >> John, >> >> After you met with them -- I spent about an hour with the woman from >> Charter hearing about the Time-Warner merger / their business model / their >> policy requests. >> >> I'm curious what your impression was. >> >> I actually thought the business case for their merger was pretty >> sympathetic. They offer a good product (minimum 60 meg download speeds!) >> to virtually all rural consumers, and if the merger fails, they will go >> under. Post-merger with Time Warner, the combined company would have about >> 21% of the national market for broadband -- a fair amount, but not as big >> as ATT-Direct TV. They don't overlap with Time Warner anywhere >> currently. They spent $5 bn last year upgrading their networks to offer a >> better product than the telcos - which they currently do. >> >> I also found it interesting that there hasnt been ANY congressional >> hearing on >> this. Skepticism much lower. >> >> The FCC is likely to rule in March, so we'll have to have a response by >> then. >> >> Anyway, those were some of my impressions. >> >> Yours, >> Sara >> > --001a114039b00c01350529b3d3d1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Yes - I definitely do not think we should support it.=C2= =A0 But when it comes around, my impression is that we should pause before = holding it up as a bogeyman merger.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br= ><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:04 PM, John Podesta <= span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com" target=3D"_b= lank">john.podesta@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-= left:1ex">See no reason to have a view at this point. Don't think there= is any pressure to oppose and make this another example of consolidation; = on the other hand no upside in supporting.<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class= =3D"h5"><br><br>On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Sara Solow <<a href=3D"mai= lto:ssolow@hillaryclinton.com" target=3D"_blank">ssolow@hillaryclinton.com<= /a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .= 8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div= ><div><div><div><div><div><div>John,<br><br></div>After you met with them -= - I spent about an hour with the woman from Charter hearing about the Time-= Warner merger / their business model / their policy requests.<br><br></div>= I'm curious what your impression was.<br><br></div>I actually thought t= he business case for their merger was pretty sympathetic.=C2=A0 They offer = a good product (minimum 60 meg download speeds!) to virtually all rural con= sumers, and if the merger fails, they will go under.=C2=A0 Post-merger with= Time Warner, the combined company would have about 21% of the national mar= ket for broadband -- a fair amount, but not as big as ATT-Direct TV.=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 They don't overlap with Time Warner anywhere currently.=C2= =A0 They spent $5 bn last year upgrading their networks to offer a better p= roduct than the telcos - which they currently do.<br><br></div></div>I also= found it interesting that there hasnt been ANY congressional hearing on <b= r>this.=C2=A0 Skepticism much lower.<br><br>The FCC is likely to rule in Ma= rch, so we'll have to have a response by then. <br><br></div>Anyway, th= ose were some of my impressions.<br><br></div>Yours,<br></div>Sara<br></div= > </blockquote> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --001a114039b00c01350529b3d3d1--