Download raw source

MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.84.202 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:04:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CALGS4wSsGr6Dct8hMUvp60ReNhp-O5iHAPB4fCHVN4fteBsRgA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALGS4wSsGr6Dct8hMUvp60ReNhp-O5iHAPB4fCHVN4fteBsRgA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:04:30 -0500 Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Message-ID: <CAE6FiQ9FVCJUVAy2n0yn6VbkBDLkTKuvvKu5gEuXcr=6PLRrXA@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: charter-time/warner From: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> To: Sara Solow <ssolow@hillaryclinton.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=001a114014e27554f00529b3b3ce --001a114014e27554f00529b3b3ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > --001a114014e27554f00529b3b3ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable See no reason to have a view at this point. Don't think there is any pr= essure to oppose and make this another example of consolidation; on the oth= er hand no upside in supporting.<br><br>On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Sara = Solow <<a href=3D"mailto:ssolow@hillaryclinton.com">ssolow@hillaryclinto= n.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"><di= v><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 tho= ught the business case for their merger was pretty sympathetic.=C2=A0 They = offer a good product (minimum 60 meg download speeds!) to virtually all rur= al consumers, and if the merger fails, they will go under.=C2=A0 Post-merge= r with Time Warner, the combined company would have about 21% of the nation= al market 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 current= ly.=C2=A0 They spent $5 bn last year upgrading their networks to offer a be= tter product than the telcos - which they currently do.<br><br></div></div>= I also found it interesting that there hasnt been ANY congressional hearing= on <br>this.=C2=A0 Skepticism much lower.<br><br>The FCC is likely to rule= in March, so we'll have to have a response by then. <br><br></div>Anyw= ay, those were some of my impressions.<br><br></div>Yours,<br></div>Sara<br= ></div> </blockquote> --001a114014e27554f00529b3b3ce--