http://www.cnbc.com/id/101412815
I wonder if this will have any effect on time warner cable sports channel? Maybe get the MAC on more screens or give it some better production value?

Any bets on whatever it means will result in what we get is more, or if it will cost us less?

For cable subscribers, it will probably mean little.  Mergers usually mean duplicative jobs are eliminated to help the bottom line for investors but services generally are the same or maybe a bit worse.

The upside for the MAC is that Comcast is more sports oriented -- they have real sports channels in the northeast and Chicago -- and they own NBC, so the MAC might show up on NBCSC.

Comcast and TW have almost no overlap geographically, so I don't really think it will have an effect on pricing or much of anything, really.

Doesn't Cable TV still operate as a government enforced monopoly across most municipalities in the country? I don't really see how the free market has anything to do with this.

Anyone on here actually have the option of buying Time Warner OR Comcast at their current residence?

These are the #1 and #2 cable/ISP companies in the country, right? I highly doubt this goes through.

I thought Time Warner was bad (grew up in Adelphia territory and always liked their service). Then I moved to Comcast territory and... holy crap. It's a nightmare. And they don't care because you have no other options.

I've heard AT&T has been expanding their internet and cable service in southeast Ohio

I actually had horrendous service from Time Warner in Ohio - on Comcast now in CT, and it's been painless and reliable for my nearly three years here. I think region (and probably population density) have as much effect on your service as anything (customer service notwithstanding - it seems putrid across areas and providers).

Just a note on Pataskala - Time Warner Cable is actually not wrapped up in the content business - they were spun out of Time Warner the content company a few years back. Comcast, obviously, has lots of content. As mentioned, they actually do have a broader sports presence, in Chigaco, Philly, and the Bay Area. I'm not sure this will have much impact on the MAC deal. The speed with which this type of transaction moves means that three year deal will likely be up before much significant rebranding or movement would happen there (assuming the deal goes through at all).

I completely agree with the idea that we desperately need more broadband competition, and nobody is doing much on any real scale. Verizon and AT&T both had promising fiber networks bringing real competition to cable, but both have stopped expanding those networks. AT&T adding areas now is effectively meaningless, as their high speed internet offerings in non-Uverse areas are simply not competitive with cable. As more and more services (voice and video both) are delivered over IP, the importance of competition in that space is extremely important.

Google needs to fast track their Fiber service.

Content is still king.  For most of us, aren't sportscasts the driver?  That is, one can get pretty good content/viewing by leaving TimeWarner, Comcast, etc behind and going with Amazon or Netflix or other 'over the top.'  But the latter don't offer an avenue to ESPN and the like, right?

And how do you get to Amazon or Netflix without TWC or Comcast? I live in the country's fourth-biggest city and there is no viable alternative to Comcast Internet. And that doesn't even factor in the death of Net Neutrality and providers throttling down speed to certain sites like Netflix. That has already started to happen.

I'm talking about Internet service, not TV. I don't have TV, but I get my Internet through Comcast.