Author Topic: CHTR - Charter Communications  (Read 244612 times)

gokou3

  • Lifetime Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #970 on: April 17, 2019, 11:34:17 PM »
Sprint, T-Mobile Shares Fall Sharply on Report DOJ Is Resisting Merger Approval
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/sprint-tmobile-fall-doj-resisting-merger-approval-14929295?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo


Anyone has an opinion on whether it is positive or negative for CHTR if the S-TMUS merger is called off?  My thinking:

Negative (of a rejected S-TMUS merger):
- Reduces the likelihood that VZ will make a bid for CHTR
- VZ / AT&T maintain their dominance in wireless, with weak competitions in standalone S and TMUS

Positive
- Increases the likelihood that Softbank / Masa bid for or partner up with CHTR instead
- Increases the chance of success for CHTR's MVNO


DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1714
  • ♪ 🎶 ♫ ♪ 🎶 ♫
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #971 on: April 18, 2019, 05:17:30 AM »
Sprint, T-Mobile Shares Fall Sharply on Report DOJ Is Resisting Merger Approval
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/sprint-tmobile-fall-doj-resisting-merger-approval-14929295?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo


Anyone has an opinion on whether it is positive or negative for CHTR if the S-TMUS merger is called off?  My thinking:

Negative (of a rejected S-TMUS merger):
- Reduces the likelihood that VZ will make a bid for CHTR
- VZ / AT&T maintain their dominance in wireless, with weak competitions in standalone S and TMUS

Positive
- Increases the likelihood that Softbank / Masa bid for or partner up with CHTR instead
- Increases the chance of success for CHTR's MVNO

Heads CHTR & T win, tails VZ & S lose.

Riddled with bias on my part.
Healthcare 35.2% - CVS DVA EW NVO // BRK.B - 21.9% // Media & Communication 14.4% - CHTR DIS

Drinkers & Smokers 13.5% - ABEV MO // Auto's & Oil 12.7% - CLB GPC VDE // Tech 2.0% - AAPL

%'s held @ MV 05/24/2019 minus $$$

i trumpet my ignorance

https://twitter.com/tunawish

Spos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #972 on: April 18, 2019, 10:09:23 AM »
Cogeco in its presentations has a breakdown of the competition in its footprint in terms of technology (% DSL, % FTTH).  Has anyone seen anything similar for Charter and Comcast?

FiveSigma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #973 on: April 18, 2019, 01:22:32 PM »
Cowen put out a report recently that had some of this data (see attached image).

Spos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #974 on: April 18, 2019, 01:49:23 PM »
FiveSigma, thank you very much!  I've been searching for this online without luck so it's much appreciated.

Cogeco, if you're interested, has 84% DSL, 13% FTTH and 3 FTTN for its US business (excluding Florida).

WayWardCloud

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #975 on: April 18, 2019, 07:10:17 PM »
Awesome document FiveSigma!
I did not realize until now how much better of than anyone else Charter is in terms of competition, especially when you consider that only Verizon Fios can really compete in terms of bandwidth.

Does anyone have numbers that would give an idea of major players' entire backbone capacity? How much fiber they own and how dense is it. I don't even know what unit that would be in... average petabyte per mile capacity X number of miles in their network? Do I make sense? If last mile delivery methods (wifi, 5g, etc) end-up converging, like most of us believe, and in the event there is an explosion of data transfer needs, it could come down to that.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 07:12:49 PM by WayWardCloud »

vince

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #976 on: April 29, 2019, 08:19:02 AM »
I am pasting a paragraph from a research paper that I found while trying to understand (a rarely talked about feature of HFC plant) what Mike Fries referenced when talking about the advantages that the cable plant has in a 5G world......the fact that HFC has power.

  In all the current definitions of a converged network one feature is rarely mentioned but is of paramount
importance . the power required to run the network components. In particular, far-edge Access Point
(AP) devices require power to operate. This is where the HFC (Hybrid Fiber Coax) architecture deployed
by the industry shines. Where other industries have shed the cost of network powering infrastructure for
short term gains and reduced OPEX (operations expense), the MSO (Multiple System Operator) industry
has maintained network powering to activate signal amplifiers for the coax portion of the HFC network.
Power is required every 50-500 meters for the mass deployment of LTE densification and 5G mobility
and only HFC networks have the network powering budget required to meet these needs.


   

JRM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #977 on: April 29, 2019, 09:23:57 AM »
Does he estimate differences in power use?  A wireless router doesn't use much power and is paid for by the customer.  A wireless router serving as a "small cell" access point would require significantly more power (10x?) as well as be designed to handle various environmental factors.  I could probably run some rough estimates, but just curious.

vince

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #978 on: April 29, 2019, 10:23:35 AM »
He doesn't....his point was that HFC plant is ideally positioned due to power, backhaul and site availability.  And not even a pure fiber to the home network has this combination of capabilities.  However, true 5G small cell backhaul, with latency requirements was not considered and although cable is still trying they arent there yet

JRM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
Re: CHTR - Charter Communications
« Reply #979 on: April 29, 2019, 04:16:14 PM »
Ahh, I guess I mis-understood the entire comment.  He is talking about the total power requirement of the entire network.  I was not familiar with a lot of his terminology.