Comcast Wants To Buy Disney For $66 Billion

BenBenBen writes "Comcast have made a surprise $66 billion bid for Disney. The public bid (aimed at swaying shareholders) follows a period of secret negotiation which resulted in Eisner saying no. Comcast has a statement on their website and there is better coverage available here."

Comments

Hostile takeover?

[jaf]

Curious.. is this what's called a hostile takeover?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[B00yah]

No, a hostile takeover is where you buy a controlling percentage of the company's stock, to overthrow their board.

This is just a business tactic to try and sway the devil that is Eisner..

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Pamplemousse]

This is what we call agressive negotiations!

Re:Hostile takeover?

[eln]

To be more precise, it's generally when you offer all of the minority shareholders in a company a premium price for their stock (often in the neighborhood of 40 to 50% above market value) in an attempt to gain controlling interest.

This is generally only possible with companies where the majority of the stock is held by a large number of minority shareholders. It would not be possible with, say, Microsoft, where Bill Gates still owns over 50% of the stock.

Usually a hostile takeover is done by so-called corporate raiders, whose plans are to dismantle the company and sell the pieces for more than the entire company would be worth if sold as one piece.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great even more Media Consolidation. Just fucking great.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[danny256]

Bill Gates owns less than 15% of Microsoft stock. But since this is the highest amount (Steve Jobs being #2 with 5%) he is able to keep control of the company. I don't know where you got your information.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Dylancable]

Why don't take that 66 billion and wipe out poviety in starvation in this world.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Uninvited Guest]

Allow me to refine this fine explanation. A majority interest is when a single shareholder or group of shareholders owns more than 50% of all stock, and so can always override the votes of all other shareholders combined. A controlling interest is owning just enough stock to outvote the next largest voting block.

The buyer (Comcast) would like to buy a controlling interest in Disney, so they can appoint their own board members and chairman. So, if Eisner and his allies own 30% of all Disney stock, Comcast would need to buy just 31% to be able to outvote Eisner and friends every time. That gives Comcast the power to elect a new board of directors, who selects a new chairman of the board to replace Eisner. The new chairman serves Comcast, lest he also be replaced by Comcast.

I think it's only a "hostile" takeover when the management of the company to be bought opposes the sale. The company shareholders may be quite favorable to the buyout.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bill Gates still owns over 50% of the stock"

He most assuredly does not. Most estimates I've seen put it closer to 30%. However, 30% is more than enough to control the company as a practical matter, particularly when Ballmer and Allen still own significant chunks.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[eln]

Obviously very old information.

Maybe I should have said more than 50% of the stock is in "safe hands"...in the hands of people unlikely to go with a takeover bid.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Captain_Amigo]

You obviously never watched the highly educational "Secret of My Success", starring the ever informative Michael J. Fox.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[His name cannot be s]

Point of information Mr Speaker.

Bill Gates does not own more than 50% of the Stock of Microsoft.

Bill has 1,209,713,228 shares of Microsoft Stock. Microsoft has a total of 10,700,000,000 shares outstanding, worth a total of $289,649,000,000, which is Microsoft's market capitalization. (That's $289.65 Billion.)

Bill has about 11.3% of the Stock in Microsoft.

Heck, Bill has NEVER owned more than 50%. He and Paul Allen each had 50% to start with, until they went IPO.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[PunkPig]

So Comcast buys Disney, keeps all of Disney's TV properties (ABC, ESPN, etc), and sells Pure Disney (Mickey, theme parks, etc) to Pixar+Roy Disney.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[O]

Steve Jobs owns MSFT? I doubt that. I think you meant Steve Balmer, mate.

See for yourself.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit, I did mean Balmer.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet. They could spend the money and improve the education system that turns out morons like you.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[1SmartOne]

What's wrong with that? We need a few dumb people around so that we can take advantage of them.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because it isn't money that is needed to solve poverty. Education, medicine, political stability, sanitation, distribution networks, etc. are what is needed. How much would you want to be paid to go teach "safe sex" in a third-world country where its people are living in filth and disease while its despot leaders are living it up on all of the money that gets sent from our country.

The world is so much more complicated then you think it is.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the nail on the head. Politicians love to talk about education but it is the last thing any government really wants. An uneducated population is so much easier to control. Stick them in front of American Idol and all of a sudden all of life's problems dissapear. Why do you think it was illegal to teach a slave to read? Perhaps it is because once they realized that they are just as smart (and in most cases probably smarter) than their owner they would want to escape. Beware the day when the average person starts to realize that he is just as smart if not smarter than the politicians.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[numark]

Technically that money only exists on paper. Typically, what happens is that the acquiring company issues shares of its stock that amount to the value of the deal. In this case, Comcast is issuing Disney shareholders 0.78 shares of Comcast for every 1 share of Disney stock they own (if the deal passes, that is). Since it's highly unlikely 100% will (or even could) be liquidated in the market, there will probably never be $66 billion to be seen.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[AlecC]

Because that $66 billion doesn't really exist: it is just the hypothetical price tag on the assets which the buyer is offering the shareholders of the company they want to buy. Much of it is probably new stock of their own which they intend to print to give the shareholders they buy out. If bidder and target are both trading at $10.00, the budder may be offering 13 of their shares for 10 of the originals. You can set a stock market price on these shares, but you couldn't eactually get the money out of the stock market: if you tried selling that many shares the stock price would plummet.

There is often a cash element in the offer: but that cash is usually borrowed from banks secured against things the buyer owns, and needs to be paid back.

The stock market only works because the money goes round and round. Someone who makes a killing on the market doesn't take the money out in greenbacks. Either they re-invest it, or they deposit it in a bank, which reinvests it, or they buy things from people who reinvest it.

the whole financial system is a giant lie which we have all agreed to tell each other. You cannot take more than a certain amount out of it, or the Emperor will be revealed to have not clothes and the whole system will fall.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[lewp]

Oh shit. You totally burned him.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[appleprophet]

By "Steve Jobs" I think you mean "Steve Balmer"

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Bombcar]

Hell! Get $20 billion more and conquer Iraq!

But what would Comcast do with Iraq?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[passion]

As long as we're questioning... where did you get yours? :)

Re:Hostile takeover?

[MoronGames]

(Steve Jobs being #2 with 5%)

Steve Jobs has Microsoft stock?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[devilsadvoc8]

O's post above contains a Yahoo link. That link shows you the # of shares Gates owns as of this month. Derive the total number of shares outstanding from the table lower in the page (e.g. Fidelity's shares / % of shares outstanding). then divide Gates shares by this total outstanding. It ends up about 10.5%. Now this doesn't take into account options of course.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Gates owns 15% of M$ stock, could we not all purchase a couple of hundred shares, pool them and use the resulting controlling interest to dive bomb the company?

I'll join in. Any other takers?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[ackthpt]

This is just a business tactic to try and sway the devil that is Eisner..

Sway him to Comcast or sway him to get the hell out of the company and go fsck up some other company?

A property up for sale which may interest Mr. Eisner (the owner swears he is a changed (family) man and doesn't want it to go to another porn site, so maybe Michael could do something with it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see 5.4 billion shares to get to 51% times $27 per share - you only need to raise $145.8 Billion. That makes about $180,000 per slashdot member. Well I will paypal you my $180,000 - just let me have your email address, SS#, and mother's maiden name.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet: create the illusion that lots and lots of universities everywhere will make people smarter. Then the universities can settle down into their best role: a cult that turns out people with huge debts and false impressions about themselves. Then the ruling class can go ahead unencumbered, while the hoi-polloi struggles harder and longer than their parents to get maybe 80% of what their parents had.

Well, the university scam worked quite well in the old Communist Soviet era, so the rulers could tell the world "look at us, we have the most highly-educated people in the world", of course, don't mention the fact that the university handed out degrees for just showing up sober.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[The Original Yama]

" Heck, Bill has NEVER owned more than 50%. He and Paul Allen each had 50% to start with, until they went IPO. "

Not true:

"Bill Gates received 64 percent of Microsoft to Paul Allen's 36 percent, which explains why Gates is the richest man in the world and Allen is only number two or three on the list."

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

$180,000 per slashdot member, but how about the linux community as a whole? Four million members ought to do it, and that would represent the tip of the iceberg...

Re:Hostile takeover?

[tverbeek]

In Soviet Russia, Apple owns a substantial chunk of Microsoft!

Re:Hostile takeover?

[mumblestheclown]

Yes, that's it. spend all your money inflating bill gates' stock value. that will show him!

the phrase "laughing all the way to the bank" has some merit here.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't mention the fact that the university handed out degrees for just showing up sober"

now that's plain horseshit, buddy. just look at the Soviet-era jet, rocket and helicopter technology, thank you.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Money can do anything, you just need to know how to use it. You say the world is complex, this is true, but all problems can be made to magically disapear with techniques like bribery or just outright hiring a hit.

That would help with the greedy leaders, next you can bring in your own army of teachers, soldiers, doctors, builders, etc. allong with all the materieals they need to build something out of nothing.

Use available resources there, buy anything that isn't available.

It can all be acomplished with MONEY.

you also need a LOT of it, if you kept throwing problems at it, 66 billion would disapear fast... but you could always argue that a sufficiently smart person would plan, plan, plan so she/he could stretch that money so the project would come in under budget.

Money can solve any problem if you know how to use it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Lehk228]

that would require over 30K from each of those 4 million people, i don't like MS but i sure as hell wouldn't pay 30K (if i had it) to destroy them, now if we could recruit a few countries that don't like american buisnesses it would be easier, Oil-Rich Middle eastern countries would be a good candidate, destroying MS would require dealing with some shady characters to get that kind of money, plus there is no guarantee that they wouldn't just Keep MS how it is but with the profits going to them

Re:Hostile takeover?

[subk]

I think you meant Steve Balmer, mate.

WTF are you smoking, man??

GATES, WILLIAM H. III 1,143,499,336 shares

BALLMER, STEVEN A. 411,120,693 shares

Re:Hostile takeover?

[paitre]

Actually, I like this idea...a _LOT_ .
make Disney -DISNEY- again, dammit.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if there were 4 million individual linux users who cared enough to do this that is still $36,450 per person. And that is not even talking about how stocks really work and that you can't just go out and buy 51% of the shares.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

$66 trillion wouldn't even make a dent. Close to one billion people are malnourished in the world. You really think that $66 per person would solve that? The problem with trying to solve world hunder by throwing money at it is that anything less than the amount needed to fix it is wasted. Every penny doesn't help. You need huge upheaval. Millions of people have to die, regimes need to topple, religion/superstition would have to be wiped out, education would have to be ubiquitous, AIDS needs to be eliminated.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? There's always gonna be smart people. You're telling me by shoving everyone into a magic 4 year program at a magic building, everyone's gonna make breakthroughs? now that's plain horseshit, buddy.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think an hostile takeover would be something like this:

Eisner: Well gentleman, I think that Lion King 3,14 would atract Disney fans AND Math geeks...er, what is this red point in my jacket?(is killed by a sniper)

(Person with a Mickey Mouse mask enters the room through the window).

MMM: All right people, this is a takeover, I want Snowwhite here, and I want it now!

Re:Hostile takeover?

[nelsonal]

It's unsolicited, which is the first step to a hostile takeover. In a corporation the stockholders have a group known as the Board of Directors who represent them legally. This is doen to save time educating all the stockholders from complex issues, and let a few people specialize in the company. The board makes decisions for the stockholders on upper management, offers to buy or sell major assets, stock issuance and repurchase policies, compenstion plans, and other big issues (some charters require a vote of all the shareholders for these items). Sometimes board members offer other skills or advantages, like a financial/management expert on a startup or Cheney at Haliburton (brought goodwill of many oil rich middle eastern countries).
In the real world the board is ususally quite close to current management, most CEOs are also chairman of the board, and there are usually several former executives on the board. Disney has one of the more management friendly boards (Eisner was able to boot the founder's son off the board). Apple also fits in this boat.
When a company wants to buy another one, they usually go speak with current managment who is sometimes receptive, and negotiations begin, or isn't and an unsolicited offer is made, or the acquirer seeks more receptive management. A hostile takeover requres the rejection of the unsolicited offer, then a proxy fight. Proxy statements are the documents that are sent in preparation for a board meeting since most votes occur by proxy. This is the way new boards are elected. Incidentally, offers are usually at a large premium to the current price, and are one of the few things that almost always result in insider trading convictions if you get caught.
Shareholders get to vote, and management offers a slate of directors who do not want to sell and the acquirer offers a slate of directors who does. Usually the potential acquirer has already pruchased 5% of the company (which votes for the merger), that is the limit at which your ownership must be disclosed.
The reason the fight occurs is that in a takeover the current management is sacked and replaced with a management team from the new company. Oracle is currently trying a hostile takeover of Peoplesoft. Although that one has largely been fought in the DOJ halls rather than in a proxy battle (proxy fights are what HP went through prior to the Compaq acquisition).

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why this is at -1, but yes, that was his job in the movie.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[timeOday]

Well, the first line of the article says,

Comcast, America's largest cable TV company, today launched an audacious and hostile takeover bid to buy the Walt Disney company in a deal worth 37bn.

(emphacis mine)

But I guess you're saying comcast isn't serous, and is just messing with people's heads?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[nelsonal]

Steve and Bill have never recieved any options to buy MS shares (at least since Steve has been in upper management). I don't think they get any restricted stock grants. Both have had a policy to reduce their net worth's tie to Microsoft's stock price.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[leerpm]

No, this is a hostile bid. See here for more details.

A hostile action, is one taken when you don't have the agreement of the target company's management. Eisner, disagreed, and Comcast is now attempting to do an end run around him straight to the shareholders. Personally, I hope Comcast succeeds, because Disney is in desperate need of a change in management.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[LostCluster]

The thing about the 30%+31% situation is that it leaves 39% of the stock in the hands of people who are a member of neither voting block, and therefore become the swing voters any time the two groups disagree.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[oscast]

Ya, but we all know that what you really meant is that Steve jobs 0WNs Microsoft

In the same respect that one might understood if I said,

"I 0WNs JOO!"

Re:Hostile takeover?

[skink1100]

> I think it's only a "hostile" takeover when the
> management of the company to be bought opposes the > sale.

Which is probably true in this case. We know Eisner rejected the bid, and it's highly likely the board follows his lead (especially now that that the pesky Wabb -- er, Roy Disney is out of the picture).

S

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was all shit. What's your point?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Ralph Wiggam]

That must suck so bad, being only the second or third richest person on the planet.

-B

Re:Hostile takeover?

[rueba]

Why can't you just buy the shares?

I have never understood this part.

Why do you have to make a formal request and everything.

More specifically, why don't they just allow you to buy and buy until you get 51% and can kick the current board out?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[cubicledrone]

No, a hostile takeover is where you buy a controlling percentage of the company's stock, to overthrow their board.

What do you think they offered $54 billion for?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[bonch]

The true sign of a paranoid individual:

- They're too afraid to stand by their opinions, so they use the mask of anonymity
- They refer to what the "government really wants"
- They think an uneducated population is something desirable, even though it would collapse an economy
- They reference some TV show like American Idol, which has nothing to do with the government because American Idol is produced by a TV studio that viewers support through ratings

Stop taking the Bill Hicks CDs so seriously--even he knew he was being facetious most of the time.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[NanoGator]

" An uneducated population is so much easier to control."

An uneducated population is bad news for the economy.

Your logic only works in radically oversimplified situation.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

If high-school diplomas in almost every hand are enough to satisfy you, your standards are very low.
The government might not own American Idol, or the station that produces it, but it's all part of the same complex. Not a smart population a television produces.
Another Anonymous Coward? Too bad. I hope you get stomach cancer.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[burns210]

Oil sounds like a viable business, to me.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

And those people tend to vote with management, since managment effectively controls the proxy. You need 50.1%, or voting trusts with enough other minority shareholders to get to 50.1%

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Comcast knows, you think they might help us out?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

ISTR that the current form of corporations, where the CEO is responsible to the board, who are responsible to the shareholders, was created to protect against hostile takeovers where someone bought a controlling interest in the corporation only to take whatever assets were available.

I can't remember the specifics, though...anyone else?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[diablobynight]

Actually the majority that's left over does not think as a whole. Most of them only own small blocks, maybe even just 100 shares, and those shareholders don't even bother voting, Plus remember there is voting and non voting stock depending on how the company is set up.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, the prices go up when you start to buy things.
Remember, the price is always what the man who is selling something wan't to give it away for.
So you can't just do that.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[diablobynight]

Oh jesus, you think the government wants us to be dumb so they can control us and you beleive there is a big secret club that meets and decides this shit. The government is unorganized, far too unorganized to pull off these conspiracy theories you idiots believe in.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[LostCluster]

Yet that is who Comcast is attempting to appeal to by taking their offer for Disney public despite being refused by Eisner and friends. Translation: Comcast's hoping a longshot works.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Knight55]

they seemed organized enough to catch the guy who stole from it

Re:Hostile takeover?

[JGski]

> Why can't you just buy the shares?
> I have never understood this part.

If you had the cash to actually buy them, sure, but do the math on how much that might be: # shared circulated * current market price. Disney has 2.05B shares issued @ $27.40 = ~$50B, or ~$25B in cash to "simply buy 51%"! If you had that much cash lying around you could just start up a competitor to Disney anyway - none of the legacy issues, just a fresh start! But Comcast isn't buying Disney because they want to be able to make cool movies and go to Disneyland for free - they just want content to support their cable products better so they can charge more so they make more money.

Just like the average USian consumer, people/companies who do hostile takeovers don't have that much money lying around for big purchases either: they borrow for a big purchase just like we borrow for a car or house. All the famous Corporate Raiders of the 70s and 80s all used borrowed money to do it. Usually they cut a deal with the lender for part of the liquidation profits that resulted. Pretty slimy on the part of NY investment banks, of course, but this is the same crowd that was involved in Enron and 150-odd years of sliminess dating back to the transcontinental railroad investments.

But say you could get the money, why borrow when you don't have to? Why not just get other people to do what you need: vote for your take-over bid. It costs you nothing beyond the cost to convince them. If you tell them that they'll make more money with a takeover than with following the current status quo ROI from the company, they may "give you" the value of shares by virtue of their vote for you. Shares are just the right of ownership which is mostly the right to vote on the board, directly or by proxy - the board of directors is to corporate ownership what the electoral college and legislature is to citizen ownership of the US government.

The borrowing part is also why "hostile takeovers" are also often called "leveraged buyouts" (leverage is business-speak for "borrow" because it gives you large advantage with small effort like a lever) as in they borrowed the money to buyout the minority shareholders or to create the impression through "large enough" minority ownership to appear to be a legitimate "black knight" with enough apparent power to do the job. The cost and requirements of the latter depend on the articles of incorporation for the company which includes a section on how strategic decisions are made by company. The term "poison pill" refers to changing these rules where they specifically relate to voting rights on decisions. So companies may "adopt a poison pill" to protect against takeover, or hope for a "white knight" to do a friendly takeover instead.

Nerd with an MBA

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, why would Pixar be interested in owning theme parks?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Hell, I'm 20th and barely making it paycheck to paycheck.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eisner was able to boot the founder's son off the board

<nitpick> Roy Disney is Walt's nephew, not his son</nitpick>

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

probably since the market isnt exactly friendly.

If there was money to be had, then it would be an option.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good on ya, wouldn't you know I read that about 5 minutes clicking submit, I'll go hide in the corner now.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[odin53]

A couple of points:

In a corporation the stockholders have a group known as the Board of Directors who represent them legally. This is doen to save time educating all the stockholders from complex issues, and let a few people specialize in the company. The board makes decisions for the stockholders on upper management, offers to buy or sell major assets, stock issuance and repurchase policies, compenstion plans, and other big issues (some charters require a vote of all the shareholders for these items).

This isn't an entirely correct characterization of a board of directors. The board represents the corporation, NOT the shareholders; the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This is an important distinction. The board is not there to educate all the shareholders, nor is it there to make decisions "for" stockholders. The board has the sole responsibility to make decisions about the ordinary business of the company. This is why the board (and its agents) are generally protected by the "business judgment rule" in most jurisdictions -- shareholders really have no say about the regular business of a company. (Incidentally, this is also why most shareholder proposals (that have to do with company business and that are not in the form of recommendations) are excluded from proxy materials.)

The shareholders have only a few responsibilities, the most important being to decide who is on the board, to consent to amendments to the charter, and to consent to or make decisions as to major corporate changes, including the ones you mention as well as dissolution.

... hostile takeover requres the rejection of the unsolicited offer, then a proxy fight.

Hostile takeovers don't only involve proxy fights; much of the time, hostile takeovers are the result of hostile tender offers, which, if successful, don't require proxy fights. The Oracle takeover attempt of Peoplesoft, for example, started out as a tender offer, but they were (are) unsuccessful (so far). Thus, they're trying to do a proxy fight. This is in addition to the antitrust problems.

Incidentally, offers are usually at a large premium to the current price, and are one of the few things that almost always result in insider trading convictions if you get caught.

What do you mean by this?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[GarfBond]

Small accuracy note: I believe Roy Disney resigned off of the Disney board, not booted off like you think (unless we're talking different people here). to make a long story short, the reason Roy disney did this was because he hates Eisner (and who can blame him?)

Re:Hostile takeover?

[bonch]

How does that make them organized?

Re:Hostile takeover?

[flynns]

Yeah... ...and am I the only one who can hear Agent Smith reading the first paragraph of this letter?

"It is...unfortunate... that you are not willing to do so...Mister Eisner..."

"You can't scare me with this hostile takeover crap! I know my rights! I want my board meeting!"

"Ahh, but what good is a board meeting...if..all your shareholders...are...belong...to us?"

*twitch* Sorry.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

its sucks that bill gates wasnt even teh richest man iin the world.

a man named the doctor was,

(pablo escobar)

except he didnt have some "valueable" stock. he had cash, and mountains of it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Knight55]

If you make yourself popular enough of a collar then you're in for it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be more precise, it's generally...

Are you being more precise, or more general?

Bill Gates still owns over 50% of the stock.

Factually incorrect. The post you responded to was perfectly fine, and certainly didn't require your clarifications. This is why I modded you overrated.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill has 1,209,713,228 shares of Microsoft Stock.
1,209,713,228 shares? i'd like to see a beowulf cluster made with those...
(delving further into the ridiculously bad joke, what OS do you think would be assigned to that task, anyway? :)

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Ctrl-Z]

Wasn't that a leveraged buyout? At least Comcast can afford this deal.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Ctrl-Z]

He did resign, but only after it was clear that he was not going to be nominated for the Board again, as this letter states.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

You own some jews?? I don't get it.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mountains of cash? I thought those were just mountains where he was keeping the cash. But it's a nice point. Even if it's just cash, it's still assets, and more liquid than stock. Forbes subscribers may be more interested in the largest stockholders in the world than in the richest men in the world. Money on paper (or electronic record), not cash in hand.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would suck really bad if there were only two other people on the planet.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[TeraCo]

On behalf of Australia I have to apologise to you all. I fear s/he may be the most stupid person in Australia. Once again, my most sincere apologies.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[SB5]

And of course the mountains were made of cocaine.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[tswann01]

No, "hostile" would be running over Pluto with a parade float. Oops.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I thought the /. crowd would have learned that in each of the SCO threads where someone suggests we buy all of Darl&friends's stock at some premium to punish him. Bizzare logic indeed.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[diablobynight]

I did not say they were organized, I said the government was unorganized, and for a conspiracy as huge as most people refer to, then the upper echelons would all have to be in on it. and quite honestly I don't see that as possible, most people in government are too worried about back stabbing eachother through exposing one another, to ever get in on one big conspiracy. Outing a conspiracy is a bonus for a candidate or politician, they like doing it, this careful degree of them all being too gready to work together, really helps the american people.

Re:Hostile takeover?

[Knight55]

Do you really think it was a linux computer? They weren't even sure who released it then.

Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[Space cowboy]

... I remember when working for a web consultancy quoting for a job, our sales director actually said "We're no mickey-mouse company, we've established ...(blah blah blah)". He never did realise (until told, afterwards) why the atmosphere suddenly froze :-)

We didn't get the job ...

Simon

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[AndroidCat]

Missing information. Was the job with Disney?

From the amount of spam coming at me from comcast space recently, they're certainly up for doing a mickey-mouse job. If it goes through, it will probably be as long lasting as the AOL/Time-Warner merger.

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[Gr8Apes]

If you're getting spammed, it's your own fault. I've had 4 email addresses in use at comcast for over 3 years now (well, attbi.com first) and I only get about 1 true spam message a month on all 4 accounts.

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it goes through, it will probably be as long lasting as the AOL/Time-Warner merger.

Not sure what that means. AOL and Time Warner are still merged and the talks of a spin off have pretty much died out. TW seems pretty much dedicated to milking what they can out of that beast and then riding it into the ground.

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[AndroidCat]

I'm getting spam from comcast home users who are running (probably trojaned) proxies. I guess comcast doesn't care so long as they don't spam other comcast users. Do you normally blame the victim?

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[rynix]

Prove it. Post your email address's and I will do some digging of my own.

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[EvilTwinSkippy]

It's a world of stocks
It's a world of cash
It's a world of boom
it's a world of crash

Which is why every day
we must try every way
to merge our large caps overall.

Merge our large-caps over-all
Merge our large-caps over-all
Merge our large-caps over-all
Merge our large caps overall.

Re:Not a mickey-mouse bid either!

[Gr8Apes]

noone@nowhere.com :D

Whoa

[Animekiksazz]

I didn't think Comcast was that big... nor would I think they'd want to buy Disney. Go buy Pixar or something.

Re:Whoa

[PrintError]

And since when did Apple ever SELL investments? They seem to buy and buy and buy.

Oh, wait. Aren't they going out of business? Maybe we can pick up Pixar cheap!

Re:Whoa

[Twisted Mind]

Pixar *is* owned by Disney (wasn't that obvious).

Re:Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, no Pixar is an indepented animation studio. Until recently they had an agreement to have their films distributed by Disney. See also:

http://pixar.com/companyinfo/aboutus/index.html

Re:Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly would Comcast need with Pixar? They aren't going into this to just own a CGI movie company.

They want to be a giant media conglomerate, ie. Time Warner.

I don't see how buying Pixar would get them that... but please, explain.

Re:Whoa

[eraserewind]

I'd imagine it's the back catalog, and overall huge money making infrastructure, of which feature animation is only a small part, that is attractive. Disney despite the recent poor performance of the flagship is still a potential gold mine for any buyer,

Pixar, while undoubtedly more talented at present, has only 6 (?) movies to their name so far, and has a long way to go before they will be in the same league as Disney. Where would Pixar be if they had 6 flops in a row? Disney, after a run like that is still a $66bn company apparently.

Personally I'd buy both, but I'm a little low on cash right now.

Re:Whoa

[CatPieMan]

After Jobs was ousted from apple, he bought Pixar (at some point before) the NeXT failure. He never wanted to get kicked out of his baby again, so, Jobs owns more than 50% of Pixar, making it impossible to take over.

On the other side of things, this definitly explains why my cable bill is so high.

-CPM

Re:Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple had to sell a lot of investments in the mid-90s to get quick cash because they were "going out of business" (which was true).

Re:Whoa

[magores]

I looked up Comcast on the yahoo finance pages the other day for an unrelated reason.

If I remember right their market cap was over 70 billion.

Yep. They're that big.

Someone above had an interesting theory...
1) Comcast buys Disney
2) Comcast keeps the media outlets
3) Sells the animation-related pieces to someone like Pixar.

Re:Whoa

[sangreal66]

As far as I recall it is Steve Jobs, not Apple, who bought Pixar from Lucas.

Re:Whoa

[numark]

Pixar's not going out of business. You may have heard about Pixar and Disney not renewing their contract for more films (there are still 2 that are in post-production stages that are due to be released later this year). However, I'm sure many of the other studios are giddy with the chance of having a contract with Pixar, so I highly doubt they're going out of business anytime soon.

Re:Whoa

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the merger with AT&T they are the biggest cable company in the country. Something like 21 million customers in 41 states. That may not sound like a lot but remember that customers are households (average 2.5 people per household as of 2000 census). That means about 1/6th of the country watches Comcast Cable.

Re:Whoa

[UncleWalrus]

I think the parent was talking about Apple going out of business (something we heard constantly in the 90s), not Pixar.

Re:Whoa

[PrintError]

True. Close enough.

Re:Whoa

[nelsonal]

Generally you want to acquire the stuff that sucks, and fix it rather than buying the good stuff, people are already paying too much for it. In this case Comcast especially wants the ESPN and ABC networks, and will likely try to fix and sell the theme parks and studios.

Re:Whoa

[Chiron Taltos]

Quite frankly, they are still under that agreement to have their films distributed by Disney. Talks ended about extending the agreement, or creating a new agreement. Until "The Incredibles" and the Summer 2005 movies have been finished, Pixar is legally bound by the original agreement.

Re:Whoa

[burns210]

Yes, but who wouldn't want to buy golden rakes to rake in the gobs of money owning disney(land, world, trademarks, content, etc) would no doubt bring in.... Barrels my friends, barrels of money. Pixar+Pure Disney would be AWESOME. unite the disney animators with the Pixar lab and let the produce THE greatest animated movies of all time, and blam! Stock goes directly skyward.

ATTN Comcast customers

[Travoltus]

Man may not make it to the Moon again any time soon, but if this merger happens, your cable rates will!

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[saden1]

They raise my bill and I'm sure has hell going to DSL even though DSL sucks in my area. It's about the principle of the whole thing.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[nomadic]

Comcast's rates passed the Moon a while ago, and are currently passing the moons of Jupiter.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[mgs1000]

Comcast will just blame ESPN again! (And hope you don't remember who owns ESPN)

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[lambent]

They don't care about your principles. That's why they raise rates. They know that there will be enough customers that will pay the increases to cover the small percentage of customers who abandon ship.

Considering they have 66B to spend on this deal, and you pay probably about 75 to them each month, over the course of a year, that's a ratio of 1:73,333,333.

That's right. You're not even a millionth part of their empire. They don't care about you.

Now, if you could convince a million of your friends to jump ship with you (and I would gladly toss my hat in, too), then maybe they'd consider not raising rates.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[UconnGuy]

Actually, I believe it's Cox Cable that's making such a big fuss about ESPN. Look here

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[devilsadvoc8]

Comcast does not have 66 billion to spend on this deal. They are issuing stock in exchange for Disney shares. It is not like you or me going to buy a car and plunking down cash. This is quite a different animal.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[Noofus]

I refuse to give any money to comcast. Thier rates are way too high and I wont pay them. So I dont get cable TV. I dont need it really. I have DSL for my internet. Not to mention I did try setting up cable internet, but the Comcast folks were downright rude on the phone to me, not to mention blithering idiots. Earthlink was much nicer. The nicer company gets my money.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[vb4hire]

Ive read that Disney is charging $2.50 per cable subscriber per month for ESPN - the highest rate in the business. (They also make programming demands that other Disney channels are part of a package -this is how ESPN2 spread).

Anyway... that's 700 million bucks a year to Disney just for ESPN!! You could argue that just keeping the ESPN 700mil "in house" alone makes this deal worthwhile!

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[lambent]

When you buy that car, is your total buying power the liquid assets you have in the bank? Or do you also have access to money you can raise by selling your old car, taking out a loan, agreeing to a financing contract, collecting on old debts ...

Comcast's revenue for the year ending December 2003 was 18.347 billion US$ from it's cable services. That does not take into consideration it's other forms of income, or cash that it could raise by other means. Feel free to adjust my figures accordingly (approximately a factor of 4), or check out their SEC filings.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[yroJJory]

They're not already through the roof? As soon as Comcast took over ATTBI, our rates went up about 45%.

Then, all the analysts said, "Comcast may irritate some of their customers into using rival broadband solutions."

Of course, they failed to take into account that in many areas (such as mine), there are NO rivals. We can't get DSL here because SBC and Covad refuse to bring it out to us. We can't get microwave broadband because we can't see the transmission tower. All we can get is Residential Cable modem for $60/mo or a T1 for $600/mo.

Oh, and IDSL for $100/mo (144kbps).

I bet Comcast wouldn't have 5.3 mil broadband subscribers if there _was_ actual competition.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[devilsadvoc8]

What is your point? Businesses and people buy things for more than available cash all the time (i.e. a mortgage). The point here is that they aren't even financing anything like a mortgage. They are giving stock.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[lambent]

My actual point, before i got sidetracked, related to the individual who was complaining about the price of his comcast service. It had nothing to do with the disney purchase at all. Nor with stock, nor with mortgages.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[devilsadvoc8]

Gotcha. We agree.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[ThisIsAnExampleAccou]

"Anyway... that's 700 million bucks a year to Disney just for ESPN!! You could argue that just keeping the ESPN 700mil "in house" alone makes this deal worthwhile!"

Well, I suppose you could argue that - but you would be wrong.

$66 Billion divided by $700 Million

It would take just under a century to break even on the deal.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[saden1]

Well if Comcast doesn't care about their customers then why do they give me a nice discount every time I call them and say I'm going to cancel my service? I have done this three times and every time they reduced my rate for cable internet to $30 dollars a month. Every company cares about their customers and if they don't they are bound to tank. I mean, they don't know how much influence a single customer has.

You seem to think that one person can make a difference. I'm one of those people that think a single person can make a difference.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[vb4hire]

Ok...in a literal sense it doesn't add up.... Just trying to make the point of the impact one small (in the eyes of the average citizen) piece of Disney amounts to considerable revenue. Everyone focuses on Movies and theme parks. also, I didn't factor in the revenue created by the $2.50 spent by the remaining cable companies in the US, and.... the advertising revenue!! Easily a 1 to 1.5 billion dollar piece of Disney??? (I did find out later on that Disney does not own 100% of ESPN, which obviously skews this point) Can someone confirm my logic?

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Muhahah.

And people ask me how can I live in a city. $60/month for 768/768 dsl, unlimited local and long distance calling, and 2 static IP's to boot.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[cdrudge]

Everyone, including cable companies and satellite, is blaming ESPN for having to raise rates.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[diablobynight]

Ummm...comcast does not have 66B of cash. They have enough stock to sell it to disney stock holders in place of their current stock in Disney. Now Microsoft on the other hand, I am pretty sure last time I checked they have 50B of Cash, literally, liquid assets. That's pretty damn impressive.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[Ralph Wiggam]

There's some truth to it. Think about the cost of operating a good cable tv station like Discovery, or TLC. Everything's taped and most of the programs are just purchased, ready to show. Now think of ESPN. They have to pay the sports leagues TONS of money just for the rights to show games. Then they have to send tons of equipment and many people to every live game. They also are using lots of HD equipment now. ESPN has to charge a lot more to the cable companies.

-B

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[Moofie]

OK, so make it a line item I can select against. I don't care for professional sports, and I don't like subsidizing other peoples' ESPN jones.

That's fair, right? Let the people who watch the channel bear the usurious prices levied by the professional sports leagues.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Comcast doesn't care about their customers then why do they give me a nice discount every time I call them and say I'm going to cancel my service?

Because if they lose you, they're out X dollars, but if they give you a token discount (not a problem since they are normally gouging you) to placate you, they're only out X-30 dollars every month until they raise your rate again.

One of my former co-workers had severe, long-lasting connectivity problems with his Comcast cable modem, and he couldn't get it taken care of until he presented himself at Comcast's HQ (we're in Philadelphia) and demanded to talk to someone, and refused to leave until he did. Doesn't sound like they're too caring to me, when someone's got to go to the company HQ an cause a scene to get customer service.

Re:ATTN Comcast customers

[Xeed]

The readson comcast wanted to take Disney over is because with the recent loss of Pixar and the license of all of the muppet characters from Jim Henson, Disney is in a weak place financially, but is really ready to expand with the content and range of their films

Terminal Entertainment

[DigiShaman]

Does anyone get the idea that maybe the Internet will be used for nothing but pushed intertainment like some glorified TV set? Soon, the Internet may be nothing more then a controlled system by Hollywood and the like. I guess I can look forward to my PC being nothing more then a dumb terminal.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Bish.dk]

Reading your post, I wish that the moderation system had a "+1 Scary".

I doubt it will happen though. Some terminal systems may come that are nothing but internet-enabled TVs, but I doubt that anyone will manage to move the internet away from the basic protocols, which allow us all to create our own applications, and not just sit around waiting for the corporations to do it for us.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[aheath]

I do not see the Internet becoming purely an entertainment medium. I do see internet technologies and internet infrastructure being increasingly used to supplant traditional methods of distributing entertainment.

Nicholas Negroponte wrote about the distinction between Bits and Atoms in his 1995 book Being Digital. The traditional content distibutors are struggling with the transition from distributing information as physical objects or "atoms" to distributing information on the Internet or as "bits."

The entertainment company that figures out how to profit from distributing bits without treating its customers as criminals will be extremely profitable. The proposed merger of Comcast and Disney would create a company that can combine a large library of content usually distributed as atoms with a high speed network that can deliver this content as bits.

Whenever I read discussions about the control of information on the Internet, I think of I.F. Stone's quote "Freedom of the press is the right to own one." The Internet gives everyone that ability to own their own digital press. No single government will be able to put the Internet genie back inthe bottle. Anyone who can access a host computer that is hosted in a free society can set up their own free press on the Internet.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[bludstone]

I always hate posts like this.

Slashdot and thousands of communities like it still exist today, and there is no sign that they are on the decline. Come to me when they start collapsing.

Generally, we are clever enough to work around such problems.

Sure, the Internet can be used like a TV, but I dont see the other services vanishing because of that fact.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

remember when they tried to put channels in IE/netscape... what a failure! this shows that push content is a BAD idea and nobody wants it.
I dont see this happening again...

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[DocSnyder]

Does anyone get the idea that maybe the Internet will be used for nothing but pushed intertainment like some glorified TV set? Soon, the Internet may be nothing more then a controlled system by Hollywood and the like.

s/internet/intranet/g

More and more people in Europe are nullrouting any Comcast netblock they get spam from. So Disney's damage to the Internet would be limited.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Sipos]

While protocols used on the net are free and open this can never happen. The only way the net can ever loose the freedom and diversity it has today is if companies come to control the protocols used on it (which is unlikly to ever happen and any attempt to make it happen should be resisted)

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[nomadic]

Then we'll find something else. Hey, maybe we can resurrect gopher...and fidonet...

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[IntlHarvester]

The thing that worries people is that these "terminal systems" will contain the same basic hardware as a PC -- x86 or PPC CPUs, hard drives, etc. One can easily see the situation in 10 years where most hard drives ship to television or cable companies and only a small fraction go into general-purpose computers.

This means that DRM technology will be built into the core components that make up PCs. It is extremely unlikely that PCs will ever ship where MP3s don't play, Linux doesn't boot, etc -- but the tech will be there.

What's more likely is that PC technology will become of an extention of home entertainment tech and will advance at a slower pace.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[*weasel]

I'd have mod'd your post a troll, designed simply to elicit a railing anti-corporate sentiment from the rabid /. crowd. But you got a +5 Interesting so I'll play along.

the Internet may be nothing more then a controlled system by Hollywood and the like

In short: It can't. Not unless the internet topology itself is radically altered.

So long as anyone can post a web server and serve content with a broadcast license or an expensive broadcasting 'vetting' system, they will. HTTP was dominated by the old guard of media because you and I can publish and consume via HTTP entirely without them, and apparently we netizens value such communication.

So unless 'hollywood' buys the entire fiber backbone, all the comsat time, overthrows ICANN, and starts blocking all IP server traffic from publishers it doesn't personally greenlight - nothing can change.

'Push' as a web technology never took off because no-one likes having to consume content at the schedule of a broadcaster. They tolerate it with TV and radio because there was no alternative. With an interactive alternative, push web technology was DOA.

So as long as there is an alternative, Push will be unable to achieve hegemony in any medium. Unless of course, several currently illegal steps are taken by old media.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Bish.dk]

I think it is interesting to take a look at what happened to the XBOX. It is basically the system you're describing as "x86 or PPC CPUs, hard drives, etc." and it got modded all over the place. People today are using it for viewing copied movies, DVDs from all regions, general media center and a lot of other stuff. Things it was never meant to do!

I don't see the big corporations taking over as long as this can happen... And "Yay!" to that! :D

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[IntlHarvester]

Another good example is Tivo.

I'm not suggesting that it will be impossible to hack consumer electronics -- But when you have 100 competing models, it will be more difficult to find the Pirate ROMs, etc necessary to do things like you see with the XBox.

Besides, only a minuscule number of users actually do the things you are talking about.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Gr8Apes]

They're going to have to enable multi-cast on the majority of systems before that can happen. Turns out MS's TCPIP stack doesn't handle multi-casting very well... surprise surprise... and, best of all, MS doesn't believe it needs to be fixed, just like "640K should be enough for anyone" - from the ever visionary Bill Gates himself.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[eurleif]

It can be modded that way, but it's not very mainstream to do so. If everyone had to mod their XYZBox to have something like today's computer, there would be much less software available, and less users (actually, that would probably be a good thing). There would be no way to download and burn ISOs for XYZBOX hacks, so people would have to trade them in person or through the mail, which would add cost. Luckily, I don't think most people would let large corporations take over computers to that extent.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[mkro]

They don't need to move away from the basic protocols, they just need to keep pushing connectivity with asyncronous transfer rates. Oh, the days before ADSL looked so bright. Imagine what it would be like if we all could upload with the same speed as we can download now.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[drinkypoo]

In general I expect the proliferation of internet push media will make things better for those who want to use it for other purposes, because their traffic will be so much noise in the network by that point, and fairly inconsequential compared to all the streaming that will be going on.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

Coca-Cola had only a trace amount of cocaine (1/400 grain of cocaine per ounce of syrup which was then added to seltzer water) and it was eliminated because it was considered unhealthy not because it became illegal.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Tackhead]

> The proposed merger of Comcast and Disney would create a company that can combine a large library of content usually distributed as atoms with a high speed network that can deliver this content as bits.

Y'know, I was just thinking! AOL should buy Time-Warner! They could call the comany "AOL/Time-Warner"! And they could sell Time-Warner's content over AOL's network thingamajig! :-)

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[edbarrett]

Read Charter's Acceptable use policy. Your Charter Pipeline connection is a glorified TV. In particular:

Customer may set up one (1) web page per primary e-mail account for personal use using the Service, but Customer may not establish a web page using a server located at Customer's home. Customer will not use, nor allow others to use, Customer's home computer as a web server, FTP server, file server or game server or to run any other server applications. Customer will not use, nor allow others to use, the Service to operate any type of business or commercial enterprise. Customer will not advertise that the Service is available for use by third parties or unauthorized users.

If you want to run any type of server at all, you are bound by their AUP to upgrade to at least their SOHO package. Oh, and their support page requires installing an ActiveX or XPI (depending on the browser you use) or else it kicks you to a page that says "All Support.com controls must be installed in order for us to provide you with accurate solutions. By choosing not to install these controls you are limited in your support and repair solutions." Heh, they mean you can't use the site at all unless you install their component, which I just won't do. Hmm, I haven't tried Opera or Lynx yet...

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Knight2K]

Really? At this point, most ISPs stop users from running their own servers (or attempt to anyway) ... which means that the only way to host your own content is to put it on a hosting service, and even then that's mostly for web content only. No streaming music from your home LAN to your office PC, etc.

Consider this other article posted today about what the Internet isn't and think about how AOL/Comcast/Cox etc. sell their services. If the value of the internet is the sum of the value of the ends, then the ends are rapidly losing value. All of the content will be come centralized in places like AOL.com, Disney.com, and Cnn.com. Of course, nothing could theoretically stop an ad-hoc, grassroots WiFi network from creating a GhostNet that could be what the Internet started out as: a decentralized, bottom-up, collaboration tool.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

Scary scenario 1: Suppose the big networks get internet access cheaply to everyone's home (think; Comcast service + MS HW & SW). Now you have a large amount of the populous going from site to site. This will mean a change to the infrastructure of the sites that are not ready to handle this kind of traffic. Now the free, informational sites are forced to charge a fee to handle the load; this fee isn't charged by the media empire related sites, as they already collect it monthly from your cable bill.

Scary scenario 2: A continuation of scenario 1; the media moguls provide internet access for pennies; but you can only access ABC.com/ESPN.com/Disney.com, for example. This becomes known as "the internet", and the populous knows nothing of the sites of the outside world (less likely to happen, otherwise AOL would already be "the internet").

Scary scenario 3: The big spenders go to Washington DC, and lobby to introduce new laws on conectivity. Trying to access a domain outside of the good ol' USA? Either it'll be banned, sensored, or pay-per-view. Not good.

Scary scenario 4: The larger internet providers (who are in bed with the media companies) start "accidentally" filtering traffic that does not contain their flags. Slashdot is slow or unaccessible, but Disney.com comes through to you on a fat pipe. You may suspect all you want, but nothing can be proven behind their closed doors. And even if they do get caught, they'll continue doing it, but the next time more discretely.

Just because you can't forsee it, doesn't mean it won't happen. Enjoy the golden age of the internet while you still have it; it'll all be over soon.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[3Suns]

Yes, this is a frightening trend on the ISP side. It started when they throttled upload bandwidth to favor downloading, and when some companies started forbidding customers from running "servers", however you're supposed to define that.

Another scary idea is that we're starting to see the unification of content-creators (Disney, Time-Warner) with the content-deliverers (Comcast, AOL). This can lead to horrible monopolistic practices, trapping people into certain content. Fortunately the internet is somewhat resistant to this kind of trapping. But just look at what the music industry did to radio with ClearChannel...

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Theatetus]

Anyone who can access a host computer that is hosted in a free society can set up their own free press on the Internet.

You haven't read your ISP's terms of service lately, have you? Home (and even small office) users usually have to agree that they will only be consumers of online content. This is only sporadicly enforced, but I imagine that enforcement is going to increase.

The simple fact is most "Internet Service Providers" do not actually provide Internet access because they want to limit your ability to host content; they want you to only view it.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Valdrax]

So unless 'hollywood' buys the entire fiber backbone, all the comsat time, overthrows ICANN, and starts blocking all IP server traffic from publishers it doesn't personally greenlight - nothing can change.

You're almost correct. Unless Hollywood (and other entertainment industries) buys enough fiber backbone and comsat companies, it can't happen. Many people make the mistake of thinking that a monopoly means 100% ownership of a market where it really means unchallenged control of a market (e.g. Microsoft the in PC market even though Apple still exists). With controlling interest in the backbones and a little more deregulation, they can simply raise the prices on bandwidth for businesses that they don't own, lock down all markets to the DSL monopoly, the cable monopoly, the fiber monopoly, etc., and start making demands on their own end users to modify their sites in accordance with their own design. If you don't like it, take it somewhere else -- but where?

At that point, the majority of good websites become like college radio stations -- insignificant for shaping tastes and beliefs nationwide, but still having a small cult following. Welcome to the world of big media consolidation. Enjoying the effects of ClearChannel domination of the American radio stations? Learn to love the same bland ad-filled pandering if media companies get controlling interest in the internet -- especially if one of them buys out Google.

Is it difficult to do? Yes. Is it a gamble which promises rich, rich rewards for the media companies if they succeed? Hell, yes. That's motivation enough to try. As long as conservative politics dominates the day in the US, you can expect no anti-trust action to stop this until it's mostly too late.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF would they bother with IP multicasting? They own a fucking Cable TV Network! If anything, TCPIP networks would be useful for on demand content.

Your comment is just a stupid fucking karmawhore only intended to prove to the other stupid fuckers that you are in their stupid fucking club. Die.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Dawn Falcon]

Most *American* ISP's.

About 6 UK ADSL ISP's of 70 restrict servers. (Well, most of them specifically ban running IRC servers, but fair enough!)

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[bob_jenkins]

I had a dumb terminal once. That's how I first browsed Usenet.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Pig Hogger]

(Reposted, account some asshole shithead puritan bush-"voting" yankee "moderator" - more like assholator - shitcanned this as a "troll")

Slashdot and thousands of communities like it still exist today, and there is no sign that they are on the decline. Come to me when they start collapsing.

Coca-Cola is so named because it used to be shipped with a fair amount of cocaine within. But eventually, cocaine got outlawed.

So did marijuana.

Generally, we are clever enough to work around such problems.

Those who are "clever" enough to run around the problem of having cocaine (or marijuana) banned usually end-up as jailed political prisoners.

Never assume that blogs such as /. won't get outlawed, or that the Internet will be gutted by croporations (and their governmental minions).

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[bonch]

Why would all your servers magically be controlled by Hollywood? Are you going to wake up one day, and suddenly the whole Internet is a "controlled system by Hollywood?" What a ridiculous post (no wonder it got modded up...).

Scaremongers always say things like this without actually thinking it through practically. But it's been that way for centuries with you types. "Does anyone get the idea that maybe books will be used for nothing but pushed entertainment like some glorified street performer? Soon, books may be nothing more than a controlled system by merchants and the like."

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[DrCode]

No, a dumb terminal would be completely reliable, easy and quick to turn off and on, would never get viruses, and would last for years.

Your PC will be a Windows PC, with all that implies.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but how many broadband contracts let you host a server? And we all know ICANN never takes an interest in individual sites when it can start supporting .tv and other silly TLDs.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

it costs all of $15/mo more if I want a couple static IPs through Comcast (the evil corporation in question).

Provided you use dyndns or similar, you don't even need to do that.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't read your ISP's terms of service lately, have you? Home (and even small office) users usually have to agree that they will only be consumers of online content

I just checked SBC Global and Earthlink, and both of them are perfectly OK with you setting up a web page. There is something about "non-active" use of the account, which probably would make it illegal to set up things like FTP, but you can always set up a web page.

Re:Terminal Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu have just crystalized part of the legislative agenda of the entertainment (or content) industry, e.g MPAA, RIAA. They want to eliminate the existence of personal computers as general purpose devices, and replace them with entertainment delivery platforms, crippled with DRM to allow the most fine-grained billing and the collection of highly valuable marketing information.

This agenda includes, for instance, the desire to plug the "analog hole", whereby anyone can use an analog-to-digital converter to re-digitize DRM'd content without the restrictions. Their stated goal is to make it illegal to manufacture, distribute, possess, use, etc. any ADC that does not include a microprocessor to detect watermarks and thereupon refuse to digitize.

The willingness of these people to sacrifice almost everything that makes a free society worth living in, for the sake of their greed, is absoultely disgusting.

Be afraid, very afraid. And resist!

Mickey!

[dw00d]

Thank GOD! I don't want mickey popping up as a mascot for comcast cable.

Comcast and Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

So Comcast offers to buy Disney for $66.6 billion dollars. Any one else find something strange about that particular number?

Anyhow, I hope Comcast cleans up Disney's act. I'm sick of their animators hiding age-inappropriate material in their cartoons.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[the_consumer]

I know. It looks like a perfect storm of evil.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[banzai51]

Actually, I found it odd that this proposed deal isn't the other way around. A cable/isp company buying out mighty Disney, who controls movies, ABC, & ESPN?????? Does Comcast really have that kind of cash?

Re:Comcast and Disney

[swordboy]

So Comcast offers to buy Disney for $66.6 billion dollars.

[in best StrongBad voice]: no question mark

Don't worry... Because it is a stock-swap deal, Comcast stock is getting hammered and the value is down to about $54 billion now.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

First hiding A PENIS in one of their cartoons, and now this?

Re:Comcast and Disney

[AndroidCat]

Does Comcast really have that kind of cash?

Only wimps worry about cash! Just look at the mighty Worldcom/MCI and how they built their empire without cash or income. Buy up competitors, strip their support staff to nothing, and use them as collateral for the next aquistion, that's the way you do it!

Re:Comcast and Disney

[m00nun1t]

It's not about how much cash you have. If Disney is a good investment, then investors/merchant banks will provide the money. If the investors/merchant banks believe under the new management that Disney is capable of making enough profit (or ComCast increase their profit enough) to cover the loan, then they will cough up the money.

In the 80's it wasn't that unusual for companies to buy out other companies larger than themselves. Probably still happens today.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Ralph Wiggam]

Those kind of huge deals are always negotiated as dollars per share or some stock swap ratio. That way each shareholder can figure out what it's worth to them. The news agencies multiply it out and report the huge numbers.

-B

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Gr8Apes]

I hope Comcast cleans it up as well. I'm sick of lamo crap like the Lion King et al that's come out lately. Bring back more of the classic animation and true storylines with multiple layers of interest, less flat celine dion tripe driven directionless storylines! (Shrek and Monsters Inc, for example, had multiple layers of complexity and were excellent.)

As for hiding age-innappropriate stuff, that was years ago, and only a select few knew about it until the advent of DVDs and perfect still frames. I'm sure after the embarrassment, Disney now painstackingly goes through the final cut frame by frame (or I would, if I were them).

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhow, I hope Comcast cleans up Disney's act. I'm sick of their animators hiding age-inappropriate material in their cartoons.

I have always thought Disney to be the lesser of the evils in animated shows. Regurgitated and original plots, but clean nonetheless. Dreamworks SKG, on the other hand, takes the prize (e.g., off-screen sex in The Road to El Dorado, unnecessary language in many others, etc.).

Re:Comcast and Disney

[humphrm]

Actually, in this case it's not about cash OR how much money investors will provide. Comcast is simply bigger than Disney, they are offering 0.78 CCZ share per DIS share. Even at that fraction, it represents a fairly significant premium to DIS closing yesterday. If it flies, post-merger DIS shareholders would end up with approx. 20% fewer shares of CCZ than they had of DIS to start with, but worth approx. 20% more than their holdings were worth when it was announced.

In fact, that's probably why DIS (or at least Eisner) turned them down... no cash, no deal.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone read an article around here? Oh this is /. Just look at the misleading headline and than rant against the corporation$ and outsourcing to India or whatever lame ass crusade of the month. Jesus F Christ. RTFA!!

No Cash. Stock Deal.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[sdo1]

that's the way you do it!

Thank you, Mark Knopfler.

The lyrics of that song do in some ways ring true to the comment at hand.

-S

Re:Comcast and Disney

[NormalVisual]

Worldcom did that, not MCI. MCI actually had real assets, a real business model, and real customers until Worldcom came onto the scene.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[AndroidCat]

What, you mean that Weird Al didn't write it? Damn! ;)

I want my, I want my Disneeey...

Re:Comcast and Disney

[mcguirez]

The deal is actually $55 (or so) billion in the stock swap deal and Comcast would assume $11 billion of Disney's debt.

This is where the $66 billion headline came from.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[AndroidCat]

Yes, I would have just said Worldcom, but they morphed their name to MCI to try and shed that skin. (Not that MCI didn't make a dog's dinner of UUnet before Worldcom happened to them.)

Re:Comcast and Disney

[haystor]

You really should look at it like a merger.

In this case the smaller company Comcast is willing to offer shares of Comcast stock in exchange for Disney stock. There will be some exhange rate set. Comcast will just be creating those shares out of thin air. At the end of the exchange the new and old shares will be backed by the combined assets of both the Comcast and Disney properties.

Comcast can't offer too many shares of Comcast or else they dilute their current shareholder's values too much. Likewise they can't offer too little or the Disney shareholders would end up with less value overall.

When two companies combine like this, you'll usually see one stock price go up and one go down based upon the perception of which company this is truly a good deal for.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Dachannien]

"So Comcast offers to buy Disney for $66.6 billion dollars. Any one else find something strange about that particular number?"

Well, they suggested one million dollars first, but got laughed right out the front door.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[nelsonal]

Disney would get about 40% of the combined company, the shares issued are only a factor of how many splits have occured. If Microsoft were to buy IBM, they would own the majority of the combined company (about 2/3s) but would have to issue about 4 shares for each IBM share. Eisner doesn't want the deal cause he's out of a job, or at least takes a huge pay cut.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[KlomDark]

Only through modern misconceptions, it could be Heinlein's concept of a six-dimensional universe, thus 6^6^6 places to explore. Or it could be that we've been deceived, and it's "Six Hundred Sixty-Six but not 666".

Re:Comcast and Disney

[LostCluster]

The $66.6 billion number is certainly the result of semi-random numbers being added together, as the figure also includes all of Disney's debt that Comcast would end up aquiring, and that's in the range of about $12 billion at the moment. Still, it's kinda interesting that the wheels all stopped on 6's to make the $66.6 billion figure.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[MenTaLguY]

I assume you also noticed that Microsoft is a major investor in Comcast?

Re:Comcast and Disney

[almaden]

Great, another super expensive corporate transaction for Comcast.

(1) Offer $$$ for desired company.
(2) Add to company debt to finance $$$ deal
(3) Once deal is complete raise rates on customers to recoup costs.

I'm still smarting from my cable internet bill hitting $57/month (started at $39, $42, $45, $50, $52, and now $57), and I am paying more for less speed. ATTBI was a big pill to swallow, now Disney?

Re:Comcast and Disney

[Creepy]

There's got to be a conspiracy going on...

Here's the dots I've connected:
Apple I's were $666 dollars
Apple was started by Jobs/Wozniak and later run by just Jobs
Jobs bought Pixar from George Lucas
Disney rakes in cash distributing Pixar movies
Pixar dumps Disney
Comcast offers Disney $66.6 billion

Re:Comcast and Disney

[michael_cain]

In this case the smaller company Comcast is willing to offer shares of Comcast stock in exchange for Disney stock.

In this case Comcast is actually the larger company. As of today's close, Disney's market cap is about $56B and Comcast's is $70B. Comcast's share price took a nasty hit today (typical for a big company offering to make a large purchase like this) -- yesterday they were worth around $75B.

Re:Comcast and Disney

[tswann01]

Or you find cost savings by eliminating unnecessary expenses

In a related story

[kurosawdust]

Comcast has placed this bid in spite of the fact that the company's president, Brian Roberts, is 5'4", a good three inches shorter than the "You Must Be This Tall to Aquire" statue outside Disney headquarters.

Com-who?

[danielrm26]

Comcast buy Disney? Is this a misprint? I'd have thought it would be the other way around. Disney is...well, Disney.

This is like Blizzard buying Nabisco; shows you what I know about these companies. But I imagine many others thought the same about their relative sizes...

Re:Com-who?

[eln]

Yah, this is almost as crazy as AOL buying Time Warner.

Seems the quick-profit-by-merger fad in business strategy hasn't quite fallen out of fashion yet.

Re:Com-who?

[fastdecade]

It's possible for a man and his dog to buy the company, as long as they can convince people to put up the funds on the promise of the right strategy. Could be as simple as a change in management team.

Re:Com-who?

[Torham]

Blizzard is owned by Vivendi-Universal, who is owned by General Electric. Although they probably wouldn't want to buy Nabisco they certainly could, GE is possibly the largest company in the world.

Re:Com-who?

[NormalVisual]

I'd bet on the dog to turn the company around.

Re:Com-who?

[Nebrie]

Comcast is larger than Disney. Was much larger until today (Disney's stock shot up while Comcast plummeted)

Re:Com-who?

[Alsee]

It's ludacris the way the entertainment industry is beating the crap out of the tech industry in Washington. It's just that they are masters of PR and presenting an enormous public image and lobbying congress. We could just abandon the fight in Washington and just sqash on them on Wall Street.

Comcast market cap: $70.9 billion
Disney market cap: $56.4 billion

Dell, HP, and Oracle are all as big, or bigger than Comcast. Any one of them could gobble up Disney.

Microsoft: $292.7
Intel: $199.5
IBM: $172.3
Cisco: $171.1
Any ONE of them could probably swallow the remaining FOUR members of the MPAA without so much as a burp. MGM Studios is whopping $4.1 billion. Not even a snack for most tech companies.

After the MPAA, the RIAA would just be dessert.

For every entertainment company there are dozzens of tech companies. For every entertainment company there's at least one tech company five times times it's size that.

-

Re:Com-who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pluto or Goofy? Is Goofy really a dog anyway?

Question from non-usa

[selderrr]

from their website, they seem to be a cable provider, but can one of you natives inform us, foreigners, how big comcast exactly is ?`br~ A Disney takeover by a cable company seems rather over-the-top

Re:Question from non-usa

[leifm]

They're the largest cable provider here, and I think they are the number 2 ISP, maybe the largest broadband provider, not sure. At any rate I have comcast basic extended cable, and internet access and that runs about $100 a month, so multipy that by a few mil and they're probably doing ok.

This suprises me though, I expected Microsoft to attempt to by Comcast at some point, but not Comcast to buy Disney...

Re:Question from non-usa

[Zeddicus_Z]

In much the same way that a mere ISP taking over an international print and TV empire was over the top. Ah well, AOL's still around, right?

Re:Question from non-usa

[kalidasa]

Comcast has gobbled up most of the cable providers on the East Coast, at least; they are also cable broadband internet providers and a telephone company (though they're not a major player, as Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) is the big fish in that sector in this part of the US).

Re:Question from non-usa

[nojomofo]

You mean Verizon (which was Bell Atlantic (which was NYNEX)).

Re:Question from non-usa

[rotciv86]

Comcast hs around 5 million broadband internet customers and over 20 million cable television subscribers, last time i checked.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Tassach]

IIRC, Microsoft is already the largest Comcast shareholder, owning approximately 33% of the company last time I checked. BillG owns another substantial chunk of Comcast stock under his own name, too. I remember reading that all the major Microsoft insiders were investing heavily in cable companies.

Re:Question from non-usa

[DeepRedux]

Comcast is bigger than Disney. Comcast's market capitalization is 76.3B, while Disney's is only 49.2B. (These number will move some in reaction to this bid.)

One reason for the increase in cable bills is the cost of programming, especially for the ESPN sports channels. ESPN is owned by Disney.

Also, this bid is a reaction to Murdoch's putting together his Fox channels with DirectTV.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Hamhock]

Comcast is more of just a cable company. They are a media company, closer to the likes of Disney then you might think. They are a majority shareholder in the QVC channel, have a controlling interest in the E! Entertainment channel, own the Golf channel and Outdoor Life networks, own the G4 games channel, and own several sports teams.

Re:Question from non-usa

[cbovasso]

...they also own the Philadelphia Flyers of the NHL and the Philadelphia Sixers of the NBA not to mention the arena they both use.

Re:Question from non-usa

[leifm]

I thought it was Paul Allen that was heavily invested in Comcast? No matter...

Microsoft should be interested in cable, it'd be the easiest was for them to insert themselves into the living room. Set top boxes running Windows Mobile, cable subscriptions with subsidized XBOX, WMV VOD, etc.

Re:Question from non-usa

[mattdm]

Verizon is Bell Atlantic + GTE, the very very bad non-baby-bell from the midwest. (Known fondly as the "Grand Telephone Experiment".) Shortly after moving to Boston, glad to be finally away from such incompetence (oh, the pain getting a a frac T1 provisioned correctly), bam, here they are again.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Eisenfaust]

Are you sure Comcast is the largest cable provider? I had thought time warner was larger....

Anyone have a link to the numerical largeness of the two?

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast became nation's largest cable company after buying AT&T broadband, the previous #1, in November 2002. They have more than 22 million subscribers. I don't know their coverage area.

Re:Question from non-usa

[numark]

Could be worse. You could have to deal with Sprint like we have to in the south *shudders*

Re:Question from non-usa

[papasui]

Paul Allen owns & started Charter Communications. He may also own shares of Comcast. It's fun when your boss its like the 4th richest person in the world.

Re:Question from non-usa

[CatPieMan]

Um, Comcast doesn't own the stadiums mentioned. The Stadiums are owned by Wachovia (a bank, formerly First Union, who bought Corestates, and Corestates built the current stadium for the two mentioned teams). Comcast provides networking to the arenas, and has some sort of partnership with Wachovia (and they get a sign up on the side or the building that can be seen from every plane that lands at/takes off from Philly airport).

-CPM

Re:Question from non-usa

[cbovasso]

Actually Comcast Spectacor (a division of Comcast) is the owner of the Wachovia Center. Wachovia Bank (FU, CoreStates, et al.) pays for the naming rights to the stadium.

Comcast Spectacor actually is the true owner of the Sixers, Wings, Flyers, my heart, my soul, etc. etc.

See below:
Comcast Spectacor General Info

Re:Question from non-usa

[Roofus]

Comcast sold it's half of QVC to Liberty Media sometime last year.

And they own the Philadelphia 76ers (Basketball), and the Philadelphia Flyers (Hockey).

Re:Question from non-usa

[SenorFluffyPants]

Dear God. I just got a mental picture of what a Gates-controlled Disney would look like...

[shudder]

Re:Question from non-usa

[devilsadvoc8]

Well, from the articles linked it states that Comcast should have $20 bil rev and Disney $29 bil for 04. Comcast's assets are $109 bil as of dec 03 and disney $50 bil as of sep 03.

Re:Question from non-usa

[leifm]

Ok, then I was indeed thinking of the wrong cable company. Thanks.

Re:Question from non-usa

[leonardluen]

i don't know who is larger, but if i recall...a few years ago comcast's broadband internet business was going bankrupt, so they sold it to AT&T. AT&T then made it profitable and comcast recently (i believe last year) bought it back. at least that is what happened in my area.

Re:Question from non-usa

[leonardluen]

didn't AT&T originally aquire the broadband business by purchasing it from comcast? AT&T then made it profitable and comcast bought it back.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Microsoft is already the largest Comcast shareholder, owning approximately 33% of the company last time I checked.

Would you please check again and post a link?

Neither they nor bill came up when I checked large and institutional holders:

Yahoo finance CMCSA Major Holders

Re:Question from non-usa

[NormalVisual]

That's rather interesting, considering the recent news about Disney and Microsoft teaming up to foist DRM on an unsuspecting world. Yeah, I know that's not what was really announced re: DIS and MSFT, but you know it's coming.

Re:Question from non-usa

[KC7GR]

leifm writes...

"They're the largest cable provider here, and I think they are the number 2 ISP, maybe the largest broadband provider, not sure..."

I know this is not really on-topic, but I feel compelled to point it out. Comcast is also, unfortunately, one of the single largest sources of spam, port probes, and virus propagation on the planet. This is due largely to the many thousands of trojan-compromised systems, belonging to your fellow cable broadband users who (apparently) can't be bothered to learn even the most basic of computing security measures.

Anyway.... Spam issues aside, if Comcast can swing the deal, and Eisner and his cronies get kicked out as a result, can ir really be all that bad a thing?

Re:Question from non-usa

[CatPieMan]

Wow, I really thought that was owned by the bank -- and, hey, I learned something today. I also had no idea that they owned so many of the Philadelphia Sports teams, and especially the Flyers (I really don't care about too many other sports). That bugs me.

Well, the Comcast-Spectacor has some nice boxes at the Wachovia Center (saw a Flyers vs Devils game there, right above the one goal, best game I've ever seen).

I guess this whole deal might mean that Mickey and the Flyers appear together more often.

-CPM

Re:Question from non-usa

[Dun Malg]

GTE, the very very bad non-baby-bell from the midwest.

They also have a significant presence in southern california. They used to be the worst local service provider, but got knocked down (up?) to second worst when AT&T bought MediaOne Cable and started offering POTS via broadband. I'm stuck on a DSL line my ISP has to lease from Verizon (competition? what's that?) and it keeps crapping out. Plus, while areas served by SBC are offered amazing deals on fast DSL (up to 7000/768 depending on current traffic load, key words "up to") for $59/mo, I'm stuck with a 1500/128 connection (that works intermittently) for $49/mo and my only choice for faster service is $300/mo for a 3000/768 connection. I hate them.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

"basic extended cable, and internet access and that runs about $100 a month"

If you pay $8.95 for Basic cable and acquire Internet access from Comcast, they don't have any choice but to increase the number of channels you have to the "basic extended package." So if you tell them you want just BASIC cable, you will pay $8.95 + $45 for Internet = $53.95. However, you will receive extended basic plus Internet at almost 1/2 the cost you are paying now.

Try it. Myself and a few other people I know have taken advantage of this loop-hole.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, yes, the power of Monthly Recurring Revenue. 26 million subscribers paying from $15 to $120 a month, and suddenly you have the buying power not just to buy a daily entry to an amusement park and a t-shirt... you can buy the whole damn enterprise.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

> Paul Allen owns & started Charter Communications ... It's fun when your boss its like the 4th richest person in the world.

Which just goes to show you don't need to provide quality service to make a lot of money. I sure wish there was a NO CARRIER equivelent on a cable modem so I could tell a funny joke right now.

Re:Question from non-usa

[cbovasso]

It can be really frightening when you see how far a companies arm can reach into a community. Most people don't realize that Ed Snyder is a really powerful guy.

I would hope comcast-spectacor has a nice box at the Wachovia/FU/CoreStates center, that would be some seriously bad contract negotiations of they didnt.

I actually attended the Flyers/Devils last night, great game!

A day without learning something new really sucks in my opinion. Its only 11am and you are already set!
Go Flyers!

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

the real kick in the dick on that one is that on Comcast cable, you have to pay MORE to see your home teams (I wanna see the Pittsburgh Penguins, damnit), yet the stinkin' Flyers are free (the Comcast Sportsnet is included with standard cable, but FOX Sports Pittsburgh is $4.95 more/ month). I live about 1.5 hours from Pittsburgh, but more than 4 from Philly...

Re:Question from non-usa

[nelsonal]

They bought TCI cable (Malone's cable company) and a whole host of other smaller cable companies through the late 1990s. I don't know if they bouthg any Comcast properties, but they would have been small ones. AT&T realized that selling long distance sucked, and they would need a competing network to the phone network. They chose cable, and bought as much as they could, however, they didn't have a lot of experience managing cable networks and were managing them in an expensive manner. Poor negotiations with the cable channels, too much capital spending (trying to get phone service rolled out quickly) and they took on too much debt in the acquisitions. Long story short AT&T had the right idea, but couldn't execute and tried to make a big change too quickly. They ended up getting pounded and sold the company to Comcast last winter.

Re:Question from non-usa

[ShavenYak]

Well, my Charter service is pretty reliable, but when it does go out, it's hell finding someone with more than three functional brain cells in customer service. I think all cable and sat providers are that way, though.

I sure miss my first ISP - it was basically run by one guy, and he was great! 'Twas only dial-up, but that was back when web pages were HTML and two or three small images. Oh, and the biggest Linux distributions took five or six floppy disks.

Re:Question from non-usa

[eggoeater]

Bill in charge of Disney?
This could lead to all kinds of new rides:

It's Bills world after all.

Pirates of Carri^H^H^H^H^H Silicon Valley.

Blue Screen of Death - The Ride!!

Re:Question from non-usa

[DougWhite]

Comcast is pretty big. They bought AT&T's cable division which was formally TCI. It is the largest cable provider in the country. They do more than just cable, they also do Broadband, and Digital Telephone.

I suspect they would keep the disney name as that is much more recognizeable. Really this isn't a purchase, it is a merger. The term "buying" just indicates whose management is staying and whose is going.

I am not sure this is a great idea. The whole concept behind the AOL-Time Warner merger was Content and distribution. That didn't work out very well.

Re:Question from non-usa

[unother]

Amazing. Someone who saw going to Bell Atlantic as not going from the frying pan into the fire.

I remember several years back before the merger (99-00 era), if I attempted to use certain calling cards on Bell Atlantic payphones in NYC, I would be denied. Walk across the street, use an independent payphone--no problem!

I concluded Bell Atlantic was blocking certain competitors from using their network. I've never done business with Verizon nee Bell Atlantic since.

Furthermore, I worked briefly at a place that handled disability claims for Verizon workers. At any one point nearly 40% of the workers were "out sick".

Please note: Verizon Wireless is independent of the company, and doesn't share in the blame.

Re:Question from non-usa

[phaggood]

This is due largely to the many thousands of trojan-compromised systems, belonging to your fellow cable broadband users who (apparently) can't be bothered to learn even the most basic of computing security measures.

I know part of ./'s raison d'etre is to bash the poor luser, but I gotta disagree with you there. It's the dumb-ass system that should be locked down, not the other way around. I just spent a hour yesterday helping 'Clueless Joe' figure out why his hotmail account suddenly stopped working. He had to bring his XP-loaded in, we hooked it to the dialup, and he was about to click past a message that complained about their only supporting IE 5+. I then remembered he was having popup problems a few months ago and I helped him install and use Netscape.

It makes me feel really dumb having to tell people that the machine they JUST bought (wasn't XP, like, published AFTER people heard of the internet?) requires that they go out and buy another program since their machine doesn't come with a program that STARTS OUT blocking popups (or at least detects the first and ASKS! you if it should kill the popups).

It's like cars coming with brakes, lights, the horn and locks all in separate boxes, leaving the user to follow the 'simple instructions' to 'enhance' the vehicles default safety features.

Just dumb, man.

Re:Question from non-usa

[SnowWolf2003]

Forbes have a good write up of the facts about each company here

COMCAST CORP.
FOUNDED: 1969 HEADQUARTERS: Philadelphia
MARKET CAPITALIZATION: $73.7 billion
2003 REVENUE: $18.35 billion
STOCK PERFORMANCE: up 31.27 percent in past year

WALT DISNEY CO.
FOUNDED: 1923 HEADQUARTERS: Burbank, California
MARKET CAPITALIZATION: $48.62 billion
2003 CALENDAR YEAR REVENUE: $28.07 billion
STOCK PERFORMANCE: up 45.38 percent in past year

Re:Question from non-usa

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Egads. I'm a long time Philly native, and was going to call you to the carpet on that, but you are right.

Teach me to take up a non-sports related hobby. If I'd had a TV I could have seen the evil that was unfolding not 10 blocks from my house, I ...

Er, the Flyers are the Hockey team and the 76ers are Basketball, or do I have them switched?

Re:Question from non-usa

[MS]

Considering the amount of spam(*) coming(**) from open relays, zombies and whatever inside Comcast, it must have about 25% of the worlds internet users.

As of an estimate by NUA (dated September 2002!), there's a total of 606 million people online. Considernig we are in 2004, and the Internet popuplation hasn't decreased since, Comcast must have at least 150 million customers!

(*) about 45% comes from China and South Korea. Blocking all IP-classes from Comcast, Korea and China effectively reduces the spam in my Inbox by about 70%!!!
(**) "coming", not "originating" - my numbers refer to the distribution of open relays and zombies, which get abused for sending out spam. The real origin is usually inside the US (about 90% says spamhaus.org) and aimed at US-citizens, but sent undiscriminately to all e-mail adresses spread over our planet.

Re:Question from non-usa

[dremspider]

does this really work, because if it does I will be in like ohh something.. I will try it and see what they do.. So just say that I want the basic cable service and they will cancel the extended service, but I wont lose any channels.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, Microsoft is already the largest Comcast shareholder, owning approximately 33% of the company last time I checked. BillG owns another substantial chunk of Comcast stock under his own name, too. I remember reading that all the major Microsoft insiders were investing heavily in cable companies.

I wonder if that big deal recently that Microsoft and Disney made (for using WMV to distribute movies online) has anything to do with this.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Creepy]

Yeah - gotta like the SBC speeds. Qwest is still pushing their crappy 256/256 or 640/256 dynamic IP service in MSP and I laugh at them every time they call (I can do better, even at those speeds). I wanted a static IP, which is why I dumped Comcast, and I had a single option: Speakeasy. Unfortunately, Speakeasy's not a cheap provider, so I do pay quite a bit ($70 now for my 1500/768, will be $90 in January unless I downgrade to 1500/256). I'm thinking of trying to find some people in my area willing to go wireless broadband, though, and start reselling my 1500/768 Speakeasy connection (which they allow and encourage with a 50% discount, and even provide the billing - but I provide support to users using it). Heck, just finding one neighbor to do it may make it cheaper than the base rate...

If you haven't tried broadband reports, you should - I was able to browse several hundred broadband providers prices in my area. Accuracy isn't 100%, though (for some reason, it thinks my CLEC has a provider that is only in the CLEC south of me), so use it as a tool for investigating what you want.

Re:Question from non-usa

[Chiron Taltos]

Microsoft Invests $1 Billion in Comcast.

Here's the pertinent information ...

"Microsoft will purchase 24,642,681 shares of Class A Special Common Stock (CMCSK) for $500 million at $20.29 per share and $500 million of a new issue of Comcast Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. The Comcast Series B Convertible Preferred Stock will have a 5.25 percent pay-in-kind dividend and will be initially convertible into 21,243,691 shares, which equals an initial conversion price of $23.54 per share. The number of shares into which the issue can be converted will not increase due to the pay-in-kind dividend as the conversion price increases proportionately to the amount of accrued dividends. The issue will have a final maturity of 20 years, but may be redeemed at Microsoft's option or called by Comcast after seven years. The investment is expected to close this month."

Re:Question from non-usa

[kalidasa]

You mean Verizon (which was Bell Atlantic (which was NYNEX)).

I did, thanks.

Good Investment?

[z0ink]

With the death of their traditional 2d animation studio and Pixas leaving is Disney really an investment anymore? I don't think Disney World is worth 66 billion.

Re:Good Investment?

[leifm]

I'd guess they really want the TV properties Disney holds, as a cable company owning ESPN can't be a bad thing.

Re:Good Investment?

[Neko-kun]

Heck, I don't think all of Disney's properties combined are worth that chunk of cash... Reminds me of a comment I once heard, "If Al-Quaida bombs California Adventures, They'll probably give them a medal"

Re:Good Investment?

[Zeinfeld]

With the death of their traditional 2d animation studio and Pixas leaving is Disney really an investment anymore? I don't think Disney World is worth 66 billion.

Disney owns the ABC network, several cable channels, the theme parks, two major studios and a huge catalog of material. They also have a global brand and can market their stuff worldwide.

The point is that Disney is not making anywhere near what those assets should produce. They are in a situation very similar to the pre-Eisner Disney.

The point of a takeover would be to ditch Eisner. That would be the quickest way of getting the company moving again. he did great for the company when he started. But he has gone flabby. Disney has not been scoring the hits it needs to keep the Empire going.

Look at the Mickey Mouse brand. My kid does not know who Mickey is. If you don't work the brand it soon looses traction. My kid knows Dora the Explorer and Max and Ruby better than what was once the worlds best known cartoon character.

The other problem with Disney is that the mawkish sentimentality that worked well through the 50s and 60s is no longer so much in vogue.

Disney needs a Jim Collins makeover.

Re:Good Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to movies, Disney is more than just a maker of animated children's films. That recent pirates movie with Johnny Depp was pretty big. They also have the brands Buena Vista, Miramax, Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures

Re:Good Investment?

[Roofus]

as a cable company owning ESPN can't be a bad thing.

Not to mention ABC.

Re:Good Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they come in, fire the board, install Jobs as president, and put Roy Disney and Other Guy back on the board, that alone would seem to add a lot of value to the company.

Re:Good Investment?

[SenorCitizen]

Look at the Mickey Mouse brand. My kid does not know who Mickey is.

Mickey Mouse is a damn sissy anyway. I've never understood why that nerd is more popular in the States(Slashdot I would understand) than Donald Duck. He's the real (anti-)hero.

Re:Good Investment?

[LostCluster]

Not to mention ABC.

Actually, a cable company owning ABC is trouble... you cannot own a cable company in an area where you own a TV station per FCC rules. (News Corp. was allowed to purchase DirecTV without giving up its TV stations because DirecTV isn't a cable company.)

Re:Good Investment?

[DougWhite]

The FCC is going to have a fit

ESPN is very powerful. Most males get cable because of ESPN. If Comcast is in an area like Chicago where it competes with another cable company (RCN) then it will deny RCN use of ESPN. So now you are sitting there deciding which cable company to go with. On the one hand you have Comcast with ESPN and you have Company B without.

Goodbye Company B.

Re:Good Investment?

[ImpTech]

The FCC *should* have a fit. Will they? I dunno.

Re:Good Investment?

[SpaceCadetTrav]

Obviously you are qualified to make this analysis. Why don't you shoot an email to the Comcast board. I'm sure that they will value your opinion.

Re:Good Investment?

[DougWhite]

Actually they probably will. As every other cable/sat/broadcast will be screaming. At the very least they will force certain terms on the new company or force them to sell something. What I don't know, as the best thing to make them sell is ESPN, and that is probably why Comcast is going to all this trouble

Re:Good Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney owns the ABC network, several cable channels, the theme parks, two major studios and a huge catalog of material. They also have a global brand and can market their stuff worldwide.

You forgot to mention they own a lot of lawmakers in Washington, DC. That's a very valuable asset.

Re:Good Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Abso-fraggin'-lutely. Donald also has more movie credits under his belt than that small time mouse. I'm an American, and I've never found Mickey very entertaining. Even as a child I found Donald more interesting.

You know who really deserves some recognition, though? Goofy. Goofy works hard, never complains, and never lets anything get him down. He's everything we Americans admire as a culture, but who do we celebrate? The mouse. The mouse has everything handed to him on a silver platter like a spoiled rich kid. What has he ever done to earn the kind of adoration he gets? Not much, I say. No, sir.

Re:Good Investment?

[tswann01]

It's worth even less now

Comcast == Cable, Satellite?

[Lord of haha]

Anyways does this mean that satelitte users will lose the disney channel then?

Re:Comcast == Cable, Satellite?

[lambadomy]

No. The Newscorp purchase of Directv only happened because the government got Newscorp to agree to (among other things) not start telling Comcast or Dish or whoever they couldn't have FOX programming, or that they had to pay some crazy prices while Directv got it for "free". This merger/buyout wouldn't happen without a similar agreement.

Looks like a strange merger to me

[Reinout]

Disney is, of course, well-known. Big company, earning a lot of cash.

For comcast I (I'm from Europe) had to visit their website. Looks like a run-of-the-mill cable company. Telephone, internet and television over standard cable. They're probably big, but big enough to take on Disney...

Perhaps their stock price is way up so they can pay for this with stocks only... Stuff likes this just seems so artificial, just like there 's no real money involved. (Which probably is the case...)

Reinout

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[rbolkey]

Actually, Comcast has the larger market capitalization by around $30 million. And has 6x higher gross margin. They have more debt, but seem to be in better financial position than Disney.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in America and actually have internet provided by Comcast, when not at school, and I had to go to their website. I had no idea they could even think about buying Disney.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[Orne]

They happen to be a run-of-the-mill cable company with a lock on the WashingtonDC-Philadelphia-Newark-NewYorkCity cooridor, the 4th largest TV viewing market in the USA, and 5th largest radio market. They are their own sports broadcast provider (Comcast Sports) with near-exclusive baseball, basketball & hockey coverage for the region (Normally you will only get a game on broadcast TV if the stadium is sold-out, Comcast gets them all the time).

As mentioned before, Comcast is approximately 1.5x the size of Disney, and are essentially a pure content distribution company. Disney under their umbrella would give them additional content to distribute... And think of all the movies that Disney has rights to, suddenly it would make the HBOs and Cinemaxes of the world a lot less powerful if Comcast could bring you Disney/Miramax/BuenaVista movies first. And look at what AOL did with TimeWarner, suddenly you had the Merry Melodies (Bugs Bunny et al) characters as part of their advertising campaigns == instant public mascot recognition. You better believe that Comcast would milk the Disney characters for commercials...

The biggest complaint last year is that ESPN sports content (who have a firm grip on broadcasting college sports nation-wide) was expensive... ESPN is a piece of Disney, so Comcast would own another valuable piece to the sports pie. The college NCAA tournaments in March are a month long advertising spree, and I'm sure Comcast would love to be a middle-man in that system.

Personally, I hate what Eisner has done to the Disney legacy, so anything to remove him from CEO would be a good thing in my opinion. Unfortunatly, a buy-out like this would only contain a Platinum Parachute (this guy already paid himself enough gold) that would make Eisner richer... something he hasn't deserved for a decade.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[HMA2000]

Market Capitalization = # of shares * share price

This gives a rough indication of what a company is "worth" (of course it is much more complicated but it is a good rule of thumb)

Disney's Market Cap : 56.12B
Comcast's : 68.83B

So from a market value perspective Comcast should have no trouble generating enough stock, bond, cash to purchase Disney.

figures from finance.yahoo.com

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[lambadomy]

Being "well known" does not equate to "earning lots of cash", or even being very big. It just means you're well known. Disney, really, has not been doing very well recently, and it's market capitalization is only around 2/3ds that of Comcast.

Comcasts stock price may be high, but those stock prices are based, at least in part, on actual information (such as earnings).

"Buying" a company doesn't necessarily require you to be much bigger than (or even as big as) the company you are buying - you can always get new investors to foot the bill if the investment looks like a good idea.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[Quikah]

Heh, not anymore, the market cap for Comcast is now only about $15B more than disney.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Hey, and maybe Comcast would finally be able to Save Disney's Hole.

For you non-Philadelphia residents, Disney was planning to partner with some of our Urban slumlords to build an entertainment complex. All we ended up with was a dug out hole in the middle of old city.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[Morologous]

Not to mention that Comcast owns the 76ers and the Flyers.

Re:Looks like a strange merger to me

[danhs32]

Wait a I minute, I won't argue with your logic about why Comcast is doing this. Or about them being 1.5 times larger than Disney. I'm simply not aware of these facts and not in a position to dispute them. But i'm from New York, and I don't know of anybody (or too many people at least) that use Comcast cable. Up here Timewarner and Cablevision are the two big players. So even if they are in the New York market, they certainly don't have a lock on it.

deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[shaldannon]

ISP buys media giant. ISP tries to merge businesses. ISP fails. ISP discards its name and adopts media giant's name. Stock plummets.

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[TopShelf]

The difference here is the cable TV aspect, however. If Comcast buys Disney, which includes ESPN, for example, you can bet that competitors to ESPN (i.e. Fox Sports) will get 2nd class treatment on their systems. If I recall correctly, isn't something like this the case in Philadelphia, where Comcast owns the Flyers, but if you have some other service, you can't get most of their games on TV?

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[NotAnotherReboot]

ISP has healthy business model for subscriptions that only predicts growth, not a loss of customers.

Don't forget that Comcast is offering a) cable TV, which doesn't look to go away for a very long time, and broadband, which is sufficiently fast for 95% of end users.

The reason AOL has been such a disaster on the ISP side is that they are based on outdated technology with little room for growth (in fact, it seems it can only shrink).

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[jiffah]

thats your fault for being a Flyers fan.

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[Keitaro22]

That's absolutely correct... but with the way the Sixers and Flyers have been playing recently, I don't want their games on my TV.

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[eclipsemgp]

You are correct,sir. You need to have Comcast Cable to get Comcast SportsNet, which broadcasts most of the Phillies, Flyers, and Sixers games. They don't provide this channel any other outlet, be it another cable provider or satellite tv. If you don't get Comcast, no sports for you. I've heard it is similar in Baltimore/Washington area.

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[paitre]

*snickerfits*
Not quite :)
The Orioles are broadcast by one of the local stations, and are -occasionally- picked up by CSN if the game isn't otherwise being televised, the Ravens are always on a broadcast channel, as are, I believe, the Redskins. The Caps are probably the only team that usually gets stuck on CSN, at least in Baltimore, and I'm not that big of a hockey fan.
*shrug*

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[TopShelf]

Don't worry - I'm a lifelong Red Wings fan, but travel to Philly on business occasionally, and heard about the situation there...

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[Dun Malg]

The reason AOL has been such a disaster on the ISP side is that they are based on outdated technology with little room for growth (in fact, it seems it can only shrink).

Yeah, anyone basing their business model on selling dialup service is doomed. I think they may have jumped on Time-Warner partly in order to get Time Warner Cable's broadband as a way to continue marketing the AOL name. In some ways it did that, but mostly it looks like it didn't. Personally, I'm astounded by how hard they're pushing the latest AOL dial-ware spam CDs. Dialup is a shrinking market, so I reckon they have to push pretty hard to stay afloat.

Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry - I'm a lifelong Red Wings fan

Gads, that's even worse. But I hear there are treatments for your condition.

GO LEAFS!
FVC|< THE RED WANGS!

Someone should check the facts..

[vpscolo]

"Disney is one of the world's biggest and best known media companies, and is responsible for everything from Mickey Mouse cartoons to blockbuster movies such as Toy Story."

But Pixar made Toy Story, Disney just published it and Pixar have just dropped Disney. Almost like rats (mice) leaving a sinking ship

Rus

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[tinrobot]

Actually, Disney owns the copyright to Toy Story, the characters and the merchandising rights. They own all of the Pixar films to date. If Disney wants to, they could make Finding Nemo II all by themselves.

The deal with Pixar was that Disney owns the films and pays for distribution, the two companies split production costs 50/50, but Pixar only gets 35% of the back end.

No wonder Pixar's shopping elsewhere.

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[eraserewind]

I don't think that Pixar have dropped Disney in the way you say. For sure, they have declined another exclusive contract, and that is a blow for Disney given Pixar's excellent record, but there is nothing stopping Pixar using Disney as a distributor on a picture by picture basis. After all, Disney has an excellent track record in distributing Pixar movies. Pixar just felt they could get a better deal percentage-wise if they weren't tied to a single distributor. Only time will tell if that greater percentage for Pixar translates into greater cash.

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[Anonymous Coward]

If Disney wants to, they could make Finding Nemo II all by themselves.

Well, they could try, anyway. It would suck as bad as every other Disney sequel though.

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[bad-badtz-maru]

Pixar dropped Disney because Pixar wants a distribution deal more like what Lucas has with Star Wars, where a flat fee is paid for distribution and Pixar would retain all rights and profits. Right now, Pixar and Disney split profits but only after Disney recoups distribution costs

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[Pionar]

Yeah, but they signed that back when all Pixar was doing was making small animated shorts and didn't have the exposure needed to be a big player. They signed the deal with Disney to get that exposure. If you look at the special features on Monsters, Inc. (great movie), you'll see a tour of the Pixar offices. I'd say they're doing pretty well under the deal. Doesn't hurt to try to get more, though.

I want an office chimp!!!

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[DougWhite]

This really isn't all that bad of a deal.

Take finding Finding Nemo which cost 90 million to produce and about 40 million to market. So Disney put up 85 million to Pixars 45 million. Seems to me everybody is getting back the % they stuck in financially.

From what I can gather what Pixar wanted was the rights to their films back, in addition to the rights of the films to be produced. I don't think the cost split ratio and the profit assignments are the problem. Disney would probably have been willing to match any offer from Time Warner, News Corp, Universal, or Sony could make. Disney has something that none of those companies have which Pixar wanted back. And knowing Jobs he probably felt he deserved it, and threw a fit when Eisner rightfully said "you signed a contract"

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[nphinit]

They own all of the Pixar films to date. If Disney wants to, they could make Finding Nemo II all by themselves.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Pixar has first dibs on producing sequels for Disney; if Pixar isn't interested, THEN Disney can do it all by themselves.

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[andy55]

to add...

It started w/ Pixar, "led" and represented by Jobs, negotiated w/ Disney (I forget the head guys that were at the semi-famous meeting) made a three picture deal, a 50/50 split on revs, but Disney got main branding. Take a look at the Toy Story movie sleeve--Pixar is just in tiny text. I say "led" in quotes because up to this point, Jobs was putting crazy amts of cash into Pixar while all his time, energy, and passion was going into Next--and the Pixar people liked this relationship (the fact that he was 2 hours away and rarely visited).

_Toy Story_ was a new class of film, did super well (as we all know), and put Pixar on the map. Right around there, before _A Bug's Life_, the two companies met again. Jobs knew that this technology was on the rise and would only become more capable while traditional animation would only be static at best. Meanwhile, senior Disney management was entrenched in by-hand/man-intensive traditional animation techniques. One of the three major credits Jobs is given for leading Pixar is what went down in this deal. In some what was regarded as very impressive and ballsy negotiating (and some bluffing as the story goes), he walked out of the deal with equal branding of Pixar w/ Disney, a lot more leverage and PR/merch stuff (I can't recall more), only at the cost of extending their movie commitments to something like 5 films. It was at this same meeting, the faction of Disney senior leadership that thought CGI was the future voiced separate opinion (and would split to form Dreamworks, which is why DW has a lot of the look and feel of traditional animation). FYI, Jobs' two other Pixar credits are considered to be him continuing to pour cash into Pixar for the many many years (before _Toy Story_ was ever conceived, while Pixar pioneered its technology) and taking Pixar public). Take a look at the sleeve for _A Bug's Life_ --notice the equal branding and recall the big nifty Pixar logo-intro w/ the lamp at the start of it.

If Disney wants to, they could make Finding Nemo II all by themselves.

I'm not sure what film number their on per their contract w/ Disney, but yes, it's right about now--that's another reason Disney can be considered to be SOL and in need of new senior leadership to innovate their image and filmmaking.

Re:Someone should check the facts..

[MikeJ9919]

Umm...you would be correct, but look at what Disney has done when they have the rights to popular characters. Instead of letting us simply remember the wonderful movies we watched during our childhood (mine, at least), they try to jam more crap down our throats. Lion King 2, Beauty and the Beast 2, Little Mermaid 2, Pocahontas 2, etc., etc. Does anyone really believe that Disney will make a decent Finding Nemo II? Even a franchise is not just about the characters, it's about the storytelling and the animation. There's a reason that all of Disney's sequel releases have been direct-to-video. They realize that they're bad. But instead of seeing that the best thing they can do is make quality film (and then sell tons of merchandise on the side), they believe that the low cost of production of these direct-to-video disasters justifies their creation and sale. Good move, Pixar. Get out while you still can.

-Mike-

Expansion

[lukewarmfusion]

Comcast is expanding fast - too fast, perhaps. They bought out the AT&T service here in my area. I'm not sure of all the details of that merger/purchase/whatever, but our service went from expensive to holy crap in no time. Also, they're ridiculous about support and customer service. I don't expect them to improve the state of Disney at all if this thing works out for them. Was going to post: If you want to buy Disney, there's a whole store at the mall selling them.

Re:Expansion

[drinkypoo]

They bought out AT&T service everywhere, they just haven't transitioned everyone from attbi.com to comcast.net addresses yet. They raised the price $10/mo in my area (Marysville, which is in the California/Sacramento region) and sent me an abuse letter for using too much bandwidth. Not to mention I had to fight with them for like two weeks to come replace a leased modem that was going bad (it was, they replaced it, everything works fine now.)

On the plus side comcast still has a pretty good group list on their mail server. Too bad there's no retention whatsoever, and the completion rate varies widely.

Re:Expansion

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God for DSL. I'm not looking forward to paying $100/month for cable and Internet access. Rediculous. And they always have to be bundled, too. Give me basic cable and a decent Internet connection for $50/month. Oh yeah, and I want uptime at least on par with DSL or I have no reason to switch.

Re:Expansion

[Unregistered]

They seemed to do a prett decent job after acquiting AT&T cable in Atlanta, imo. I don't think rates (for basic at least) changed at all. The cablle stays on all the time now, unlike kin the days of MediaOne and AT&T when any rain would make the cable go out. Whn Out cable shit itself, they sent someone out to clean the fried squirell* off the line or whatever and we were back running immediatly.

*In a neighborhood with lots of oak trees and aboveground lines, squirrels are a major problem for utilities.

Re:Expansion

[tepples]

If you want to buy Disney, there's a whole store at the mall selling them.

Last time I checked, Disney was closing Disney Stores across the country because they were failing to turn a profit. Christian organizations boycotting Michael Eisner's products used this as evidence that they were winning.

Re:Expansion

[kpaul]

That's what they offer here in New Mexico: $54 for basic cable and internet. Just got it myself and am quite happy, other than the fact that I'm doing business with The Man after seven years with a local mom and pop ISP. DSL is not an option where I live.

A small regional company?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Comcast is a small regional cable company, like a cable version of a Baby Bell.

AOL/TimeWarner Redux?

[blenderking]

Granted, Comcast has more to it than AOL, but how different is the rationale between AOL and TimeWarner to Comcast and Disney?

Re:AOL/TimeWarner Redux?

[rm007]

Despite the differences between AOL and Comcast cited by other posters in this thread, the basic similarity remains: linking distribution of content with content production. Given the history of the AOL Time-Warner mega-merger, I'd say that your question is quite appropriate. In economics, the theory of the firm (developed by Robert Coase) suggests that functions are taken into the firm to reduce the transaction costs associated with buying in products/services. Transaction costs are those costs over and above the the price of the good/service that a firm incurs when going to the market. These include search and information costs, bargaining costs, oversight costs etc. Evidently Comcast think that they can save money for themselves by owning a major content producer. Whether or not this is true is open for debate -thanks to deregulation and technology (among other things) transaction costs have fallen tremendously in the past decade. This is why so many companies outsource functions (ranging from cleaning and security to logistics, hr and coding) these days. They must have crunched the numbers, but you have to wonder.

Re:AOL/TimeWarner Redux?

[urbanRealist]

I think the transaction costs here are the cost of showing sporting events on TV. In order to pay for higher player salaries, content providers have raised prices. Those higher prices then have to be paid by distribution companies like Comcast. By acquiring Disney, who owns ESPN etc.(?), they'll have more say in cost reduction as well as one less link in the chain.

Roberts' letter to Eisner - full text

[Anonymous Coward]

I say ---fine! What you are going to see is, competing cable/sat companies avoiding as much any Disney-branded product as possible, lest they subsidize their own competition.

This merger proposal is all about Roberts' ego.

Here's the letter:
**************

February 11, 2004

Mr. Michael D. Eisner
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521

Dear Michael:

I am writing following our conversation earlier this week in which I proposed that we enter into discussions to merge Disney and Comcast to create a premier entertainment and communications company. It is unfortunate that you are not willing to do so. Given this, the only way for us to proceed is to make a public proposal directly to you and your Board.

We have a wonderful opportunity to create a company that combines distribution and content in a way that is far stronger and more valuable than either Disney or Comcast can be standing alone. To this end, we are proposing a tax-free stock for stock merger in which Comcast would issue 0.78 of a share of its Class A voting common stock for each share of Disney. This represents a premium of over $5 billion for your shareholders, based on yesterday's closing prices. Under our proposal, your shareholders would own approximately 42% of the combined company.

The combined company would be uniquely positioned to take advantage of an extraordinary collection of assets. Together, we would unite the country's premier cable provider with Disney's leading filmed entertainment, media networks and theme park properties. In addition to serving over 21 million cable subscribers, Comcast is also the country's largest high speed internet service provider with over 5 million subscribers. As you have expressed on several occasions, one of Disney's top priorities involves the aggressive pursuit of technological innovation that enhances how Disney's content is created and delivered. We believe this combination helps accelerate the realization of that goal-whether through existing distribution channels and technologies such as video-on-demand and broadband video streaming or through emerging technologies still in development-to the benefit of all our shareholders, customers and employees.

We believe that improvements in operating performance, business creation opportunities and other combination benefits will generate enormous value for the shareholders of both companies. Together, as an integrated distribution and content company, we will be best positioned to meet our respective competitive challenges.

We have a stable and respected management team with a great track record for creating shareholder value. In fact, our shares have consistently outperformed leading stock indices by significant margins, including the S&P 500 by a margin of more than 2 to 1 since Comcast went public in 1972. The Comcast management team greatly appreciates and is highly respectful of the Disney heritage. We know that there are many talented executives at Disney who we envision would also play a key role in managing the combined company. We also would welcome directors from your Board joining our Board. We have analyzed the issues associated with regulatory approval and are confident that all necessary approvals can be obtained in a timely fashion. Given the landscape that has evolved in our industry over the past few years, the creation of integrated content and distribution companies is essential to increasing the level of competition. The FCC's existing program access and program carriage rules ensure that the combined company will continue to make all of its satellite-delivered national and regional cable networks available on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated programming services, all consistent with the undertakings made by News Corp. in its recent acquisition of DirecTV. We hope that the Disney Board will pursue the opportunity that this proposed combination presents to your shareholders.

Very truly yours,

Brian L. Roberts
President and Chief Executive Officer

Cc: Board of Directors,
The Walt Disney Company

Re:Roberts' letter to Eisner - full text

[renelicious]

Letter?!?

You're telling me the head of Comcast doesn't have email?!? Man what kind of an ISP are they?

Re:Roberts' letter to Eisner - full text

[mbstone]

The only way for us to proceed is to make a public proposal directly to you and your Board.

We're bored from counting money and playing golf all day.

We have a wonderful opportunity to create a company that combines distribution and content in a way that is far stronger and more valuable than either Disney or Comcast can be standing alone.

Remember AOL and Time Warner? We don't.

We believe that improvements in operating performance, business creation opportunities and other combination benefits will generate enormous value for the shareholders of both companies.

We can lay off a bunch of people.

The Comcast management team greatly appreciates and is highly respectful of the Disney heritage.

Some of us even went to Disneyland when we were kids.

We know that there are many talented executives at Disney who we envision would also play a key role in managing the combined company.

Activate your resumes on Monster.com while you can....

We have analyzed the issues associated with regulatory approval and are confident that all necessary approvals can be obtained in a timely fashion.

FCC chairman Michael Powell will approve any proposal if you put a big enough check in the envelope.

Given the landscape that has evolved in our industry over the past few years, the creation of integrated content and distribution companies is essential to increasing the level of competition.

We can't decrease the level of competition fast enough.

The FCC's existing program access and program carriage rules ensure that the combined company will continue to make all of its satellite-delivered national and regional cable networks available on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated programming services.

"Bugs and Porky" will not be seen in its regular time period due to technical difficulties. Hey kids, it's duck season AND it's rabbit season!!

Re:Roberts' letter to Eisner - full text

[thynk]

So at least I know where the extra $10 comcast started charging me for my cable modem after I dropped cable for dish. I can see it now...

"To ensure the same high quality view pleasure during this Disney movie, we at Comisney (or Discast if you prefer) have raised the viewing price of this feature film from $7.50 to $17.50"

And they wonder why I'm dropping the cable modem tommorow for a wireless isp - half the cost ($24.95), more upstream bandwidth (1 Meg up/down) and no restrictions on servers...

ACK!

[Saint Mitchell]

Don't do that to me. My arm went numb and I saw my life flash before my eyes. I haven't had coffee yet people. Talk about an unholy union. Sheesh, I thought AOHell and Time Warner was bad. Throw fox in there and I think you start the Apocalypse.

Re:ACK!

[BenBenBen]

As with most news these days, we are one step closer to living in a world where theonion is a serious news source. See here

God forbid

[kiwimate]

Something else for Comcast to make a complete and utter mess. Oh, yay.

Is there anyone out there who was with another company that got taken over by Comcast that doesn't have a complaint about how terrible they are? Or witness the recent discussion on cable vs satellite TV, and how many anti-Comcast diatribes came out there. Or do you want another view?

If Comcast takes over Disney, be prepared for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck unavailability on a frequent basis. Mind you, at least they'll be able to put a spin on all the comments about their Mickey Mouse technical support, so maybe that's the reason they're going for this.

Re:God forbid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...I hate to say it, but I had AT&T Broadband for a while, and they were the absolute worst cable provider I have ever had. Rates were crazy, customer service kept blaming me when my service would go out (turned out it their bad equipment...but it took 7 months for them to figure that out), and they never once got my bill correct. Then Comcast bought them out. They came out and replaced my bad equipment, expanded service, my bills were finally correct, and they even brought out broadband internet within the year (something that AT&T kept telling me was 2-3 years away for my area). Sure, the rates didn't get any better, but they didn't get worse and service did improve. I am sure that I was probably the excption, though.

Re:God forbid

[DrCode]

And after you pay $45 to get into Disneyland, don't be surprised to find that the "premium" rides require an extra payment.

Re:God forbid

[Anonymous Coward]

They already can. "Want to get ahead in line? Just buy a QuickPass and leave those poor slobs standing in line!"

Dammit!

[The I Shing]

Dammit, ComCast topped my offer of $75 and a ten-pack of Wrigley's Spearmint Gum.

Re:Dammit!

[Hektor_Troy]

They're paying in stock ... unless you offered stale used gum your offer will be worth more next year ...

Re:Dammit!

[rufo]

Maybe if you hadn't used two sticks...

tech news? Stuff that matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this tech news. This better slated for the business section the the IT section. The only non-business part of this post is that it might effect Pixar's plans somehow. That is a far stretch itself.

Comcast bigger than AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcase is bigger than AOL? I thought it was the other way around. Comcast is a small regional player, while AOL is national (or international).

AOL probably loses more customers in a quarter than Comcast has total.

However, at the rate they are losing customers, AOL will be smaller than Comcast sometime next year.

Re:Comcast bigger than AOL?

[blenderking]

AOL was just a dial-up ISP. Comcast has cable tv, broadband ISP, QVC, sports ownership, etc. They're much more diversified than AOL.

Re:Comcast bigger than AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Please shut up.

The Opportune Moment...

[OrthodonticJake]

I can see that they have carefully timed this whole thing. They clearly waited until all of the quality had left. They pounced right after Disney got rid of that dirty animation studio and waited for the whole Pixar filth to clear. Such a well planned and carefully timed merger cannot fail!

Re:The Opportune Moment...

[Anonymous Coward]

People here shouldn't seem so suprised, same thing happened with AOL/time warner in order for them to become the infinitely scary and infinitely persuasive, (They OWN the media,control of the media=control of US Majority Mind). Comcast and Disney, two big brothers, making a BIGGER brother! JUST what the doctor ordered! Can anyone say MONOPOLY with hotels on Board Walk AND Park Place, while the rest of us are still buying crack off baltic avenue, bout time to move to Taiwan/India to help free up more jobs for the U.S. they'll be needing due to major corporations telling the domestic workforce to piss off. I also wonder how a Disney/Comcast merger would effect the ISP's position on file sharing (besides maybe Pixar's Finding Nemo and Toy Story 2)

Re:The Opportune Moment...

[R.Caley]

You forgot:

[...] and until Disney anounced a deal to use Microcruft security technology to protect their IPR a couple of days before microsoft anounce their latest security disaster.

Of course, just after a string of bad news reports is the correct time to launch a share-swap bid.

Oh, and someone has to say it:

Mickey: I for one welcome our new fiber optic masters.

Duh! Of course the job quote was for Disney

[Space cowboy]

... Preview, NOT submit. Preview dammit. NOT submit.

(clicks submit).

Just call me Homer.

Simon.

Re:Duh! Of course the job quote was for Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Just call me Homer.

Simon.


Man, you really aren't with it today. I think you meant Homer "Simpson." Get your cartoon characters straight!

It happens

[Walkiry]

Just like the recent attempt by Sanofi to acquire Aventis, their rival Pharma. Sanofi is about 3 times smaller, go figure.

That blows my own cover now...

[blcamp]

I might as well reveal my own plans to buy Microsoft.

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[iamsure]

The truly sad part is that Microsoft could buy Disney at the same price, and only have to use $10B in stock. They have roughly $50B in cash available.

In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without changing ANYTHING in their business. Zero impact, other than availabl cash.

Thats absolute insanity.

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[devilsadvoc8]

Why is that sad? Why is this "absolute insanity" Are you just railing against Microsoft? They aren't involved here? Also, why mod to Interesting??????

As for "In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without change ANYTHING in their business" - where does that come from. Having available cash like that does impact their business. It allows them to quickly move when an opportunity presents itself without worrying about financing. That is a huge business advantage versus every other company out there.

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[iamsure]

Your nick is well chosen.. just responding with a counter point for the sake of doing so.

But valid questions one and all, so I'll respond to them..

"Why is that sad?"
Because, with few exceptions, microsoft makes computer hardware and software. Thats it. Granted, they happen to be the dominant provider, but that is the net value add to our world from them - software and hardware.

Compare and contrast with Disney, who has created childhood legends - nay, histories! They have inspired generations of animators, pushed forward the arts, ALSO made software and hardware, ALSO single-handedly revolutionized theme parks, and so on. They've made a lasting positive cultural investment. Microsoft gave us the blue-screen of death.

"Why is this "absolute insanity""

Because the valuations are insane. They said so themselves by issuing dividends - stating explicitly that their cash holdings were too large NOT to return some value directly to share holders.

They simply didnt do it enough!

"Are you just railing against Microsoft?"

Not at all. While I do have serious problems with them as a corporate citizen, and more serious issues with them as a computer user, I simply brought up a valid point about their valuation being out of line with reality - a point of view shared by numerous stock analysts before and after their dividends were issued.

"They aren't involved here? Also, why mod to Interesting??????"

No, they arent. But they make an interesting point for comparison. Its modded to interesting because people find it - shock here - interesting that a company that has added practically nothing to our culture, and has demonstrated time and again that it is willing to break the law, is capable of buying a company that is the polar opposite of it. Without trying. Without any change in their stock structure.

"As for "In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without change ANYTHING in their business" - where does that come from. "

The fact that their available cash reserves (published) is over $50B. That means they could make a tender cash offer - ie, without issuing, re-valuing, or requesting approval for any change in stocks - for the company.

"Having available cash like that does impact their business. It allows them to quickly move when an opportunity presents itself without worrying about financing. That is a huge business advantage versus every other company out there."

Thats a valid argument, but you are over-stating that advantage signifigantly. They'd immediately gain a tremendous amount of value, assets, and expansion items that would - BY FAR - offset any loss of potential.

Thats exactly why the analysts recommended MS do some acquisitions before their stock dividends - because they had TOO MUCH potential, and not enough capital goods.

Put simply, its nuts that they have enough cash laying around to buy a cultural icon (even a tarnished one) without even issuing a single stock cert.

Madness.

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[Anonymous Coward]

The truly sad part is that Microsoft could buy Disney at the same price, and only have to use $10B in stock. They have roughly $50B in cash available.

It's a bit late for that, between microsoft and bill gates' personal holdings, they already own something like 25%. They could buy it without exhausting their cash.

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[Hi, I'm Troy McClure]

Ah, but that available cash is everything.

It's the result of their Office/OS monopoly.

It's what allows them to get into any line of business they feel like.

It's what makes them dangerous.

With the interest they make on their horde of cash in a just couple of months, they could snap up so many companies it'd make your head spin.

Considering the smart way they've used this giant advantage in the past, I hardly think the old 'softies would blow it all on one company, much less, Disney.

Then again, I'm obviously no Bill Gates. (Thank goodness, what would I do with all that money?)

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[buckeyeguy]

Then again, I'm obviously no Bill Gates. (Thank goodness, what would I do with all that money?)

If I was Bill Gates, I would find it entertainingly ironic to own the company that created, among other characters, Scrooge McDuck. A little more about Scrooge can be found here.)

Re:That blows my own cover now...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without changing ANYTHING in their business. Zero impact, other than availabl cash.

In other words, if the price was lower, I could buy Disney without changing ANYTHING in my business. Zero impact, other than available cash.

Cliche # 273

[Anonymous Coward]

All your Mickeys are belong to us.

What a Bargain

[DCheesi]

Given the exhorbitant prices Disney charges for its cable channels (especially ESPN), $66 Billion is probably cheaper than what they would pay (longterm) if they didn't buy them!

Re:What a Bargain

[davidhan]

Hey that comment is probably right on the mark. Not only will they be saving those fees going out, they'll be able to collect those fees from their competitors.

Money, money

[mbrod]

Wow probably the two worst price gouging companies out there (that apply to me anyway).

A match made in.... yep Hell.

what a collosal mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is making a huge mistake. The travel industry sucks right now, so all of disney's resorts should be discounted. The entertainment side of things pretty much blows, now that Pixar is no longer working with disney. The evaluation of disney shouldn't be any where near the price. They should try to negotiate down to 1/3 the reported price.

Re:what a collosal mistake

[NormalVisual]

The travel industry sucks right now, so all of disney's resorts should be discounted.

And I'm assuming you have Disney's resort occupancy numbers to back this up?

Sounds like way too much to me

[Andy_R]

Given that Disney just lost their main content supplier (Pixar), and are creatively running on empty (Atlantis, Lilo and Stitch, dozens of straight to video cash-in sequels to classics anyone?), this seems like a lot of money for a chain of shops, a few theme parks and a stack of about-to-go-out-of-copyright cartoon characters.

Pixar have shown a start-up can outdo Disney at animation, Universal and Busch have shown the theme parks are cost effective to build from scratch, and the shops are nothing special.

Re:Sounds like way too much to me

[crawling_chaos]

Given that Disney just lost their main content supplier (Pixar)

They still have the NFL, MLB, and the NBA, plus all those college games and PTI on ESPN (whooo, acronym overload!). Disney is much more than an animated movie house anymore. Also, imagine if Comcast managed to score exclusive on-demand rights to the classic kiddie movies with this deal. That would put the hurt on DirecTV in households with small children.

Re:Sounds like way too much to me

[ek_adam]

Lilo & Stitch was the best non-Pixar thing they've made in years.

Re:Sounds like way too much to me

[EMH_Mark3]

You're pretty naive if you think Disney will every allow its copyrights to expire.

Re:Sounds like way too much to me

[Tokerat]

Agreed.

Re:Sounds like way too much to me

[nelsonal]

Comcast is mostly interested in the stuff they can show on their cable network thinks like ESPN, ABC, Disney and the affiliated channels. They're buying the company now because the value of the studios/themeparks is not adding much to the total value of the comapny. They can try to get the side businesses back on their feet, and cut their costs for channels which makes this a pretty good deal for them.

Don't do it

[derphilipp]

Don't sell Mickey or the laughter in the world will die....if commercialisation of Fantasy and Fun (TM) will become true we will all be very sad, become lonely geeks and read slashdot all day...
Oh - wait a minute we're talking about Disney...

Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[techmuse]

I can imagine that you might go on the Space Mountain ride some time between 8 AM and 4 PM. You must stand in line the entire day, and they will not tell you when you will ride. Riding will now require a converter seat that will make your pants compatible with the unusual seats in their rides. The price of a cartoon will go up 10% per year, and will have worse encoding every year. There will be hundreds of rides to choose from, but most of them will just be place holders for rides that don't really exist.

Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[macMaestro]

Don't forget that if you go on too many rides, they'll kick you out of the park. 'We're sorry. Your ride consumption exceeds our unspecified limits.'

Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[Anonymous Coward]

"There will be hundreds of rides to choose from, but most of them will just be place holders for rides that don't really exist."

You're forgetting all the rides that are only there to preach fundamentalist Christianity, sell you worthless jewelery, and rides that are about the making of rides you went on earlier in another part of the park.

Hopefully we'll at least get to see brawls break out between attandents on "FOX News: the ride" and "BBC America: the ride" while we wait in line...

Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the theme park's workers don't show up until 4:59pm (the end of their shift) and reschedule you for the next day. Or six. You know, whenever's "convenient".

Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[leerpm]

And bring a new meaning to a classic Slashdot joke..

Splash Mountain:

Wheeeeeehhhh!!@%&#(#!@#&$($!*&!$#& ^++ NO CARRIER ....

Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land

[hawaiian717]

Innoventions will be even more like QVC.

disney+pixar+eisner

[Anonymous Coward]

some recent news/info: Here

Yea! I'm going to comcast world!

[walterbyrd]

Would Comcast change the Disney name? I would hope not.

Re:Yea! I'm going to comcast world!

[devilsadvoc8]

The disney name won't be changed. Its brand recognition throughout the world makes it too valuable to alter. Even Comcast won't mess with that.

Blah Blah Blah

[highwebl]

Mouse Overlords

Disney Website

[KLP-2002]

Anyone notice its ran by go.com? (As in disney.go.com) Will Disney ever be innovative again, or are they going to farm out (go.com, Pixar) all the innovation from here on out?

Re:Disney Website

[Drakin]

They're not farming out to go.

They own Go compleatly. They bought it out over 4 years ago.

Re:Disney Website

[qtp]

Disney owns go.com.

Disney bought go.com back when go.com was known as infoseek and was one of the more tolerable search engines around at the time. Pretty much killed infoseek by changing the business model from providing search services to being a web portal company, and go.com has been surviving on Disney subsidies ever since.

What a way to build Karma..

[MisanthropicProggram]

just submit a comment in two parts! ;-)

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[dreamchaser]

Except you don't get Karma for being Funny, anymore ;-)

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ

Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma. You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass.

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[gumpish]

Great-grandparent is currently modded:

60% funny
30% overrated (and rightfully so)
10% insightful

Does the 10% insightful improve the poster's karma?

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[KlomDark]

Good question, does anybody know? Is is the final rating, or the elements of the rating?

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[erasmus_]

From my experience back from when karma actually showed up as numbers, each moderation counts positively or negatively against you individually. So, in the case of that post, the funny and insightful moderations add +1, but the overrated ones take -1 away. HTH.

Re:What a way to build Karma..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're at 50, the old limit of karma, you can only have a point taken away, you can never add it to hit 51, so at 50 +1 -1 is 49, while 50-1+1 is 50.

rampant buying of companies is an indication

[Anonymous Coward]

of failure in their core business model. They don't know what to do anymore and are buying a bunch of stuff, which is supposed to make them look like they are still moving forward to investors. On a similar note, in stock trading there's only two modes, buy & sell. All the gradients like 'strong sell' are just to keep the suckers/small investors money there long enough for bigger fish to bail out.

Re:rampant buying of companies is an indication

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that Cable Networks are NOT very profitable -- they require massive infrastructure/debt and a very low rate of return.

So, cable companies play this game where they are always selling out, merging, or promising to provide some End-To-End Content Nirvana, and that buys them a couple more years on wallstreet. TimeWarner pulled the same crap.

When DTV finally goes online and folks can get 30+ channels with rabbit ears, "Strong Sell" is putting it too mildly.

RMS - "Mickey Mouse" laws

[fastdecade]

I saw RMS discussing intellectual property, covering Disney's successful lobbying for extending copyright period. He concluded by saying we don't need Mickey Mouse laws.

Re:RMS - "Mickey Mouse" laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw Craig Mundie giving a speech and he concluded that we don't need Stinky Pinko Hippie software licences. HAHAHAHAHAHA so funny sooo very very funny.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

With only two or three [media companies], we can easily know their bias.

Yeah, and it's against us!

Comcast + Disney?

[Arcturax]

Now there is a match made in hell...

Bono to the rescue!

[Travoltus]

I believe the recent Bono Copyright Extension Act ensured those cartoon characters won't go out of copyright for a long, long time. 2019 at the earliest.

For more, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copy right_ Term_Extension_Act

Re:Bono to the rescue!

[jesterzog]

I believe the recent Bono Copyright Extension Act ensured those cartoon characters won't go out of copyright for a long, long time. 2019 at the earliest.

Every time I think about this, it occurs to me that it would have made much more sense to have simply allowed owners and authors to request another copyright renewal rather than extend copyright accross the board.

Personally I couldn't care much less about wanting to use Mickey Mouse in the public domain -- Disney can keep it. But because of the ruthlessness of the whole thing, it means that countless amounts of less-well-known media from the past, that nobody is still enforcing ownership for, is just going to be lost into oblivion because efforts like Project Gutenberg aren't allowed to revive them.

Re:Bono to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I think about this, it occurs to me that it would have made much more sense to have simply allowed owners and authors to request another copyright renewal rather than extend copyright accross the board.

The problem is that copyright isn't something you apply for anyway. You just get it automatically. So you can't renew your application or anything because you might not have ever applied in the first place (there are registered copyrights, but it's mostly a formality... it just gets you some extra protection, but it's not required)

I guess they could say that only registered copyrights are eligible for longer terms and you have to renew your registration, but it would require setting up a whole bunch of extra laws and paperwork over an across the board extension.

I guess that's what we pay our legislators to do, though: write legislation. So I suppose it would work if anyone was willing to take the time to write a law to do it.

Re:Bono to the rescue!

[jesterzog]

Perhaps an expert on copyright law could confirm things better, but I was under the impression that under the original system (at least in the USA), there actually was a copyright renewal system, by which authors were allowed to renew their copyright exactly once during the year that it would otherwise have run out. More specifically, the Copyright Basics text (that was digitised by PG some time ago states the following:

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. [..]

It goes on to say:

Public Law 102-307 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00756:|TOM:/bss/d102query.htm l|] enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Without really knowing the details behind copyright, I don't see why the renewal was made automatic. You'd think that any entity with enough money to campaign for that type of change would be able to organise itself enough to simply renew its copyrights in the correct year, so it might be that there was some other reasoning besides big money interests... or perhaps the politicians simply thought it was silly that people had to actively renew or that it created too many administrational overheads for the copyright office.

At least from my perspective it doesn't seem to have added much value, though.

Just great...

[torgosan]

I get enough Mickey Mouse spam from Spewcast...and now this.

Great for M$

[EmagGeek]

Since M$ owns much of if not a majority stake in Comcast, this is a great way for them to get into a position to dominate media distribution like they've always wanted to... Don't forget that M$ led a drive to make "high definition" television 640x480, which is lower resolution than analog tv, just for their own benefit.

They're salivating over the chance to get their DRM-hooks into a big media company..

Re:Great for M$

[Dun Malg]

Don't forget that M$ led a drive to make "high definition" television 640x480, which is lower resolution than analog tv

What? No it's not. Reg'lar TV is something like 320x200. Furthermore, HDTV is up to 1920x1080, so whether they "led a drive" to make it 640x480 or not seems fairly irrelevant.

Re:Great for M$

[EmagGeek]

You're thinking of standard definition VCR recording, which is about 200 scan lines. NTSC TV is 525 scan lines... In contrast, SVHS recorders can handle about 400 scan lines..

Yes, M$ lost in its efforts, but it took a coalition of about, oh, I dunno, about two dozen other companies who are actually IN the television business to do it.

Re:Great for M$

[eggoeater]

I wonder if Epcot would get a Blue Screen of Death ride?

Re:Great for M$

[nelsonal]

MS owns about 7% of Comcast the last time they filed a 13-F. The Robert's family still owns about 30% of the Comcast voting stock. That will drop to about half the votes if this deal goes through.

Re:Great for M$

[jackbird]

Don't forget that M$ led a drive to make "high definition" television 640x480, which is lower resolution than analog tv, just for their own benefit.

Yeah, it's not like there's 6 decades worth of NTSC-resolution footage owned by every media company in the world lying around.

It's not like hundreds of thousands of 1/2"/Beta/D1/Digibeta cameras, edit suites, and broadcast setups are out there.

It's not like consumers won't give up being able to view their NTSC home movies so they can watch sports in 1080i.

God damn MS for supporting lobbyists who insist on backwards-compatibility being part of the HDTV standard.

Greedy Assholes.

note to pedants: by NTSC, I mean NTSC/PAL/SECAM

Re:Great for M$

[Alsee]

New HIGH DEFINITION DIGITAL TV!
80x25 pure digital ASCII! Because Digital is Better(TM)!

-

Thank God I go with DirecTV!

[l0ungeb0y]

I'm from the future and entire thing is bad bad bad I say!
On Comcast very Channel is now the Disney Channel!
Latenite watchers of DisneyMax have to consult a height chart to figure out which ones are the skinflicks!
After finding the skinflicks, the tits are covered by digitally imposed goofy heads!!

But they got rid of Eisner in the process, so it's not all bad.

Re:Thank God I go with DirecTV!

[LostCluster]

The problem is, in your future, every channel on DirecTV comes from Fox, since the Hughes-News Corp. deal just closed back here in the present.

What does Roy Disney think?

[ThePretender]

I'm wondering if he will come out with a blazing attack saying that this is even worse for Disney or if he'll support anything that is anti-Eisner.

Re:What does Roy Disney think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, you beat me to the punch with that question. Roy and Stanley haven't said anything yet (~9:30 EST), but they are linking to Financial Times and CNN coverage. More context about Roy vs. Eisner here among other places.

Re:What does Roy Disney think?

[gmhowell]

It looks like Roy has noticed, but hasn't responded. As of 12:32 EDT, Feb. 11, 2004, there is a link from Roy's site to news articles on the subject, but no commentary.

More than likely

[tkrotchko]

"The travel industry sucks right now, so all of disney's resorts should be discounted."

Maybe; I'll bet that Comcast would sell those right away to raise some cash.

Re:More than likely

[LostCluster]

Comcast might even sell the entire Disney brand, which would attach all the Mickey Mouse cartoons with the theme parks. Afterall, Comcast is more interested in owning broadcasting assets...

Conflict of Interest?

[Silwenae]

I'd be suprised if the FCC / SEC let this go through. There seem to be too many conflicts of interest in a cable company owning a content creator.

As far as I understand, cable providers pay (and pass on those costs to customers) for channels like ESPN (which just raised how much they charge cable companies because of ESPN-HD, and had some fights with other cable companies about those rates) and having one company who creates TV shows (for ABC and others) and movies (Disney & Touchstone).

Wouldn't Comcast be able to give themselves exclusive content, whether it's a ESPN channel, first run of pay per view movies created by Disney et al, or save on syndication rights on Comcast / Disney run stations? How many times have we seen actors sue over syndication rights when a company like Fox only syndicates to FX? (Or ABC to ABC Family, etc).

And I have a hard time believing that Comcast would pass on those savings (creation & distribution) to their cable customers.

Re:Conflict of Interest?

[the Man in Black]

Yeah, we've already gotten rid of those nasty laws, buddy. This merger is just another company trying to take advantage, and learn from AOLTW's mistakes.

I'm sure we as consumers will get used to the constant assrape eventually, and even begin to welcome it. I for one, welcome our new ass raping profiteering overlords.

Re:Conflict of Interest?

[iamsure]

From the press release..

As part of the proposal, Comcast has noted the applicability of the FCC's current program access and program carriage rules to the combined company, which should address potential concerns that could be raised in the regulatory process. Those rules ensure that the combined company will continue to make all of its satellite-delivered national and regional cable networks available on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated programming services, all comparable to the undertakings made by News Corp. in its recent acquisition of DirecTV.

So no, they wouldnt deny access to other companies simply because they werent comcast.

Re:Conflict of Interest?

[LostCluster]

FCC rules prevent any cable network owned by a cable company that is relayed by satellite to refuse to make itself available to cable. The notable exceptions are regional networks that are only delivered by landline, such as regionalized news channels and sports networks. At this time, no national networks use landline landline-only, and it'd be quite expensive to convert ESPN to such.

Re:Conflict of Interest?

[tverbeek]

There seem to be too many conflicts of interest in a cable company owning a content creator.

As opposed to a content creator owning a cable company (Warner Bros and TimeWarner Cable), or a content creator owning a satellite company (News/Fox and DirecTV)?

The US government won't stop this. At most Comcast/Disney will divest a few pieces and make some key campaign donations.

Re:Conflict of Interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast hosted the 2000 Republican Convention in Philly. Delegates were heard wondering aloud ... "who the heck is Comcast."

As long as Bush is president, Comcast gets what they want. But they better hurry, because time is running out for the Bush/Powell regime.

Not quite...

[tkrotchko]

"this seems like a lot of money for a chain of shops, a few theme parks and a stack of about-to-go-out-of-copyright cartoon characters."

Don't forget ABC and ESPN. Those are probably of more interest to Comcast than cartoons and theme parks.

Re:Not quite...

[LostCluster]

Yep, The Walt Disney Company is a whole lot bigger than just the things that the Disney name appears on. Disney is reserved for family-friendly products, while you can't say the same for everything that comes out of ABC, ESPN, Miramax or Touchstone...

The deal

[salesgeek]

This deal is in response to AOL/Time Warner. Note to Slashdot communtiy: Comcast's internet business IS NOT THEIR CORE BUSINESS - it's a little bitty piece. Selling adds on cable television and collecting monthly checks from subscribers is.
Anyhow: Time Warner has substantial cable assets and substantial content assets. Rupert Murdoch has substantial subscription assets (satellite TV) as well as FOX. See a trend?

This is a me-too deal and in the end it will suck because Comcast will be way to diversified to have a clear direction. What is nice about this deal is that perhaps Comcast can be a catalyst to causing Disney to get on a creative roll again.

When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[mr_resident]

When Comcast runs Disneyland:

The park will vanish mysteriously for hours at a time then reappear with no explanation or refunds.

You'll be forced to ride really crappy rides if you want to ride the more popular ones.

No Linux users will be served food or drink or be allowed to use restroom facilities.

The fun will be capped at an undisclosed level.

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[rtaylor]

The fun will be capped at an undisclosed level.

I'm sorry sir, you had too much fun writing that comment. We are going to have to disconnect you from the Slashdot service now.

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[CatPieMan]

All of that except the linux part -- I haven't had any trouble running linux/MacOS9,X/BSD/Solaris on a comcast cable internet connection. Besides, in my area, comcast is way better than Cox (I actually haven't had any trouble at all with comcast since I got it 2 months ago) and I don't have a phone line so no DSL (Verizon).

-CPM

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was, good luck trying to get meaningful support from them if you're not running Windows. The average support call eventually will get to this point:

Support Script Monkey: "Okay, now click on your Start menu."
You: "I don't have a Start menu."
Support Script Monkey: "..."

They will more or less refuse to believe the problem is on their end unless you have a Windows PC to go through all their stupid little tests.

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[General Wesc]

Support Script Monkey: "Okay, now click on your Start menu."
You: "Okay." [doesn't click anything]
Support Script Monkey: "Now click 'Control Pannel'"
You: "Okay." [doesn't click anything] "Now what?"
Support Script Monkey: "Click on 'Network and Internet Connections' and then 'Network connections'."
You: "Okay." [doesn't click anything]

Eventually he'll probably start asking you "what does the nth field say" and you'll have to ask "Which one is that? What's it labeled?" If he says "DNS Server", for example, you'll know how to look that up via Linux and continue the facade.

Of course, I've never tried this, but it would probably work better than your method.

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sort of a fun challenge, do you know your OS well enough to translate commands from Windows to it. If you master it you are granted the title Level I power user, "fear my mouse".

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[mr_resident]

Me neither, I just find it hilarious that no matter what the problem is, their tech support will drop the call if you tell them you're not running Windows or Mac.

My cable had been cut by my neighbors lawnmower. When I called it in, I kid you not, the Comcast kid asked me what OS I ran. I said "Suse, but what possible difference would..." He immediately jumped back with "We can't escalate your call unless your using one of our approved operating systems."

So, I replaced it myself. Fsck'em!
*

Re:When Comcast runs Disneyland:

[Mr. Fusion]

You must be this tall to start a hostile takeover.

-Mr. Fusion

Comcast to be a majority shareholder..

[asdf 101]

.. in the merged entity if this deal is / was to go through.

According to the letter on the Comcast website, Comcast would hold a 58% stake versus 42% for Disney shareholders.

hmm..

tech support

[musikit]

to get tech support from Mickey Mouse press 1
to get tech support from Donald Duck press 2
to get tech support from Goofy press 3

*2*

Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: umm yeah i'm not getting any internet access
Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: reboot the router?
Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: cool. that worked thanks!

Re:tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is different from normal tech support how?

Re:tech support

[drinkypoo]

In other words, nothing will change, and comcast will still provide the same level of customer support...

Re:tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

well, he DID fix the propblem in record time

Re:tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald: *nonsensical rambling*

So, Donald was outsourced to India?

cable rates and monopolies.

[way2trivial]

is there any better proof that comcast seriously overcharges consumers for services than this type of expenditure?

they argue about regulation of the cable industry when they cry about razor thin profits.. then they BUY DISNEY?

cable companies are as weird a governmental supplied monopoly as baseball.. they have far to much a stranglehold over their individual market, and not enough oversight...

Re:Terminal Entertainment - You Got It!

[Barovelli]

Last year Comcast was bidding to buy Universal. That fell through but ended up in at least some distribution deal for content. Now, cable system upgrades of the ex-AT$T systems are completing and cable modems are being upped to 3mb. If you don't have cable internet to stream content to, there is Comcasts strong interest in VOD to stream content to your TV. Next, another content deal. I think I see the logic. I'm happy I read the news before going to work (CMCSA)today. I can wear my Mickey polo shirt and it's not Casual Friday yet.

I'm torn over this one.

[Mycroft_514]

On the one hand, getting rid of Eisner would be good. But a cable company?

In addition to other things Disney owns ABC. Now Comcast would own that as well?

And all the Data processing for both Disney and ABC is done in Orlando. If they are taken over, will that move? Do you know what that will do to the local economy?

Basic cable for $40+! Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is totally whacked evil monopoly that has no respect for their customers and spending $100 for tv and internet from them is even more whacked. I can't believe people find $100+ an acceptable monthly utility bill. What other bill do you have that even comes close to this? Phone, Food and Electricity are essential, tv and interet are NOT.
I pay $12 a month for broadcast and another $20 for dial up. That's it. If I lived in the city I wouldn't even pay the $12 for broadcast stations. Comcast is a monopoly that produces absolutley NOTHING except migraine headaches from any poor sap even attempting to contact them. F Comcast!

Oh yay.

[Maul]

Now when I get notices that I've gone over the "limit" of their "unlimited" bandwidth, they'll also try to subscribe me to the Disney channel.

Wonderful.

Ameicana

[dubbayu_d_40]

I do not look forward to taking the kids to "Comcast's Disney World." Disney is a piece of our culture, Disney belongs to America.

Re:Ameicana

[sammaffei]

Face it Disney hasn't been "Disney" for close to 20 years. So, it really doesn't matter...

Re:Ameicana

[unother]

Something tells me that in the case of a merger the "Disney" name would be the one to survive as the new company'd moniker...

Just remember that in corporate America, that which looks like a duck and quacks like a duck can also not be a duck.

save your money...

[coolguy81]

You would think Comcast could use some of that 66 billion for better bandwidth management so they wouldn't get slashdoted

Regulatory issues

[The Ape With No Name]

OK. Fill me in. What sort of reg hurdles will Comcast have to clear? Basically they are trying to be like FOX on DirectTV (or the other way around actually). Murdoch has saturated DirectTV with FOX content. I am waiting for the Fox Cooking Channel with Jillian Barberie in pasties making creme brulee. Can Comcast do this over the wires? Are the rules the same?

Re:Regulatory issues

[nelsonal]

The main ones would be selling ESPN and Disney channel, as well as other Disney owned channels, to other cable and satellite providers at the same rate they "pay". They plan to rebrand their own regional channels as ESPN Sports Northeast (Comcast exclusive), as an example and would likely promote games not availible on ESPN on one of the regional channels. This would be similar to TimeWarner having to sell HBO to other cable companies, but allowing them to show The Sopranos on TNT or a TimeWarner Cable only channel with ads for the new HBO series or something.
WRT your second question, as long as the content travels over company owned lines not the publicly owned airwaves, they can pretty much show what they want. Although they might want to do it after 10 for public relations purposes.

Sports Teams

[Anonymous Coward]

How would this buyout affect the professional sports teams owned by each company? Comcast owns most of the Philadelphia sports teams and Disney owns most of the Anaheim sports teams.

Re:Sports Teams

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast owns the Sixers & Flyers. Disney at one time owned (and still may?) own the Angels & Mighty Ducks.

My guess is that the Ducks would be up for sale if they still own them.

Re:Sports Teams

[cubicledrone]

No they sold the Angels...

...after they won the World Series.

Three cheers for middle management!!

Re:Amazing

[falcon5768]

WOW so for once Soviet Russia and the US are on even terms...

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, and we don't want any of that nasty competition do we? We might not have overpriced lousy serivce. Then what could we complain about?

If they don't get Disney...

[pulse2600]

...I know of another theme park that should go for a decent price... Neverland Valley - Michael Jackson's Kingdom of Dreams and Magic

Re:If they don't get Disney...

[edremy]

And I thought I'd never see a link scarier than goatse or tubgirl...

Think TimeWarner will jump into this fray?

[ccarter]

I can't see TW sitting on the sidelines and allowing thier biggest rival to to gain total control over one of the most influential cable properties (ESPN) around. They will at least try to drive the price Comcast has to pay by $10-20B

AOL tried this

[prgrmr]

AOL tried being a "content provider". They had hopes of the Time Warner merger facilitating this even further because they thought they'd have so much more content to push. They were wrong about people being happy to be fed content ala TV, and so under-ultilized the content they had access too. They forgot their roots, as it were. They totally did not (and still do not) get that the people who popularized the Internet did so in part because they didn't like TV.

I smell M$ dung in the pile somewhere

[sammaffei]

Try this one for size...

Microsoft signs DRM agreement with Disney for content distribution. There have been grumblings that some Disney board members would like to see Steve Jobs as CEO (instead of Eisner). Microsoft would hate to deal with Jobs or doesn't want Disney to switch to an Apple based DRM solution. Microsoft has been a long time investor in Comcast. M$ leans on Comcast to buy Disney and cut Jobs out of the picture.

How appropriate...

[mbstone]

that this article appears next to an article about Harlan Ellison, who originally reminded us, you don't fuck with the Mouse.

Show Biz

[sammyo]

Takes nerve and madness, cable companies want something stable. At some point the execs can't take the volitility of the Showbiz life and either divest or quash the creativity to a degree that the former productions are just a memory.

Exec moans, "Why don't people like our great new movie 'Finding Nemos Second Cousin Twice Removed 3D'? It had the most expensive graphics ever produced, I just don't understand these people".

The Union of the Two Towers...

[Dave21212]

Think about this deal the next time your pay your cable bill, especially if they are a cable monopoly in your area as they are here in Baltimore...
Now I know where all those extra charges are going !

Oh, and then think about getting a dish.

Anyone here feel that Disney+Comcast would be a Good Thing ?

Re:The Union of the Two Towers...

[applemasker]

Unfortunately, not so unusual. In the NY/NJ area, Cablevision is the biggest cable tv game in town and they regularly screw over their subscribers by positioning Cablevision-owned properties on the lineups at the expense of competitors. For example, we get Independent Film Channel (IFC) which is owned by Cablevision, but not Sundance (similar programming, owned by Turner.) MSG Sports Network (Cablevision) is on basic, while YES and Fox Sports are quasi-premium (you need "Basic Plus" or can pay a la carte).

In 2001 when the Yankees did not renew with MSG but instead formed the YES Network, Cablevision refused to carry YES for that entire season because YES wanted to be on "basic" tier (like MSG, Fox Sports, etc.) while Cablevision wanted to charge it as a Premium Channel, like HBO.

Subscribers were the ones who got screwed for that year, while Cablevision just continually hikes their rates, and provides mediocre cable service. Their digial rollout was a complete disaster, too.

The Dolan Family who owns Cablevision also owns the Knicks and Rangers -- both of which have the higest payrolls but are among the worst teams. Thank heavens the Dolans never were able to buy into the Yankees a few years ago like they tried.

Can someone please explain if I can buy telehpone service, natural gas, or electricity from 15 differnet suppliers, why should cable tv be any different?

Re:The Union of the Two Towers...

[slycrel]

Why should it be different, or why IS it different?

I believe it IS different because cable TV is not (yet?) a utility, and is not government regulated. As far as I know, anyhow.

No, it shouldn't be different.

Re:The Union of the Two Towers...

[Alsee]

Cablevision... provides mediocre cable service

Actually no, Cablevision is rated as some of the best home broadband in the country. However bad you think Cablevsion is, you should be thankful you don't have Comcast or alomst anyone else.

-

Re:The Union of the Two Towers...

[applemasker]

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree that Cablevision's broadband has been very good.

I was distinguishing it, however inartfully, from its television products (channel offerings, pricing, customer service, etc.)

Re:The Union of the Two Towers...

[Grrr]

Oh, and then think about getting a dish.

But please read up on the company first...

<grrr>

A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[tverbeek]

Comcast Cable TV
Comcast Internet
Disney Studios
Disney Animation (including The Mouse et al.)
Touchstone Pictures
Miramax
Buena Vista Studios
Buena Vista Theaters
Buena Vista Music
Disneyland/world/resorts/etc
ESPN
Disney Stores
Lifetime
A&E
E!
ABC
Radio Disney
Hyperion Books
SOAPnet
History Channel
Go.com
Movies.com

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed "the most trojaned ISP on the planet"

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[PMuse]

Was that in any particular order? To me, ABC is one of the most interesting properties on there. More than that, this would make a cable company the owner of one of the big three over-the-air TV networks.

BTW, who owns the other two right now: NBC and CBS?

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[Holi]

GE owns NBC
Viacom owns CBS

well that took all of 1 minute, I guess I should go back to work.

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[LostCluster]

An asterisk belongs next to ESPN and A&E on that list. Disney owns neither of those cable operations outright, just a major interest in each.

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[tverbeek]

No particular order, just the order in which I found them going through a Disney corporate report.

CBS is part of the Viacom conglomerate (also Blockbuster, Paramount, MTV, VH1, Showtime, Movie Channel, UPN, Spike, Nickelodeon, BET, Famous Players/United Cinema theaters, Infinity radio/billboard advertising, Simon & Schuster)

NBC is owned by GE (RCA, CNBC, Bravo, Telemundo, a stake in Pax TV, Universal Pictures & Television*, USA Network*, Sci-Fi channel*, Trio*, GE consumer appliances, a whole portfolio of business-to-business divisions, and probably a small country or two)

Fox is part of News Corporation (20th Century Fox, TV Guide, NY Post, FX, Natl Geographic channel, DirecTV, BSkyB, News of the World, The Sun, The Times, Harper Collins, Zondervan, LA Dodgers)

WB is owned by TimeWarner (AOL, Time Warner Cable, Warner Books, Time Magazine, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune, DC Comics, HBO, Cinemax, New Line Cinema, Turner Broadcasting [TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN], Warner Music Group, etc.)

PBS is owned by its member stations.

*When the Vivendi Universal merger is finished

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[Le'BottomEh]

Doesn't Sony own Disney?

Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Forget the Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers!

so if Comcast owned ESPN AND the Flyers, yay for us flyers fans... and they also own the building so does this mean disney on ice during intermission????

Maybe the could use that money to lower my bill

[FictionPimp]

Maybe they could use that money to lower my cable/internet bill isntead of the buy out fails. Or they could up my upstream bandwith, mmm bandwith...... I would rather that then a mouse on crack.

how much????

[Justabit]

Isnt there a rule (Or few) that govern how much you can bid/offer to buy another company and actually have the ability to buy it? Not only that I never thought Disney was worth anything near that much, did you see Mermaid?

Re:how much????

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no such rules. America isn't the overly regulated piece of crap that the EU is.

One-word reply

[Valdrax]

Slashdot and thousands of communities like it still exist today, and there is no sign that they are on the decline. Come to me when they start collapsing.

How?

So will this reduce my cable rates?

[British]

I've got Comcast. From what I understand, ESPN is strong-arming cable companies to include other channels(whether you want em or not) in cable packages, otherwise they terminate contracts. Hence, no "a la carte" package systems for cable subscribers.

If Comcast buys out Disney, hence, ESPN, would I see a reduction in rates since they own them?

Re:So will this reduce my cable rates?

[Nebrie]

Ha no. Remember they need to prove to the shareholders that the merger was the right move with dramatically increasing profits. Can't be doing that when you're lowering overall profit margins.

Re:So will this reduce my cable rates?

[Valdrax]

Can you name me one time in the past ten years that a merger between two industry giants has resulted in lower prices for consumers?

Re:So will this reduce my cable rates?

[/dev/trash]

You have got to be kidding.

Re:So will this reduce my cable rates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see here... Comcast would own ESPN. If they could, they would raise their rates because they would have a monopoly on the high demand ESPN. Since they probably can't get away with that, they will liscence ESPN to other cable companies at higher(less than competitive) rates, and all the cable companies prices would go up. (including Comcast, due to lack of competition) The only way I see prices coming down is for Comcast to offer cut-rate prices in an attempt to quash competition, which is illegal under antitrust law.

this sucks and i'll tell you why...

[kalemba]

if comcast OWNS all of the disney networks, dish network and directv customers like ME will see our bills increase when comcast decides that espn (and others) should be priced higher for their competitors. this is not good. sucks just as bad as the parent of fox owning directv. there oughtta be a law....

Comcast...Enron of entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought. Whenever you hear of companies buying out other companies that they shouldn't be able to afford...watch out.

Tax-Free

[hellfire]

To this end, we are proposing a tax-free stock for stock merger..

Perhaps this is the reason why these rather scary mergers happen too often.

Re:Tax-Free

[AllenChristopher]

Sure would be interesting if 5% of the value of each company just went *poof* to the government anytime they wanted to join up....

And how would the government collect that? 5% of the stock? No good... it wouldn't be many decades before the government would own all the businesses... and conversely, the government's actions would be dictated largely by the value of its holdings...

I'm unhappy enough that Disney can lobby so well. I don't want the President of the U.S. saying to himself "If we don't pass this anti-piracy bill, the government's stock will go down, and the government will not be able to fund healthcare."

To avoid that merger, I say let the corporations fuck like bunnies.

Re:Tax-Free

[hellfire]

I don't see why you can't collect a "merger" fee on stock mergers. You could even keep it tax free on mergers on private companies to allow smaller companies to grow and prevent huge corporations from becoming even more obnoxiously huge.

Chicago Rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday local news channels here in Chicago announced that comcast would be raising the cable rates as much as 6% this spring. They said that DirectTV has raised rates and other satellite providers have done so, and the cost of programming has gone up so they have to pass along some of the cost to consumers. I couldnt figure out whether they meant comcast was raising the rates because the others providers did so, or because the programming cost was going up!?! In any event, it stinks, obviously they have some extra cash, 66 billion! Just kinda wierd they announce a bid the day after rate increases are all over the local news channels in a major market like Chicago!

Rate Hikes

[Shawn Parr]

Well, we received another Comcast letter yesterday about our rates going up. I guess the reason Comcast charges frighteningly high rates for their cable modem service ($60+ range for new customers), and digital cable ($70+ for all customers) was their secret plan to capture a rat! Who knew? On a side note, if you don't like your Comcast bills, and you can talk tech talk with regards to money outlay, it is rather easy to get Comcast to give you discounts. Disney can thank me for making it harder for the buyout as I currently am paying less than half of the normal Comcast fees. :)

Re:Rate Hikes

[Shawn Parr]

Well, we received another Comcast letter yesterday about our rates going up. I guess the reason Comcast charges frighteningly high rates for their cable modem service ($60+ range for new customers), and digital cable ($70+ for all customers) was their secret plan to capture a rat!

Who knew?

On a side note, if you don't like your Comcast bills, and you can talk tech talk with regards to money outlay, it is rather easy to get Comcast to give you discounts. Disney can thank me for making it harder for the buyout as I currently am paying less than half of the normal Comcast fees. :)

PS - same message again, but with formatting! As a previous poster said, Preview -- Not Submit, D'OH!

Piece by Piece

[data1]

Seems like the departure of Pixar as well as the general downturn of disney's (general) forutnes lately make it a prime candidate to be picked apart for its more vaualble(read: ESPN) assets.
I wonder if Microsoft's large stake in Comcast has anything to do with it, especially in the light of recent annoucements to partner MS and Disney to sell movies?

What are you going to do next?

[callipygian-showsyst]

You've just won the Superbowl! What are you going to do next?

"We're going to COMCASTLand!

Seriously, I've worked for the Walt Disney Company through thick and thin. I stuck with them when they flushed millions of $$$ down their dot-com debacle (and made me work with usavory characters like Patrick Naughton. I've been laid off (on my 40th birthay) and hired back. They've tried to replace me with people half my age (and wanted me to train them!).

But I've stuck with them because I believed in the "concept" of the Walt Disney Conpany, even if I didn't have complete faith in the current administration. I just liked Disney.

I hope Comcast knows what they're doing!

Re:What are you going to do next?

[Chiron Taltos]

Don't worry, Microsoft knows what they are doing. Comcast just goes with the pull of the strings from Redmond.

Re:What are you going to do next?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Microsoft has too much day-to-day influence over Comcast. (Personally, I'd like to see Microsoft buy Disney!) One thing scary about Comcast's PDF presentation is that they want to "reach out" to Pixar! I hope they're not thinking of the despicable Steve Jobs to run Disney.

BTW: Disney got the better end of the deal when DISNEY dumped PIXAR. (Not the other way around, as the Steve Jobs faithful believe.) Here's why:

1. Under the current deal, Disney has the copyrights to the existing movies and can continue to make revenue off of them, licence merchandise, etc.
2. Pixar is still committed to making two more movies
3. Movies are a "hits" business. You can't predict if future movies will be successful. Steve Jobs wouldn't deal unless he could get the rights back to the existing movies. Disney would have been CRAZY to do this--those movies can bring in a few BILLION over the next decade.
4. To trade away the Toy Story/Nemo/Monsters franchise in order to bet that Pixar will continue to make hit movies is a bad bet. Nobody stays on top forever in this business.

Now, go play with your Macintosh, and leave Big Business to the experts!

The inept leading the Inept

[WindBourne]

Comcast is beyond a doubt one of the worst companies going. If it was not for the monopoly that they get, then they would be gone.

Worse, they are simply on a buying spree to go after companies that they think will make them profitable. This is .com II being carried into media. I wonder how well connected the roberts are.

yea ok

[luther349]

isnt this from the same company claming they where going broke couse of people acully buying brodband to use it for downloading large files. seems comcast inst so poor.

Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney would be wise to sell, now that Pixar will be done with them in 2006. Disney isn't going to be anything, anyone wants.

Deep n Chilled

Does Comcast care?

[Gr8Apes]

No, I don't. And Comcast does worry about apparently compromised computers, as I got a notice the one time I mistakenly hooked up an NT server directly to the network to download AV software updates... whoops. Took them about all of 2 hours to notify me, as apparently I got infected within seconds....

over my dead fairly godmother!

[eegad]

Let's see... Comcast... this is the same cable company that runs ads for porn on their Playboy channel as commercials for the Food Network during prime time. I don't think so.

Excuse me... But Doesn't Comcast Own Enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are significant dangers associated with one company owning too much.

The Spanish-American War was widely believed to be started solely on the activites of the Yellow Press.

The Current Iraq War is yet another war in which an entire nation was lied to, and no independent American media was able to check out.

Compare with UK, where although there are large companies, you still have free press.

I think this is one of the bigger problems in America today, only following the need for serious campaign finance reform.

Wow ... M$ is all over Disney

[Chiron Taltos]

In case people have forgotten ... Microsoft has a stake in Comcast.

So Disney has announced a DRM-licensing deal with Microsoft, and now M$-Comcast has made a public offer for Disney.

Hmm ...

So let me get this straight

[uberdood]

They have made enough profit to be able to bid $66B on Disney. Gee, anyone else think maybe, just maybe, they could lower the monthly charges and still make a profit?

Re:So let me get this straight

[EricTheGreen]

Stock transaction, not cash. In effect, they're purchasing Disney with market goodwill.

Not that I don't agree about lowering the monthly charges, of course... :)

I can see where this is going...

[Professr3]

In 2005, Comcast-Disney changes its name to "The Umbrella Corporation"...

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's stick it to the mouse one more time!

How 'bout the stop gouging us instead?

[Grapes4Buddha]

I for one would be much happier if Comcast would charge less for basic cable + broadband instead of expanding their global empire.

ObSCO Ref

[red floyd]

Sort of like the way Caldera morphed into SCO?

ObSimpsons

[red floyd]

"If Al-Quaida bombs California Adventures, They'll probably give them a medal"

Homer: I'm going to take you where there's nobody around for miles... Disney's California Adventure!

[note]SNPP doesn't have this ep up yet. I may have the quote wrong -- it's from memory[/note]

Networks should not control content

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a terrible thing for this buy-out to succeed. Networks should not control content. There are too many conflicts of interest.

Re:Networks should not control content

[Nynaeve]

Your statement is true, but networks firmly believe they _must_ control content to reliably control revenue. The AOL-Time Warner merger proved it was a bad idea, but some people just don't get it.

AOL-Time Warner was an experiment. In a sense, all businesses are. It failed, but like most experiments useful information regarding what works and what doesn't was distilled from the experience. It appears Comcast is the next such "experiment", with Disney as the (perhaps unwilling) subject.

It also seems that the business plan of the next decade is "force customers to buy your product". Any thoughts on that? To successfully sell content to customers you must have content, communications, and customers. It's like someone mentioned in another article: If you have any one of Power, Wealth, or Information, you leverage it to obtain the other two. Here, Power = communcations, Wealth = customers, and Knowledge = content.

Does that sound likely, or is it just pure speculation on my part?

AOL's choice of the modem for communications and their choice of content (their own private "Internet", if you will) didn't work. A community with similarly orgainzed content is easily available from other, lower-cost providers, and thus their customer base was lost.

Now, Comcast has a fast pipe. With Disney, they have content. Do they have the customers? Not yet. The big question is: Can they leverage a fast pipe and/or Disney content to gain customers? If people could download any Disney production on demand, would Comcast have them then?

I am making a wild guess these "experiments" will conclude before the end of the decade with MCI Worldcom as an unexpectedly major player.

Ok

[cubicledrone]

Comcastland? ROFL

Three cheers for middle management! Hip hip! Hooray! Hip hip! Hooray! Hip hip! Hooray!

Another sparkling result of mass layoffs, short-term thinking and brand over product. Way to go. I'm really impressed.

Lion King 1 1/2 must have pushed the deal right over the top.

Re:Ok

[Professr3]

People should realize that when a company starts making any movie named "1 1/2", it's time to sell your stock...

Conspiracy Theory Alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a concerted effort by Microsoft (Bill Gates/Paul Allen) to increase their hold on TV media. MSNBC along with ABC, ESPN would allow this monopoly to start controlling two of the big three broadcasting companies.

Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Monopoly owns you!

oh, wait.

Re:Sad thing is...

[symbolic]

I don't think Comcast will be any less relentless and when it comes to laws that "protect" IP. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast started including a nice little ToS with every opportunity to view a Disney feature.

NBC in Marlboro Country?

[tepples]

Although [GE] probably wouldn't want to buy Nabisco

Nabisco is part of Kraft Foods, which is owned by the Marlboro Man. Altria doesn't look like it's ready to unload Kraft just yet. Would a merger between GE and Altria be a Bad Thing? I guess not necessarily, seeing as how Seagram, another dangerous-product company, used to own Universal.

you do know who gets screwed then?

[Anonymous Coward]

When companies screw like bunnies, my guess is that it won't actually be other companies getting screwed, just their customers...

Bandwith usage letters

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it Comcast who was sending out threatening letters to "users of excessive bandwith"?

Comcast getting Disney and their copyright enforcement people may be giving additional chills to some of the recipients of those letters.

The Verizon vs. RIAA appeal gave some peace of mind that ISPs could keep user information private but what happens when the ISP and the copyright holder are the same entity?

Time to read your TOS very carefully.

Will history books talk about the new Dark Ages triggered by the Sonny Bono Act? Maybe this is how Mrs. Bono likes her husband to be remembered by...

good job

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a Stupid Fuck.

huh $66 billion!

[sl0wp0is0n]

... and they (Comcast) refuse to replace my faulty $50 cable modem I've been struggling to go online with!

ComCast Goes Goofy

[etLux]

If ComCast manages Disney like they do my cable service, a ticket to DisneyLand will cost $4,000.

The REAL text of the offer...

[Xeth]

"All your mouse are belong to us"

For the millionth time

[bonch]

I know every Slashdotter thinks Disney "shut down their traditional 2D animation" because there was an article posted here a while back with that headline, but for the millionth time--Disney didn't shut it down to kill off their 2D.

They have tons of 2D animators. They wanted them all in one building, because Eisner is a micro-managing loon. So they shut down the Florida studio because Eisner couldn't control it from a distance like he wanted to.

On Slashdot, this has somehow become "Disney shutting down their 2D studio" but in the animation world, it's just Eisner being a micro-managing croney. Disney is still doing 2D animation and doesn't plan to end any time soon.

Re:For the millionth time

[z0ink]

Thanks, did not know that. Thats what i get for being a /.'r and not reading the article.

More evil media consolidation

[mabu]

Remember all this stuff come election time. Remember which party *cough* republicans *cough* is primarily responsible for rolling back media regulations and allowing a few select mega-corporations to dominate the marketplace. Remember that when you look at your cable bill. Remember that when you look at the headers of the spam you're getting and see most of the domestic spam is coming from Comcast. I can't wait to see the looks on peoples' faces when they go on vacation to the Magic Kingdom and find out they can't get in because they didn't pay their cable bill. Then again, it would be convenient to have just one company that handles everything right?

Re:More evil media consolidation

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Waylan-Yutani

(OT)The resolution of TV

[tepples]

NTSC TV is 525 scan lines

Almost 45 of those lines are blank, hence the "480i" designation. A stated resolution of about 440x480 pixels for a pristine NTSC TV broadcast is about right.

In contrast, SVHS recorders can handle about 400 scan lines

The expression of "lines" on a video recorder might initially strike readers as counterintuitive. It relates to the number of horizontal pixels in a distance equal to the height of the screen; to convert this to a computer-friendly resolution, multiply this by 4/3.

Sung to the tune of "Mary Poppins"

[mbstone]

We won't be bought
We are not willing
We don't need
Your $66 million

Fire Mike Eisner and his flacks
Hire Jobs, buy Macs.
You would be cross and cruel
You'd mess with Mickey Mouse, you fools

You can shove your tender offer
You'd be the next AOL TimeWarner

(I put that in, too.)

Disney Corp. ain't on the block, see
We will never give you our signed proxy

Go 'way Billy
Many thanks, Sincerely,
Roy and Stan Disney

A game plan for Comcast

[Sevenfeet]

Comcast needs much more than a semi-friendly offer. They need a game plan. Here's an unsolicited one for their unsolicitited bid.

1. Retain the Walt Disney Company name after merger. Regardless of egos, the Disney name is one of the best known brand names worldwide. Comcast is only known in North America, and not terribly fondly by many of its customers. Also, it will help employee morale, especially in the old-Disney side. People like to say "I work for Disney". Nobody likes to say "I work for a cable company".

2. Increase the offer and make it at least partially cash. Disney is undervalued right now and Comcast will need to bring more to the table. Given some of the awful all equity/debt deals of recent past (AOL-TW anyone?), investors are going to want some money in their pocket. Stock prices come and go...but cold hard cash is more palitable, especially to institutional inventors.

3. Figure out a way to decrease the overall debt without letting go core assets. With Disney debt, the new Disney-Comcast will have a over $25 billion in debt. Time Warner is dealing with their debt problem now, which was also one of the bad parts of their deal. Be prepared to sell things like the sports teams, publishing firms or other things to get the debt down. Most core Disney assests should stay together, although things like ABC television could be considered for divestiture.

4. Invite the Disney family back to the board. Getting their support will be key to help put pressure on Eisner and the current board to take the deal. There is a lot of Disney shares tied up in current and retired employee hands. Roy Disney is still popular and still is Disney's largest shareholder. He can sway a lot of people to vote in your favor. And put him back in charge of feature animation where he belongs.

5. Get Pixar to commit to reopen negotiations once the merger goes through. Steve Jobs may be willing to talk to new management since he can't stand the old one. This will tell the street that new management is serious about putting Disney's critical partnerships back in the right direction.

6. Clarify the relationship that Microsoft will have with the new company for the sake of regulators. Microsoft will likely be the new largest shareholder in the merged company according to reports. Since nobody trusts Microsoft anyway, this could leave a bad feeling in people's mouths when they decide their vote.

tried in 1984

[peter303]

Various interests tried to buy Disney for breakup in 1984. This was recounting in Storming the Magic Kingdom. Roy Disney managed to save the company then. His VC firm brought in the Eisner-Wells-Katzenerg team that ressurected Disney Co. for a while.

Re:Hostile takeover? Nope, just Disney being Goofy

[doctor1]

Honestly, to me it looks like a more generally acceptable version of a "Pump and dump" scheme, as opposed to what they are doing at SCO.

In classic Disney fashion, they are hyping something not even worth a moments notice. Chances are Comcast and Disney have settled on a price days ago. They are pretending like they aren't interested in the deal, and their stock price will go up. Comcast will raise their offer, and the Disney stock price will go up, but Disney will still be a shadow of the entertainment pioneer that it once was.

Disney used to be worth taking notice of. Their movies and cartoons were very entertaining, and have become the classics of our time, but lately Disney spends most of it's creative thought on merchandising, and "leveraging assets", a.k.a. half-assed sequels and remakes released straight to video.

Comcast Sucks, Disney Sucks..

[Darth23]

Sounds like a perfect match. Maybe, after the merger, when Disney goes under they'll take my cable company with them.

Apple should take over Iraq

[duck_prime]

But what would Comcast do with Iraq?

Comcast would offer them customer service only marginally better than the last administration. What the Iraqis really need is for Apple to take over.

iRaq anyone?

Hacking the Comcast Presentation Slides

[Nom du Keyboard]

If you were able to go to the Comcast site referenced in the header of this article and hack the Presentation Slide show available there, what slide would you add, modify, or delete?

I'd add a slide right at the end reading: Eisner Fired!!

Re:Good Investment? Who did great??

[Nom du Keyboard]

The point of a takeover would be to ditch Eisner. That would be the quickest way of getting the company moving again. he did great for the company when he started

Who did great? I think it was Eisner + Frank Wells + Jeffrey Katzenberg that did great for Disney. Today only Eisner remains.

Comcast, dont talk to me about Comcast

[wdavies]

Actually, it did when it was AT&T cable too...

I steadfastly refuse to have to pay 70 dollars a month to watch HBO... which is the cheapest way you can get it on your line up. Outrageous.

I'd rather by a DVD boxed set each month for that much - and get better programming as a result. Heck I could Netflix it 3x over...

Its extremely strange as basic cable comes in at 15 bucks month.

And if you go on too many rides..

[Phil John]

...you will fall afoul of their vague "AUP" ;o)

Top 15 Signs Microsoft owns Apple

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

See HERE

Iraq War

[mrbrown1602]

Is there anyway we could get Comcast to pay for the Iraq war? 60 billion dollars would go a long way.... ;-)

Like you. Here are the facts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pixar has an obligation for two more movies. This does not include sequels -- it's only for new movies.

Disney owns the rights to the characters and the merchandising, as you note.

HOWEVER... Pixar owns all of the digital models, so Disney would have a hell of a time doing a "Finding Nemo II" or another "Toy Story" without them.

-- FYI

Disney label worth money...

[Goonie]

Now, while you or I might know that Pixar are the ones responsible for their movies, but Joe and Jane Sixpack doesn't. All they know is "Disney = will keep kids entertained = will not contain any concepts that offend my sensibilities. Pixar? Who are these weird Pixar people? How can I be sure that this movie isn't some evil plot by those liberal Californian freaks to pollute my children's minds?"

I'm not sure how much slapping a Disney label on a kids' movie is worth, but it sure ain't zero.

oh, I can just see it now...

[cmdrwhitewolf]

News reports of the incident are sketchy, but mere moments before the "Big Bang", it was announced that Comcast was merging with Disney...

Hey, you think I'm joking? We're talking about the same incompetents who couldn't fix my Webpage & mailbox for nearly nine months after the AT&TBI merger because and I qoute one of the tech support supervisors - "Nobody here has the administrative skills or privileges to create an account, Sir. Only our scripts do.".

Mmm... Spamcast and Disney. Yummy.

[SmurfButcher Bob]

I can see it now... DRM encumbered, un-deleteable, non-bypassable Viagra spam, featuring Mickey.

Can you say California Adventure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Eisner ruined Disney's good name? Has anyone been to California Adventure? Without a doubt the worst amusement park I've ever been to. Roy Disney hated it and tried to block it but Eisner forced it through, one of the reasons those two hate each other.

Eisner is purely a business man, and an evil one at that. He's concerned only with the bottom line. The Disney family are artists and as of now, there's not a single Disney on the Disney board.

Another reason to hate Eisner, he outsourced Disney computer jobs to India. I seriously doubt Roy Disney, Jr. would have done that, knowing how Walt Disney really did care about his employees.

Disclaimer: I do own Disney stock and really wish Eisner gets fired then burns in Hell and Roy Disney comes back onto the board. I love true Disney almost as much as some of the Linux fanatics here love Linux.

Mickey Mouse VOIP Phone?

[kidventus]

Insert your Cable Line into the Mickey Mouse Broadband modem... can we see a standing Mickey Mouse wirless lan? Perhaps another Goofy phone only this time it'll be a VOIP phone. This move is just to make cool retro phones.

Oh wonderful...

[Clark_Griswold]

Will ABC's program schedule be anything like their cable technicians schedules?

"Tonight on ABC, Beauty and the Beast. Starts sometime between 8am and 10pm..."

It looks like..

[leerpm]

He seems to be in favour (he doesn't seem to oppose it!), but isn't going out and stating it completely. He probably wants to see how this rides out in the market, before making any stronger of a statement.

WTF are you talking about?

[spitzak]

Don't forget that M$ led a drive to make "high definition" television 640x480...

First of all, existing NTSC analog is considered by the D1 encoding standard to be 486 lines tall and 720 pixels wide. The 486 tall was taken as being the useful portion of the actual 525 scan lines in the signal (the rest are synchronization and retrace intervals). The 720 horizontal was decided on as being approximately the resolution of the analog signal.

Because it is a multiple of 16 and a multiple of the 24 lines of text that were often displayed the size 480 was also chosen for lots of early computer displays, and was used on the IBM PC monochrome display. The horizontal resolution of 640 was chosen so that a 4/3 aspect ratio could be displayed with square pixels. This is pretty common now for the lowest resolution a PC display card can be set to.

From what I have heard, Microsoft and almost all computer software and hardware manufacturers pushed for much better HDTV standards, such as 1024p. It was broadcasters that insisted on interlaced and lower-resolution standards. Even if you assumme evil intentions on Microsoft's part, they certainly would want as high a resolution as possible so that people are forced to upgrade and thus buy new software in order to display HDTV.

so

[turvalon]

Eventually we will have an elite and secret group of five family's who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado known as "The Meadows".

who is this group you ask?

The Queen, the Vatican, the Yettis, the Rothschild, and Colonel Sanders before he went tet's up. Oooh I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face. "Oooh you're gonna buy my chicken, oooh".

WMV?

[Anonymous Coward]

weapons of mass what? Seriously. I'm not a windows user.

Not to educate the shareholders...

[danielsfca2]

>> This is [done] to save time educating all the stockholders from complex issues, and let a few people specialize in the company.

> This isn't...entirely correct...The board is not there to educate all the shareholders,

I don't think he meant the board was there to educate the shareholders, but rather that the existence of the board saved time because that way the shareholders would not have to be educated about every little decision and asked how they felt. Just pointing that out.

Vendor lock-in!

[danielsfca2]

But if Apple bought Iraq, then Iraqi oil would be incompatible with the cars in the rest of the world. And we'd be forced to buy iRaqi cars to use it.