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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Bombcar]

Hell! Get $20 billion more and conquer Iraq!

But what would Comcast do with Iraq?

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?

[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?

[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?

[Ralph Wiggam]

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

-B

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

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

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!

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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!

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.

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: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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

[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

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.

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

[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

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?

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!