Comcast Seeking Control of Both Pipes and Content?

techmuse writes "Reuters reports that Comcast may be attempting to use its huge cash reserves to purchase a large media content provider, such as Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner. This would result in Comcast controlling both the delivery mechanism for content, and the content itself. Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services, thus shutting out competing services (where they still exist at all)."

Comments

Bad timing

[DoofusOfDeath]

We can only hope that they're one Administration too late to pull it off.

Re:Bad timing

[Darkness404]

Yah right, all they need to do is say that it will get them more money to either A) expand broadband or B) create more jobs, and you can bet that it will be accepted.

Re:Bad timing

[goombah99]

Well, historically Democrats are in bed with the Hollywood types so it's not a certain thing that media owners might not see some love too.

But besides that I blame this on google. Yes google and their don't be evil motto. Seems like there's this fixed amount of evil and if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.

Re:Bad timing

[Fudge Armadillo]

This would likely not cross into anti-trust territory. Besides, they have tried it before... http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/11/news/companies/comcast_disney/ Large cable companies are running out of small mom & pop providers to buy, and have amassed huge cash reserves, which they would like to find something to do with, one of which is to buy a large content provider, or possibly (though they keep denying the rumors), buy a wireless provider. Most of the wireless providers in the U.S. are too large to be taken over by even the largest cable companies, though.

Re:Bad timing

[girlintraining]

We can only hope that they're one Administration too late to pull it off.

If you're counting on one man to save the world, you've been watching too much TV.

Re:Bad timing

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, the Parent poster isn't a troll. It wasn't just Republicans pushing for the DMCA and the extensions to the copyright term.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the IDIOT who modded parent post a troll?

It's a fact that Dems are pretty much owned by the entertainment industry.

And lawyers

Re:Bad timing

[Stupendoussteve]

Or they could pass the savings on to the consumer, by maybe not jacking up their rates yet again.

No wait, that would never happen. It's not like people are locked in to a single provider...

Re:Bad timing

[girlintraining]

...if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.

A systemic problem requires a systemic solution.

Re:Bad timing

[krou]

As Bill Hicks said, "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

Re:Bad timing

[lambent]

what are you talking about? a very small percentage of people have the ability to choose between two, or even three providers! the system is obviously NOT flawed. /sarcasm

i agree with your sentiment, they'll never actually LOWER prices. my experience with comcast is that they will raise prices by at least a dime every month, just to condition you to it.

Re:Bad timing

[lbalbalba]

If you're convinced that one man can't make any difference then you're way too cynical for me.

Re:Bad timing

[iluvcapra]

This would likely not cross into anti-trust territory.

When the film industry was finally taken to court over their vertical integration in US v. Paramount in 1948 the large holding companies that owned the production arms and theaters were forced to divest. Note though, the FTC had begun investigating the flim business for their abuse of their integrated delivery system in 1938, and it took 10 years of court cases and broken consent degrees with the Justice department before the deed was finally done.

Also note, the fact that Lowes owned MGM and Lowes Theaters, or that Paramount owned Paramount Studios and Publix Theaters was not sufficiently illegal for the court/FTC/Jusitce to take action. The real issue was that the holding companies used collusive formula deals and clearance and run arrangements to keep independent film producers from having a venue to show their own movies. The original complaints to the FTC were made by independent production companies that didn't own their own distro arm -- the first people to file suit were original United Artists partners and Sam Goldwyn, who sortof reminds of Mark Cuban minus the swearing.

Re:Bad timing

[cats-paw]

so a regulated monopoly amasses huge cash reserves.

well, then they're abviously not regulated enough.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the Democrats a playing catch-up quickly with their secret ACTA asshattery.

Re:Bad timing

[LostCluster]

Hollywood is a divided town politically. The actors tend to be liberal because they're artists, the execs tend to be conservative because they're in business.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could upgrade their networks and stop whining about having to provide users the services that they're selling.

Re:Bad timing

[MightyYar]

Why in the world should the feds get involved in this? They buy Disney and... shudder... you can't see the newest Disney movie unless you buy Comcast cable?

Really, our government needs to worry about things that actually matter.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're convinced that one man can't make any difference then you're way too cynical for me.

I you actually have, hmm, HOPE in one man to, err, CHANGE things, you've bought a pig in a poke.

And all the lipstick in the world can't make him look better.

In fact, it makes him look like, oh, say, a JOKER.

Re:Bad timing

[Plaid Phantom]

No, the real concern is that it will be the other way around. If you buy Comcast, you can only watch Disney movies. Which will be even worse for those with whom Comcast is their only available provider.

Re:Bad timing

[Eil]

Large cable companies are running out of small mom & pop providers to buy, and have amassed huge cash reserves, which they would like to find something to do with,

Oh, like upgrade their effing infrastructure? Months ago they were complaining about how much money they were losing from "high-bandwidth users," peer-to-peer applications, and streaming video sites. But now they have huge cash reserves?

Kinda like how the RIAA companies always claim to be struggling after losing billions of dollars a year to piracy but turn around to their shareholders and say they're making more sales revenue than they ever have before.

Re:Bad timing

[sumdumass]

Sure they are regulated enough. Making money is not a bad thing.

Re:Bad timing

[meerling]

Hopefully the people that'll review that 'request' will remember all the previous times Comcast has said that and lied... Who am I kidding? They'll fall for it hook line and s(t)inker, just look at the bailouts they've done this year...

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could pass the savings on to the consumer, by maybe not jacking up their rates yet again.

Yes!

Or they could LOWER their rates instead of just not jacking them up again.

Or they could build out their network to provide us more bandwidth for our internet connections.

Or they could figure out a billing system where I don't have to pay for channels I don't watch, like Telemundo, QVC, etc. but are included in my digital package.

(yes, i could go without digital tv, but i do like to watch live sports which are hard to find streaming - NCAA tournament excluded)

Re:Bad timing

[cpicon92]

Wrong about the wireless, my cable company (Verizon) happens to have a highly successful wireless division.

Re:Bad timing

[Nyeerrmm]

A competitive company making money by producing a product that people are willing to use/pay for without coercion is not a bad thing.

However, a state-granted monopoly on common household services that makes obscene amounts of money by overcharging for said services and not developing the infrastructure is a bad thing. Internet services are more than a mere convenience in the modern world, and should be treated as a utility like power and water. Cable television is obviously less critical, although it should still be regulated more firmly since they are granted that monopoly. I'm a registered Republican and all for pro-business legislation and minimization of regulation where appropriate, but when there is no free market, you have to regulate it to protect consumers since they can't choose another option.

Re:Bad timing

[zippthorne]

A systemic problem requires a systemic solution.

A good solution is 5% molarity sodium hypochlorite.

Re:Bad timing

[jaycagey]

Business != Conservative

Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep

If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):

• Motion Picture production & distribution: 90 - 9
• Recorded Music & Music production: 82 - 18
• TV production & distribution: 87 - 13

The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.

So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.

Re:Bad timing

[c6gunner]

Lemme guess .... the puppet-master is a JOOO!?

Bill Hicks is a comedian. He might say things that sound clever and interesting, but don't for one second confuse his act with reality. You may as well get your political commentary from the teletubbies.

Re:Bad timing

[DJRumpy]

Actually this administration is very much checking on anti-competitive industries unlike the previous administration. It's unlikely this sort of thing would get approved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101189.html

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/fcc-takes-on-apple-and-att-over-google-voice-rejection/

It's already shining a light on many major companies like Google, AT&T, Apple, and Microsoft.

Re:Bad timing

[MightyYar]

Only provider of what? Cable TV? That's my point... who cares? Blockbuster, Netflix, the internet, video games, books, newspapers, magazines, over-the-air, satellite, "cellular" cable... the options for your idle time are nearly limitless.

Re:Bad timing

[mgblst]

So I guess if you could live on less money, you would ask for less pay? Oh no, that would never happen, so why should a company, whose profits are much more important to its health, do the same?

Re:Bad timing

[AHuxley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqBOMBSDQsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CQ_1GWn4w
Watch some Bill Hicks and make up your own mind :)

Re:Bad timing

[sonicmerlin]

So because in your opinion these luxuries aren't important we should continue to allow companies to engage in anti-competitive, illegal behavior that nets billions in profit for them while decreasing the amount of disposable income the average American has and lowering their standard of living? Brilliant conclusion on your part. Just brilliant.

Re:Bad timing

[MightyYar]

illegal behavior

What makes it illegal? The only reason Comcast has a monopoly is due to a deal with your municipality. Raise hell and get some competition. Getting all indignant about a company trying to vertically integrate is pretty unreasonable.

while decreasing the amount of disposable income the average American has

The "average American" needs cable? Let me shed a tear. We looked at our monthly expenses and cable was low hanging fruit. We watch a lot less TV as a result, but so what? It's a silly luxury - like complaining that Waterford has a monopoly on crystal.

Re:Bad timing

[c6gunner]

I've seen him before. He reminds me of what Carlin turned into in his old age, except less funny and not quite as crazy. Like most good comics, he starts of with something based in reality and then twists and exaggerates it until it's a mockery of the real situation. That's how comedy works - it's what makes political humor funny. Anyone who takes it seriously is not only naive about politics but also completely ignorant about comedy.

Re:Bad timing

[girlintraining]

If you're convinced that one man can't make any difference then you're way too cynical for me.

One man can't -- He needs friends too. It doesn't matter how special, unique, smart, or otherwise gifted you are, because if you act alone against a social construct you're going up against a group of people who have learned how to blend their talents and skills together -- and they will always be stronger than an individual, even a very powerful one. You need friends if you want to realize your potential. That's the one thing this individualistic society refuses to acknowledge. It keeps telling people they can make a difference all by themselves -- and all that succeeds in doing is making people miserable, hopeless, and easy to control.

Re:Bad timing

[uberjoe]

If you're counting on one man to save the world, you've been watching too much TV.

I have been and it's Comcastic!

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Big surprise, so apparently the majority of people who spend lots of money entertaining themselves want more handouts to keep entertaining themselves. And where do they get those handouts?

Re:Bad timing

[electrosoccertux]

With WiMax and 4G/LTE Networks deploying all over the place, we are starting to see real competition. Real unlimited data, just capped speeds (and very reasonable at that-- CLEAR has plans starting at $20/mo. and unlimited data @ 768/128).

Free market solving in a way we never expected it to, please leave alone for now.

Re:Bad timing

[electrosoccertux]

With WiMax and 4G/LTE Networks deploying all over the place, we are starting to see real competition. Real unlimited data, just capped speeds (and very reasonable at that-- CLEAR has plans starting at $20/mo. and unlimited data @ 768/128).

Free market solving in a way we never expected it to, please leave alone for now.

Oh and FYI, Comcast here is now at $20/monthly no contract for their internet. Didn't see that till CLEAR deployed their WiMax stuff here.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolutely absurd-

Accumulates somewhere else? "Evil" as you put it, isn't some commodity that has a "set" amount of resource that requires it to be spread around- shame on anyone who modded this comment +5 insightful. If anything, google is the least to blame for at least having that motto, and based on what I've seen- they do a damn good job of keeping to it- much more than all of the companies referenced above combined. ..And let them control the pipes and the content- because if the users become unhappy they will be stuck with a pile of shit- unlike their core business where some people don't have a choice between comcast and any other ISP.

Blaming google for not using evil? Why don't you arrest a girl for not being raped? Because that rapist is sure as hell gonna find another girl to prey on...

THINK... before you write.

Re:Bad timing

[Dhalka226]

What makes it illegal? The only reason Comcast has a monopoly is due to a deal with your municipality. Raise hell and get some competition.

That's true only insofar as you said "monopoly" instead of "duopoly."

Yes, these kinds of deals are regulated by the municipality, but the reality is that something like cable television service is essentially a natural monopoly. Not only do you not want multiple people running lines to your house, either pragmatically or from an economic efficiency standpoint, it's not like there's some backlog of companies with billions of dollars in capital eager to rush right into the market but for those pesky municipal governments. So long as these companies are allowed to own the lines, that's all that will ever be possible.

What is far more likely is a situation like we have with the wireless companies or record labels: Technically there's competition, and occasionally that even helps out, but in bulk everything looks suspiciously the same between "competitors."

The "average American" needs cable?

Judging by the number of houses with cable, the "average American" certainly seems to think so. Who are you to judge for them?

Re:Bad timing

[krou]

Actually, my point was that both Democrats and Republicans are different factions of the same party, namely the Corporate party. Bill Hicks's description is quite apt and correct. Just because he's a comedian doesn't mean he wasn't right. The OP's claim that Comcast are one Administration too late implies that somehow Democrats are going to be any different, which they're not, except perhaps superficially.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's making money, it's wielding at least some monopolistic power. The free market should drive profits to zero--profit is the warning signal that lets us know regulation is needed.

Re:Bad timing

[MightyYar]

Yes, these kinds of deals are regulated by the municipality,

Exactly. Have the municipality set up a commission to maintain the lines. Lease out the lines to whatever provider wants to provide service. Or the commission can provide the TV service itself. This is not exactly rocket science, and it's not unprecedented. I suspect this whole conversation will become moot once municipalities start running fiber to the home.

Judging by the number of houses with cable, the "average American" certainly seems to think so.

So because the average American has cable, you interpret this to mean they feel that they "need" it? I could see if you said that they want it, but need? There are more than 2 televisions per US household... does that mean we NEED 2 televisions? Or is it just nice to have an extra one in the bedroom/den/kitchen? Hell, you'd have to talk my ear off to convince me that you need a single television.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Has this country forgotten what "monopoly" means? Honestly, Comcast has most of us by the groin already... all of us happily paying through the nose for their unreliable service and poor customer support. We're really going to let them take over the content as well? We're stupider than I thought then...

Re:Bad timing

[Shakrai]

Not only do you not want multiple people running lines to your house

Why would they have to run them to my house? My house could have one run for coax to the pole. That run could be hooked to whichever cable provider I decided to do business with. They'd have to run them throughout the neighborhood but there's no reason why your house would need every single provider coming into it from the pole.

it's not like there's some backlog of companies with billions of dollars in capital eager to rush right into the market but for those pesky municipal governments.

You don't need billions of dollars in capital to start a cable provider. Before Time Warner bought them all out most of the cable providers in my area where small businesses that served an individual town or two. They didn't spend billions of dollars to roll out their networks. How do you think the industry got going in the first place?

So long as these companies are allowed to own the lines, that's all that will ever be possible.

So on one hand you claim that it takes billions of dollars to deploy a cable network but on the other hand you presumably want to use the government to take that network away from them and lease it out to their competitors?

Judging by the number of houses with cable, the "average American" certainly seems to think so. Who are you to judge for them?

I think his point was that cable isn't a life essential service in the same category as electricity or running water. You can live without it. We ditched ours when our cable bill went from $20/mo under the independent operator to $40/mo within three years of Time Warner buying them out. Haven't had it for years but I'm told that it's now around $60-$65/mo.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Politics are best discussed while on all fours."
--Robert Anton Wilson

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

And they gradually move channels up through the plan tiers. We just lost 11 channels unless we upgrade to the next plan up. (Actually, we effectively lost a few more, they're still in our service plan but they were moved to a channel number higher than our current equipment can tune.)

Re:Bad timing

[bigngamer92]

Because if they lowered there rates in a competitive system it would give them more customers. Same goes if they expanded their broadband and provided faster speeds.

If I had surplus cash I would invest it in something, like real estate or the stock market. So your argument is invalid.

Re:Bad timing

[WgT2]

I'm sure some politician will get a touch of "its huge cash reserves" and bow the knee to their whims.

I'm actually SHOCKED to hear the have "huge cash reserves" - I constantly hear about them having cable and internet outages and bandwidth problems. They obviously aren't intending to use those funds to better their product.

Re:Bad timing

[Whorhay]

That's because they are pandering to the **AA instead. The DoJ is set to become the acting counsel for those industries in the near future.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a report detailing their operating expenses last month ... the figures showed theirs expenses for broadband were $2.33 per user per month. They typically charge $40-50 a month ... that is quite a profit!

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and we're all sheeple and blah blah blah.

Re:Bad timing

[The End Of Days]

Feel free to cancel. I promise you can live without recording your almost high-def american idol.

Re:Bad timing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between shinning a light on anti-competitive businesses and harassing a good businesses because there is money to be stolen. From what I've read about the DoJ's attacks on Google and Apple they seem to be looking for quick cash and less about customers. There also seems to be a bit of 'knocking down' going on. Of all the big name companies out there the two I have to respect the most are Google and Apple even when I don't always like their products. (But then again I may have missed something that could change my opinion.) I'm all for going after Microsoft for all its illegal business practices but until I see a complete ruling on it I doubt it will happen.

Re:Bad timing

[c6gunner]

Actually, my point was that both Democrats and Republicans are different factions of the same party, namely the Corporate party.

Yes, and my point was that you're wrong.

Bill Hicks's description is quite apt and correct.

No, it's not.

Just because he's a comedian doesn't mean he wasn't right.

Well you got that one right: the fact that he's wrong means he wasn't right; being a comedian has nothing to do with it. However, you getting your political views from a comedian tends to indicate that you're probably not the brightes bulb in the pack.

The OP's claim that Comcast are one Administration too late implies that somehow Democrats are going to be any different, which they're not, except perhaps superficially.

Right, because McCain and Palin would have been trying to implement socialized healthcare right about now. Sure. Whatever you're smoking, you're getting your moneys worth.

Re:Bad timing

[krou]

Yes, and my point was that you're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Shit, all these years of my trying to look at the evidence, and all I needed to do was just disagree.

However, you getting your political views from a comedian tends to indicate that you're probably not the brightes bulb in the pack.

You don't have a clue where I get my political views from. Bright bulbs don't make stupid assumptions about people based on a single quote on a forum. (And I can't help but notice your persistence in attacking the messenger, instead of the message).

Right, because McCain and Palin would have been trying to implement socialized healthcare right about now. Sure. Whatever you're smoking, you're getting your moneys worth.

No, they'd probably be implementing something that was to the benefit of big pharma and insurance, which is exactly what Obama's doing. Maybe there will be some benefit to Americans, but I know who will be reaping most of the reward. I don't care what fancy names they give it, that's what his health care plan represents.

Incidentally, at the time of writing, Obama has already said that "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform". Ooops. Did anyone, except maybe people like you, really think "socialized health care" was on the agenda? I'll guarantee you it was proposed in full knowledge that it would NEVER HAPPEN. Senator Kent Conrad who authored a proposal from the Senate Finance Committee (which is likely to be implemented instead) noted that "The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been." Please pay attention to the words "in the United States Senate". Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because there's too much money involved between Democrats and Republicans and Corporations? Too much vested interest?

But, since you think it's socialist, well, let's see what Socialists actually think about Obama's Health Care reforms. They should be happy, hey? Well, they're not: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j16.shtml

It is becoming increasingly clear that the essence of the administration's health care policy, under the guise of universal coverage, is a downgrading of care for the majority of the population so as to cut health care costs for business and the government.

Administration spokesmen have also indicated that Obama is receptive to the idea of taxing workers for the health benefits they receive from their employers - something for which he denounced his opponent, Senator John McCain, during last year's presidential election campaign.

In a speech before the American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago on Monday, President Obama made it clear that his health care reform would in no way impinge on the profit interests of insurance companies, hospital chains and drug companies. He added that he was open to limiting the ability of patients to pursue medical malpractice suits.

Oh, but I suppose we shouldn't listen to socialists and their opinions about socialist policies.

Re:Bad timing

[DCEdwards1966]

Seriously, get a sense of humor.

Re:Bad timing

[sonicmerlin]

You don't need billions of dollars in capital to start a cable provider. Before Time Warner bought them all out most of the cable providers in my area where small businesses that served an individual town or two. They didn't spend billions of dollars to roll out their networks. How do you think the industry got going in the first place?

As someone specifically pointed out to you in an earlier post, if you try to enter into an incumbent's territory they will bankrupt you with below cost pricing, advertised as " introductory specials" so as to avoid federal scrutiny. Time Warner built their cables when there was literally no competition and no cable available to anyone.

So on one hand you claim that it takes billions of dollars to deploy a cable network but on the other hand you presumably want to use the government to take that network away from them and lease it out to their competitors?

How are those two irreconcilable? Laying down lines is prohibitively expensive, to the point that it's impossible to compete. We've already seen what happens when "line sharing" regulation is entrusted to the FCC. Seizing the lines and allowing companies to compete over the services they offer would be to the benefit of society.

I think his point was that cable isn't a life essential service in the same category as electricity or running water. You can live without it.

The comment about cable not being essential is meaningless and stupid. As a modern country and supposedly the most powerful and affluent one in the world, I would hope that we would aspire to more than just meeting the bare essentials of life. Besides, abusing your power as a monopoly is abusing your power as a monopoly, regardless of what product you are offering. We shouldn't have to do without modern amenities just so gigantic and hugely profitable companies can continue to take advantage of a market failure.

Re:Bad timing

[c6gunner]

No, you're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.

Shit, all these years of my trying to look at the evidence ...

... and failing miserably.

and all I needed to do was just disagree.

Yep, you're a stubborn bastard.

No, they'd probably be implementing something that was to the benefit of big pharma and insurance, which is exactly what Obama's doing.

Wow! It's just amazing how only "special" people like you seem to notice these things. You must really hate your countrymen for being such dumb, blind sheep. Now if only we could put you into the presidents seat! Alex Jones could be your vice president. It would be the Best Administration EVER!

Oh, but I suppose we shouldn't listen to socialists and their opinions about socialist policies.

I find that it's a good rule of thumb to never listen to socialists about anything.

The only interesting bit is the part about limiting the ability of patients to sue for malpractice. I hope Obama really does do something about that. Socialists should be the first ones to encourage such a measure since it goes a long way towards decreasing the cost of medical care by eliminating multi-million dollar payouts and lowering insurance costs for doctors and medical facilities. Yet they oppose it. That really demonstrates the absurdity of listening to them about anything, including their own supposed views.

Re:Bad timing

[krou]

The only thing you got right here is that I'm stubborn. Since your opinions are completely wrong otherwise, I have no reason to pay attention to you. You don't know who my "countrymen" are (they're not American), and I don't care for Alex Jones at all.

Best of luck to your future trolling endeavours. I'd say it's been entertaining, but I've read better.

Re:Bad timing

[c6gunner]

Aww, muffin. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Do you want a cookie? Juice-box?

First Po-

[Swordopolis]

This first post claimed by Reuters, Inc.

Disturbing

[negRo_slim]

But think of the lower prices! We can live better!

Re:Disturbing

[Z00L00K]

We see this in many areas. Soon you will have to select brand of TV depending on cable operator too.

Like it is today with some telecom operators - you may only select the phones THEY are offering, not the phone you want.

Re:Disturbing

[maxume]

If you wave your hands and squint, companies like Hulu and Netflix already try to make you use one of the TVs they have approved.

Re:Disturbing

[master5o1]

Yeah? I have the right use purchase anything I want (within legal boundaries*). I have the right to purchase PhoneX instead of PhoneY. I have the right to use TelecomA instead of TelecomB. Why shouldn't I have the right to use my desired phone with my desired telecom?

Re:Disturbing

[JustOK]

yah, these rights are firmly installed in the Constitution AND the Bible.

Re:Disturbing

[darkpixel2k]

Yeah? I have the right use purchase anything I want (within legal boundaries*). I have the right to purchase PhoneX instead of PhoneY. I have the right to use TelecomA instead of TelecomB. Why shouldn't I have the right to use my desired phone with my desired telecom?

Because it's not your choice. Telecom is a bad example though because huge portions of their networks were built with taxpayer money--but most companies built up capital and decided to provide a service. They set the rules and price in which that service is offered. If you don't like the price and/or rules, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they go out of business. If someone like you gets annoyed and decides to start a company with less rules and restrictions and/or better service, you'll win more customers. Of course it goes both ways, the other company can turn around and 'compete' with you by lowering their costs, providing better services, etc... It's called capitalism.

Re:Disturbing

[PopeRatzo]

Right, because you have the "right" to any phone you want on any network.

No, but you have the "right" to use a different provider, which lots of people do when the right hardware comes along (or in the case of Comcast, when the wrong provider comes along.

Re:Disturbing

[LostCluster]

Nope. The FCC is ahead of you on this one. All of the major cable companies offer CableCARD devices that handle the decryption, and that's a standard that allows you to purchase any compliant TV or settop box. TiVo's main product is now based on this technology.

Re:Disturbing

[PopeRatzo]

these rights are firmly installed in the Constitution AND the Bible.

In some parts of the US, those two things are one in the same, and a science textbook to boot.

Re:Disturbing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

yah, these rights are firmly installed in the Constitution AND the Bible.

They are part of anti-trust. Or do you expect the supreme document to detail every last thing that we do in this country? Seems excessive.

Re:Disturbing

[LostCluster]

There's some people who don't have access to the proper angle of southern sky to get a DBS signal, are in a location too lacking in population density for cable to be profitable, or don't control the building they live in so they must subscribe to the only provider available or none at all.

Re:Disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok then, how do I plug that CableCard into my MythTV box? Or get the cable company to decrypt all of the digital (but not premium) channels over their box's FireWire link? Good luck with that...

Re:Disturbing

[MBGMorden]

or don't control the building they live in

Just a note: by law, an apartment complex or home owner's association cannot prevent a resident, even if you do not own the property, from placing a small dish or antenna on the part of the property you dwell in. Now you still can't make any permanent modifications without permission if you're a renter, but if you can clamp onto a rail or some other non-permanent attachment method then you by law have the right to use a dish or external antenna.

Re:Disturbing

[Shark]

There's a bit of a nuance here between law and right...

But hey, rights nowadays are the catch-all for anything privilege the people feel entitled to and unwilling to accept any of the attached strings. It's like the right to healthcare and the right to welfare.

I'm pretty sure the law decides what is legal, and your rights are confined to those legal bounds. At least in a free society where your rights aren't a property of your government and theirs to give or take away.

I guess I could disclaim this with IANAL, though I'd love ANAL to give his/her take on this.

Re:Disturbing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm pretty sure the law decides what is legal, and your rights are confined to those legal bounds.

No, the law decides what is illegal and your rights are things the government is restricted from infringing.

It's like the right to healthcare and the right to welfare.

Dude, healthcare thread is somewhere else.

Re:Disturbing

[freedom_india]

You are NOT in Europe. You are in USA.

I have the right to purchase PhoneX instead of PhoneY

To quote the great Ford: "You can have any color you want, as long as its black." Try bringing a 2-band GSM mobile from Japan or Malaysia and using it in US.

I have the right to use TelecomA instead of TelecomB.

AT&T and Cingular are not two different companies. They are the same company. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint: these are your choices. Use 'em or lose 'em.
Even a so-called 3rd world country like India has 9 providers in intense competition with each other.

Re:Disturbing

[Shakrai]

Why shouldn't I have the right to use my desired phone with my desired telecom?

Because no amount of legislation passed by Congress is going to make your CDMA Verizon phone work with AT&T's GSM network?

Re:Disturbing

[Z00L00K]

Unfortunately - here they also require the serial number of your box/tv if you are to get HD content.

FCC! Now!

[blackraven14250]

Shouldn't there be FCC regulations against this potential nightmare scenario? If not, why not?

Re:FCC! Now!

[copponex]

The FCC has no interest in protecting individual rights or promoting a competitive market. They are there to sell off public assets to private corporations, and enforce rules and fines to ensure societal conformity to the morals of politically important voting blocs.

If Comcast is prevented from acquiring someone due to federal interference, they will probably sue because they will claim that the free market is being tampered with. Just like any corporation, their definition of free market has nothing to do with the liberty of individuals to have access to a competitive market system. It has to do with the corporate right to be unbound by any rules and have the freedom to stifle competition and destroy the market for their own profit.

To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the publick; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens... It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. --Adam Smith

Re:FCC! Now!

[falconwolf]

Shouldn't there be FCC regulations against this potential nightmare scenario? If not, why not?

No there shouldn't be any FCC regulations preventing this. Actually the FCC should not exist, it was created for mass media businesses, there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to create the FCC.

Falcon

Re:FCC! Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is. Interstate-Commerce Clause. Learn to know shit.

Re:FCC! Now!

[girlintraining]

It has to do with the corporate right to be unbound by any rules and have the freedom to stifle competition and destroy the market for their own profit.

The monopoly Comcast has was created BECAUSE of government interference. It's not fair to expect that the power extended to these companies doesn't have strings attached -- Sue all they want. The government and Comcast now share a responsibility for the market's well-being. It's not one or the other.

Re:FCC! Now!

[ScrewMaster]

If Comcast is prevented from acquiring someone due to federal interference, they will probably sue because they will claim that the free market is being tampered with.

As the summary states, Comcast has an enormous stash of (not-so-hard-earned) cash. They're acting like squirrels: if they see food they don't need right away, they just shove it into a hole somewhere until they find a use for it. That probably should not be allowed: it's one thing to put something away for a rainy day, but when corporations end up so flush with cash that they can influence entire markets and ruthlessly suppress competition something is wrong. It also means they're probably significantly overcharging for their goods and services (as an ex-Comcast-down-to-the-depths-of-Hell subscriber I can attest to that.)

Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.

Re:FCC! Now!

[LostCluster]

Yep, there is. Cable networks that need to be distributed via satellite feed must be offered to all pay TV providers under reasonable terms, and broadcast TV stations have to either require they must be carried by all pay TV carriers in the area, or can collect reasonable retransmission rates. They can't exist on only the provider that owns them... there's only limited local sports and news channels that can afford to distribute via landline to stay cable-only.

The only place where we're seeing national provider-specific content deals are on the Internet. Things like ESPN360 and ABC News Now are accessible only if your ISP has agreed to host a server on their network and pay for the content. That's against the principles of net neutrality, but there's no regulation yet to stop them.

Re:FCC! Now!

[dagamer34]

I think that's the FTCs jack-of-all-trades card, not the FCC.

Re:FCC! Now!

[LostCluster]

BS.

The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.

That's why TV stations are allowed to make money under the condition that they serve the public good (and agree to censorship limits) on the public resource. If you want to do content that doesn't fit the rules of broadcast TV, go to cable. Howard Stern found his act wasn't tolerated very well on the FM frequencies, and he's making more money than he ever has before on satellite. Sirius/XM didn't isn't making enough money from his show, so he'll likely wind up as a pay-for podcaster on the Internet.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to an amplifier or even a microphone connected to anything. You've got to pay for or earn those.

Re:FCC! Now!

[Dragonslicer]

Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.

They always have nuts in their mouths?

Re:FCC! Now!

[falconwolf]

The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.

This is BS! Before the FCC was even created courts were already ruling that the first person broadcasting on a certain frequency had the right to that frequency. It's called homesteading the airwaves.

Falcon

Re:FCC! Now!

[unitron]

The alternative to the FCC was complete control of the airwaves by the military.

Re:FCC! Now!

[falconwolf]

I think that's the FTCs jack-of-all-trades card, not the FCC.

I disagree the feds have the authority, but I agree if it does it should be as part of the FTC. Fact is is before the Federal Radio Commission, the predecessor of the FCC, US courts were acknowledging and upholding homesteading rights to the first person who broadcast on a set frequency in a given location. Of course big businesses such as RCA, now NBC, didn't like the competition so they lobbied government to create a new government bureaucracy and license the airwaves. One of the commissioners on the FRC was Dr. Orestes H. Caldwell, who "designed the lighting system that gave the Rainbow Room at the top of the RCA building (now known as the GE building) its name."

The creation of the FRC and FCC as well as licensing the airwaves was all about concentrating money and power.

Falcon

Re:FCC! Now!

[falconwolf]

The alternative to the FCC was complete control of the airwaves by the military.

No, before the FRC, the predecessor to the FCC was created courts were already ruling for homesteaders. The first person who broadcast on a specific frequency in a specific area was allowed to use that frequency there. If someone else in the same area started broadcasting on the same freq they could be forced to stop broadcasting on it.

Falcon

Re:FCC! Now!

[copponex]

Citation?

Re:FCC! Now!

[ScrewMaster]

Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.

They always have nuts in their mouths?

No, their customer's and, like squirrels, sometimes they get hungry.

Re:FCC! Now!

[nametaken]

That probably should not be allowed: it's one thing to put something away for a rainy day, but when corporations end up so flush with cash that they can influence entire markets and ruthlessly suppress competition something is wrong.

I'd disagree. Having money is not wrong. Being able to leverage it to influence a market in a way that's detrimental to the public is bad and should be addressed separately (FTC, FCC, etc). I agree that that doesn't happen enough and that's a problem. I don't, however, think the solution is to severely cap cash reserves for corporate entities. What they do with their resources is the business of their decision makers and shareholders, just so long as it doesn't hurt me.

Re:FCC! Now!

[MobyDisk]

This is within the jurisdiction of the DOJ and the FTC, not the FCC.

People seem to assume that if something involves communications, that every aspect of it must be patrolled by the FCC. They also seem to assume the reverse is also true: That if the FCC has no comment, then no one else has jurisdiction and it is okay. Both assumptions are false.

The FTC should also be looking into cell phone tying. I'm unclear why the FCC is involved. Tying of cell phone providers does not interfere with anyone's radio frequencies.

Say what?

[TubeSteak]

I didn't realize that Cable TV was such a lucrative market that they could afford to buy a media conglomerate.
If there's so much profit in the market, maybe there isn't enough competition.

Re:Say what?

[DogDude]

"I didn't realize that Cable TV was such a lucrative market that they could afford to buy a media conglomerate. If there's so much profit in the market, maybe there isn't enough competition." Seriously? You didn't realize this? Now, I haven't had TV in 10+ years, so maybe I'm missing something, but for people who want "TV" in the traditional sense, how many options do they have at home for getting "TV"?

Re:Say what?

[LostCluster]

Comcast's days as a monopoly-by-default are over. There are two DBS companies that offer almost the same lineup of channels nationally. Also, AT&T and Verizon both are actively wiring their areas with a new network that's capable of delivering TV content too. Look out... challenges ahead!

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I apparently can get Comcast, ATT, DirecTV, and Dish. Now, if you mean over the air 40 years ago TV, then an antenna is still your option if you live someplace that allows them. Many places don't allow them, but will allow the little dishes used by DirecTV and Dish. If you just mean "cable TV", then comcast is it in my area. There is generally a local government created monopoly just like there is for garbage service.

Re:Say what?

[John Hasler]

I don't think you realize just how small the "media conglomerates" are. The pundits don't seem to consider Disney a likely target despite the Slashdot summary and the other two are much smaller than Comcast. Disney is slightly smaller and Comcast made a bid for it once before. While the "media" industry is very loud, it isn't all that large.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast and other cable companies have local monopolies. They get $60-100-plus per subscriber per month, year after year, decade after decade. If the subscriber is late paying the bills by their reckoning, they simply shut off service without warning (unlike other utility vendors) until the money has been paid. From my experience dealing with both Comcast and Verizon customer service, Comcast is much worse. A few years ago, they told me that they didn't have record of my service cancellation from two years prior on line because it was stored on microfiche! The point is that having even halfway decent systems isn't a priority for them when they have such huge, dependable margins from a locked-in subscriber base.

People posting on /. like to rag on the "greedy" content owners - studios, record companies, publishers, software houses. Well, if illegal filesharing kills the industry for content, the people who will make all the money will be those that own the pipes, clouds, and other key infrastructure. You like that better?

Re:Say what?

[sadler121]

There are also four mainstream Cell Phone providers, and they already Collude on things like SMS picing.

Comcast is a dumb pipe, just like ATT/Verizon, etc. Municipalities need to get there hands out of the lobbyist cookie jar and realize it would be better off for their citizens to just lay the fiber themselves then to contract it out to one (in some places two) companies who will screw the consumer given any chance to do so.

If they don't want to lay the fiber, then lay down 1-2 meter concrete conduits in all of the public easements, then any one who wants to lay fiber can run them through these conduits with out tearing up everyones driveway every other week.

Re:Say what?

[foniksonik]

Uh Disney is a lot bigger than you seem to think:

A list of Disney assets

The short list: ABC (and all of ABCs channels), ESPN, 1/3 of A&E (History, Military, Biography plus A&E), Multiple major movie studios (Miramax, Dimenions, Touchstone, Pixar...), GO.com and of course all of the Disney branded stuff (theme parks, cruise liners, consumer goods, kids stuff, movies and animation studios).

Their Market Cap is currently at 46.59 Billion... Comcast is at 41.58 Billion

Comcast sports network is already here!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm watching it on Verizon FiOS as we speak.

Its times like these...

[Darkness404]

Its times like these where the landowners and cities that own ground where Comcast's wires are going through should have leased the land and forced them to pay more or upgrade the infrastructure to keep up with the times to keep using it. With the pathetic condition of Comcast's network, they should use the money to make their network halfway reliable.

Re:Its times like these...

[vcgodinich]

Yeah, place the obligation on others instead of the users of the service. Here is a capitalistic idea. . . . if YOU don't like the service, YOU stop using it, stop putting the onus of responsibility on someone else.

Re:Its times like these...

[girlintraining]

Its times like these where the landowners and cities that own ground where Comcast's wires are going through should have...

This isn't a problem for any self-respecting mad scientist with a penchant for high energy experiments on shielded wiring.

Re:Its times like these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with comcast? I have their 50/10 service and consistently max it out on both sides. Never had any issue.

Re:Its times like these...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yeah, place the obligation on others instead of the users of the service. Here is a capitalistic idea. . . . if YOU don't like the service, YOU stop using it, stop putting the onus of responsibility on someone else.

Who do you think those local governments represent?
Who do you think owns the ground that comcast's cabling run over?

We are them. Its our land, and our rights of way which we have collectively granted to comcast.

Re:Its times like these...

[Tiger_Storms]

I see you must live in one of those areas where the network sucks. Because I live in an area where it's never sucked. So... it's the same with Qwest, At&t, Verizon, and Earth link, There are always going to be good parts and bad parts. The only downside is if you don't tell the company how on earth are they going to know?

Re:Its times like these...

[vcgodinich]

The local governments represent ALL of the people in their area, not just the ones that use comcast. The great numbers of other non-comcast using members of that area are hurt by that idea. The government leasing the right-of way generates less tax burden for everyone they represent. They should lease to everyone that wants to bury cables (and they do). Why should the (local) government be the watchdog and be willing to lose money (and be forced to raise taxes) because a few people think that their service is bad? I dare say that your second point is moot to the point of ridiculousness. Comcast dosen't have infrastructure passing through 99% of its customers land. Most all of it will either be on public land (yay lower taxes), or a very small part through private land. Are you going to really say that those people should cut comcast off (when most of the leases will be for 20+ years), resulting in a loss of income for them, and worse service? The people in the best position to decide what happens to comcast is their users. If enough people really dont like it, the company will fail. You are willing for someone else to take a risk to wake comcast better, but you are not willing to do anything yourself. If you hate it, quit. simple and easy. If you are willing to pay per month, it is worth it to you. end of story. The wonderful thing about a free market is that the second someone does it better, that business will uproot the poor one.

Re:Its times like these...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Comcast dosen't have infrastructure passing through 99% of its customers land.

Of course it does. The wiring runs across the property of every single person on the street where service is made available. If they want to get to house A+1 they gotta go across the property of house A.

The local governments represent ALL of the people in their area, not just the ones that use comcast. The great numbers of other non-comcast using members of that area are hurt by that idea

Tough shit. When it comes to right of way its no longer simply the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Property rights are one of the most scarosanct there are in the USA and violating them requires a much higher standard than that.

Re:Its times like these...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The only downside is if you don't tell the company how on earth are they going to know?

TDR. Seriously, it isn't that hard for a network technician to measure the quality of network infrastructure without the active participation of the end-points.

Re:Its times like these...

[Tiger_Storms]

All problems are different for every network. There's a reason they have a Tech term called squirrel chew. Those little guys have it out for Comcast and other cable companies alike.

Re:Its times like these...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Still, such problems can be 100% discovered remotely. That they aren't is a reflection on the provider's interest in providing a quality service.

Re:Its times like these...

[Tiger_Storms]

You can't see everything 100% remotely, last time I checked not everyone has the newest equipment at their houses so it's up to the customer to tell the provider there is something wrong. If only there were camera's watching everyone cable's and way for companies to see what's going wrong. We wouldn't be having this discussion. however you have to think, comcast might not have installed the cable that comes to your house/apartment and if the services worked then the tech who installed it left they Comcast wouldn't have any idea there was a problem until someone informed them there was one. It's just like being a tech keeping the whole company's computer working 100% you can monitor and install everything remotely but there are times when a GPU might fail and the remote tests won't pick it up so you have to have the user inform you of the issue.

I like this better the first time

[Associate]

when it was called AOL.

Re:I like this better the first time

[mysidia]

In that case it was the content provider buying out the dial-up services provider.

Presumably they would have realized that making music and video only available to AOL subscribers would have hurt their much more profitable content business.

Re:I like this better the first time

[vbraga]

No, AOL bought Time Warner.

In a stunning development, America Online Inc. announced plans to acquire Time Warner Inc. for roughly $182 billion in stock and debt Monday, creating a digital media powerhouse with the potential to reach every American in one form or another.

Source

Re:I like this better the first time

[thetoadwarrior]

Which is why it'll be ironic if they end up buying Time Warner.

Re:I like this better the first time

[vlm]

Which is why it'll be ironic if they end up buying Time Warner.

1) TW just recently split off TW-Cable from the TW-content empire. So, it would be weird if TW-Cable's competitor comcast, would buy TW-Cable's previous owners, the TC-content group. Genealogically I guess it would be like .... I really can't describe it. But I don't think it fits the definition of ironic, unless you subscribe to the "street definition" where ironic simply means anything that makes you think.

2) Last time around, the pipe-company AOL bought the combined TW empire, mostly for the content. This time around, the pipe-company comcast might buy TW-content. Not so much ironic, as it sounds stupid, to try that failed play again. If it failed for ten years, then about a year after the split, how could a new pipe company successfully merge with TW-content? I'd love to see that board meeting, "I've got a plan that has never worked, lets try it!". Maybe they are trying to fail, in the hope of a federal bailout program, like "Cash4Cable" or "Cash4Content" or something?

Re:I like this better the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

irony, n. incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast can just wait until Obama needs something, then get it in a quid pro quo.

Or do you really still believe anything Obama says?

Troops out of Iraq? Yeah, on BUSH'S schedule?

End to warrantless wiretapping? Not so fast.

95% of us will get a tax cut? Yeah, sure.

Healthcare reform? Let's cut a deal and split the saving with big drug companies!

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services"

. . .how? A "comcast internet user exclusive"? besides greatly impractical, they would just limit the number of consumers for the media, and everyone else would pirate it, or just not watch it.

Its not like comcast is everywhere. If they are willing to fall on their faces by only giving a select percentage of the market to option to buy their media, i say we shut up and let capitalism work. (by letting them fail)

If anything spells antitrust it's this

[erroneus]

Using one market to leverage another? I'm not lawyer and I've been mistaken about this sort of thing before, but this really looks like a bad thing and that the justice department should weigh in on this sort of thing. I think sooner rather than later the ISPs need to be designated as common carriers and not allowed to play in certain arenas.

Re:If anything spells antitrust it's this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you nigsausage.

Re:If anything spells antitrust it's this

[erroneus]

I'm flattered. Really. Seems I have a stalker-friend who cares enough about what I say to make this comment on everything I have commented today. I have to wonder if I will be blessed with this sort of following in the future. It might be rather entertaining. Now if only I can figure out what "nigsausage" is supposed to mean.

Please do

[lavalyn]

This seems like a fast way to force Net Neutrality laws, as the resulting carnage of takeovers and mergers create segregated islands of content. Even congressmen and senators should find it difficult to swallow needing all of a Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon connections to obtain their Disney, FOX, and HGTV channels.

Although I also think the telecoms are underestimating the power of the "independent" content providers, like Google or Yahoo. Clout-wise, companies like that might actually be able to extract payment from the backbones for the privilege of getting customers to them. What's Comcast going to do, say "sorry you can't do that" to their customers because they don't have an agreement with Google?

Re:Please do

[Chaos Incarnate]

Net Neutrality would prevent other providers from refusing to carry Comcast content. It wouldn't prevent Comcast from refusing to provide content.

Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[girlintraining]

I think it's clear that our strength is technology and our weakness is the legal system. The legal system will always be in favor of those with deep pockets and have (at best) a tenuous grip on the ethical and moral considerations of the larger society. It's become so ineffective, insepid and innane as to become harmful to society -- Forget them. Laws do not govern moral conduct and never have. Integrity has no need of rules! But that's just a stop-gap. We need new technology -- and I think we need to go back to the basics to get there.

We need to bring the internet back as a peer-to-peer exchange, but to do that we're going to need to create protocols that are specifically designed to resist attack and interference from intermediaries. The original concept of the internet was based on a flawed model that the network could be trusted to deliver packets from point A to point B using the same logic throughout; It was assumed that the network would be managed by a central authority. This hasn't been the case for awhile, and now we are seeing an increasing desire to bend and break the original standards to serve commercial interests. The protocols must be redesigned to only present the minimal amount of information necessary -- the source and destination, and the actual payload encrypted and made tamper-evident.

To hell with demands that we have protocols with data exposed for "law enforcement", "national security" or "protecting the children" or any other specious argument. The ultimate expression of democracy is the free flow of information between citizens, and that's an ideal that comes ahead of all other considerations: We need to make a conscious and deliberate choice to accept the risks that come in embracing those early ideals, and not let the edge cases (terrorism, sexual predators, and elvis) sway us from the immense benefits of doing this. If the signal is to travel at all, it must travel freely.

If this doesn't come to pass then our future as a democratic society is at an end. Democracy is more important to me (and I hope you as well) than my personal safety or material comforts. A free and open communication medium between all members of society must be a universal, because it's the only way to maximize our individual and collective potentials. This is another step in a slow descent into a life we do not want, and we won't notice until it's too late how much we've lost.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice speech. Now pay attention to the bit where Comcast owns the pipes and the content. Got that? Comcast owns the pipes. If Comcast doesn't like you, you have no internet. The only way to loosen Comcast's grip is to have alternatives. This is not a software problem.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[maxume]

Democracy is a compromise, not an ideal. It may be an ideal compromise.

I'm a lot more concerned about my freedom than I am concerned about your ability to vote on how to mess with it.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[cpghost]

The original concept of the internet was based on a flawed model that the network could be trusted to deliver packets from point A to point B using the same logic throughout; It was assumed that the network would be managed by a central authority.

As a WAN admin with 20+ years of experience in NOCs, I beg to disagree. The Internet design is based on the assumption that network pipes and routers (and whole Autonomous Systems (AS)) will fail, and that traffic will route automatically around disruptions. As such, it is extremely robust and resilient. Of course, that applies to backbones, which are usually meshed. There is NO central authority controlling the Internet, there are only peering ASes that route traffic back and forth.

The problem you're referring to has nothing to do with the Internet itself, but with telco monopolies owning the last mile to your home. Of course, this can be annoying, but that's not the Internet's fault. As long as you have only one uplink, you'll be at the mercy of your upstream provider. This has to do with you being at the edge of the network. It would be the same for an AS that would be foolish enough to peer with only one AS: no AS in their right mind does this. Acquire more links (e.g. to other upstream providers), and you'll realize that there is no central authority controlling the Net, only peers talking to each others. There's no need to change the design of the Internet protocols as they stand.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[Culture20]

Democracy is more important to me (and I hope you as well) than my personal safety or material comforts.

It wasn't even important to the founders until their material comforts (cost of tea taxes) were affected. Material comforts are pretty good. When the future President for Life of America starts taking away our material comforts, I'll join the neo revolution. Until then, I'm... comfortable.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[Tolkien]

Marry me^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I agree.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[Tolkien]

Um.. I agree to this too.

Heh.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[Anonymous Coward]

An end-to-end Internet is not only essential to democracy but also to the anonymous generosity that once made us believe that this Internet would lead to a new world peace, that same spirit that fuels the public good and builds communities that cooperate to the benefit of all. Our communities suffer in the strength of their will every time an ISP stops hosting Usenet or stops providing webspace, and every time the public domain is raped by an industry. The ability to expect anonymity online can also allow one to confess without inhibition, it frees and heals us. And the ability to send copyrighted files freely to people who we know personally can benefit from them, be that to become a better musician, knitter, or cook, or simply a better person, is worth more that the sales dollars lost to any author. Besides, the cost to all of us of examining those packets fairly (and the cost of deciding who gets to examine what) is invariably a more complex cost that any we would bear by simply not allowing any examination at all. My own thought is that we should comment on every story where privacy is in question, to educate the masses, that everyone should use a secure proxy gateway always. And we should continue to try to make encryption easier, and to guard against any effort to outlaw these.

Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Ichijo]

The pipes being the last mile cable line to your house. This is why they can get away with much of what they do.

The FCC would do well to force the cable companies to give up ownership of last mile infrastructure to allow cities and neighborhoods to open those lines up for multiple, competing ISPs.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I'm seriously looking in to U-Verse because, thankfully, it's now available in my home market.

But, I remain about the fetish that AT&T and any of its related businesses/activities seem to have about wanting
to charge by the megabyte. This is a bit of a quandry for me - tolerate Comcast's heavy-handedness (including its
bandwidth caps of 250GB/month) or AT&T's trying to screw every penny out of the consumer any way it can.

Of course, Comcast is now also trying to manage their consumers' DNS responses a bit heavily, too. I just hope
I can find a workaround under Linux for it.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Tiger_Storms]

Of course, Comcast is now also trying to manage their consumers' DNS responses a bit heavily, too. I just hope I can find a workaround under Linux for it.

Or you could click on the Opt out link on their website That worked for me.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[LostCluster]

Nah, we've got a better solution in the pipeline. Phone companies are actively re-wiring their service areas with new networks capable of delivering phone, TV, and 'net. It'll take some time for them to fully deploy, but everywhere they have hit, Comcast has been forced to update their network to compete.

Regulation is nothing compared to a solid competitor.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly have no concept of what is involved in this. If you are going to open up the last mile infrastructure to multiple ISP's, who will be responsible for maintaining the equipment, responding to outages, performing preventative maintenance?

Bandwidth allocation will be an entirely different issue. Freshly built plant may have a spec of 1GHz. Into this range, you need to fit all your forward channels (analog video channels, video QAM's, VOD QAM's, docsis 2 and docsis 3 carriers. You also need to make room for your return carriers (box return frequency, transponder carriers, docsis 2 and 3 carriers. On top of this, there is constant maintenance involved, dealing with the poor wiring jobs within people's houses causing ingress back into the return frequencies as well as defective equipment (you'd be amazed at the kind of noise a dying television will throw back into the lines). There is also the matter of performing FCC testing for leakage rates, and maintenance and monitoring of line power supplies. Do I even need to bring up network redesigns?

I'm not going to get into detail regarding the other technical problems with your proposal, but I assure you that it's not worth it. If you're going to have multiple ISP's on one RF line, you're also going to run into issues beyond the fiber node. That node is going to have its own receiver and transmitter, both communicating with the headend, and eventually the CMTS (when referring to DOCSIS. linear video and VOD are even more complicated). The dynamics of having that one node transmit to multiple headends, based on subscription, are ridiculously complicated.

Now if you'd like to educate yourself about the matter, and engage in a thoughtful discussion of how to improve infrastructure, please do.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Ichijo]

If you are going to open up the last mile infrastructure to multiple ISP's, who will be responsible for maintaining the equipment, responding to outages, performing preventative maintenance?

The same way they do it now in neighborhoods where residents have a choice of cable operators. Where I live now, I have a choice of Cox or Time Warner. In my old house, I was able to choose Cox or Cable America.

Now if you'd like to educate yourself about the matter, and engage in a thoughtful discussion of how to improve infrastructure, please do.

I believe that's my line.

Re:Comcast already owns the pipes and the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Neighborhoods with multiple operators have individual lines for each provider.

Didn't AOL try this?

[Presto Vivace]

Didn't it not work out very well?

Re:Didn't AOL try this?

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL was primarily a content provider, they did not control the pipes.

Re:Didn't AOL try this?

[ZackSchil]

Only because AOL utterly failed to capitalize on their market dominance or prepare for the future. What did they think, dialup would last forever? That people would actually want their terrible service on top of broadband?

AOL tried this and failed

[alen]

Doesn't anyone remember the AOL/Time Warner merger? it was approximately 10 years ago now that it was announced. it was a dismal failure as technology changed in 2 years to make the whole thing worthless. The only media deal that can make sense is to buy the NFL, MLB, NASCAR or NBA because people will pay up for sports even in a recession. If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.

and with Verizon laying fiber along with AT&T were a few years away from another networking technology explosion that will make this deal obsolete.

Re:AOL tried this and failed

[dasunst3r]

Don't forget about ClearWire -- they're rolling out WiMax to a few metro areas within the year as well.

Re:AOL tried this and failed

[LostCluster]

If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.

You forgot your history. Disney Channel launched as a pay-for-like-HBO scrambled premium channel. So did most of the sports networks that show local games.

What these content baskets realized was that it was more profitable to take a few cents for every subscriber (even the ones that don't care about you) instead of getting a few bucks from everybody willing to pay just for you. That's why everybody's cable bills started going up faster than inflation, the cable operators were paying more for the same content.

Now, the premiums are movie channels and out-of-town sports packages... and those are secured by digital encryption rather than the pathetically-easy to decode analog schemes.

Re:AOL tried this and failed

[visible.frylock]

The only media deal that can make sense is to buy the NFL, MLB, NASCAR or NBA because people will pay up for sports even in a recession. If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.

Disney owns espn and abc.

http://corporate.disney.go.com/careers/who_espn.html

http://corporate.disney.go.com/careers/who_abc_tv_group.html

Not that it means that the leagues would be powerless to fight back if Comsney pulled some real shenanigans, but you get more than just a kid's channel if you buy Disney.

TW/RR?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different than Time-Warner/Roadrunner?

Re:TW/RR?

[nizo]

I haven't checked, but I am guessing comcast has more piles of $$$ available in addition to being more widespread (i.e. physical locationwise)?

Antitrust

[crashfourit]

This has anti-trust and attempt to obtain a vertical monopoly all over it. Hope Comcasts idea is crushed.

Uhhh. dude?

[Tiger_Storms]

What are you talking about, They already Own E! and a few other station and those are used on other cable/satellite companies. They are just making sure that anytime a competitor makes money they are apart of it. It's like Microsoft buying stock in all of it's less competitors, and same with apple buying stock in Microsoft. They are trying to branch out their resouces so they get have a greater flow of cash to keep them self's in business. It's kind of anoying to think people see other companies as giants and that they wan't to take over the world or something.

Re:Uhhh. dude?

[glitch23]

They are trying to branch out their resouces so they get have a greater flow of cash to keep them self's in business. It's kind of anoying to think people see other companies as giants and that they wan't to take over the world or something.

Wow, just, wow. I hope English isn't your first language.

In order to stay on topic I'll say this: Most companies will buy another company that sells services or products in a different market rather than just buying stock in the other company. Microsoft has done that many times then re-brands the products as their own.

I've seen this movie before

[jay2003]

Anyone remember AOL Time Warner? which is now in the process of being undone....

Content and pipes are fundamentally different businesses. In a content business, there's no monopoly position to use to increase profits year after year. Content providers have to continually produce content people want to see as opposed to providing mediocre service and raising prices every year. If Comcast does this, it will be a disaster.

Old news, surely

[OscarGunther]

They've already tried to purchase Disney once before, as I recall. I think there's no question of anti-trust on this; we're talking a straightforward attempt at vertical integration within an industry. Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.

Re:Old news, surely

[Thelasko]

Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.

Correct, Time Warner had a cable unit. So this kind of deal is not anything new. However, I think the scariest scenario is Comcast owning Disney.

Limiting the number of people exposed to...

[John Hasler]

...Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner sounds like a real public service to me. Seems improbable, though. More likely they would make some of the pay services of whatever outfit they bought free to their subscribers. That might squeak y the antitrust "regulators", as well as actually being commercially feasible.

Content providers w/o ISP subsid are already doing

[plasmacutter]

disney is already doing this to all ISP's with compulsory wholesale licensing a-la cable TV.

If you have any major ISP (ATT, Comcast, etc) you are unknowingly paying disney for ESPN360 even if you dont use it.

ISP's resisted this for quite some time, but disney/espn started offering it free to university students, and presenting them with a message when they went home in the summer saying "complain to your ISP because they're not paying us".

It doesn't matter at this point of comcast buys disney/viacom/whatever because the other side of this equation is already doing this.

Unless the government or FCC intervene internet service costs could skyrocket as more content providers catch on and start pulling this.

They may take our TechTV

[Anonymous Coward]

but they'll never take.. OUR SYFY CHANNEL!

"Huge Cash Reserves?!"

[aaarrrgggh]

Comcast has roughly $1B in cash, and $30B in debt. Disney has a market cap of ~$45B, and Viacom $15B, Time Warner is at ~$30B. Comcast's total market cap is $45B.

While they would love to own a "must have" content provider, so would I. I think we are both roughly in the same position for being able to pull it off. I have a $5 bill handy...

Re:"Huge Cash Reserves?!"

[John Hasler]

Disney is not considered a candidate, despite the Slashdot summary. They could easily borrow enough to finance a combination cash-stock deal for either of the other two (i.e., each Viacom shareholder would get some cash and some Comcast stock. The loan would be secured with Viacom's assets).

I don't think it will happen, though. Wall Street seems to be pretty down on the idea.

Re:"Huge Cash Reserves?!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a $5 bill handy

citation needed

Vertical integration!

[oDDmON oUT]

If it's good for the shareholders, it's good for you!

Time Warner did it with AOL, and look how well that .... errrr ... heh. NVM.

Re:Vertical integration!

[John Hasler]

> If it's good for the shareholders, it's good for you!

If you aren't a shareholder it doesn't involve you, but the shareholders don't seem to think it's good for them: the stock is down on the rumor.

> Time Warner did it with AOL, and look how well that .... errrr ... heh. NVM.

Lots of commemtators are pointing to that example.

Re:Vertical integration!

[oDDmON oUT]

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my orginal statement.

If you aren't a shareholder it doesn't involve you...

Nothing could be further from the truth. Decisions are made, both for and against particular corporate policies, strategies and business practices, that affect tens of thousands every day. Love Canal, eWaste shipped overseas to China and India, and inferior construction on nuclear reactors in the US come to mind, there are multitudinous others.

... the shareholders don't seem to think it's good for them: the stock is down on the rumor.

All of which means that smart money is afraid of another TW/AOL debacle. Which if it goes forward would still affect all of the subscribers, who are (I would wager) non-shareholders/investors.

Which amply reinforces my points above.

The short version, the users will get hosed.

Easy solution:

[Hurricane78]

Shut out Comcast completely. Who needs "traditional media" anyway nowadays.

You can even do it all alone by yourself.

Re:Easy solution:

[fm6]

Uh, people who need their services? Where I live, DSL maxs out at maybe 1.5 MB, regardless of provider. If I want more than that, Comcast is my only option.

Remind me again how well that worked for AOL?

[ReallyEvilCanine]

They owned the connection, they owned the content, they had their little walled village with ads as far as the eye could see and redirects to every possible "premium partner". And then came 1996...

It's craptastic!

[edfardos]

A communications disruption can only mean one thing - Comcast!

--edfardos

Re:Raw Sockets: Whatever happened to THOSE? apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Sit still. Don't hurt yourself. I've called help.

And lay off the hash pipe.

Limited Access?

[FatdogHaiku]

Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services, thus shutting out competing services (where they still exist at all).

Isn't that pretty much the old "AOL" plan of attack... stuff you could only get from us (as long as you don't look around very hard).

Road Runner?

[lalena]

LOL. Where I live, we think of Time Warner as the delivery mechanism, not the content provider: Time Warner Cable + Road Runner Internet + Intenet Phone.
I think the question of whether Time Warner's content can be owned by an internet provider was answered many many years ago.

ere we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear look all the officers of ComCast grow vast amounts of ganga in their lofts pity they all gotta go down end of a shite ring company

And for their next trick...

[unitron]

Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services...

That's step 1. What's step 2?

Limit subscribers' access to just the content it owns.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Munden]

I believe nearly everything he said, perhaps you never listened. Track them yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ While Obama made some overly optimistic promises it's pretty clear that congress and political fear mongering are limiting factors. Obama is not a genie. He has no magic wand. Real progress takes time.

Hello FCC & FTC! Anybody awake?

[DoctorSVD]

This is what happens when the lights are out at the FTC and FCC for 8 years!

Re:Hello FCC & FTC! Anybody awake?

[/dev/trash]

Did we hold an election in 2008? I think so.

Re:Hello FCC & FTC! Anybody awake?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC's only job these days seems to be to "protect" the populous from scary words and naked people.

I like it

[meist3r]

Then every other broadband customer has to pirate their media or pay a "Comcast Tax" when purchasing physical media. Maybe this'll wake up the consumer types.

They better not have more cable only channels I wa

[Joe The Dragon]

They better not have more cable only channels I want CLTV on direct tv, wow cable, rcn cable, dish network and U-verse.

Comcast Chicago land is big rip off we pay same as the city of Chicago but get less HD, Syfy is in preferred / classic and speed is in sports pack other comcast areas have both in lower cost analog (ending 2010), starter and clear qam. There also have high box rent costs $16-$20 per HD DVR and $7-$10 per HD box. $5-$7 per SD box (needed to get many channels) The free DTA will not get all that you pay for. Also why is fox movie channel in sports pack?

They also need give out csn Philly as well.

Direct tv is better deal in Chicago then comcast.

Re:Disturbing CAR ANALOGY TIME

[vcgodinich]

That is kinda like saying i have the right to buy a gas car, or a diesel car. And i also have the right to buy Gasoline or Diesel. So why cant i put diesel in my gas car? Some things don't work. The government shouldn't state that all cars must be able to use gas OR diesel.

Can I sell tin-foil hats for $5?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why you people bash Comcast. They've invested billions, and this is the thanks they get? It's the fastest internet service available in the greastest county in the world. Please show me some examples of these enormous cash reserves. The telephone companies are sitting on Scrooge McDuck piles of cash. The cable MSO's, arent'. Posted AC because I know this will get modded troll.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting to undo mod. Seriously, who thought that a pulldown menu was the best method of choosing a mod?

Well DUH

[nurb432]

Isn't this the trend in general? Not that i approve, but why are we sitting here acting surprised? This is what tiered service is all about.

Bring the internet back as a peer-to-peer exchange

[nurb432]

Oh, like Freenet? Its a nice idea to take it back, except they will just throttle any alternatives out of existence.

There can be only one.

[nurb432]

In the end, there will be one huge provider that has control over both ends, as well as content. And it will be 'regulated' by the government as a 'required monopoly'.

We the people will lose out, as always. But it was fun while it lasted! Anyone else miss the early BBS days when freedom was a given?

Er.. Time Warner... Hello ???

[brunes69]

Has the poster never heard of Time Warner Cable? You know.. the nations second largest cable network and one of the largest ISPs in the US?

Pretty sure Time Warner already owns pipes AND content... seeing how they still own AOL and about a dozen high-traffic websites, not to mention a ton of TV channels and network programs (each of which has substantial web content of course)

Re:Er.. Time Warner... Hello ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Warner Cable is a separate and distinct company from Time Warner (which owns AOL, TV channels, etc.) It was spun off months ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable)
Granted, in the past, it was the same company, but no longer.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[meerling]

Not only is this NOT an Obama article, but it's almost impossible for those 'politicians' to get anything done in 6 months, much less completely undoing the work of Darth Bush's last EIGHT YEARS !

Sheesh, bureaucrats and politicians undoing anything they don't get kickbacks for is done at a speed that makes glaciers look like Daytona Racers.

Interestingly

[sonicmerlin]

There was actually an article on DSLPrime a little while ago about a national convention that many of the cablecos and content providers attended. The reporter who hosts the site noticed that many of these content providers were shopping their programs around to find ISPs who would be interested in paying them to set up an online VOD service (naturally available only to that company's customers). The point is that it's not just the ISPs who are doing this, but the visionless content providers who can't see the benefit of providing the content *themselves*.

Re:Bring the internet back as a peer-to-peer excha

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is peer to peer. The problem is that your only peer is Comcast.

Take your own advice "dude"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & realize 1 thing: If I wanted any of your shit, I'd squeeze your head... "dude"

APK

Re:Take your own advice "dude"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & realize 1 thing: If I wanted any of your shit, I'd squeeze your head... "dude"

APK

Well, let's see. I played nose tackle in college football, then spent time as a competitive power lifter.

It's been a few years, I can still bench press over 400 pounds and probably squat over 700, but maybe not since I've lately been biking about 30 miles a day and that's probably cut into my ability to bench and squat heavy, although since I haven't done heavy lifting in a few months I don't really know.

If you can find your way out of your basement, you're welcome to try squeezing my head. But I'd bet it would be much more likely that I'd wind up squeezing your head hard enough to pop your skull right out through your greasy never-washed hair, and I'd even wager that your skull is thick and heavy enough that I could go bowling with it. Your beady little eyes are probably set just right to be good finger holes, too. And I'm sure your mouth looks just like a thumb hole after your life of sucking thumb sized-dicks. Like your own.

And after that I could shit down the bloody stump of your neck, since that's what you seem to want to get from me. I must admit I've never understood scatological fetishists, but whatever floats your boat....

Just to make you feel even more inadequate to go along with your empty threats and irrelevant asinine ranting about raw sockets, I also scored an 800 on my Math Level II SATs.

And I currently make well into 6 figures as a software consultant and mostly get to work out of my house, which until the housing bubble burst was worth well over $1 million. Now it'd probably only sell for $800K or so.

To top it all off, my daughter just got her first SOL results back from her school here in VA. She'd been in private school until she got into the local gifted-student program. 594, 598, 600, 600, 600, and 600. Each test has a max of 600. Darn, she must have missed a question or two. But she's a helluva an athlete and even at just 9 years old looks to be a cinch for a swimming or basketball scholarship.

All true.

Relatively speaking, between you and me, well, it sucks to be you. It just warms the cockles of my heart to laugh at you and your irrelevant inability to code in Win2K.

Because anybody who really wants to can get the hardware needed to send just about any bits you want to over just any wire you'd like, making your "raw socket rant" sound like something coming out of some LSD-inspired UFO fantasy.

Dumbass. And not just any dumbass. One dumb enough to advertise.

So go back into your dank basement corner with your Daddy's 20-year-old Penthouse magazines and STFU, you brainless twit.

Shades of AOL/Netscape

[Mansing]

Going with that "synergy" thing again .... doomed from the start.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is this NOT an Obama article, but it's almost impossible for those 'politicians' to get anything done in 6 months, much less completely undoing the work of Darth Bush's last EIGHT YEARS !

Sheesh, bureaucrats and politicians undoing anything they don't get kickbacks for is done at a speed that makes glaciers look like Daytona Racers.

GGP post got modded +5 for gratuitously turning this into a "bash Bush" article, thus opening the door to a link actually documenting how Obama made a SECRET deal with big drug companies to split the "savings" from Obamacare and implying that Comcast should send the same bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions to The Messiah to get their own windfall at the expense of taxpayers.

That's a FACT. Obama, he who swore he'd open the halls of government to the light of day, made a secret agreement over how to split billions of dollars in taxpayer money with large corporations in exchange for their political support.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? WHY THE HELL ISN'T THE MEDIA SCREAMING FOR OBAMA'S IMPEACHMENT FOR THAT KIND OF BETRAYAL OF TRUST?!?!?! SECRET MEETINGS WITH BIG CORPORATIONS? OVER HOW TO SPLIT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL SUPPORT?!?!?!?

IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE CORRUPT THAN THAT!!!!

Obama's turned out WORSE than Rush Limbaugh's wildest dreams. Secret deals with drug companies? Geez, Dick Cheney had a meeting with some oil companies and the "progressives" (what a wonderfully misapplied word...) are STILL harping on it, and here we have a smoking gun of the Democrat Messiah himself actually doing a secret deal with what those addle-brained progressives (redundant, I know...) like to call the "evil drug companies", or similar.

So STFU.

Despite the masturbatory Slashtard moderation system that's still dominated by Bush-bashing basement dwellers, you're still an idiot.

In fact, you're not only deliberately ignoring Obama doing EXACTLY what Bush still gets blamed for. Oh, no. You've gone beyond that. You're ALREADY making excuses for Obama.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[meerling]

I probably shouldn't reply to someone obviously trolling like you, but here goes.

Stop with the insults, it's inappropriate.

Do I despise what Bush did? You bet!

Is Obama any better? Don't know yet, it takes more than a few months after jumping into the cesspool to find out if the new president is actually better, worse, or caught by the undertow.

No matter what, Obama is a politician, and that bodes not well... I'm willing to give him a chance to prove if he's the lesser evil or not...

The way the right (a horrible inaccurate nomenclature) is attacking Obama and the policies being developed (such as health care) with rhetoric vitriol and out right lies, I seriously have to wonder why they are so afraid and/or hateful. Is it because he's a Hawaiian?

If you'd stop rolling your eyes into the back of your head and foaming at the mouth, maybe you can figure out the difference between counterproductive fear/hate mongering and constructive criticism and debate.

And yes, this is the last post I will make to this article and thread. Rant all you want and spit into the wind to your hearts content, I will not respond.
Thank you for those rather nearsighted and puerile opinions and comments.

Yes, because the last democrats DIDNT sell out

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that their friends at Clearchannel did pretty well the last time they were in power.
Both parties owe their power to the same groups but each have their favorites industries and the dems and the communications industry is as dirty as it gets.

Very interesting...

[MojoRilla]

On one side, this has already been tried with Time Warner. Time Warner used to own the second largest MSO in the country, Time Warner Cable, which they spun off in March, 2009. Why would Time Warner spin off their Cable division if integration were so profitable?

On the other side, you have the fact that Comcast has dipped its foot into web technology. They bought Plaxo in March of 2008. But they haven't been acquiring traditional media.

I don't see this as likely.

Didn't TimeWarner and AOL already walk this path..

[rootrot]

It is a great thing for the M&A lawyers and investment banks that these companies are too stupid to learn from others mistakes....

AOL Time Warner

[cbraescu1]

I guess nobody learns anything from these crappy "synergy" mergers / acquisitions...

I've said it before...

[QuietLagoon]

... and I'll say it again....

.
Comcast needs to be broken up into three separate companies:

1. cable infrastructure
2. content provider
3. ISP service

All the cable companies need to be broken up into those three separate and independent companies. Otherwise this type of garbage will continue to happen to the detriment of the cable subscribers.

Re:Disturbing CAR ANALOGY TIME

[toddestan]

It's more like they won't sell you fuel unless you also bought car from them, and then they'll put the fuel in the tank for you. If you have a car that you bought from someone else, they will not sell the fuel to you. Now, this would be understandable if you had a diesel car and they only sold gasoline, but the truth of the matter is that they still won't sell you the fuel even if you had a gasoline car.

what rubbish

[timmarhy]

they own the pipes, they can already control what you watch. end of story.

Comcast can't afford any of the three mentioned

[tyrione]

Like hell they can afford to buy any of those three conglomerates. Not even close.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Penguinoflight]

Somebody who hadn't heard of a scroll wheel, that's who.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[omeomi]

Sadly, the average Obama lemming-uhhh-supporter doesn't realize that, so they voted for Obama based on his promises.

It's not possible that we voted for him based on the fact that we generally agree with his position on most issues, and we had serious concerns about the sanity of the other guy's VP choice? I like McCain. I think had he been president over the past 8 years, the country would be in a much better position right now, but overall, I don't see much in the Republican party worth voting for. I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one. If you want one, great. It can be an issue for you. The abortion thing... It's never going to be illegal. It's just a wedge issue, and I guess it always will be. Even if it were illegal, it wouldn't stop people from getting abortions. Poor people would DIY it, and others would just go to Canada or Europe. Backing programs to reduce the overall number of abortions seems like a better route to me. Plenty of us "lemmings" are plenty well educated, and understand the issues. He made some overly optimistic promises before the election, but all politicians do that. It's part of the process. I think he's doing pretty well so far, considering all of the problems he inherited.

Re:Disturbing CAR ANALOGY TIME

[not flu]

Except that with cell phones there's no technical reason for it. Let's try this instead - you have the right to buy a gas car, or a diesel car - and any brand of appropriate fuel for each. The fuel company shouldn't state that you can't buy whatever car you want.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[hairyfeet]

Sadly short of armed insurrection you are both wasting your breath. Why? Because neither of you can compete with the legal bribery allowed to corporations. Hell have either of you seen a major law passed in 20+ years that wasn't bought and paid for? from rebuilding Iraq (Haliburton, who BTW moved rather than pay taxes on war profiteering) to copyright extensions "for the artists" and the DMCA (bought by your good friends at the *.A.A and a certain company with a mouse eared logo) our political system has become nothing more than a graft machine.

Look around, don't like what you see? It is only gonna get WORSE from here on out. The bribes have gotten so big and the corporations so powerful that selling our their own country will be just another day at the office for our corrupt politicians. Thanks to "free trade" where we allowed our trading "partners" to prop their currency and do product dumping while poisoning their peasants we have lost our ability to pretty much manufacture anything but weapons, which will probably go next, these corrupt leaders now push for higher and higher education and a "services and IP" economy, while ignoring the fact that counterfeiting IP is a way of life for much of the third world, hell I could go on forever.

The simple fact is if a multinational corporation goes to a politician and says 'fuck your country" while writing a check with a bunch of zeroes he WILL do it. I have no doubt that 30 years or less from now we will look like Brazil, with huge slums while the rich protect themselves with armed gated communities. You simply can't compete with legal bribery, and all this "Dem VS Repub" bullshit is just that: total bullshit. BOTH sides will fuck you over in a New York minute, the only difference is which asses they prefer to kiss. The Dems like the taste of *.A.A booty, while the Repubs get their bread buttered by the defense industry. NEITHER side gives a flying shit about you.

don't be melodramatic

[[Zappo]]

As someone else noted, this is not the first time they've thought of this (with Disney in particular):

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1337863&cid=29085761

As for the idea that they would restrict content to only their channels, I dunno. I recall that a while ago Pepsi acquired some fast food franchises. So all the ones it didn't own, signed Coke contracts. Pepsi had begun competing with its customers. Maybe all the other cable providers would refuse to carry Disney content, since the cash would only go to Comcast, their competition. It's even more interesting to mix in some contemplation of Comcast's forays into the telco space, including -- I think -- MVNO arrangements with wireless carriers.

But can cable companies survive as such? As internet video gets better, what need will there be for content packaging and delivery on a geographic basis? I think all cable carriers must adapt or die. Owning content seems much more secure than owning a *legacy* means of delivering it.

Bring it, anytime, "2 inch"... lmao! apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you can find your way out of your basement, you're welcome to try squeezing my head. But I'd bet it would be much more likely that I'd wind up squeezing your head hard enough to pop your skull right out through your greasy never-washed hair, and I'd even wager that your skull is thick and heavy enough that I could go bowling with it. Your beady little eyes are probably set just right to be good finger holes, too. And I'm sure your mouth looks just like a thumb hole after your life of sucking thumb sized-dicks. Like your own." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16, @07:49PM (#29087083)

Bring it: I'd break your knees so fast, you'd crap your diapers. All that alleged size means shit then, shithead. I'm 6' 2" 220 lbs, & I've knocked out bigger boys than you, more than a few times.

----

"If you can find your way out of your basement, you're welcome to try squeezing my head. But I'd bet it would be much more likely that I'd wind up squeezing your head hard enough to pop your skull right out through your greasy never-washed hair, and I'd even wager that your skull is thick and heavy enough that I could go bowling with it. Your beady little eyes are probably set just right to be good finger holes, too. And I'm sure your mouth looks just like a thumb hole after your life of sucking thumb sized-dicks. Like your own." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16, @07:49PM (#29087083)

Two-inch, listen: Fact is - Recently, someone like you tried to get stupid with me, with a tire iron in his hand no less. He ended up knocked out on the ground and everyone at the place we were at couldn't believe it...

Down he went, 1 punch, knocked the F out.

(Think your bullshit means a damn thing to me? Anytime you like, bring it (and we'll see "what's what"... "dude"))

----

"Dumbass. And not just any dumbass. One dumb enough to advertise. So go back into your dank basement corner with your Daddy's 20-year-old Penthouse magazines and STFU, you brainless twit." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 16, @07:49PM (#29087083)

The day the "likes of you" can do this & yet have the NERVE to call me "dumb":

----

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/foru

Don't care anymore

[gnesterenko]

Hey Comcast, hope you have someone from your PR dept reading this. Go to hell. Your service sucks. I pay >$100 a month and every single one of your digital channels stutters and gets pixilated, especially during high action parts = useless. Guess what though! I got a Verizon FIOS box in my closet earlier last week. AS soon as they call and tell me I can switch, its /middle finger to you and I hope to NEVER have to deal with your subpar products again. And now I hear you are pulling this crap? Never again Comcast. I'll go with satallite dish before I pay you another penny.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Shakrai]

I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one.

If you care about the rest of your civil liberties you should care about the 2nd amendment. You don't have to own a firearm to realize the value of protecting the right of your fellow citizens to do the same. Put another way: If Government can infringe on the 2nd amendment then what's to stop it from infringing on the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?

Go take a look at the UK -- they started with gun "control" and have since neutered the right to keep silent, the right against self-incrimination and they keep expanding the length of time you can be held without being charged. If the people are willing to surrender one civil liberty why should the government assume that they won't surrender others?

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing that you would comment about the sanity of Palin when Obama's VP choice is about the dumbest human being to ever.

Business = buy both sides of the aisle

[crovira]

Businesses traditionally try to buy favors by lobbying individual members (divide and conquer because it usually costs them less.)

The liberal/conservative arguments don't wash.

Businesses are totally apolitical and amoral. When they are seen to be partisan is when they can get in trouble.

So what if they subvert the course of democracy by raising the price of entry so that the average company cant afford to play?

Re:Business = buy both sides of the aisle

[jaycagey]

I agree with you - mostly. While corporations are apolitical, the people who run them are not and some of them don't maintain the Vulcan detachment necessary to always make the decision that's best for the company. Also, there are many companies who are highly partisan (New York Times? Fox News? MSNBC?) who haven't run into trouble because of it. That said, entertainment companies have no problem sending in lobbyists to buy off Republicans when necessary.

However, the GP's point was that Comcast would have had an easier time buying a media company during the Bush administration, presumably since Republicans are usually more pro-business. But the entertainment industry is extremely pro-Democrat AND they have lots of disposable income floating around. This has turned Hollywood into a major cash machine for the Democrats. While Republicans are friendlier to business in general, Democrats are very friendly to Hollywood in particular and they are more likely to accommodate such a lucrative industry.

When Hollywood wants another extension to copyrights, they'll pay off politicians on both sides of the aisle (or, for Orrin Hatch, they'll help him make another album). But the 4:1 fundraising advantage goes a long way towards getting preferential treatment from the Democrats.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Timex]

Is Obama any better? Don't know yet, it takes more than a few months after jumping into the cesspool to find out if the new president is actually better, worse, or caught by the undertow.

I'll help you out here and toss an apropos metaphor your way: "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" Let's see why:

• Obama has been paying Perkins Coie something in the order of 2.3 million dollars since he announced his candidacy for president. This law firm is one of a few that have been defending Obama in the courts against people who are demanding more than a COLB as evidence of his place of birth. It is a fact that collections are still being accepted to pay for this.
• How much do we really know about Obama? Not a lot, it seems.
  • We know that Senator McCain's long form and short form birth certificates were released when his citizenship was challenged during the presidential race. To date, we have a COLB from Obama, a document that is not accepted by Federal agencies to obtain so much as a passport.
  • We have Senator McCain's 1974 thesis from his days at the National War College. Obama refuses to allow anyone access to his Columbia thesis.
  • Despite having been president of Harvard Law Review, Matthew Franck noted in National Review Online, "A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time."

The list goes on, but this should give you an idea of what we're up against.

If you'd stop rolling your eyes into the back of your head and foaming at the mouth, maybe you can figure out the difference between counterproductive fear/hate mongering and constructive criticism and debate.

Not all criticism of Obama is "foaming at the mouth". Personally, I'd be satisfied with acceptable evidence of his proof of citizenship, so I could move on. I don't have to like the sitting president (I didn't like Bill Clinton either, but I accept the fact that he was the legally-elected persident), but it's a lot easier to accept or deal with the antics of the president when one knows that he actually belongs in the office.

And yes, this is the last post I will make to this article and thread. Rant all you want and spit into the wind to your hearts content, I will not respond.

You're free to ignore this if you want. Last time I checked, that was your right. I hope that you'll at least think about the things I've mentioned.

Who cares?

[foniksonik]

Let them buy a content provider. There's no track record of any network operator ever doing well with creating and publishing content.

They have two options:

1) Buy the content provider and then let it run itself and enjoy the cash proceeds.

2) Get involved in the business of content creation and ruin it.

WIth #1 nothing changes except the name of the company who owns the majority stake.

With #2 everyone who used to enjoy the content is disappointed but begins to look elsewhere for their content and the rest of us ignore the whole thing.

I'll reiterate, "Who Cares?" - they have no game changing opportunity to bring to the table, no example of how the two businesses work together to make a new 'Awesome Service' and no significant overlap of services that would provide economies of scale and a lower cost - higher quality product.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[WgT2]

Spot on.

You forgot to mention the cameras in homes of the non-compliant.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[nametaken]

God damn man, how much of that Kool-Aid did you drink?

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[geminidomino]

Pfft. That site looks far too forgiving to me. There are more than a few "compromises" that I'd call "broken." They just seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (they say as much on the justification for "signing statements").

FCC as a hammer

[SgtChaireBourne]

The FCC has no interest in protecting individual rights or promoting a competitive market. They are there to sell off public assets to private corporations, and enforce rules and fines to ensure societal conformity to the morals of politically important voting blocs...

Weeks after taking on a Microsofter as FCC Managing Director the FCC was used to go after Apple.

The FCC's action or inaction on this will play out as to what role and relation Comcast is having with M$ and if M$ executives consider Comcast a problem.

I have to say it again, don't I?

[macraig]

What I wrote to the FCC:

The only true form of 'Net neutrality is the kind where the physical medium - the wires or "tubes" - is collectively owned by the public. Our network of roads is almost entirely publicly owned, and the companies that build and maintain them are contractors... we don't allow them to own the stretches of asphalt they lay down. Contractors are exactly what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and all the others in the telecom infrastructure ownership business should be, rather than owners.

We made an error in judgement when AT&T began laying the first telegraph wires, and we failed to recognize the future import and insist that they deed the wires to the public trust. We perhaps had a second chance to correct our error when AT&T was hauled into court for antitrust issues: we could have forced AT&T to sell back the wires to We The People at that time, as a part of the judgement, or perhaps transitioned it into a non-profit pseudo-governmental agency like the USPS, rather than breaking it into smaller entities which STILL owned the wires in their respective fiefdoms.

We're still paying - dearly - for that original error in judgement and our continuing failure to recognize the error and deal with it, even belatedly. It appears that it might now require a revolution with guns to get the wires back into public hands, because the only way any of these corporations' CEOs are going to relinquish this profit-making control is by forcibly prying the wires from the vise-like grasp of their cold dead fingers.

As a result, we now talk about kludges and band-aids for the problem, in the form of laws and regulations, and we call these band-aids "Net neutrality" even though they're really nothing of the sort.

Does the FCC have the spine and "guns" to finally create true telecom network neutrality? I doubt it, but I suggest that perhaps you should try. If not, please do not entertain any of these legislative band-aids: in this case covering the wound with a band-aid will not actually aid in healing, rather only hide the wound from view and defer the surgery necessary to finally heal it. LET IT FESTER IN THE OPEN - in other words let the telecom companies section and "tier" the network - until it becomes so noxious that we're collectively ready to agree to the surgery.

If this latest bit with Comcast is any further hint, I'm going to be muttering "See? I told you so...." soon enough.

Say

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers
> to its own services, thus shutting out competing services (where they
> still exist at all).

Dear worrywarts,

So?

Signed,

A Devil's Advocate

Seriously, what is the problem? If "ComcastDisney" wants to limit Disney to Comcast customers, go for it.

It's called supply and demand, and art is a unique, natural monopoly. If they want to cut off a big chunk of the US (or the world) just to get a few more percent in areas that they have service, so what?

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Abcd1234]

Funny how gun control nuts always pick on the UK, while firearms are similarly restricted in dozens of other countries, and yet they are arguably freer, safer nations than either the US or the UK.

Then again, I suppose it's human nature. It's a lot easier to cherry-pick facts and live in an echo chamber. Certainly it's far more comforting, as you never have to worry about being wrong...

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Abcd1234]

My mistake, I meant to say "anti-gun control nuts", or simply "gun nuts". But I'm sure you, kind reader, already figured that out.

Comcast already shown true colors in Oregon

[leftie]

Comcast has shown what it will do everywhere else if they get their hands on a monopoly of anything by their behavior here in Oregon. 1/3 of Oregon can't get Blazers games broadcast on local sports network, Comcast NorthWest due to anti-competitive Comcast practices.

"How soon will all Portland Trailblazer games be accessible to fans in the Northwest?

The Portland Trailblazers are expected to have a great season this year, but many of their dedicated fans won't get to see 65 percent of their games. For a second season in a row, some fans will miss crucial Blazer games because negotiations between Comcast Sportsnet and other cable and satellite providers remain stuck.

A year ago, Comcast spent $130 million on the rights to air Trailblazer games for the next ten years. Comcast Sportsnet said at the time that the deal would make Blazer games more accessible to more fans, but it hasn't worked out that way. Comcast Sportsnet, Direct TV and Charter Communications have not agreed on price and packaging, leaving Direct TV and Charter Communications customers out of luck when it comes to watching Trailblazer games. Some fans have gotten so frustrated that they've joined forces to boycott Trailblazer sponsors in hopes of putting pressure on Comcast and cable providers to reach a deal. At this point, the only option for Blazer enthusiasts without Comcast Sportsnet Northwest is to watch the few games broadcast nationally on ESPN, or their local television networks...."

http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/the-blazers-blackout/

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Timex]

It's not possible that we voted for him based on the fact that we generally agree with his position on most issues, and we had serious concerns about the sanity of the other guy's VP choice?

Uhhh... No. :) (Of those that ran for the presidency in 2008, none of the candidates held my attention. When Senator McCain chose Governor Palin as his running mate, I was ecstatic. I have friends in Alaska that confirmed what I had read in the news regarding her reputation in government, and I thought that was exactly what we needed to shake up Washington. (I'm not naive enough to think that she would single-handedly reform the entire way business is done [like H. Ross Perot thought he would when he ran against Bush the Elder and Bill Clinton], but she'd at least make Congress nervous for a while.)

Senator McCain himself would have been a great choice, except that I didn't care for some of his voting record in Congress.

...overall, I don't see much in the Republican party worth voting for.

I'll agree with you here.

I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one. If you want one, great. It can be an issue for you.

I don't own one either, largely for two reasons: (1) I'm a lousy shot, (2) I have children in my house that have no fear, so having a firearm even an unloaded one isn't much of an option for me.

On the other hand, I read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to mean that the citizens should be allowed any weapon they can afford, so they can protect themselves against a Government gone bad. If you think about the time it was added, this makes perfect sense. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the country they were founding didn't prevent the citizens from being able to resist a government that got too powerful for its own good, like the British government was to the Colonies. Make it illegal to even "keep up" with the government, and the government can eventually get to where the citizens don't really matter at all: any uprisings are easily put down by force, and the survivors live in fear.

Plenty of us "lemmings" are plenty well educated,and understand the issues.

...but seem to fail at considering the long-term ramifications of certain actions.

He made some overly optimistic promises before the election, but all politicians do that.

Perhaps, but I've never heard anyone make a list like he did at his acceptance speech at the DNC, where 80% or more of his promises were completely irrational because they were unrealistic or flat-out illegal. Sadly, nobody caught on, because people (especially in the Media) were too busy fawning all over him.

I think he's doing pretty well so far, considering all of the problems he inherited.

Any of my three children could do a better job than he's doing, and that's not much of an exaggeration.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Timex]

Amazing that you would comment about the sanity of Palin when Obama's VP choice is about the dumbest human being to ever.

There's only one other person that comes to mind when I think about VP Biden: Dan Quayle.

Since you ran, blowhard? Take a read

[Anonymous Coward]

"Very quickly you learn how many ways people can misunderstand what you're saying, and how your foes intentionally misinterpret what you write" - by timeOday (582209) on Friday August 28, @12:34PM (#29232401)

That quote's from today's article "We're In the Midst of a Literacy Revolution" -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1350875&cid=29232401

(Apparently not, @ least NOT in the "good ole' south", eh?)

"You're still bent out of shape over getting insulted for making a threat." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @08:36PM (#29180339)

Well, I'm NOT the one who 'frothed & foamed' @ the mouth, & said he was "all that" (a millionaire, head of some b.s. 'computer consultancy', or a star jock - but, funny part was, I could show that I was more than a few of those things myself... so, how come YOU cannot prove you are, and you ran?)

AND??

I am not the one trying to "save face", with a blatantly intentional misinterpretation of my joke either (which you are doing clearly, because the turn of a phrase I used is a COMMON one, no less, in my stating "If I wanted any of your shit, I'd squeeze your head", lol...).

Man, you are DUMB as a BOX OF ROCKS... no questions asked. I say that, because a dunce like you thinks he can "fool others"... no dice.

Either learn to read, or quit trying to "pull the wool over everyone's eyes", you blowhard braggart - & you STILL can't back up all your b.s., now can you? Nope. However, again: Funny how I was able to do so, on the very grounds YOU "raved on", no less!

(Figures you ran as you did... Man, you truly are stupid. You think people are stupid, like you, blowhard - not around here, wrong door...).

APK

P.S.=> Nice to see you RUN, "beyotch"... lol! Truth is - I have never, in over 16++ yrs. online, EVER seen a punk blowhard, quite like you... ever! Serves you right, you blowhard coward -> "Run, Forrest... run!", lmao... apk