Slashdot Mirror
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)."
Shouldn't there be FCC regulations against this potential nightmare scenario? If not, why not?
when it was called AOL.
Someone hates these cans.
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.
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.
"You be the captain, and I'll be no one." -- Kasey Chambers
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
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").