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)."
We can only hope that they're one Administration too late to pull it off.
Shouldn't there be FCC regulations against this potential nightmare scenario? If not, why not?
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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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?
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.
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.
There's no place like
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
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)
Somebody who hadn't heard of a scroll wheel, that's who.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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").