Slashdot Mirror


Comcast to Buy 51% of NBC, GE Goes After 49%

An anonymous reader writes to tell us that Comcast and General Electric announced a joint venture yesterday to control NBC Universal, with Comcast coming out with the controlling interest. Comcast's hopes seem to be on succeeding in a marriage of distribution and content, where Time Warner failed. "The deal was approved by the companies' boards, and is subject to regulatory approval. GE said it expects the deal to go through in the third quarter of 2010. Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate whether Comcast will gain 'undue advantages' from the deal that gives it access to programming."

258 comments

  1. In other news... by pwnies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other news, comcast announced today that they have a revolutionary way of throtteling high-tv viewers during "primetime" hours. While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer"), they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.

    Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see what happens here. Ads for new NBC shows over broadband anyone?

    1. Re:In other news... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This sounds dangerous to me.

      Such a large company in charge of the content AND the delivery channel? What happens when this all consolidates into just a couple of companies with content and channels owned...and then the government has to bail them out, and take control of.....oh wait....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A year from now, maybe even sooner, you'll no longer be able to watch Comcast-NBC owned channels over the net.

      Goodbye Bravo.com, USA.com, or Syfy.com episodes over the net. Goodbye MSNBC.com or CNBC.com streaming livefeeds. Or else if you can still stream, they'll lock it behind a subscriber wall: free for Comcast account holders and $2 per hour for the rest of us.

      If ever a monopoly needed to be busted, Comcast is it. No more exclusive licenses to supply cable tv to neighborhoods. Let other competitors enter.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:In other news... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      If i recall correctly Senator Sanders of Vermont filed a bill in Congress to break up financial institutions deemed "to large to fail". Whether it has any chance of passing I have no idea. Still, I'd like to see it expanded to include *any* large corporation and enacted before tax payers get bilked out of a few trillion more dollars.

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be spied upon via new and improved comcast generally evil cable boxes.

      Relational corporate assets like this ARE creepy. Suspect government and giant corporation's intentions as covertly malicious until justified otherwise.

      If you're a comcast user, do yourself a favor and support a smaller or local ISP and alternative cable source, dish or direct tv.

      Matured and bloated corporate capitalistic society easily transitions to enduring Fascism through government takeovers of private infrastructure. Support your local vendors, get informed.

    5. Re:In other news... by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but in the control they will wield is frightening (even more so considering it's Comcast). Media delivery and content control is a powerful combination that can sway millions of people considering the size of this merger.

      A horrible idea. I saw this on the Today show and my first thought was that there was no way this type of merger should be allowed. They then immeidately followed up with comments that they didn't think it would be an issue to get approval for it.

      WTF?

      We just went through a year of hell with companies that were 'too large to fail', and now this? Are they kidding me? On top of that, the media control alone is far to dangerous to allow.

      Who's minding the chicken coup?

    6. Re:In other news... by joeler · · Score: 1

      Forget Senator Sanders of Vermont, you won't even hear from him - the republicans were talking about buying another channel because FOX can no longer do the job alone, what better way than to turn MSNBC into FOX2.... kills two bird with one stone, get rid of those nasty liberal shows and get more right wing hate talk.

      --
      >>>please remove "nospam" from email address
    7. Re:In other news... by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is what is happening, without government intervention. GE is 5 times the size of Comcast revenue wise. NBC is a drop in the bucket for them.

    8. Re:In other news... by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

      Goodbye MSNBC.com...

      And nothing of value was lost.

    9. Re:In other news... by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny, I read this yesterday on CNN... And for some reason, not long after I got home, NBC got blocked on my TV.

      Strange.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    10. Re:In other news... by cdrudge · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So what monopoly does Comcast have again?

    11. Re:In other news... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      While I doubt your situation would happen... what is more likley that only Comcast Internet / Cable subscribers would have access to the content. They already use the NHL games on their Versus channel to hold subscribers hostage that would rather switch to DirectTV.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    12. Re:In other news... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      "Chicken Coup"; my thoughts exactly.

      What, exactly, is "too big to fail" about Comcast (a large but certainly not the only large cable company) owning half of NBC (a large but certainly not the only large TV network)? Save your energy for when Comcast buys up Time Warner or one of the other similarly large content/delivery companies. Until then, this is business as usual.

    13. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      You make the same mistake as those who equate Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's views with the views of Fox.

      Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are merely offering *their* opinions (leaning pro-big-government), not those of the network MSNBC. It says that in the credits if you ever bother to read them. Now if you had linked to this video instead, then you'd have a worthwhile point:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6cHrU4L4E

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:In other news... by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. They are the nations 3rd largest telephone provider in addition to their internet and cable business.

      Back in 2002, Comcast was the largest cable provider int he US reaching 22 million users. I can only imagine how much they've grown since then. They are still the largest cable provider in the US.

      They are NOT a small company. Tie that in with MSNBC's media ties, and it is not a small deal.

      The merger puts Comcast in control of MSNBC (a 24 hour news channel with an enormous impact on public opinion), CNBC (which impacts public opinion about Wall Street, now a hotly debated political question), NBC network (whose nightly news show averages eight million viewers), and 27 television stations (which generally have programs covering local news).

    15. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In many areas, including my own, Comcast holds the exclusive government-granted monopoly to supply cable television. In many areas they also hold a government-granted monopoly over internet, which means you might end-up like this guy (he lost his net for a year):

      Never mind. I can't find the link. ----- But in brief, he was accused by Comcast in 2007 of "downloading too much data" and they turned-off his connection for a whole year. When he asked Comcast, "How much did I use?" they said they didn't know but he was in the top 10% of downloaders, therefore they have the right to turn off his connection without any warning. And no there's no appeals process.

      Monopoly.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:In other news... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      No one has batted an eye at all the other companies owning swaths of public opinion (News Corp comes to mind). Why start now? Big company deals happen all the time. Aside from the notion that some people hold that "bigger is never better" what is the actual accusation here? That they are going to turn into the next News Corp? Oh wait, News Corp is still News Corp. Nevermind.

    17. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the republicans..... turn MSNBC into FOX2

      Comcast is a pro-big-government organization that receives lots of handouts from their friends in Congress and the local State Legislatures. You're not going to see any change in MSNBC's pro-big-government coverage. Corporations benefit from socialism

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:In other news... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0

      So which monopoly does Comcast have again?

      Fixed that for you. The answer would be cable television and broadband cable.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    19. Re:In other news... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      So what monopoly does Comcast have again?

      Lots of small monopolies on Cable TV, and Internet (I assume you add them up it might be significant.) They had a monopoly on all cable channels, and internet access at my last apartment. Also Local builders signed a contract with them into a subdivision that only a cable line would be run into all houses built in that division, and no other cabling would be allowed (so phone, internet, cable TV). So if your house didn't have a clear view of the southern sky, you had no other choice if you bought there for many services. I assume these deals have a time limit, and thus won't always be a monopoly, but they had a monopoly, not nationwide but lots of little monopolies. To me that monopoly would drastically lower the value of the house, but apparently many didn't care.

    20. Re:In other news... by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      My personal concern is that they will hold key media outlets in business, and forums where public opinion is decided. In addition, I know personally how Comcast treats it's users.

      I don't want or need another Fox news with a Comcast bent. They are a private corporation, and well within their rights to censor anything on their networks.

    21. Re:In other news... by locallyunscene · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The last mile.

    22. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the same mistake as those who equate Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's views with the views of Fox.

      Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow are merely offering *their* opinions (leaning pro-big-government), not those of the network MSNBC. It says that in the credits if you ever bother to read them. Now if you had linked to this video instead, then you'd have a worthwhile point:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu6cHrU4L4E

      We already have big government and it has not improved the economy or the quality of life for the citizens. Therefore the burden of proof is severe, and that burden rests firmly on the shoulders of anyone who thinks that big government is a good idea and should be expanded. Of course when any fool can vote without having to pass a civics test, the notion of who should be proving what before any action is taken is thrown out entirely. Incidentally, women's suffrage was a bad idea, not because women are bad people or anything like that but because they generally value security more than freedom. Other than basic law enforcement to protect civil rights, the kind of security government offers is a dangerous thing and any rational view of the situation would prefer freedom every time. The media knows this, so instead of offering rational arguments for why this thing or that thing is a real threat, they instead make emotional appeals and fear-monger. It sells but it also encourages the wrong kind of thinking.

    23. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

      First off, it's a G5.

      Second if Microsoft had released a "security update" that killed a computer and made it unbootable, slashdot would be up in arms. But it's okay for Apple? No problemo? A-okay? Double standard.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:In other news... by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Personally I like watching Saturday Night Live on the net.

    25. Re:In other news... by tepples · · Score: 1

      what is more likley that only Comcast Internet / Cable subscribers would have access to the content.

      How can people who live in Time Warner Cable serviced areas become Comcast subscribers?

    26. Re:In other news... by norminator · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd be more concerned that they'll block or degrade non-NBC sources of Internet video.

    27. Re:In other news... by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Save your energy for when Comcast buys up Time Warner or one of the other similarly large content/delivery companies. Until then, this is business as usual.

      Comcast bought all of Time Warner's cable in Minnesota. Now I believe in the Twin Cities you have no choice. My entire childhood and young adulthood we had "King Video Cable" and "Paragon Cable" and they were loosely divided as Northern Metropolitan suburbs and Southern Metropolitan suburbs.

      Qwest bought King Video Cable and renamed it MediaOne. Time Warner bought Paragon and renamed it Time Warner. After less than 5 years Comcast bought them both.

      Now, I believe there are only 3 choices for cable television and broadband in Minnesota, and their coverage seems to be loosely based on our original three telephone area codes. Therefore, if you live in Comcast's controlled area (Minneapolis/St. Paul), you get to deal with the Comcast monopoly. If you live outside of this area, you would be in the Charter controlled area, or Rogers I think.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    28. Re:In other news... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      IMHO you should be able to own the content, the delivery channel, or the hardware. No two of the prior. If you own the network/channel you can't build the hardware. If you own the content, you can't make hardware (Sony anyone?). If you own the channel, you can't own the content. WTF is so hard about that to restrict and enforce?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    29. Re:In other news... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well, honestly, how is the christian right any different? They certainly are trying to force their way of living on everyone, for example regarding gay marriage. They bomb others they don't like, such as abortion providers.

    30. Re:In other news... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      A year from now, maybe even sooner, you'll no longer be able to watch Comcast-NBC owned channels over the net.

      Goodbye Bravo.com, USA.com, or Syfy.com episodes over the net. Goodbye MSNBC.com or CNBC.com streaming livefeeds. Or else if you can still stream, they'll lock it behind a subscriber wall: free for Comcast account holders and $2 per hour for the rest of us.

      If ever a monopoly needed to be busted, Comcast is it. No more exclusive licenses to supply cable tv to neighborhoods. Let other competitors enter.

      So then it is Goodbye Bravo, USA, Syfy (Hate the Name change), MSNBC, and CNBC. Not just the dot coms. They will go away if they hide their content while their competition delivers. So it is all good with me. Let the innovators with foresight grow and get big.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    31. Re:In other news... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      What content distribution system widely in use does News Corp own? A large ISP, telco, or cable operation perhaps? None? That's why this is a big deal.

    32. Re:In other news... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You make the same mistake as those who equate Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's views with the views of Fox."

      I get a little troubled with so many people of late, throwing Glenn Beck in the same crowd as Hannity and O'Reilly. The latter two, are just really blowhards that do nothing but shoutdown anyone they talk with, and very rarely have insightful things to say. Hannity is just so far on the neo-con side, it hurts.

      Beck, on the other hand, I see as someone that is thought provoking, and more on the libertarian side of things. He has some interesting guests, he digs in (like an old school journalist used to do) on stories. While I'll admit he acts like a 'goob' at times, I do often like many things he has to say about the US, where it started, where it is going, where it is good, and where it has strayed. He often puts forth views I see often espoused on some of these /. topics...etc.

      I know he has become a hot target because he has gotten so popular recently, but I saw him back when he was on the CNN Headline news station during the Bush years, and he was talking the same way against the all Rep. regime that we previously had, so, I don't think of him as really either a Republocrat.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:In other news... by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

      The Myth of Moral Equivalence continues.

    34. Re:In other news... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      And even if you think it's a grand idea to disconnect the top downloaders, it should disturb you that they're disconnecting based on the percentage not the transfer amount.

      Once you disconnect the top 10%, the next 9% (10% of the remaining 90%) below that become the new top 10%.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    35. Re:In other news... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      But...But.. The corporations act all corporationy.

    36. Re:In other news... by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      So fight to change it at the local level. We don't have tough franchise agreements, so we have three companies competing to provide cable television and internet access. The result is faster speeds and lower prices. It was kind of a hassle having the lawn dug up three times to install lines, but we probably save $500 a year because of the competition.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    37. Re:In other news... by TommydCat · · Score: 1

      MY MAC'S DEAD. I installed Security update 2009-005, rebooted, and now I have a spinning circle of death. FRAKKIN A!

      I'M GOOD ENOUGH. I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me. AL FRANKEN

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    38. Re:In other news... by VanGarrett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But in brief, he was accused by Comcast in 2007 of "downloading too much data" and they turned-off his connection for a whole year. When he asked Comcast, "How much did I use?" they said they didn't know but he was in the top 10% of downloaders, therefore they have the right to turn off his connection without any warning. And no there's no appeals process.

      In my experience, it's always best to find that phantom Comcast office, when you intend to deal with Comcast. The information you'll get from their customer service representatives over the phone will often be quite different from the information you get in person. In my case, I was two months late on my payment, and in talking with them over the phone, they wanted me to pay off the price of the cable modem as well as the service, before they would agree to re-instate my internet service. So, I started paying it off in large chunks at a time, and when I found their office (indeed, that office is difficult to find, in Fresno, all signs being completely obscured when coming from the most likely direction), my attempt to complete my payment was halted. I was informed there that my account was completely paid off. I figured that since I had the money and was already there, I'd just go ahead and credit it to my account, at which point, I was informed that my account was already credited by $170. Shrugging, I just requested that my service be restored (had it upgraded, as well; it turned out to be cheaper to buy both internet and television, than to buy internet alone), and I didn't have a bill from Comcast until February the next year.

      tl;dr: Don't call Comcast when you have a problem. Visit their office, instead.

    39. Re:In other news... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Goodbye Bravo.com, USA.com, or Syfy.com episodes over the net.

      Sounds like a good deal to me. Bring it on.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    40. Re:In other news... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I got this right...

      First, the CSR lied to you. (No point splitting hairs about whether she might have believed she was right; she represents the company and is responsible for knowing better; what the company told you was not true.) Still, that's not uncommon.

      Now, I'd question why you didn't escalate since their demand (as you've presented it) appears clearly unreasonable, but that's a judgement call.

      Now, you start making payments and get back in good standing, and never did they give you a statement showing this? Nor did they restore your service until you asked? Nor even when you were paying the account well into the black did they mention it until you were there in person?

      In other words they coerced you into giving them a 0% loan... and your response to this bit of fraud was to upgrade your service with them???

      You're a more forgiving consumer than I am.

    41. Re:In other news... by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Planet earth calling. Just wanted to let you know on this planet Comcast essentially gets monopolies either through contracts with cities or counties. Or by screwing with local providers and forcing them out.

    42. Re:In other news... by dem0n1 · · Score: 1

      While primetime was not explicitly defined (nor was "high-tv viewer")

      A "high-tv viewer" is anyone too stoned to pay attention to the ads. Those viewers are causing a burden on the system by not generating the correct ad revenues to allow Comcast to continue providing content to users.

      --
      Why save your soul when you can sell it for a profit?
    43. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GE is also one of the biggest weapons manufacturers and polluters on the planet. Don't ever expect unbiased environment or war coverage out of NBC again.

    44. Re:In other news... by Kurrel · · Score: 1

      For those who want to sign a probably-ineffective petition, http://www.freepress.net/comcast

    45. Re:In other news... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      I agree wholeheartedly. To quote my post when news of the deal first leaked out at the beginning of October:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1388655&cid=29605029

      Add to that one other word that most people seem to be leaving out of the thoughts: Hulu

      Hulu was started and is still back in large part by NBC.

      It is a distribution mechanism that has the potential to completely obsolete Cable Companies (except as ISPs), and buying NBC might give Comcast a stake in the company, or at least a say in the direction of the company ("Maybe we should run more adverts", "how about a three week delay and only show the last two episodes", "we really shouldn't run 'cable exclusive' content").

      I'm just as happy having Hulu in the hands of content Producers and Over-The-Air broadcasters who are less used to draconian control of the distribution channel (VCR have been around for a while, and Pay-Per-View/On-Demand hasn't been an issue for Broadcast TV).

      Hulu, and other Over-The-Internet broadcasters, are the main reason I was able to "kick the cable habit" and eject TWC from my life.

      Without it, it will be tougher but doable (and hopefully an alternative would spring up). It would also be tougher to convince others to make the switch and live life "cable free".

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    46. Re:In other news... by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      You make the same mistake as those who equate Glenn Beck's or Sean Hannity's views with the views of Fox.

      You really think Roger Ailes disagrees with the tripe Hannity and Beck spew? Somehow I don't.

    47. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they have what I want, so I have to play nice. If I'm mean they won't give me all the commercials I so desperately need to stay up to date with how I should spend all my credit cards I keep getting approved for.

    48. Re:In other news... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I'M GOOD ENOUGH. I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me. AL FRANKEN

      But it still doesn't get one laid.

    49. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Uh... *as I just said* these commentators are merely presenting *their* views, not those of the network or each other.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    50. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You really think Roger Ailes disagrees with the tripe Hannity and Beck spew? Somehow I don't.

      Well if you think that, then you must think CNN and MSNBC agree with all the pro-big-government viewspoints spewed by Maddow and Olberman, so that would make them pro-Democrat/communist biased news channels.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    51. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>They certainly are trying to force their way of living on everyone, for example regarding gay marriage.

      If it's wrong for them to force their moral values onto others, than it's JUST AS WRONG for you to force your values on everyone else. People should be free to live their lives however they want to live them, without interference from either the Christians or the Democratic-communists

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    52. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>So fight to change it at the local level.

      Unfortunately my local Senator is in Comcast's pocket (massive donations), so he is perfectly happy to let them keep their monopoly. Otherwise I agree with you that having 3 or more companies competing to provide TV would be a better solution.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    53. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The situation was a little different though. In this Utah guy's case, the decision was out of the control of customer service. The decision was made by some new central "abuse department"* some 500 miles away. Not really practical to drive 1000 miles roundtrip.

      *
      * That's what it's called - abuse - when you use your unlimited Comcast connection more than they think you should. And then they cut you off.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    54. Re:In other news... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes corporations act all "corporationy" AND they benefit from socialism (government handouts and pro-corporate regulations)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    55. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let the innovators with foresight grow and get big.

      But, looking at the summary...

      Comcast to buy 51% of NBC, GE goes after 49%

      It would appear the world is explicitly going the opposite of how you are predicting. Has been for quite some time now.

    56. Re:In other news... by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      GE already owns NBC though.

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    57. Re:In other news... by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      The discrepancy was the price of the cable modem, which, for some reason, the rep on the phone assumed would not be returned. As for returning to their service, the alternative was paying more for DSL at a fraction of the bandwidth, at the time. It was well worth straightening out the problem. Simply enough, the customer service isn't very good, but the service you're actually paying for (8Mbps, while the local DSL was only 256k at the time) is rather good. I have no regrets.

    58. Re:In other news... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      How amusing of you to think i'm a democrat.

      There's a flaw in your thinking though; when two gay people marry, your life is not affected in the slightest. I'm sure there was just a gay marriage in one of the states that allows it. Did your life just somehow change?

      However, when you push for law restricting marriage based on gender, someone elses life IS AFFECTED. Someone you don't know, and don't really have any business interfering with, now cannot enjoy the same legal rights some other people can.

  2. Why can't they all just get along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and buy 50% each?

    1. Re:Why can't they all just get along by pwnies · · Score: 1

      GE already owns 80%. Comcast is just buying a majority share of the company so they have final say on any decision.

    2. Re:Why can't they all just get along by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      Gee, it was almost as if the GP was being sarcastic and making a joke.

  3. Also announced... by smurphmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

    Starting immediately, CBS and ABC will now only be available as pay per view for all Comcast customers!

    1. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nope. FCC rules require all local stations and "out of market but significantly-viewed" stations be provided free-of-charge in the basic cable package.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Also announced... by ericrost · · Score: 1

      How is "in the basic cable package" "free-of-charge"? Basic cable costs money (and, hint, its not worth it). Unplug while you still can, there's a real world out there, and its more HD than HD and has surround sound.

    3. Re:Also announced... by castironpigeon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unplug while you still can, there's a real world out there, and its more HD than HD and has surround sound.

      /. irony at it's best.

      --
      mmmm...forbidden donut
    4. Re:Also announced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Comcast we are talking about. They will find a way to hit people where it hurts.

      Here in the Portland, OR area they have already managed to screw a good share of the audience out of being able to watch certain sporting events including most Blazer basketball games, various NCAA games and others that are only carried on the Comcast Sports Net channel now. The managed this through lucrative contracts with the teams. Now in order to view these games you either have to go to them in person or get Comcast (even if you are not in a Comcast serviced area...which means you are super screwed). This is in contrast to say the Fox Sports channels that are available from Satellite providers, other cable providers and such. Of course they make the channel available to other providers to meet the FCC rules, but at a pricing point abnormally high so few can afford to carry it.

      The bottom line is that while they may be forced by the FCC to carry other channels, there is nothing stopping them from getting control of the most desirable content and putting it on channels that are only available through Comcast.

      Now look a bit further to ESPN. They have the super awesome ESPN360 site that allows you to watch online...but only if your ISP is on their list. Guess what? The only ISP available where I live that is on their list just HAPPENS to be Comcast. I wonder how that happened? So once again, the ONLY way I can get the content I want (this time over the supposedly universal internet) is to be a Comcast customer.

      Thats not even mentioning all the exclusive content deals they have done with various people/companies to put exclusive content on their "on-demand" cable viewing service. Once again, it falls outside the current FCC rules so they get away with a monopoly on

    5. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      In other words the local stations are "free" and don't cost an extra $10/month like HBO or Showtime or TCM does.

      BTW:

      Where I used to live the basic package was only $7/month, and included all the channels from two markets - Baltimore and Washington. 7 dollars is a nice bargain.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Also announced... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yawn. I can visit the antarctic and china in HD, watch plane crashes and learn about huge construction disasters, go to the bottom of the ocean and see space. I don't have the funds to do any of the things in real life that I experience while TV.

      When the local anchorperson starts coming to the front door to give me the news, I'll do that in your "real life" too.

      Get off your soap box.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    7. Re:Also announced... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Basic cable costs money (and, hint, its not worth it).

      "Limited basic" cable TV (locals + home shopping + public access) is essentially free to all Comcast high-speed Internet subscribers, and I'm not ready to go back to dial-up.

    8. Re:Also announced... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Nope. FCC rules require all local stations and "out of market but significantly-viewed" stations be provided free-of-charge in the basic cable package.

      A big problem is how they define markets. It's based mostly on political favors and loosely on NTSC propogation characteristics. I'm in Western NH and can't get any stations that cover NH news, because some bureaucrat in Washington put my ZIP code in the Burlington VT "market".

      You know what would be totally crazy? Let people buy what they want. I know, there I go being heretical again, I'm better off for the Government dictating which signals coming down from geosynchronous orbit I'm allowed to decode, I'm just too dumb to realize it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Also announced... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Actually, perhaps not. At a previous apartment serviced by COX, I hooked my tv up to the cable and they transmitted a handful of local channels, but not the rest of their basic package. It was not very useful as I could get the same channels clearer and in HD over the air, but it was there. I have no idea how common this is.

    10. Re:Also announced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bahahaha I live in DC and you are a fucking liar.

    11. Re:Also announced... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      NOT funny. WAY too plausible.
      I've said it before in other places this week, and I'll say it again here: No good will come of this. I'm surprised that the government will allow this sale to go through.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    12. Re:Also announced... by Drummergeek0 · · Score: 1

      by "basic cable" he meant broadcast cable. ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, and local programming(along with others I am probably forgetting) are broadcast over the air, not just on cable. If you are within range you can watch those channels for free, in HD even.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    13. Re:Also announced... by sorak · · Score: 1

      So are you posting this from your mobile phone?

    14. Re:Also announced... by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1
      OK, this took me a minute. I agree with:

      Basic cable costs money (and, hint, its not worth it). Unplug while you still can

      I agree because I can get all of the things you list from OTA or the Internet. Now, the Internet isn't free. Truth is I pay way too much for the limited service I receive. However, OTA is free. In an area where you do have good OTA service, why would you pay for basic cable?

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    15. Re:Also announced... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      A big problem is how they define markets.

      Cable must-carry laws have traditionally respected radio frequency propagation of the over-the-air television station (the "Grade B service contour" for analog, the "noise limited service contour" of for DTV)

    16. Re:Also announced... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Cable must-carry laws have traditionally respected radio frequency propagation of the over-the-air television station (the "Grade B service contour" for analog, the "noise limited service contour" of for DTV)

      Right, so those under-served due to the unfortunate arrangement of terrain and laws of physics remain under-served when there is no natural reason for it (merely political).

      "Must carry" doesn't consider the humans involved, and "must not carry" just drives the nail in further.

      Funny how CATV used to mean Community Antenna TV to deal with this problem specifically.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:Also announced... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      The ESPN360 thing pisses me off too. If my ISP carries it, then I am stuck paying for it as part of my monthly bill whether I want it or not (not commenting on the worth/quality of the ESPN360 package, I've never used it). Likewise, if my ISP doesn't carry it, then there's no way for me to view its content even if I want to.

    18. Re:Also announced... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      I agree because I can get all of the things you list from OTA or the Internet. Now, the Internet isn't free. Truth is I pay way too much for the limited service I receive. However, OTA is free. In an area where you do have good OTA service, why would you pay for basic cable?

      Because OTA WASN'T a viable option in the most highly populated metropolises of the US, until Digital TV came in and relevelled the playing field?

      When I was growing up, OTA in manhattan was not a viable alternative if you wanted local channels. You HAD to get cable (unless your building had a roof antenna installed, which lots don't).

      Now, post Digital transition, the signal it MUCH clearer and let me do away with TWC, and every day without brings me joy and gladness.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    19. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Anonymous coward wrote:
      bahahaha I live in DC and you are a fucking liar.

      bahahaha I wasn't talking about Comcast in DC; I was talking about Comcast in Baltimore County which really was $7/month and really did give me access to all the Baltimore/DC channels

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>(merely political)

      Hardly. The markets are defined by proximity to the stations, and what you would receive it you put an antenna on the roof of your house. According to the map you are not in "over the air" receiving distance of any New Hampshire stations. Your stations are in Burlington Vermont.

      I am a little surprised your cable company doesn't provide more-distant stations (like Keene NH or Boston MA). I used to get DC stations even though I was nowhere near DC, simply because the Baltimore Comcast company wanted to provide the extra channels.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And disneyconnection.com - you pay for it even if you don't want it. Or vice-versa if you do want it, but your ISP doesn't carry it, then you can't get it. There's not even an option to handover your credit card and subscribe.

      Segregating the internet like that, based upon the ISP you have, is stupid.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:Also announced... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yes, the signal maps re-enforce the conclusions, but people around here usually have to put up large antennas to get OTA and they point them to get the NH stations which don't appear as being possible on those maps, by in large. Burlington happens to have a large mountain (Mansfield) to its east of it which is convenient for antennas to reach its market, and the terrain allows some of Western NH to see that antenna, but due to the Green Mountains themselves, the economic markets are not well-connected. So the politico-economic overlap is small, and, for example, a Burlington TV station isn't going to cover what's happening at the State House in Concord NH, even though they're supposedly tasked with serving that market (especially under the pre-80's rules). And no updates to the markets are being made to accommodate the change in DTV signal propagation.

      Some how our local cable companies are allowed to carry NH and Boston stations but the satellite companies are forbidden. Cable TV penetration in the area is about 60%, and costs are high, so actual usage is probably less than 50%, though most can handle a $20/mo satellite bill.

      What this leaves is a populous largely disconnected from knowing about its governments (I use the Internet but many are not so inclined). The excuse for this is an economic subsidy to the 'assigned' station's advertising departments. That it's not just mandating availability but exclusivity backed by threat of force to the provider and customer seems like a very political decision.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Burlington happens to have a large mountain (Mansfield) to its east of it which is convenient for antennas to reach its market, and the terrain allows some of Western NH to see that antenna
      >>>

      QED you are assigned to the Burlington market. Signal propagation doesn't obey state boundaries. It's why New Jersey doesn't have any of it own television stations - the bottom half gets signals from Philadelphia, and the top half gets New York signals. The television markets are essentially divided into large metro areas, with state boundaries ignored.

      >>>no updates to the markets are being made to accommodate the change in DTV signal propagation.

      The FCC is operating under the idea that DTV has identical reach to the old analog TV, so no need to change anything. Of course in reality, DTV's reach is actually much shorter with larged unserved areas between the DMAs, but nobody seems willing to admit that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Also announced... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Some how our local cable companies are allowed to carry NH and Boston stations but the satellite companies are forbidden

      Yeah I think the judge who made that decision should be tarred-and-feathered. There are many situations where the default market is not the "best fit" for a customer. The purchaser should be able to choose the default market plus any secondary market he wants, as if the case with cable.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    25. Re:Also announced... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      QED you are assigned to the Burlington market.

      No, that applies to other, more northern parts of Western NH. In my area, we need large antennas here to pull in anything from either Burlington VT or Manchester NH, none are available without large gear. Given the choice, most locals point their antennas at Manchester.

      There was a PBS station repeating off of a closer mountain, but I'm not sure its current status (and there's no FCC market based off that mountain, which would actually make some economic sense).

      Of course in reality, DTV's reach is actually much shorter with larged unserved areas between the DMAs, but nobody seems willing to admit that.

      Right, it's now even further divorced from reality. Again, free choice would make this easy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    26. Re:Also announced... by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada where very few places have good OTA service, even for the government-sponsored channels.

      I also only pay $23/mo for my satellite TV service, so I don't feel too bad about it at all, and it includes full HD programming.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    27. Re:Also announced... by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Nope, from my PC at the office. I have DSL @ home and no cable package. It is possible to unplug from the BS. I use hulu for the little bit of cable programming I'm interested in and Netflix streaming for some other diversions as well as over the air HD DVR'd to my MythTV box. I also watch a lot of content through boxee. I DON'T pay for cable, and I actually enjoy what I watch a lot more now and have more choices than I did (now that I've put the effort in to search them out and build my own gear) when I was limited to the two or three things a day that I was remotely interested in on the 100+ channels of crap that was streaming into my house.

  4. So will the Scranton branch be absorbing Stamford?

    Who will Jan find to run it?

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  5. More like... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Congress has already said it will hold a hearing to investigate how much money Comcast will line their pockets with in order to gain "undue advantages" from the deal that gives it access to programming.

    FTFY

    1. Re:More like... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      If they actually were to name the hearings that, then it would be a breath of fresh air. At least they would be up front with us as to what's really going on.

  6. whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by czarangelus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Who cares? Does anybody still watch that crap? All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead. There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.

    Good to see these propaganda arms of the State cannibalizing each other, kuru and death should follow soon enough.

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    1. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

      That was pretty hardcore dude. You're soooo nonconformist. Keep raging against the machine while Cheetos dust covers your neckbeard down in your parent's basement.

    2. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by maxume · · Score: 1

      If it is so bad, you should call them ShitTorrents.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by pwnies · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's virtually nothing good on television anyway

      It's ok dude, I'm sure they're gonna bring back Firefly. It's true cause I signed this one petition online and everything!

    4. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by gregarican · · Score: 1

      Very true. Amazingly enough in 2009 someone can get a hit on their pager, call up their buddy on a rotary-dial POTS phone, and go over the latest want ads in the local newspaper. All in a quest to move out of the basement...

    5. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by czarangelus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Conformists are the murderers of civilizations

      Of course, non-conformity in one respect is often a signal that a person will have oppositional-defiant disorder in other locations as well. A person who refuses instruction in school will often be found to be intractable by religious leaders seeking to save their soul. An anti-authoritarian personality will disrupt the just and proper function of society everywhere they go; another example is insisting on a trial even when they know they're guilty. They should all be culled, but the tragic irony is that the intelligence required to maintain our institutions is the same intelligence that naturally grows in opposition to them.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    6. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must've missed the part about NBC Universal having several highly lucrative cable channels such as Bravo, USA, MSNBC, and perhaps most of interest to slashdotters, SyFy.

    7. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so not only do you have a neck beard, but you also wear Birkenstocks and a tie died T-shirt. Do you live in Berkley by any chance?

    8. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by qoncept · · Score: 2

      Dead? Wow. Apparently the 300 million people in the US that are going to turn their TVs on tonight are pretty oblivious, too. Who knew?

      --
      Whale
    9. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Let me guess, you're typing this all while listening to Linkin Park, NIN or Rage Against the Machine, right? Thanks for making my point, though.

    10. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      BTW it's also amusing how much you disparage their content and yet you still download it from BitTorrent to watch it. Rage out, dude!!!

    11. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by czarangelus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Honestly, I wish I could express to you in words how happy it makes me to get responses like this. There is nothing more fulfilling in the world than the righteous indignation of the prick'd simian. I really, really want to thank you for your concern and interest. No joke - thank you.

      As to my musical preferences, I think Immortal Technique, Dead Prez, Jedi Mind Tricks, Talib Kweli, and Sniper provide us with a more authentic and more literate example of the anti-conformist message.

      Which is why the media companies are already dead. They pander to the least common denominator and that ultimately satisfies nobody. Bland, artificial vanilla, Diet Coke and upper middle class bourgoisie. As the financial crisis gets more entertaining, fewer and fewer people will be interested in the message.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    12. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I would have enjoyed that TV show a lot more if all the actors went topless

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 1, Funny

      As to my musical preferences, I think Immortal Technique, Dead Prez, Jedi Mind Tricks, Talib Kweli, and Sniper provide us with a more authentic and more literate example of the anti-conformist message.

      So your tastes are actually worse than I thought. Secondly, the more times you have to point out that you're non-conformist just goes to show how much of a tool you are.

      Which is why the media companies are already dead. They pander to the least common denominator and that ultimately satisfies nobody.

      And yet you still download their content from bittorrent. I'm sure that shows them good, right?!??! Right??!

    14. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by NoYob · · Score: 1

      There is nothing more fulfilling in the world than the righteous indignation of the prick'd simian.

      I prefer "bald tailless monkey".

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    15. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by kalirion · · Score: 1

      The Office, 30 Rock, Better of Ted just to name a few. I just hope Comcast doesn't take them off Hulu.

    16. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      The lack of money is exactly why I watch the networks, and while they're not going anywhere. While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free. Sure I miss the cable channels, but it's not like there's nothing on. NBC alone has Conan O'Brien, The Office, 30 Rock, Law and Order, and SNL.

      People are realizing that the networks are the most affordable way to watch good TV and that's not going to change anytime soon.

    17. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Wow, 97% of the US population, infants and the homeless included, watch TV every night? Far out, man!

    18. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by dunezone · · Score: 1

      ...and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.

      I assume you're talking about using BitTorrent to download copyrighted material?

      That free ride wont last forever.

      There's virtually nothing good on television anyway

      Southpark

    19. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another example is insisting on a trial even when they know they're guilty.

      Many times trials aren't about right vs. wrong or innocent vs. guilty but whether or not "they" can prove you did it.
      If you're guilty by they can't prove it (OJ Simpson?) then going to trial makes sense.
      Likewise, if one of your enemies is innocent but you can 'prove' they aren't: it makes sense to use courts to harm them.

    20. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      I prefer "bald tailless monkey".

      That whole bald part certainly does not apply to me; I am covered in hair, as I suspect a large portion of my fellow nerds are.

      --
      SSC
    21. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by jeffshoaf · · Score: 1

      All mainstream media outlets are giant dinosaurs too stupid to realize they're already dead. There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.

      So, where will the stuff on BitTorrent come from once the dinosaurs realize they're dead because the ad revenues are gone and stop producing content?

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    22. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for Morena Baccarin, but the show was pretty damn good anyway.

    23. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi what is your something awful dot com user id man

    24. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      FioS HDTV is uncompressed...

      Yeah, suck on that Comcast.

    25. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's virtually nothing good on television anyway; ad revenues are plummeting as consumers have no more money to spend, and anybody savvy just uses BitTorrent anyway.

      So, what exactly is it that you're torrenting again? After all, you just said that there's nothing worth watching. So clearly you aren't watching any TV shows.

    26. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Could be better. He didn't even use the word "sheeple." Sheesh.

    27. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Uncompressed 1080p would take something around 750 mbits of bandwidth to transmit. I highly doubt that Verizon is providing that much bandwith to each of their customers for HDTV service.

    28. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      Or movies or music either. Oh and he can't pirate books because that also comes from those media dinosaurs too. He's probably just torrenting Linux ISOs and public domain music and movies.

    29. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by MChisholm · · Score: 1

      Not disagreeing with you, but every episode of South Park is available to stream on their website.

    30. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by sorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would have enjoyed that TV show a lot more if all the actors went topless

      Ugghh...CBS Tried that with the Golden Girls once, and that episode sucked!

    31. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Guess you don't have FioS in your area.

      Verizon simply takes the content as they get it from the station, and forwards it onto their users.

      Comcast on the other hand, compresses it more and then sends it down the wires.

      here is the discussion about it

    32. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by dangitman · · Score: 1

      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

      OK, Mr. Genius. Put down the floppy diskette and slowly step away from the "time machine."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    33. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Actually stats I have seen suggest the percentage is pretty close to that. Also let not forget that there are lots of illegal immigrants, students, and visitors. So yeah I'd buy 300 million.

    34. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      You're trying to play internet tough guy? On /.?

      Reallllly?

      Just how sad IS your life?

    35. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Troll harder, he hasn't responded to all your posts yet! Your existence must be affirmed!!!

    36. Re:whom the gods would destroy they first make mad by Firehed · · Score: 1

      That's not uncompressed, that's just not double-compressed. That being said, the studios probably send out a signal that's compressed just enough to get it down to a reasonable size while avoiding any crazy-obvious artifacting. As noted above, uncompressed HD takes a truly absurd amount of bandwidth (1920x1080x3x24 Bps ~ 142MBps ~ 1.1Gbps, and that's just for 24p material - multiply by 2.5 for 60p. Give or take, as video has all sorts of weird formatting stuff that math doesn't account for)

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  7. We have FAR too many large companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this happens, then we need to disallow ANY monopolies that comcast has. That includes all their cable connections.

    Otherwise, the feds sould say no. As it is, we have far too many large companies that 'can not fail'. Instead, we need more competition.

    1. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      I agree that Comcast is too large at this point and should be hit with the monopoly hammer. I don't think it counts as "too big to fail" though -- society would not be ruined if people lost their cable tv like if they lost their homes or cars. In fact, losing certain shows might improve society considerably.

    2. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Comcast is too large? You realize the part they're buying was owned by Vivendi and GE, right, two of the biggest companies in the world?

    3. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      GE is just a finance company. Moving NBC from a finance company to a cable company might stir up the industry a bit, don't you think?

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    4. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Comcast definitely isn't "too big to fail." Comcast fails just fine regardless of it's size.

    5. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      I'm mostly peeved because they bought up my local cable company. Since then, the service has been dropping out several times a day and my bill has doubled. Their techs came out to fix things twice, charging each time but not fixing the problem. They also called me a geek because I had Ubuntu running on my laptop, which was not compatible with their modem. It was compatible just fine before they took over though....

    6. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a finance company?? GE Healthcare, GE Aircraft Engines, GE Infrastructure, GE Appliances, GE Energy...... All of which are steady moneymakers, if not outright giants in and of themselves.

      GE is an everything company... they know how to do business in any industry.

    7. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. GE is pretty much a Chinese company now.

    8. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. I hate to break this too you, but if you're running Ubuntu... you are a geek. But it is kind of weird the cable modem doesn't work - I used to run Fedora without any problem, and I have Comcast.

    9. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by "stir up the industry a bit". GE is far from being just a finance company - they make everything from MRI machines to jet engines. As a result there is precious little NBC could report on that doesn't affect some part of the parent company. I'd much rather have a cable company running the network than a company that has a financial interest in selling fighters to despots, say, or getting favorable banking legislation through Congress.

      The most Comcast can do is somehow favor their new pet network, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal now that everyone has 150 channels.

    10. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by znerk · · Score: 1

      Comcast 16/2(D/U) service. Ubuntu server on an old P-3 as a router. No issues. Incompatible? I call shenanigans.
      More likely, the techs don't know the OS, so obviously it's incompatible. Sorry, TCP/IP is one of those "cross-platform" things, ya dig?

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    11. Re:We have FAR too many large companies by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Sheinhardt Wig Company and the AHP Chanagi Party Meats company of Pyongyang, North Korea.

  8. Note to Jay Leno by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Dear Mr Leno,

    Consequent to we being acquired by Comcast, our new CEO Heisa I Diot has directed you to remove all Cable Guy coming late, Cable companies forcing you to stay home all day for a 5 minute service jokes from your repertoire. Please remember the number of stattelite receptions breaking off at the most importunate moment will have a bearing when the annual bonuses are discussed. Have a nice day

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Note to Jay Leno by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe anyone would imply Jay Leno is an arrogant, overrated network whore whose pedestrian humor wasn't even funny 30 years ago, and who would climb over his mother's dead body for another overinflated paycheck with which to buy another hedonistic toy to add to his vast collection of self-indulgent excess. I just can't believe that.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Note to Jay Leno by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Dear Comcast,

      I'm moving to ABC.

      signed,
      Mr.Leno

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Note to Jay Leno by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Say what you want about the quality of his work. But the mother's dead body etc are OTT. Ran into him in some high way rest stop. He was riding with a bunch of motor cyclists. Nicest celebrity one would have met. Very down to earth and posed for pictures for all, despite being without make-up and being out in the sun on a hot day with sweat and grime making him look older. Nice guy. He would not have climbed over his mother's dead body even for the original 1895 Daimler.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Note to Jay Leno by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      can't believe anyone would imply Jay Leno is an arrogant, overrated network whore whose pedestrian humor wasn't even funny 30 years ago, and who would climb over his mother's dead body for another overinflated paycheck with which to buy another hedonistic toy to add to his vast collection of self-indulgent excess. I just can't believe that.

      Sounds like you're describing pretty much all celebrities.

    5. Re:Note to Jay Leno by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      for another overinflated paycheck with which to buy another hedonistic toy

      Leno's motto has always been "tell joke, get paycheck." He's never been duplicitous in this regard.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Note to Jay Leno by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I see his publicists are out in force today.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Note to Jay Leno by Binary+Boy · · Score: 1

      Bah - I hate his show, have never found him funny, but he is well known for being friendly and down to earth in person, unlike many of his peers - he's a lucky bastard and he knows it. I met him briefly once (working in the automotive media industry in LA) and had a similar experience as the GP, and everyone I know who's had encounters with him has said the same.

      Not all celebs are total douches, and making a ton of money doing something that is basically harmless and using it to enjoy your life is forgivable in my book.

      Oh, and in case it wasn't clear - I agree with the overrated network whore with pedestrian humor part.

    8. Re:Note to Jay Leno by dangitman · · Score: 1

      but he is well known for being friendly and down to earth in person, unlike many of his peers

      Yes, that's the way he portrays himself - I wonder how much that is an act, though? Perhaps he is a down-to-earth guy, but when it comes to people like Leno I always wonder if there is anything sincere about them at all, because they have become so subsumed by their stage personality.

      I find it hard to believe that anyone so wealthy and famous could be "down to earth" in the way that "regular folk" are. When you don't have to worry about money, and can buy and sell people, can "down to earth" be anything more than a charade?

      Oh, and in case it wasn't clear - I agree with the overrated network whore with pedestrian humor part.

      Well, at least there's something we can all agree on - I wonder if this could become the basis of the most successful international pact ever signed?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Note to Jay Leno by s73v3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a Douche Bag doesn't actually act like a Douche Bag to anyone, are they really a Douche Bag?

  9. Bad News for TW customers by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a Time Warner customer, I look forward to losing NBC again this Summer as Time Warner tries to convince me that the evil NBC wants to charge me more money for my tv, and how Time Warner is either forced to raise my rates, or drop NBC coverage. Lame, lame, lame. AT&T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.

    1. Re:Bad News for TW customers by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Was that NBC, or just your local station demanding more money?

      Also can't you get the station for free with an antenna?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Bad News for TW customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.

      And you think that'll change the way your new cable company will treat you?

    3. Re:Bad News for TW customers by fishthegeek · · Score: 1

      AT&T, please extend your service about 10 more miles south.

      So you WANT to be an AT&T customer? You don't hear that every day.

      --
      load "$",8,1
    4. Re:Bad News for TW customers by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You think ATT is any better? What do you do when you have to pick between Company A that will abuse you, Company B that will abuse you, or Company C that will abuse you? You get modern America! We did it! Yay! I have the opposite problem you do, at one of my event sites all I can get is ATT DSL which got slower after they bought out SBC. Comcast needs to extend their cable 1000 feet and I can have cable Internet at my site instead of 3meg DSL! Course Comcast cable sucks there too at something like 15meg which is frustrating since I live in AZ where I can get 50meg residential cable. Quite annoying!

    5. Re:Bad News for TW customers by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Time Warner has had four public spats in Austin and San Antonio since I moved here two years ago. The first time I gave the benefit of the doubt to Time Warner. Those bastard NBC affiliates want to charge Time Warner for access...screw NBC! Then I heard the same claim in San Antonio, except it was ABC being the meanie. Then again last fall, Time Warner claimed NBC was raising rates, and they lost the NFL network for the same reason. Then I hear in San Antonio, they have the NFL network, but another NBC affiliate there wants more money.

      It's time for Time Warner to take a close look and understand that when everybody is out to get you, maybe YOU are the problem.

      By the way, AT&T in Austin has NFL network and has had zero conflict with NBC and ABC, no network tv outages, and they haven't raised their rates in two years. Time Warner not only lost NBC (twice) for the entire Fall, and NEVER got the NFL network back, they've also raised my rates three times, claiming they had to do so because of NBC and ABC...convenient, that.

      Here's Time Warner Cable's incredibly lame attempt to persuade consumers that the networks are to blame: http://www.rolloverorgettough.com/?IID=15DC9682-3A72-4D85-BCC9-7D4D2EB8E02C

    6. Re:Bad News for TW customers by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The FCC should just mandate that the broadcast networks can not charge any cable company when said cable company wants to carry said broadcast network.
      And that the broadcast networks cannot refuse to allow a cable company to carry them.

    7. Re:Bad News for TW customers by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I wanted to be an ATT customer ever since u-verse started popping up in my area. Now I am one and it's great. What's supposed to be so bad about them?

    8. Re:Bad News for TW customers by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy with having a choice of two or three alternative providers. I live in a city of 1.6 million people, yet in my part of town, there is only ONE cable provider available. I could get satellite, I suppose, but it sure would be nice for some competition, so that Time Warner can't just arbitrarily make up rates, and then lose NBC broadcast rights every fall.

  10. Well, there goes what's left of G4 by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    "Attack of the Show," "X-play" and all the other last lingering remnants of the TechTV glory days are probably going to be replaced with old "Cheers" reruns. They've already started rerunning "Lost" and "Heroes" on G4. Pretty soon the G will stand for "generic."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4 by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Attack of the Show doesn't even deserve to have it's name put anywhere near the name TechTV. AotS is not The Screen Savers. X-Play is the only thing that survived the merger.

    2. Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4 by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Those shows are targeted at the EXACT group of people that see 0% benefit in watching a show vs going to Google and searching "new ATI video card"

      Why the HELL would I want to listen to some 40 year old guy go over technology news? What can he tell me that I can't find on the internet?

      I'd rather see a Springer ripoff that pits MS employees vs Google employees. Now THAT has entertainment value.

    3. Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4 by maxume · · Score: 1

      I see you have never actually watched Attack of the Show, it is clearly just what you are looking for.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw you, dirty hippee. Olivia Munn is hot, and I'd rather have mislabelled TV with her, than bland tech banter without.

    5. Re:Well, there goes what's left of G4 by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Oh man, you will smoke a turd in the deepest sewer of hell for insulting Leo Laporte. Even Jesus looks up to that guy.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Bad news for viewers and Internet competition by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    but good news for GE bond holders. Cash from Comcast should enable them to pay off some of their debts.

  12. They are evil, not stupid by CorporateSuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I could only hope this would end in disaster for both evil corporations.

    Yet, I have serious doubts about that. When two legions that have sold their souls to the devil for money combine on a project that seems doomed from the start, I'm wary to dismiss it on the grounds that it defies common sense, and try to find out what they're looking at.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    1. Re:They are evil, not stupid by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      I'm Robert Hanlon, and I disapprove of this message ;-)

    2. Re:They are evil, not stupid by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      The last time I heard about Comcast buying a TV channel, it was Tech TV and it did end in disaster...

  13. How can if fail? by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    When TW bought AoL, AoL had chatrooms which were already horribly out of date and irrelevant.
    NBC has Leno. I don't see how this could fail

    1. Re:How can if fail? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Minor nitpick. AOL bought TW, then TW turned around a swallowed AOL. Big miscalculation on the part of Steve Case.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  14. You're missing the big picture. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comcast is gunning for vertical integration. In order to optimize the benefits from its vertical integration, it has a very strong incentive to prioritize NBC sites and content over other sites and content.

    I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content, only available to Comcast users. In and of itself not a bad deal, but there is very little difference to the end-user between optimizing delivery of your own stuff and throttling delivery of other people's stuff - except that one is dirt cheap to do, and the other is expensive. In a few years, I'm expecting Comcast to offer sites like it currently offers channels: with different pay tiers and different performance.

    Nice troll sig, by the way. I'll reply with a quote from Sagan: " They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:You're missing the big picture. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>I'm convinced that Comcast's package will include optimized delivery for NBC sites and content

      "If you watch videos elsewhere, it will count towards your 250 GB limit, but videos watched on nbc.com, nsnbc.com, cnbc.com, bravo.com, usa.com, and other NBC or Comcast-owned sites will not be counted." - Future comcast update to their TOS

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:You're missing the big picture. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:You're missing the big picture. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Someone remind me, did Congress pass net neutrality laws yet or not? Because if they did, that would stop Comcast from pulling that crap.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  15. Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's the dinosaurs who are the ones funding the production of the entertainments that you are, ummm, appropriating from the torrents. You'd better hope they stay flush somehow, or the only piece of new content left to pirate will be Joss Whedon's grocery list. Oh, wait, I know -- we'll just instruct all the professional producers and directors to put their work on their blogs and fund production on what we tip them in PayPal. Worked for This Guy, didn't it?

    1. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      I'm a grown man with a live-in girlfriend and a full time job. Media companies shouldn't underestimate my ability to find other things to do with my time.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    2. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by LOLLinux · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm a grown man with a live-in girlfriend and a full time job.

      Translation: I have a fleshlight and my "job" is to make sure the house is swept and I clean the bathrooms every day before I can post on Slashdot otherwise I don't get my weekly allowance.

    3. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      Czarangelus Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, affects thousands of families every year. Symptoms include sweaty palms, elevated heartbeat, and increased douchebaggery. If you think you or someone you love is suffering from CDS, please get help. The life you save could be your own.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    4. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1
      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they sure as hell don't want to lose the "single person consisting of you" demographic.

    6. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Czarangelus Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, affects thousands of families every year.

      All of whom exist solely in your imagination. You don't have what it takes to enrage anyone.

    7. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by dangitman · · Score: 1

      live-in girlfriend

      You live in your girlfriend? Couldn't you afford an apartment with your full-tim salary?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    8. Re:Spoken Like a True Narrow-Minded Consumer by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We dont need them. Their budgets are way too high, they pay their actors more per film than most people make in a lifetime, and for what...for them to stand around and woodenly repeat lines made by writers who are worse than your average third grader?

      trek '09? terminator salvation? harry potter?
      give me a BREAK!

      We don't need them! The faster they die the better!

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  16. Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by macwhizkid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this was on the front page of every news outlet... almost two days ago. I know that there's a bit of a lag time to get things on Slashdot, but honestly, is it asking that much to post big stories the same day they happen?

    1. Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect, we're too busy wargarbling over emailgate.

    2. Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when Slashdot did finally post it (I'm sure 50 different submitters submitted the story), they picked on with an incorrect title:

      "Comcast to Buy 51% of NBC, GE Goes After 49%"

      GE is not "going after" 49% of NBC--GE already owns NBC; it's just decided to sell 51% of something it currently owns 100%.

    3. Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here at slashdot we get news articles later than elsewhere because of the large ammount of background research and spellchecking the editors put into each article. You pay a price for good editing.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by macwhizkid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all that good editing would be the reason GE selling half a company they previously owned 100% of * gets reported as "GE goes after 49%" of NBC, eh? Quite the hostile takeover, there.

      Yeah, I'm new here. :)

      (*Yeah, I know prior to Dec 1, GE owned only 80%.)

    5. Re:Slashdot: Yesterday's News... Today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just made my day, good sir.

  17. This was the way it used to be... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Informative

    Originally NBC was owned by the now defunct RCA. NBC was founded essentially to make content so that RCA could sell more Radios and then Televisions and all the equipment needed to create a radio and tv station. So, not only did RCA own the pipe, they had actually owned the -hardware-. Eventually GE would buy RCA in the early 1980s for the sole purpose of getting NBC. They basically kept NBC, closed RCA, but sold the logo to the French. As an Ex-RCA Employee, I still curse Jack Welch but.... in those days, the merger of RCA and GE which should have been seen as troubling was almost irrelevant as both companies were still selling tubes in the age of the transistor and Sony was really stomping up a storm.

    Bottom line is, yeah, it will be a big company, but there's a lot of other media and a lot of other competition out there.

    [disclosure: I live in the Philly area and, having lost the World Series to the Yankees, the thought of the NBC HQ from NYC to Philly seems like it would be really sweet. They got the team, but we get the TV].

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:This was the way it used to be... by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      They'll need more room on City Line Ave... or they could move into that new huge building that could pretty much block out the sun if they wanted to.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    2. Re:This was the way it used to be... by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're from philly, you know how shitty comcast is, and why old women smash their offices with a hammer.

      Of course this isn't the same now; NBC is a lot more than just NBC, and while NBC broadcast TV and RCA made TVs, they didn't OWN the method of broadcast. Comcast (and cable / sat.) is the ONLY way to receive most channels today. Add in to this that comcast also controls many peoples connection to the internet, and thats where the problelm comes in.

    3. Re:This was the way it used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RCA is still alive, I think. I bought a TV from them at Wal-Mart in 2005. Still working too.

    4. Re:This was the way it used to be... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The company is dead, but the RCA trademark lives on. Your TV is most likely a re-branded Audiovox.

  18. Ruinous for customers. by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 1

    When are we as a country going to learn? We gave these shitheads municipal monopoly power, and now they want to radically expand their control. What we need is a law that states this: You can own the pipe, or you can deliver through the pipe, but you cannot do both.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
    1. Re:Ruinous for customers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish someone (or hell I'll say it, the gubment) would just build a dumb IP network out to everywhere and everything would become a service. TV (per channel), phone, anything else.... I think a government owned network would have more privacy safeguards in place over a private network anyway.

    2. Re:Ruinous for customers. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      What we need is for Americans to value principles more than cheap entertainment. Everyone complains about what they pay and what little they get but the vast majority of people just grin and bear it. More than that, they'd go nuts without their daily fix of American Idol or some other crap tv show. If even half their subscribers canceled all of a sudden I'm pretty sure things would start changing. But then most don't even know or care to know what's going on. There's not much we can do about that.

    3. Re:Ruinous for customers. by znerk · · Score: 1

      If half their subscribers canceled "all of a sudden", they would fold. They're too large to be able to sustain themselves at that level of (lost) profits. On the other hand, if you could get half their subscriber base to agree to *anything*, you should run for office.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  19. GE goes AFTER 49%? by aengblom · · Score: 1

    They were the majority owner previously. Way to be a day late AND wrong.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  20. Terrible wording by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

    GE currently owns a majority stake in NBC Universal (they needed to negotiate with the other owner, Vivendi, before they could proceed with this deal). Under the deal, a new company is being formed, with GE contributing NBC Universal and Comcast contributing some of their content assets and a bunch cash (or cash like assets). Comcast ends up with 51% ownership of the new company, and GE 49%.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:Terrible wording by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia makes the claim that GE has already bought out Vivendi's stake, so this is effectively just GE selling Comcast 51% stake in NBC Universal. Granted that the way they are doing this is by creating a new company and transferring assets, but that is just a technicality. The only differences that makes is that a new corporate charter will be drafted, and some executives may not inherit an equivalent position in the new company, plus a handful of obscure accounting issues.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  21. Comcast needs to be split up by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    into three separate companies:
    1. infrastructure, i.e., the wire and fibre on the poles
    2. ISP and phone services
    3. content provider

    This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.

    1. Re:Comcast needs to be split up by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.

      Why don't you get your government to stop granting monopolies instead? They caused your problem, don't ask them to try to fix it too, they'll do just as good as job.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Comcast needs to be split up by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the US governments (federal, state, and/or local) made a mistake: They didn't retain ownership of the lines.

      Since avoiding duplicate lines was the entire point of the government granted monopolies on phone and cable, giving ownership of said lines to the corporations was a HUGE mistake. Especially since the taxpayers were the ones paying for the lines to begin with through government subsidies paid for by our tax money.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:Comcast needs to be split up by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      This will allow for competition for those people who are stuck with Comcast being the sole provider.

      Big business wants free markets, not competitive ones.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Comcast needs to be split up by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      The problem is the bundling of the lines, services, and content.

    5. Re:Comcast needs to be split up by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and don't even think about the '$200B broadband scandal' - we paid *and* got nothing.

      Communal ownership of infrastructure really does make the most sense. It's just a shame that history demonstrates there's no way to do that without greed, corruption, and ineptitude marring the projects.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  22. Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs? by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wonder what effect this will have on plots in 30 Rock. Is Jack going to gun for CEO of Comcast now? That lacks the same punch.

    1. Re:Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given that it is moderately entertaining, it will likely be canceled.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs? by TheTrollToll · · Score: 0

      Though i suppose there are many other more valuable questions to ask that was my first and most pressing question in regards to this story.

    3. Re:Did anyone consult Shinehart Wigs? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      i thought that was Fox's MO.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  23. Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me an idiot (and im sure people will :) but what the frak does a company like General Electric want with a company like NBC Universal in the first place ?

    1. Re:Excuse me... by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Because that's what conglomerates do. They diversify. And there seems to be some confusion. GE already owned an 80% stake in NBC. In layman's terms they actually have to buy the remaining 20%, then sell 51% to Comcast.

    2. Re:Excuse me... by daivzhavue · · Score: 1

      They own it already? Well, a majority stake anyway.

      --
      "A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
    3. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's what conglomerates do. They diversify

      Because conglomerates diversify? Oh, well, I guess that's as good an explanation as any, I guess. Guess it's that it's just me then, like I never 'got' the MSNBC deal either. :(

    4. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot....
      There is this thing called money, people and companies want more of it, to obtain more of it they purchase other companies....
      Living in your Mom's basement you probably don't have much experience with this thing called money but it is what enables your mother to pay for the internet that you use to post on slashdot.

    5. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.... There is this thing called money, people and companies want more of it, to obtain more of it they purchase other companies.... Living in your Mom's basement you probably don't have much experience with this thing called money but it is what enables your mother to pay for the internet that you use to post on slashdot.

      Allright, I guess I kinda asked for this, but it seemed to me that companies would invest in or buy up companies that have similar or complementing activities, and not something entirely different from what they are doing now. Guess Im wrong there, so shoot me.

    6. Re:Excuse me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you're NOT being an idiot in this case. GE is, in fact, SELLING majority stake in NBC Universal with an option to sell the remaining stake by... well, I forgot the date. At any rate, they're trying to get OUT of "non core" businesses like NBC and this is one step to doing so

  24. Hulu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NBC Universal owns (a large part of) Hulu.

    Hulu obviously competes with Comcast's cable TV offerings. They'd much rather you pay for a cable TV subscription than watch the same shows for free, legally, online.

    Ever since the deal was announced, Comcast has made a few noises about not wanting to kill Hulu off, but excuse me if I don't quite believe them given their track record.

    1. Re:Hulu by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Wow, some people have a short memory.

      Hulu May Begin Charging For Content Next Year, a news article from 5-6 weeks ago. Which was from a quote by the president and COO of News Corp. News Corp (FOX) also owns (a large part of) Hulu.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  25. What happens to Hulu? by midicase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't NBC partly own Hulu? Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?

    1. Re:What happens to Hulu? by 13bPower · · Score: 1

      CEO said they "will ... crush it like a bug"

    2. Re:What happens to Hulu? by srollyson · · Score: 1

      There's a New York Times article that discusses the conflict of interest. Of particular interest is this quote:

      “Hollywood needs a toll collector,” said Todd Dagres of the venture capital firm Spark Capital, and “Comcast can play the part because online video will erode traditional cable.”

      Hulu's not going anywhere. Instead, it will probably be relegated to second-tier content. The content providers will charge for the new stuff and continue to file DMCA notices if content ends up elsewhere. They'll throw the people a bone, charge for the meat, and sue the pants off the vegetarians. Sounds like a Murdochian utopia.

    3. Re:What happens to Hulu? by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Hulu is mainly a joint venture between NBC, ABC, and Fox.

      I noticed all the articles about this deal killing Hulu--sure NBC has nearly all their shows on Hulu, but why bloggers are trying to make Hulu = NBC... I don't understand.

    4. Re:What happens to Hulu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Comcast's Cable system in competition with Hulu?

      Not anymore!

    5. Re:What happens to Hulu? by powerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because NBC was the main push behind Hulu bringing programming from NBC, USA and SyFy (nee' SciFi).

      Fox is certainly on board, but ABC has only recently started to dip their toe into the waters and put their content on it (and even then, its tentative, marketing type runs). Most of ABC's on-line show related content is still locked up in their proprietary web-site and Flash GUI. The only other network that is even close to them is the CW (do they even count as a network anymore?)

      If Comcast takes over NBC and decides to cancel or otherwise interfere with Hulu broadcasting more that the current Hulu standard, it could impact the use/utility of the service.

      It remains to be seen if another service would rise in its place (although I hope one would).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  26. Does this make sense? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Seems like America keeps making the same mistake over and over again. Don't allow a regulated monopoly to be a distributor and the content provider. Failure to follow this inevitably results in corruption and anti-competitive behavior. This applies to:

    - Power production and power distribution
    - Cellular network providers, cellular phone manufacturers, voice service providers
    - Phone companies and voice providers
    - Internet service providers and internet content providers
    - Cable television delivery and cable content providers
    - The Telegraph (recent Slashdot article on this)

    The smoke has not yet cleared over Comcast illegally throttling connections. Why the heck would we consider allowing them to own a major content provider?

    1. Re:Does this make sense? by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      That would be because the people who make these same bad decisions over and over are not the ones who suffer the consequences. Even if they DID "suffer" from these and never hold a job again, etc. they still have enough money to live more extravagantly than most of us can imagine for the rest of their lives. They have absolutely no reason to not do what makes them the most amount of money right now at any cost. That goes for the owners of the mega -corps and the government bodies "regulating" them. There is no "we" considering this from my standpoint, only a "they" considering this.

  27. Double-Plus Un-Good by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1
    There's a really cool article at ArsTechnica describing what can happen when a monopoly controls the information pipeline from source to delivery... in this case, the pipeline was the telegraph network, aka the Victorian Internet.

    "Western Union secretly siphoned to AP's [Associated Press] general agent Henry Nash Smith the telegraph correspondence of key Democrats during the struggle. Smith, in turn, relayed this intelligence to the Hayes camp with instructions on how to proceed. On top of that, AP constantly published propaganda supporting the Republican side of the story. Meanwhile, Western Union insisted that it kept "all messages whatsoever . . . strictly private and confidential." Tilden supporters weren't fooled. By the end of the debacle -- [Rutherford] Hayes having won the White House -- they called AP "Hayessociated Press."

    Anyway, I would feel better if beleaguered NBC was being bought by a company a little less awful. A typical Comcast "service" center looks like the visitor's lounge at a prison, bullet-proof glass and everything. This is the company that will have editorial control over NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  28. Monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My local government has said that if I get cable television or internet, it must be Comcast. Meanwhile the Federal government is going to investigate to see if Comcast has "undue advantages." Um...yes, but not in the way you're going to spend 9 months and thousands upon thousands of tax-payer dollars you're investigating.

  29. Filed in 1938... it took until '48 to decide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...they promised that this was in the best interest of their customers in order to ensure that everyone gets their fair share.

    This makes me think of the US v. Paramount Pictures Supreme Court case, also known as the "Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948". Once upon a time, film studios owned a large number of theaters. The studios-- and not the theater owners-- could dictate which films would be played and for how long (aka "block booking"), how much money would go to the studio vs. the theater etc. The result was less competition for good films, less profit for the theaters, and the studio dictated what the people saw.

    This "vertical integration" -- controlling the production and delivery of the product top-to-bottom -- was decided 7-1 as an anti-competitive de facto oligopoly and the studios had to divest themselves of their theaters. The courts said that having one industry substantially control production of entertainment as well as its delivery network was monopolistic and a restraint on trade. They actually separated Paramount into two companies-- the studio (Paramount Pictures Corp.) and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters).

    I don't see how this Comcast thing is much different, but then, the underlying principals of this and most other regulatory decisions of the 1930s-40s have been thrown out the window to favor corporations interests over those of the public.

    Note that the decision in this case, if you put it in the digital age, is even more dramatic than simple "network neutrality". It doesn't just suggest you must treat all content the same when delivering content. The principal idea as I read it is that if the studios-- say, Time Warner-- produces content, they shouldn't also monopolize the industry that delivers that content (say via Time Warner Cable). NBC and Comcast, to me, would have similar issues.

    I've never understood why the Paramount Decree doesn't apply automatically. Probably because the Internet grew so fast as a legit media delivery system that the laws haven't yet caught up. But it seems to me that Network Neutrality would be a compromise position promoted by these cable/ISPs to ensure fair competition so they don't get separated from their parent companies.

    In fact, thinking about it, yeah-- Network Neutrality does seem to be the compromise position (almost like the public option vs. single payer). Why isn't the public (EFF, etc.) asking to kill the whole vertical monopoly system? (Or... given the makeup of the court, it might backfire, and we'd be back to Fox Theaters and Paramount Theaters everwhere...)

    Incidentally, as I understand it, the same thing has already happened in TV. Back in the day, individual producers would make shows and sell the rights to show them to the networks. Now, the networks produce the shows, own the shows, and distribute the shows. Top to bottom.

  30. Not Funny... by tunapez · · Score: 1

    Don't mod the OP funny, mod Insightful.

    DTV Versus Comcast

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  31. Directv must be feeling the heat by jj00 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First Versus, and now this. Directv must feel like they can't win.

    I guess when the time comes I'll cut the lines to my satellite dish and just accept my new cable company overlords.

    1. Re:Directv must be feeling the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a hockey fan, I hate it. But if this means more hockey games on NBC, I'm all for it, as my shitty provider has neither NHL Network or VS

    2. Re:Directv must be feeling the heat by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      As a hockey fan as well, I also hate VS camera work for covering games it's horrible.

  32. I'm concerned about TV and the Internet... by norminator · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of the discussion of the dangers here are about the TV aspect of all of this, but here's something else that concerns me:

    I watched some of Glenn Beck's "coverage" of Net Neutrality on YouTube once, and was shocked at how he pretty much left out what net neutrality actually means, added in a bunch of negative stuff that doesn't have anything to do with neutrality and told some lies that were somewhat related to neutrality. He complains that companies like Google are hypocrites because those guys made billions off of capitalism and now they supposedly want the government to steal control of the Internet from private industry (according to Beck).

    So now that the only broadband ISP available in my area will own the majority of shares in the company that owns Glenn Beck's rival network, who's to say that Comcast won't degrade or charge me more to access either the Fox News channel on TV, or the Fox News website or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's websites?

    Why is it that Glenn Beck can be so paranoid about little things the government does, or could do, but he doesn't realize how his own viewpoints and lies can sell out our freedoms to the people who are the gatekeepers of TV and the Internet?

  33. Axis of Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast + GE + a part-of-the-problem partisan frenzy news [MSNBC] = Axis of Evil. If I didn't like jet engines, light bulbs, and power plants so much, I would try to avoid this new conglomeration as much as possible.

  34. What's This Really About? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1
    This article supposes that the merger is principally a business bet against the future of the industry.
    That is, Comcast is sitting on wads of cash, and buying NBC/Universal will protect it from...

    * Further extortionist increases in cable content carriage fees
    * The gradual conversion of cable into dumb pipes that just deliver Internet access and IP-video

    FTFA:

    Brian Roberts is thinking that he's sick to death of that bastard Bob Iger at Disney holding him up for higher carriage fees on ESPN, et al, every few years. And, before he bought NBC, Brian was sick to death of that bastard Jeff Zucker holding him up for higher fees on CNBC, et al. Etc. Now, in the future, if anyone does any holding up, Brian Roberts is: 1) going to cash in, too (because now he owns a lot of cable programming), and 2) going to have more leverage in telling Bob Iger, et al, to take a hike.

    Here's where it gets really interesting:

    Eventually, the current cable TV business is toast. There is NO WAY today's teenagers are going to be shelling out $150 a month to get 500 channels they don't watch when what they do watch is available for free over the Internet. Eventually, therefore, this whole "carriage fee" game is done--or at least radically changed. But it's going to take a while. At least 10 years. And all those future adults who are going to be watching TV for free over the Internet in 10 years are still going to need Internet access (or else how are they going to watch?). And Comcast is in a great position to keep providing it.

    So there you have it. What could possibly go wrong with that?

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  35. So will my bill go down in price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I mean now that Comcast won't have to pay NBC and all NBC owned stations, I should have a reduced Comcast bill correct? Of course, I could just be naive....

  36. OTA HDTV is compressed by tepples · · Score: 1

    While friends are spending $100/month to watch a compressed TV signal, I get uncompressed HDTV for free.

    An over-the-air DTV channel is 19 Mbps. "Uncompressed HDTV" is 1920x1080 pixels * 30 frames per second * 12 bits per pixel (assuming downsampled chroma) = 746 Mbps, and that's without audio. So the networks use MPEG-2 video compression and AC-3 audio compression, the same used on DVD-Video, to squeeze the signal into something your antenna can pick up. But I will grant you that OTA is not re-compressed unless your local affiliate tries to pull a PBS and squeeze 1 HDTV channel and three SDTV subchannels into that 19 Mbps stream.

  37. Goodbye NBC by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the majority of Slashdot remembers TechTV. Then Comcast came along, bought it up, and merged it with G4. Then the good parts of TechTV went away (G4 never had good parts). Then TechTV went away entirely. Then most of G4 went away as well; I don't have it in my cable package (thank goodness), but as I understand it G4 has become Spike2, showing 6 hours of COPS, 6 hours of Wrestling, and late at night they might show some gaming content and a rerun of Screensavers.

    NBC has been lacking, but they still have some quality content. You can kiss that all goodbye.

  38. Controlling Interest by Roxton · · Score: 1

    Stock ownership is about two things: financial speculation and power. Why can't consumer interests snap up controlling interests? You know, through user-directed 401k's and coordinated pension funds? Oh right, the Republicans murdered that option with the Taft-Hartley Act after WWII.

    1. Re:Controlling Interest by Roxton · · Score: 1

      I borked the link:
      Taft-Hartley Act

  39. GE is not "going after" 49 percent. by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 1

    GE already had more than that. They are selling enough shares to bring them down to that figure. Either way, this is a terrible idea for our information access system. Mixing content with information distribution infrastructure is exactly the wrong way to go if we want broad-based content and interactivity. Regulators need to be pushing for a return to the Ma Bell model -- the common carrier that has nothing to do with the conversations on its lines. Even if Comcast were a trustworthy company, there's no way it will overcome the temptation to make its own content a little easier and cheaper to access. The owners of the cables need to choose whether to be common carriers or content providers, but not both.

  40. GEC, RCA, NBC, ETC. by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    As noted above the 49% share for GE is a reduction, not a buy in. You can pretty sure this is the case if they take the time to state it's not. The whole family of companies that come and go over and under each others' names, and equally as often with one or more names or the action itself masked, do so for reasons often so obscure that one begins to think they conduct these "mergers" for misdirection. Frequently these activities are carried out to minimize predicted losses, to protect the others from association in the case of law suits, and for what appears to be which relationship between them will be most profitable in the near enough future to make it worth the trouble.

    It's a long standing historical note that belies the relationship between NBC and GE. Specifically, 3 notes: G, E and C, the chimes that make up the NBC musical call sign. They've been in use for 80 years now. They stand for General Electric Company.

    The refutation that's found its way into Wikipedia that this is false, essentially a business urban myth, is itself incorrect. The refutation states that "someone heard" the chimes being played over Atlanta's WSB during a football game and "asked to use" the signal, making them a trademark in 1931. Such is true, however the association between them was already close and tight. The football game in question was the 1929 Georgia Tech/Yale game. One would hope that NBC heard the chimes then, or even earlier if they'd been used. WSB was a charter affiliate of NBC, officially since Jan 9, 1927. That's all supported by data from the relevant Wikipedia sites as well as WSB and Ga. Tech histories. I'd heard about it from someone deep enough into early electronics business to know folks like Farnsworth, DuMont and Armstrong.

    In those periods where one didn't "own" another, the relationship was a matter of business convenience. They have all been components in the largest body of business in the US if not the world.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  41. some needs to buy comcast's 20% of csn chicago be by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    some needs to buy comcast's 20% of csn chicago before nbc can mess the network up. At lest the teams have the power there and I don't want it to end like what nbc has done with the weather channel.

    and one good over this is that the gov maybe force comcarp to put csn philly on dish and direct tv.

    But THE NFL will not let comcast make Sunday night foot ball cable only much less not OTA for the locals teams in the game. even ESPN MNF games are on OTA for the local teams.

    I don't the think the IOC and USIOC will let them make the 2012 games cable only or if that happens they will not be on nbc / comcarp in 2016. EPSN or FOX will have them.

  42. They may move them to a lower level as Chicago lan by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    They may move them to a lower level as Chicago land comcast systems are a bad ripoff right now SCI-FI / Syfy is in Digital preferred / classic while in all others systems it is in analog / starer / will work with a dta.

    CSN + needs a full box (SD) at about $5-$6 each. You can not use a DTA to get it same thing for SCI-FI as well.

    and Digital preferred / classic cost about the same as direct tv HD dvr but you need to pay $15-$20 /m more per tv for a HD dvr on comcast and $8-$10 per HD box. Direct tv just wants $5/m box 1 free to add any box.

    speed is in the sports pack in parts of area and WHY IS FOX MOVIE CHANNEL in the SPORTS PACK?

    Even WOW cable as SPEED, SCI-FI, CSN and CSN+ in anglog cable so you need a full box at each tv view them.

  43. AOL / Time Warner part 2 by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    Someone should start a pool for how long this will last before they separate again.

  44. And the big by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Get bigger.

    Once they are big enough, they will be bought by Disney for a true 'end to end' control of the market.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  45. Good luck wiht that by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The days of the government stepping in and help out the citizens have long since past. Might as well get used to the idea of all our content ( and eventually, knowledge ) being controlled by 1 or 2 giant monopolies. And later, our freedom as they buy more 'ip enforcement' laws.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  46. The Tonight Show by antdude · · Score: 1

    See here to see and hear what Conan, Andy, etc. said about this news.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  47. MOD PARENT UP by QuietObserver · · Score: 1

    This is one of the funniest, yet also insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

  48. Great! More corporate mergers! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Now the giant conglomerates just need to start failing one by one, so the government can hand them trillions of dollars for being "Too Big to Fail".

    Hey! It worked for the banks!

    "Free Market" is THE OPPOSITE of the corporate monopoly system we are currently living in. And this system is bad for every single living thing on the planet, and most importantly the development and prosperity of our own species, humanity.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.