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."
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.........
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).
So what monopoly does Comcast have again?
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).
...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.
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
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
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.
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.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
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!!