Groups Urge FCC To Block NBC-Comcast Merger

Makes sense to me... by nebaz · 2010-06-21 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think monopoly is bad enough, but when you have businesses getting both into the content and distribution business, it allows for market abuse.

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story

Re:Makes sense to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:05 · Score: 1, Funny

really?
I love Steam
Re:Makes sense to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:09 · Score: 0

What about if Valve goes out of business, what then? the "unlock" patch seems like an empty promise. I doubt the creditors would allow it.
Re:Makes sense to me... by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 07:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah... it's like owning Park Place, Boardwalk, AND all the railroads at the same time. It sucks when it isn't you. :p

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:Makes sense to me... by h4rr4r · 2010-06-21 07:33 · Score: 2, Funny

The community has already provided said patches. You can find them in the usual locations.
Re:Makes sense to me... by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Time-Warner has been doing this for years. This is just the latest entry in a long trend of media consolidation (one almost certain to continue)

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Makes sense to me... by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-21 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah... it's like owning Park Place, Boardwalk, AND all the railroads at the same time. It sucks when it isn't you. :p
No, it's a lot worse than that. In Monopoly, when someone else owns a lot of valuable properties, at least it's another player who has the same goals you have, albeit adversarial. When your opponent makes money, although he takes it from you, it at least stays in the game and the rules don't change. Through smart play and careful management, you at least have a chance to get some of that back. There is still capital in the game. You can borrow, you can play.
When corporations own the same monopoly of say, all the railroads and both utilities, it changes the fundamental rules of the game. It doesn't just add to their holdings, it wrecks the game for everybody. They don't want to just beat you, they want to make it so that you can't ever play again. People tend to make some fundamental mistakes when thinking about corporations. They're not people. They're legal fictions with destruction of the market built into their fictional DNA. Their agenda is of a much different nature than yours or mine.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Makes sense to me... by JxcelDolghmQ · 2010-06-21 07:53 · Score: 0

The unlock patch becomes a lie, much like the caek.
Re:Makes sense to me... by jythie · 2010-06-21 07:56 · Score: 1

The rules change when you are talking about monopolies and other powerful companies. People tend to not worry about Valve's integration because they are small enough to not need to worry about. Comcast and NBC on the other hand are two very large companies with significant power behind them. When you get to that scale, they start behaving more like landless states then private companies, and thus governments need to treat them as such.
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 08:04 · Score: 1

Only thing: I think TWC was spun off into a separate company, and isn't actually controlled by Time Warner.
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well also there's the fact that Monopoly is... you know... a game. When someone owns Park Place, Boardwalk, and the railroads it simply "sucks when it isn't you". You were trying to do the same thing, because that's the point of the game. You're not worried about whether the railroads continue to provide good service to their customers, because that's not part of the game.
But what we're talking about here is telecommunications infrastructure and information dissemination. These are not simply entertainment services, but you're talking about companies that control portions of the Internet and the news. These are essentially vital public services that we allow private companies to perform under the belief that private companies will do a better job. We can't afford to allow them to be abused, since it could have dire consequences for the future of our society. Worse: In an era where we could realistically damage our own planet to the point of making it unlivable for ourselves, abusing telecommunications infrastructure and information dissemination could threaten the existence of our species.
Whereas Monopoly is a game.
Re:Makes sense to me... by operagost · 2010-06-21 08:29 · Score: 1

It's better to own the orange properties than the dark blue. The orange are right after the jail, and there is a chance card that sends you to Illinois ave. Not only that, but Park Place is right after the "Go to jail" space, so it's missed a lot.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Makes sense to me... by kramerd · 2010-06-21 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative

You're not worried about whether the railroads continue to provide good service to their customers, because that's not part of the game
Actually it is part of the game. If you own all of the railroads, it costs more to "use" them individually than if 4 different players each own one. Same with utilities or any property monopoly.
Re:Makes sense to me... by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-21 10:44 · Score: 1

These are essentially vital public services that we allow private companies to perform under the belief that private companies will do a better job.
Yes, that's the mythology of the free market zealots.
We've allowed them to take control of the discussion to the point where it's conventional wisdom that this nonexistent entity called the "free-market" is good and government is bad. Neither of those assertions is demonstrable, even if you could possibly find such a thing as a "free market" anywhere on earth, ever. So people whose agenda is to give the largest corporations free reign over our lives use this conventional "wisdom" to get low-information voters to support them, believing that something called "smaller government" will magically make their lives better. Again, there's never been anything like proof of this in the real world. Further, these corporatist elites who are selling "smaller government" are the least likely to actually make government smaller, given their propensity for starting wars in order to fill the coffers of their corporate sponsors, and creating massive military-contract boondoggles as repayment for the investment the contractors made to their campaigns.
Basically, here in the US at least, the government was designed to be "of the people and by the people" and remarkably, it is, to the extent that outsourcing and privatizing hasn't completely wrecked the commons. There's a level of control that people have over government that they can never, ever have over the biggest corporations. Take this Comcast/NBC merger. If you don't like Monopoly A, you always can go to Monopoly B, as long as you don't have a contract, in which case you can't. That's it. That's the choice. If you think you can use your status as a customer as a "vote" you are badly mistaken. It just doesn't work that say at this scale.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Makes sense to me... by steelfood · 2010-06-21 10:54 · Score: 1

I replied elsewhere about this stating that Time Warner just spun off their internet divisions (Time Warner Cable and AOL) and their cable divison (Time Warner Cable).
Afterwards, I did a quick lookup on Wikipedia, and based on what's there it seems controlling both content and distribution is a far more commonplace practice than most people realize. Sure, it's usually through subsidaries and no one company has a 100% controlling stake, but it seems that all of the content companies are or have been in bed with the distribution companies at some point in time. What's interesting is that nobody really cared (or knew) until now.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

We've allowed them to take control of the discussion to the point where it's conventional wisdom that this nonexistent entity called the "free-market" is good and government is bad.
Yes. The problem there is, they're not *exactly* flat-out wrong. A real free market is not necessarily absolutely "free", basically a situation where a consumer has real valid choices between multiple competing vendors. Very often, giving consumers real choice allows for greater economic efficiency than having any kind of central authority make economic choices for everyone.
There are a couple problems, though. First, very often, the vendors will seek to limit the choices of the consumers, thereby subverting the supposed "free-market forces". This is most obvious in cases where a monopoly or cartel is able to arbitrarily set prices for necessary goods, but it happens in other more subtle ways.
Second, though the "free market" is often more efficient, there may be cases where "efficiency" is not the chief concern. It can be "more efficient" to ignore safety standards in manufacturing. It can be "more efficient" for the police to simply arrest and jail whoever they think is guilty, without need of evidence or a trial.
I like free markets, but I'm also in favor of good government. The "free market" is a method we use to organize ourselves in order to produce cheap stuff, but "government" is a method we use to organize ourselves to ensure our lives have safety and justice.
Re:Makes sense to me... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 11:55 · Score: 0

Pizza delivery provides content and distribution.
Allowing for abuse.. Is this like precrime?
Punish them after they violate a law, not before.
How about you respect the rights of the share holders who might have a retirement portfolio in G.E. stock.
Re:Makes sense to me... by MidnightBrewer · 2010-06-21 12:11 · Score: 1

Actually, if you've ever played Monopoly and gotten to the point where someone else owns Park Place, Boardwalk, and all the railroads, you're pretty much screwed, which sounds *exactly* like real life. You could also equivocate losing with "wrecking the game", since the game reaches a certain point where it cannot continue (and there's only one winner). Also, it doesn't take much to destroy the "smart play and careful management" approach, either, since your piece moves at the whim of the dice. I do agree, though, that at least with Monopoly, you can start the game over again from the beginning.

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Re:Makes sense to me... by Lord+Kano · 2010-06-21 13:38 · Score: 1

They're legal fictions with destruction of the market built into their fictional DNA.
No. On two county. They're not legal fictions; legally, and by no other measure do they exist. They're programmed to try to maximize all profits within the bounds of the law(sometimes that last part gets away from them), the destruction of markets is just a side-effect.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:Makes sense to me... by tsotha · 2010-06-21 19:21 · Score: 1

Second, though the "free market" is often more efficient, there may be cases where "efficiency" is not the chief concern. It can be "more efficient" to ignore safety standards in manufacturing. It can be "more efficient" for the police to simply arrest and jail whoever they think is guilty, without need of evidence or a trial.
All markets exist inside some kind of regulatory framework, even if it's only laws against fraud. The free market is the most efficient way to deliver goods and services inside that regulatory framework, so there's no conflict between the benefits of voluntary economic association and health and safety standards. That's kind of a straw man.

I like free markets, but I'm also in favor of good government. The "free market" is a method we use to organize ourselves in order to produce cheap stuff, but "government" is a method we use to organize ourselves to ensure our lives have safety and justice.
Even the most ardent free market advocates see a role for government in minimizing Adam Smith's "conspiracy against the public". Being pro free market is no the same thing as being pro business. The problem is if the government has too much of a presence in the market companies find it easier to influence the government than to focus on delivering products people want. A good example is car seats - statistically useless after age 2 but mandated to age 8 in my state at the behest of industry lobbyists.
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-22 01:38 · Score: 1

All markets exist inside some kind of regulatory framework, even if it's only laws against fraud.
There are people on the pro-free-market side of things who have essentially claimed that even fraud should be legal. "Caveat emptor. The market will sort it out." Admittedly this is an extreme view, but supposedly even people like Alan Greenspan have privately voiced this opinion. Still, there are lots of people who are adamantly anti-regulation.
Regardless, the text you quotes was certainly not a "straw man" since it wasn't even talking about all that. I was just pointing out that there are situations where efficiency is not the chief concern-- not just to the point of requiring regulation, but even to the point where it'd be a very bad idea to privatize or allow a "free market". The example I chose for that was the police, and I think it's a pretty good one. Having a police force that optimized itself for efficiency and profit would run counter to the purpose for having police. It would certainly lead to abuse.

Being pro free market is no the same thing as being pro business.
I would agree with you, but there are certainly a lot of people out there who are pro-free-market and who see that position as necessarily pro-business.

The problem is if the government has too much of a presence...
Of course the problem is defining "too much of a presence".

A good example is car seats - statistically useless after age 2 but mandated to age 8 in my state at the behest of industry lobbyists.
I'm not sure that's "too much of a presence", since a state setting a mandate that "children below age X should be required to wear child safety seats" is fine (or at least I think it is). So the amount of "presence" is fine there, it's just the decision making (choosing the "age X") is off. I can't imagine strapping a 7 year-old into a child safety seat. If that law wasn't immediately repealed, it wasn't just because of lobbyists, it's because the people in your state have too many, "Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN!!!" parents.
Or do you think it's not fine for the state to set the requirement at all? I'd say driving around with a 1 year old outside of a child safety seat may as well be considered child endangerment.
Re:Makes sense to me... by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-22 02:28 · Score: 1

The free market is the most efficient way to deliver goods and services inside that regulatory framework
This is the part of the conversation where I have to ask if you have any data to support this assertion.
I hear a lot of theory, but I'm curious what you base this notion that the nonexistent "free market" is the "most efficient way to deliver goods and services". I know it gets repeated a lot, but I don't know what it's based on.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Makes sense to me... by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-22 02:30 · Score: 1

I was just pointing out that there are situations where efficiency is not the chief concern--

But how do we know that this "free market" is more efficient than other systems? Is there data or just economic theory (and economics is a very soft science, with very little experimental validation)?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-22 03:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, I don't know the data, but the economists and political theorists that I've read more or less accept that it's a trend, i.e. a free market is generally more efficient a lot of the time. Compared to...what??? "Other systems".
I think there is data of the normal soft-science sort, but I don't imagine you could come up with a very good controlled experiment.
Re:Makes sense to me... by thtrgremlin · 2010-06-22 09:19 · Score: 1

I think what is often over looked is that corporatism != free market. A corporation is a blend of free choices within a structure defined by the government that trades certain economic freedom for protectionism most often in the way of liability. But government protection against risk is already a violation of free market principles. When people are allowed to take risks but do not need to bear the consequences the rules of the game have been radically altered implicitly changing (in to way that conforms to natural law) the optimal strategy for gain.

Congress continually operates on the notion that it can modify the risk gain relationship and expect people to keep doing things the same way they were doing them before.

For example, one big business has a big idea, and it will be really good for everybody. The problem is that certain tax liabilities make it difficult to do business in a particular way, so they create a tax break for companies doing thing a particular way. Sounds fine until other business look at their models and will restructure to take advantage of the new rules having consequences that the legislature never intended, or at last never expected. So now that the business environment has been screwed up by bad legislation after businesses have adapted to the new rules, they blame the corporations for exploiting loop holes.

It would be like if there were a welfare system that said that anybody wearing a burlap shirt (clearly somebody quite poor) was entitled to $1000 in assistance. Now all the poor people are going to be helped. But what happens after? Some people with enough money that they do not need to wear burlap shirts keep wearing them because they know that if they stop wearing the shirt then they won't get the $1000 next month. Maybe not so bad. But what if a large number of people start going out and buying burlap shirts that never wore one before because they want the money? OR someone starts of a new big business mass producing burlap shirts to meet the new demand?

This isn't people being evil, it is the way people survive in nature. Government has an amazing power to manipulate the rules that guide people. They have a weapon more powerful than anybody is able to control. People are terrible at looking at secondary consequences of their actions. This is a common argument for government to step in and take control. But when an individual acts, other people are able to react and create new opportunities. But it is proportional to their size. The way this WORKS is the principle of spontaneous order. When government changes something, it vast and sweeping. Rather than one or a few people reacting to the influence of an individuals decision, everybody is required to adapt to everybody else. The most immediate effect may have been predictable, but what was already an organic cascade of cause and effect is going to take on a radically new semi-unpredictable direction. While some might like to think that simply repealing the bad law would fix the problem, it may have an equally large effect, but it will not have an equal reverse effect because it is no longer the same environment.

Corporations are not just legal fictions, but "the corporation" as an idea and a law is a public institution.

In short, BAD copyright law has caused people to behave in extremely unnatural ways. People are forced to design their business around the law, but after that, it is laissez-faire (the pieces will fall where they will). Government continues to taint the landscape dictating where the pieces will fall. The unintended result (giving them the benefit of doubt) is three massive media corporations plus one big lobby. Primarily, copyright is so powerful that whoever owns the most can kill anybody with less with the real prize of being able to write the next copyright bill.

The idea that copyright exists to promote science and the useful arts is beyond a joke as it has really manipulated focus from content creation to content creation and distribution control as a primary focus revolving around suing consumers of information, and taking control of the law itself.

Hate the merger, but remember that this is the symptom of bad public policy, not something that calls for one.

--
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-22 10:50 · Score: 1

Congress continually operates on the notion that it can modify the risk gain relationship and expect people to keep doing things the same way they were doing them before.
I think the bigger problem is that Congress has become convinced that it must always modify the risk/gain relationships to benefit large businesses. You cite copyrights as a problem, and I think it's a good example. Copyrights aren't bad per se, but the laws are continually being modified to favor the large publishers, record companies, and movie studios without any regard for individual rights. It's out of balance.

Corporations are not just legal fictions, but "the corporation" as an idea and a law is a public institution.
Yes, and I think this is a good thing that people ought to keep in mind. This is a big part of the problem: Many "free market" people (not all, but perhaps most) argue against government interference with entities that only exist because of the government. People think that the government should not be empowered to interfere with the business of corporations even though, as you note, corporations are legal fictions created by the government to mitigate risk. Corporations do not have an inherent inalienable right to exist, let alone an inalienable right to profit.
Similarly, people act like the government should have no right to refuse copyrights or patents, even though those two are inventions of the government. People complain about the government's attempts to regulate health insurance companies, even though those companies would not exist if not for federal subsidies. Getting back to the topic at hand, people complain that the government shouldn't interfere with the telecommunications companies (e.g. Verizon, Comcast) even though they often have government-enforced monopolies over whole areas.
All of this is comparable to the person who said, "keep your government hands off my Medicare." The media industry, the telecommunication industry, the health insurance industry-- these are all government industries. If you want to point out that these are already not "free market" industries, I won't disagree. Since these industries are propped up by the government, we should have no great objection to them being regulated and limited by the government. If you want to instead argue that government interference should be eliminated in some of these situations, we could have that argument too, but it would be long and complicated. I would be open to it.
But if you want to argue that the government has "no right" to intervene in markets, I won't entertain that argument for very long. If you start talking about government infringing on the "rights" of corporations, I'm going to roll my eyes at you.
Re:Makes sense to me... by tsotha · 2010-06-22 12:28 · Score: 1

This is the part of the conversation where I wonder if you get out much. I'm not basing that on any "theory" at all, but rather an unambiguous reading of history leading to current events. If you don't realize the free market is the most efficient way to deliver goods then I don't think I can help you.

I'm not worried by fortapocalypse · 2010-06-21 06:52 · Score: 3, Funny

So what? I don't have Comcast.

Re:I'm not worried by Maarx · 2010-06-21 06:56 · Score: 1

So what? I don't have Comcast.
A valid question for discussion. What implications does this have for those of us who use neither the services of NBC nor the services of Comcast?
Re:I'm not worried by somaTh · 2010-06-21 06:57 · Score: 3, Funny

So, it's okay for Comcast and NBC to merge then? What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?

--
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 06:57 · Score: 0

And once the merger goes through, you won't have NBC either!
Re:I'm not worried by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 07:00 · Score: 3, Funny

They could have a very successful Furry channel together...

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it hard to believe that you don't use at least something in the following list all owned by NBC.
NBC, Universal Studios, NBC Universal Television Group, NBC News, USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC Cable TV, NBC.com, MSNBC.com, iVillage, Bravo, qubo, Telemundo Television Studios, The Weather Channel, Hulu, A&E Television Networks
All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Universal
Re:I'm not worried by 0100010001010011 · 2010-06-21 07:17 · Score: 1

Or the channel for 100% of your Republican Needs.
Re:I'm not worried by fotbr · 2010-06-21 07:19 · Score: 0

NBC - nope
Universal Studios - nope
NBC Universal Television Group - nope
NBC News - no need, it's all from AP or Reuters
USA Network - nope
Syfy - nope
CNBC - no need, it's all from AP or Reuters
MSNBC Cable TV - no need, it's all from AP or Reuters
NBC.com - hell no
MSNBC.com - hell no
iVillage - WTF? no
Bravo - nope
qubo - WTF? no
Telemundo Television Studios - no
The Weather Channel - nope, better and more accurate forecasts elsewehre
Hulu - nope
A&E Television Networks - nope
Of course, I watch very little TV, and virtually no movies. It's not hard to avoid a company when you're not part of their target audience.
Re:I'm not worried by socrplayr813 · 2010-06-21 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Personally, I only use one from that particular list (SciFi), and I wouldn't care too much if I lost it. Regardless, I'm still very concerned about NBC-Comcast because of the dangerous precedent it might set. If the merger went through and NBC-Comcast was able to start favoring its own content (even in a small way), you know it would only be a matter of time until Time Warner and such start making similar deals. By then, it may be too late to stop without turning the market upside-down.
Turning the market upside-down may not be a bad thing, but I'd hate to have to find out that way.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:27 · Score: 2, Funny

It's not hard to avoid a company when you're not part of their target audience.
Is it hard to act so smug about it, or does that come naturally?
Re:I'm not worried by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 07:28 · Score: 1

The Furry Republican channel? Hmmm... I'm trying not to think about the commercials they would air.
In need of brain bleach. Anyone? Please!?!?

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:I'm not worried by tibman · 2010-06-21 07:30 · Score: 2, Funny

*gasp* You don't watch stargate?!
eek, what about when battlestar was running? what about farscape! The outer limits? oh god.. the horror

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:33 · Score: 1, Funny

Hey look, you're famous: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television

Of course, you probably don't have any friends. Its not hard to avoid people when you're not part of their target "friendship demographic" am I right?
Re:I'm not worried by Que914 · 2010-06-21 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Many people who are customer of Comast are out of necessity, not choice. All the same, it has a couple of implications for non-customers with an overriding theme of big media maintaining their control on culture distribution.

Prior to the Internet broadcast video content had something of a natural monopoly simply by the limited bandwidth over the airwaves. The Internet has a lot of potential to change that because it doesn't suffer from the same limitation. I consume a great deal of "TV Show" like content that's not on TV so my Internet connection is essentially competing with the TV Networks.

To demonstrate, hypothetically say I'm a recent film student grad who has a great idea for a TV show (and for the sake of argument lets pretend it is good). I've enough money to produce it myself, but I have no notoriety and have zero chance of getting a network to distribute it. Alternatively, I could put it up on the web, try and get some ad revenue, or maybe if good enough charge users to download. But now, I'm competing with Comcast/NBC and since Comcast/NBC is in both content and distribution, they may well 'traffic shape' in such a way that interferes with traffic of competing products, so out of the gate my potential audience is reduced by 30% (or whatever Comcast's market share is).

That's the problem with this, and what's more important, that why they want to merge.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:36 · Score: 0

So, it's okay for Comcast and NBC to merge then? What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?
I would not watch that in a Box.
Re:I'm not worried by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:40 · Score: 1

If a bad TV show falls in the ratings and no one cares, does it make a sound?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:I'm not worried by TheSync · 2010-06-21 07:46 · Score: 1

"Fox and Cox" is pretty funny! But FOX has been linked up with multichannel programming providers before.
NewsCorp (which owns the FOX Broadcasting Corporation) already has a 39% stake in BSkyB. Before 2008, NewsCorp held a managing interest in The DirecTV Group (which has now been sold off to Liberty Media). NewsCorp also has a 25% interest in Foxtel (Australia), a 44% interest in SKY Network Television New Zealand, a 45% interest in Sky Deutschland, a 20% interest in Tata Sky (India), as well as outright ownership of Sky Italia and STAR TV (300 million viewers in 53 countries).
Re:I'm not worried by fotbr · 2010-06-21 07:50 · Score: 0

I've got a TV, I just don't spend all evening camped out in front of it. Nice try though.
And I've got enough friends, thank you.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:55 · Score: 0

Wow, your so cool that even though this conversation has nothing of interest for you, you decided to drop in and let us know how much cooler you are then us.
Re:I'm not worried by metamechanical · 2010-06-21 07:57 · Score: 1

Dammit. You fucking got me with The Weather Channel.
I got pretty close, too

--
If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
Re:I'm not worried by jythie · 2010-06-21 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

AP and Reuters represent an indirect effect. Both organizations sell their content to downstream providers like many of the sub companies owned by NBC. As NBC/Comcast become more powerful, they become larger consumers of what AP/Reuters put out. Once a downstream becomes powerful enough, they can start exerting pressure upward on content and focus, or potentially (if they find another source they prefer) cut them out and reduce their exposure, which reduces their funding/strength, which results in worse services. So while they do not directly effect you, the merger effects companies that you do interact with.
Re:I'm not worried by frank_adrian314159 · 2010-06-21 08:06 · Score: 3, Funny

What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?
That Fox and Cox! That Fox and Cox! I do not like that Fox and Cox. The merger rocks for Fox and Cox. But put them both into a box. And keep them both secured with locks.

--
That is all.
Re:I'm not worried by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-06-21 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative

So you're among the very few people who exist on the internet who don't access any of the regular forms of entertainment. Even I don't watch TV but given the movies I've SEEN in my lifetime let alone what I may want to see in the future, its nearly impossible to miss universal studios. Even if I had somehow managed to dodge every VCR, DVD, and Blu-ray in the world and never visitted a movie theatre I would have somehow played one of the video games loosely based off of one of their movies.
And all of its really a moot point though - even if YOU aren't DIRECTLY affected, perhaps half of your friends are affected by NBC and with anti-trust media practices you'll get very 1 sided opinions forming, so you'll either have to ditch half your friends for being narrow minded, or you'll have to be annoyed by your friends every time they're around, or you and your friends will become the social outcasts of society. You know the kinds, who don't work well with others in the work-place because they can't talk about current events and if they do, they upset other people when they tell them they are wrong, and it won't matter if you're right because your manager will get pissed that you are refuting the very facts they believe coming from their "trusted source". It's like if you don't jump on board you're "That guy" that no one wants to invite out to lunch.
However, if you live under a rock, like to play chess by yourself by torchlight, and only visit the internet by tapping binary into a magnetic rock that sends signals to an access point, than you probably won't be affected by this merger too much.
Re:I'm not worried by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-06-21 08:12 · Score: 1

While I make very little use of the content that NBC provides, I am a Comcast customer. I really do not like that Comcast is both a service provider and a content provider. I am not happy that the precedent was set with Time-Warner. I would like to see the roles of content provider and service provider separated. Unfortunately, I have little confidence in government regulation accomplishing that in a way that is consumer friendly.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:I'm not worried by commodore64_love · 2010-06-21 08:15 · Score: 1

My concern is that Comcast might yank NBC off free television and turn it into another pay-to-see cable channel.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:I'm not worried by zill · 2010-06-21 08:29 · Score: 1

Don't worry, he was just playing the devil's advocate to make a point.

But if he really never watched those shows and is still reading /. then he might be the devil himself.
Re:I'm not worried by TheTick21 · 2010-06-21 08:56 · Score: 1

And give them socks infected with pox.
Re:I'm not worried by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-06-21 09:05 · Score: 1

You don't watch stargate?!
Well, after the last season in the franchise, I don't either. I have better things to do with my time than watch a bunch of pseudo-retarded drama queens run around on a spaceship and cry together. Fucking fail.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 09:23 · Score: 0

Megan Fox and Courtney Cox?
I'd hit them both, and I'd flip a coin for which one I'd go for first.
Re:I'm not worried by steelfood · 2010-06-21 10:31 · Score: 1

Time Warner already had such a vertical monopoly. Time Warner Cable (Road Runner), AOL, Warner Brothers (WB/CW), Turner (CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network), and HBO were at one time all divisions of Time Warner.
But interestingly enough, both Time Warner Cable and AOL got spun off in the past few years. Universal/NBC may yet be a disaster for both companies. It probably won't be the disaster that was AOL-Time Warner merger, but I'm not sure it's going to end well...

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:I'm not worried by StikyPad · 2010-06-21 10:39 · Score: 1

You're missing the point: You can't rock the jock if your Cox is Fox, fool.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:I'm not worried by hairyfeet · 2010-06-21 11:54 · Score: 1

Uhhhh...this is /. which is a geek site. Why would ANYONE here own something as primitive as a TV? We got big ass flat panel monitors baby, yeah! Just plug in that USB TV tuner or use that big fat Internet pipe, and voila! TVs are for grandmas pal, get with the 21st century!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 12:35 · Score: 0

I realize you're joking, but no, Ive never watched a full episode of even One of those shows. TV SciFi has sucked for years, I gave up long ago. Babylon Five was the last thing I Tried to watch.
Fringe is fun.
Re:I'm not worried by Spewns · 2010-06-21 12:56 · Score: 1

So, it's okay for Comcast and NBC to merge then? What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?

I would not watch that in a Box.
I would not watch it here or there.
I would not watch it anywhere.
Re:I'm not worried by fotbr · 2010-06-21 15:59 · Score: 1

Oh, so very, very wrong. I don't watch movies because most of them just aren't interesting to me. I will watch the occasional Pixar film just to see what they're doing with computer animation. I'll also watch documentaries. As for TV, I watch other shows, I've just not seen anything on any of the mentioned NBC-owned channels that's grabbed my attention. I'd trade FOX for NBC in a heartbeat if I could, but FOX is the only source of F1 racing in the states, so I'm stuck watching some of that network's stuff, as much as I hate everything that Murdoch and Fox News stand for -- if NBC snags that contract the next time it's up, I'll be watching stuff from NBC. Pretty much everything else I watch is from PBS or the BBC. News, well, that's what the internet is for, and I generally read it directly from AP or Reuters, as well as numerous overseas sources.
I pity you if the only discussion in your workplace is driven by TV & movies. Discussion around the office here tends towards a variety of topics including racing of all kinds during the summer, from the local kart and dirt track to IRL, nascar, F1, and German and British Touring Cars; vacations / trips; what the kids are up to; local sports; TV / movies; football (world cup, specifically); golf; and, well, work. Everyone knows that not everyone is interested in everything. Many, many eyes in the office glaze over when people start talking golf, for example. Or about their kids. Or about their vacation. Or about TV. No one thinks any less of someone because of what they do or do not enjoy discussing at work.
As to the original post I was responding to, I find it hard to believe that so many people find it impossible to live their lives without being constantly entertained by a bunch of dots on a screen to the point that they can't conceive that someone could avoid one single entertainment company's products. In typical slashdot fashion, that got turned into "I never watch any movies or any TV", when that wasn't at all what I said.
But on that note, go outside. Go camping. Or fishing. Or golfing. Or running. Or biking. Or go work on that hot-rod, painting, knitting project, beer-fetching robot, car-throwing trebuchet, or whatever pet project you happen to prefer. Mow the yard, do some gardening, learn to cook a new type of food. Read a book -- you know, those things made of paper that contain either facts or stories, don't have commercials, and aren't limited by needing to fit into a time slot or production budget. You don't have to live in front of the TV, and I'll be the first to encourage people to cut WAY back on the TV watching -- not to cut it out completely, just don't live in front of the damned thing.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 16:54 · Score: 0

As a non-American, I can honestly say I have never used any of these services.
Re:I'm not worried by tibman · 2010-06-22 00:33 · Score: 1

Ok, i'm with you on that with one exception. Farscape was my B5 replacement. Firefly was good too but barely got started. Heck, B5 wasn't any good until season 3! It was the epic long story that made B5 so good (and Sheridan speeches, hah).
Farscape also features a long story arc about a war spanning the civilized territories of the galaxy. The main character being the only human is the least specialized of all the races and generally clueless.. but makes up for this with his flexibility and retarded plans. Give it a shot man, i think you'll like it.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:I'm not worried by thelanranger · 2010-06-22 03:37 · Score: 0

I don't use anything in that list. Also I have FiOS. Comcast is getting it's ass kicked around here so badly they don't even call themself comcast anymore and I don't use Hulu and am on the verge of canceling TV all together. Personally I find this merger to be completely irrelevant. Look at AOL/Time Warner. What did that accomplish? NOTHING. Nothing changed. I don't use AOL, I don't use Time Warner. Nothing changed for anyone that did. Unless you're a stock holder no one cares. Be glad that they're not asking for tax payer money to keep themselves from going under. Neither NBC or Comcast is doing well right now.
Re:I'm not worried by ejasons · 2010-06-22 06:16 · Score: 1

Where's the "judgmental prick" moderation when you need it?
You must be a kick at parties...

Let it happen by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I vote to let it happen and then watch it fail. It may take a few years, but it will most certainly fail. If history is any indication, the bigger companies get the more out of touch they get with their customers and the more fragile their success becomes.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.

Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because that's worked so well with Microsoft?
Re:Let it happen by NeutronCowboy · 2010-06-21 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

But if you control the entire entertainment and delivery vertical for a population that has only one choice in delivery, then there is no need to be in touch with your customer. Remember ATT? "We're the phone company, we don't have to care."

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:14 · Score: 0

Exactly. The more out of touch they are with customers, the more customers fail.
Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:15 · Score: 0

Becoming huge... Worked well for AIG. We paid for them to fail again...it may take a few years....
Re:Let it happen by Steauengeglase · 2010-06-21 07:15 · Score: 1

Then again Time Warner is still kicking.
Re:Let it happen by DesScorp · 2010-06-21 07:16 · Score: 1

Because that's worked so well with Microsoft?
The sheer size of a company doesn't neccessarily make it fail, and may even be a benefit under certain conditions. What helped kill companies like the mega TW-AOL merger is making a huge company out of such dissimilar parts and cultures. TW both overestimated and didn't understand the value of AOL, nor of the Internet at all. It looked good on a balance sheet, but didn't work well in real life. Compare this to a company like Boeing that buys a competitor (McDonnell-Douglas for example). It's one airplane maker buying another. Same market, similar cultures, and a greater liklihood of success.
NBC-Comcast will in no way be a monopoly... there's plenty of competition out there. So let them merge. If they suceed, great. If not, let their investors bear the burden of the decision. That's how commerce works.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Let it happen by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 07:17 · Score: 1

Until a vocal majority of people stand up to oppose mega corporations they will continue to exist and thrive. The only way, or so it seems at least, to motivate people into action is putting them into a position of desperation. The sooner that happens the better.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:Let it happen by MightyMartian · 2010-06-21 07:21 · Score: 1

NBC has been out of tune with its customers and viewers for some time.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Let it happen by mlts · 2010-06-21 07:23 · Score: 1

They are be a monopoly in some areas. Only one cable company gets control of the wires in a certain area.
Here in the US, a person usually has two choices, perhaps if lucky 3, perhaps if unlucky, none: Cable, DSL, or WiMax. Switching may not be an option. So, it may be that people get Comcast or dialup.
I might not spy monopoly, but I can see collusion happening. Get another ISP and then start charging for bandwidth. Unless the site is a "premium" site. Guess what? People will get worried if they exceed their quota, and hit the "free" site because it is "just as good". With net neutrality dead, there is nothing preventing ISPs from doing this.
Or perhaps the ISP would just not allow connections to anything other than the "blessed" sites, unless the person pays a fee per month and per kilobyte to go outside of the walled, paid for, garden. Perfectly legal, and unless someone steps in, this eventually will become reality.
Re:Let it happen by h4rr4r · 2010-06-21 07:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, look at how they dominating the new mobile market.
MS can use lockin, these guys really can't. Without lockin MS would be out of business already.
Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:34 · Score: 0

so you want to artificially exaggerate the negative consequences in order to coerce people to your way of thinking, and you see this as a benefit?
save me from people who are trying to save me from myself. there is nothing more evil in the universe.
Re:Let it happen by interkin3tic · 2010-06-21 07:36 · Score: 1

If history is any indication, the bigger companies get the more out of touch they get with their customers and the more fragile their success becomes.
So then they get too big to fail and it's on to a bailout, subsidies, etc. And then we pay for it again with internet service.
Re:Let it happen by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 07:46 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to save you from anything nor am I trying to "coerce" you in any way. Your opinion is no greater or less than my own. Deal with it.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:53 · Score: 0

I suppose the main difference would be that I'm not seeking to "motivate" people to adopt my opinion, nor am I making flippant comments about how people would be better served by being put into a bad position so that they come around to my opinions.
In other words, you're so full of your own shit, you don't even recognize that it stinks.
Re:Let it happen by yeshuawatso · 2010-06-21 07:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is partially true for Natural Monopolies (e.g. electrical companies), but not so much when there's competition. NBC's biggest competition is the web. Hulu is probably their most valuable asset for viewer retention, but because they didn't have the balls to go in it alone, they have to share their earnings with Disney, Turner/Time Warner, and others.
NBC's content is not out of touch with their viewers (excluding the NBC broadcast network), it's their delivery system that's out of touch. The future most likely has TVs that are connected to the internet and movies/shows/video content is moving to an on-demand model that goes with the viewer (e.g. mobile phones), not static. The big media fought tooth and nail against their content on the internet; however, Hulu is proof that people are willing to sit through a few ads and watch video legitimately than download it off some file sharing site/protocol. CBS is the only network that wants to go against the current and it's why they're shows are the most pirated. Movies will forever remain a problem because of the way Big Media is persistent on distributing content internationally. But I would still prefer to pay a flat fee per month for all I could eat (netflix), or a small fee for instant gratification (Amazon On-Demand, Red Box). I refuse to pay $5 to return a movie within one day by 6:00 PM at a location out of the way. Theatrical releases are different. I go to theatrical releases because I don't have a 70 foot screen at home and a surround sound system that kicks like a theater, but I do have $10 to spare for that experience. Even then it's on movies I think will entertain me. Avatar was the last movie I saw without knowing what I was in for and viewing any trailer, glad that turned out great for my eyes.
Re:Let it happen by pnutjam · 2010-06-21 08:12 · Score: 1

Comcast is already so out of touch with their customers. They recently started advertising about how nice their installers are and how they wear booties over the boots on your carpet. They have never done this, until AT&T started doing it and competing head-to-head in their market with U-verse.

What totally pisses me off and sends me into a blind rage is the Ben and Shaq commercials. I would love to know how much those douchebags are getting paid (adding to my cable bill). I've been thinking of writing a letter to cancel citing those commercials and the obvious wast of money they illustrate. Come on, TV is a commodity, don't pretend there is a premium brand.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Let it happen by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-06-21 08:25 · Score: 1

TW both overestimated and didn't understand the value of AOL, nor of the Internet at all. It looked good on a balance sheet, but didn't work well in real life.
AOL bought Time-Warner, not the other way around. AOL bought TW when AOL was on the top of its game, but everybody could see the writing on the wall. At the time, TW was struggling, it was heavily invested in print media, where revenues were falling precipitously. AOL thought they could use TW's content to save themselves. It is not clear to me if AOL failed to obtain sufficient control over TW with the purchase to execute its plan, or if AOL just didn't have a clear plan in the first place. However, even though the purchase failed to save the AOL side, it was a great move because AOL shareholders became TW shareholders at a time when TW was looking ready to fail (and probably would have without the cash infusion from AOL).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Let it happen by blackraven14250 · 2010-06-21 08:36 · Score: 1

"Ok, so we're going to let everyone be blind to the consequences of the decisions made in this country, and just hope it improves on its own"

-AC
Re:Let it happen by cycleflight · 2010-06-21 08:41 · Score: 1

There's a difference there... NBC and Comcast deliver services, at least at the core of their business, that people just don't need. Comcast has branched out to phone, which people probably need some form of to function, as well as high speed internet, which of course is very useful, but the point stands.
Most people don't truly need cable internet (there are other ways of internet) or cable/VOIP phone (there are other ways for phone). No one needs TV and movies. It's a nicety, and if this proposed conglomeration decides to be forceful enough, people will learn that they never really needed it in the first place. In that sense, it lies in the hands of these two companies to respect their customers, if they want to keep making money.

--
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
Re:Let it happen by NeutronCowboy · 2010-06-21 08:47 · Score: 1

NBC's biggest competition is the web.
And Comcast IS the web for a lot of people. See where this is going? The goal is to create an entertainment monopoly by leveraging a communications monopoly (or frequently, a duopoly). And the communications monopoly being a natural monopoly, it's quite possible to make that happen.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Let it happen by yeshuawatso · 2010-06-21 12:05 · Score: 1

True, but any changes to NBC's broadcast line in an attempt to purposely hurt competitors will see swift action from the Justice Department, FTC, and/or the FCC. Comcast acquisitions, failed or successful, have been focused on increasing their sports lineup. Comcast may be able to use that leverage to push satellite providers, but local affiliates and other cable companies where Comcast doesn't operate (Cox, Time Warner, AT&T, slew of IPTV providers) would incidentally be hurt; resulting in damaging the consumers' choices. A consumer can choose an IPTV provider, satellite, or Comcast were Comcast exist, but you can't choose Comcast if they don't operate in your area and have decided to take existing entertainment networks private. Plus, Comcast would have an interest in keeping those channels on other networks as it's a win-win situation if they can get Comcast or not.
Hulu wouldn't be harmed too much either as it's a joint venture with other providers. Comcast customers might actually benefit from the acquisition if Comcast decides to integrate Hulu with their DVRs.
The worst I can see from this merger is Comcast upping the fees for their channels to other network providers. And if they raise those fees too high, those providers will simply drop the networks (I've seen this happen before with Time Warner). Not enough eyeballs means less advertising dollars and lower revenue. A vicious cycle and indications of poor business decisions.

AOL Time Warner? by Michael+Kristopeit · 2010-06-21 06:59 · Score: 0

how is this different than the AOL / Time Warner merger that was ultimately allowed?

Re:AOL Time Warner? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because AOL was easily undercut by different ISPs. Don't like AOL? Dial-in to a different server! Don't like NBComcast? Oh wait! I have no other "high speed" internet option in my area.
Re:AOL Time Warner? by gstoddart · 2010-06-21 07:21 · Score: 1

how is this different than the AOL / Time Warner merger that was ultimately allowed?
AOL basically bought Time Warner with the Monopoly money that was their .com-era stock.
Other than that, probably not much. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Better TV by MrDoh! · 2010-06-21 06:59 · Score: 1

If this makes it easier to get Coco back on TV, I'm all for it.
It'd be pure comedy gold to have Conan turn up as the Cable representative to tear down the Peacock.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.

Have to admire their gusto by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

They apparently think that a glorified letter-writing campaign is a match for the lobbying (aka "bribing") money that a major corporation can throw at Washington. That's almost as adorable as an environmentalist in Texas or Alaska writing his Congressman asking him to oppose big oil. Even if you could get the FCC to listen, the lobbyists would just get their slaves in Congress to override them (just like they did on net neutrality).

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Have to admire their gusto by vxice · 2010-06-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well if 90% of people are against something and lobbyists do buy votes and the voters are angry enough they can vote the representative out of office, something money can't do directly, and he will no longer be in a position to take bribes. Once you think you have no power you're right.

--
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
Re:Have to admire their gusto by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

You couldn't get 90% of voters to oppose Hitler.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by russotto · 2010-06-21 07:30 · Score: 1

Once you think you have no power you're right.
The inverse, however, is not true.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by interkin3tic · 2010-06-21 07:42 · Score: 1

Indeed, when was the last time Washington blocked a supermerger that forms at our expense? I'm actually asking.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by JockTroll · 2010-06-21 07:50 · Score: 0

And that's why at this point violence is the only answer. They can shit all over our rights, they can buy any law they want, they can bypass any democratic process, they laugh at our votes but death is the great equalizer. No amount of money can bring them or their loved ones back from the dead.
How much is your money worth when your son is dead? That's how the war must be fought.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:54 · Score: 1

The FTC blocked a Staples and Office Depot merger in 1997. AFAIK, that was the last time.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by nj_peeps · 2010-06-21 08:03 · Score: 1

That would require people to actually go out to the polls to vote, instead of just complaining bout the status quo... That is also assuming that the new person elected doesn't take the "bribes" from the lobbyists (GLWT).

--
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" --Benjamin Franklin
Re:Have to admire their gusto by jythie · 2010-06-21 08:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, but it represents a very asymetric situation. It takes a huge percentage of voters to override the influence of what is essentially a few hundred people. Esp when those few hundred people ALSO control the primary mechanisms at raising awareness/urgency of an issue, i.e. media access.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by AndersOSU · 2010-06-21 09:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The FTC issues reports
In the FY2008 report they tout:

One of the Commission’s notable challenges was against the consummated merger of Polypore International and Microporous Products in which the Commission asserted that the February 2008 acquisition reduced competition and raised prices in the markets for multiple types of battery separator film used in the power supplies of various vehicles and in battery backup generators. The Commission also challenged and effectively blocked the proposed merger of Inova Health System Foundation and Prince William Health System, which would have substantially harmed competition in the Northern Virginia market for general acute care inpatient hospital services.
I'm not sure if those are "mega mergers" but they're doing more than zero...
Re:Have to admire their gusto by vxice · 2010-06-21 09:35 · Score: 1

It does represent a asymmetric situation but what is not equal is time. Companies have people who work full time understanding the issues at hand your average citizen doesn't. So either make everyone pay attention or appoint official political analysts that work full time to understand the issues at hand and how they affect the public. Maybe you could even elect them? recurse. Either way you can't say ooh its too hard or I'm tired you have to pay attention and chose politicians that you feel are responsible and the best option or get involved yourself. It is like choosing which tv sitcom to watch. If you like it continue to watch it, if not stop watching it only politics is more important.

--
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
Re:Have to admire their gusto by vxice · 2010-06-21 09:39 · Score: 1

well since he is dead he might actually be a good politician. Would his corpse have to be found so that it could sit in office? Joke aside you only need 50% +1 to agree that a candidate is the best option. Less than that with alternative voting methods.

--
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
Re:Have to admire their gusto by Dhalka226 · 2010-06-21 12:04 · Score: 1

Well if 90% of people are against something and lobbyists do buy votes and the voters are angry enough they can vote the representative out of office, something money can't do directly, and he will no longer be in a position to take bribes.
Well that's true, but I think you're underestimating how game-changing the words "angry enough" really are. In addition to how hard it is to get 90% of people to think one way about an issue, there are a few other problems with that fact in practice:
1. It would have to be an issue worth voting somebody out of office for. The reality is that the vast majority of issues are simply not to the average voter. Probably a reason that incumbents tend to win around 90% of re-election bids overall.
2. The seat has to be realistically in play. Due to demographics, districting, and--let's be honest here--a bit of gerrymandering from time to time, that's not always the case. Worse still, the opposing party will often not field good candidates or devote adequate resources to districts that they do not believe they can win, meaning that even if the issue was enough to propel a seat deemed unwinnable into contention, the opposition may not be in a position to mount a realistic challenge.
3. If Congress overrode the FCC, it means they got at least 50%+1 vote of each house to agree. Unless it was a straight party-line split, it would be extremely difficult to know if his replacement would have voted identically. If it WAS a party-line vote, it will probably eliminate a whole potential group because of #1. Anybody who votes for a specific party is unlikely to vote for another guy at all, much less on this sort of issue. (And primary challenges are relatively rare.)
4. Do you remember the issue at voting time? Have you noticed that the truly unpopular things tend to take place as far as possible from election time? It's not an accident.
5. It's an outrage, you find a candidate who would vote differently, the seat is in play -- can he win? It's still an election after all, and anything can happen.
It reminds me of a scene from an episode of The West Wing. A pollster had told the president's advisers that he could sew up re-election with one issue: The president should lead the charge in support of an amendment banning flag burning, and he showed them the statistics he had to back that point.
Later on they talked to a different pollster, who said (paraphrasing): "That's roughly the same percentage of people who would support sending litter bugs to jail. He never asked them how much they cared." And as it turns out, pretty much nobody would have cared enough to change their vote based on it.
All in all, while I oppose the merger and I would oppose overruling the FCC in any event, I don't see this as one of those things to vote somebody out of office for. Other people obviously felt that way about things like the Patriot Act and throwing people in jail indefinitely with no evidence or hearing. Even if 90% opposed this (and I suspect it would be more 50-50 closely along party lines with Republicans okay with the merger) I doubt it would come to anything.
They're free to ignore their constituents on this one. And, frankly, most others. As much as I'd like to get outraged about it, it's just really the way this sort of thing is going to work. A single vote that can truly win or lose a politician an election is rare.
Re:Have to admire their gusto by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 20:27 · Score: 0

tell us that again when you're drinking piss in a cell in cuba, tough guy

if you hadn't noticed, the powers that be have a monopoly on violence as well
Re:Have to admire their gusto by JockTroll · 2010-06-23 07:14 · Score: 0

There's a difference between you and me: I may end up in prison, you already live in it. You have resigned yourself to the rule of those powers. You are a willing prisoner and slave. They own you, as a matter of fact, because you will never rebel against them.
The powers that be do not have a monopoly on violence, or we wouldn't have a crime problem. The industry goons can be invincible in the court, but it only takes a moment to end their lives and there's nothing they can do to remedy that, afterwards. They thrive on the fear they can strike in the populace's hearts through their legal juggernaut. I say, strike back.
Or learn to live in a prison without bars, "free" to be a replaceable cog of their moneymaking machine.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.

I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / NW by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-21 07:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / NW.

OR no blackouts why do they get black stuff out that you can't view?

Bargain chips by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:24 · Score: 0

It is simple,

FCC to NBC/Comcast: you two want to merge? well guess what you need to agree to our Net neutrality provisions or we will NEVER let you two merge...

Govenor David Patterson supports the merger?! by areusche · 2010-06-21 07:24 · Score: 1

Why would New York Governor David Patterson support a merger between two companies primarily invested in video entertainment?

Re:Govenor David Patterson supports the merger?! by h4rr4r · 2010-06-21 07:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe he has the vision to see what such a merger would mean? He can clearly see that this could change the market in a big way.
Re:Govenor David Patterson supports the merger?! by Nukenbar · 2010-06-21 08:56 · Score: 1

With his negative approval rating, that may be the only way to keep the merger from happening.
Re:Govenor David Patterson supports the merger?! by gmhowell · 2010-06-21 15:17 · Score: 1

I think David Patterson is the only person who could see the value in this. Well, him and Stevie Wonder.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 me by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-21 07:27 · Score: 1

so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? But the 2010 mess says that NBC better drop it orlet comcast do it they do a much better job with sports.

No sir, I do not want green eggs and ham by TiggertheMad · 2010-06-21 07:28 · Score: 1

What about Fox and Cox?

Fox already has plenty of cocks in their news division. I don't see what such a merger would get them...

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by leonbev · 2010-06-21 07:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Do you really want these guys taking over several major TV networks?

They would probably cancel all of the news shows, and replace them video game reviews and badly edited Star Trek reruns.

Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 08:06 · Score: 1

Are there any real news shows left on TV? I know there are multiple 24-hour "News" channels and plenty of "News" shows, but do any actually engage in responsible reporting?
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by tepples · 2010-06-21 08:12 · Score: 1

They would probably cancel all of the news shows
As far as I can remember, the FCC requires broadcast TV stations to carry news and E/I broadcasts. Or are you trying to say NBC will move to cable?
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by Herkum01 · 2010-06-21 08:18 · Score: 1

> >They would probably cancel all of the news shows, and replace them video game reviews and badly edited Star Trek reruns. >
You make it sound like this is a bad thing!
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by blackraven14250 · 2010-06-21 08:38 · Score: 1

No, because they let most of the anchors give editorials and ask biased questions.
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 09:04 · Score: 1

No they would introduce new quality reality shows like "Who Wants to Eat Sheep Balls?", "Dancing With the Skanks", and "Passed-out Former Celebrities Face-down in Their Own Vomit."

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by drkim · 2010-06-21 18:05 · Score: 1

...and eventually:

"Dancing With the Skanks: Miami"
Re:Considering what Comcast did to TechTV... by elrous0 · 2010-06-22 01:22 · Score: 1

PBS Newshour, BBC World News America

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Comcast Sports Net Chicago is good but that is onl by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-21 07:31 · Score: 1

Comcast Sports Net Chicago / Comcast Sports Net Chicago + and + 2 is good but that is the only comcast channel that spend much time viewing comcast only owns 20% of it. I did see the NHL plays offs on VS but that is small next to most of the other carp on that channel. G4 has some good VOD stuff but Comcarp killed most of the good stuff there.

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by h4rr4r · 2010-06-21 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since they play more human interest crap than events, I think many folks would be ok with missing the olympics.

I realize those pieces are cheaper, but they are pointless.

Agree with the FCC by DaMattster · 2010-06-21 07:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given Comcast's strong anti-net neutrality stance and propsensity towards censorship, I agree with the FCC. The merger should be blocked because it does not serve a really good purpose. It just creates a giant media conglomerate with far reaching arms into government. Comcast and NBC Universal should remain separate entities.

Re:Agree with the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:44 · Score: 0

Comcast and NBC Universal should remain separate entities.
they would be... under an NBCComcast / ComcastNBC umbrella.
Re:Agree with the FCC by JoeRandomHacker · 2010-06-21 08:46 · Score: 1

Comcast and NBC Universal should remain separate entities.
they would be... under an NBCComcast / ComcastNBC umbrella.
However, Comcast would own a majority of the new company, so they get to set the agenda. They already do this in partnerships (or Joint Ventures) with other companies, including mine.
Re:Agree with the FCC by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-06-21 09:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

The merger should be blocked because it does not serve a really good purpose.
Erm, what? I think the merger should be blocked, too, but not because "it does not serve a really good purpose". People and corporations do a lot of things that seem rather dumb to me, but I find the idea of stopping them on that reason alone to be pretty scary.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Agree with the FCC by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 11:00 · Score: 0

If Comcast doesn't buy NBC who is going to bail them out? The networks, especially NBC and bleeding money hand over fist. There is very little money to be made in advertising. NBC needs a bailout, that's why GE wants to dump them.
Comcast needs to diversify so when folks start getting all of their content via the network pipe and Comcast looses $50 - $200/household per month they have additional revenue streams. Plus the crazy amount of overhead "needed" for entitlement systems that specify who is allowed to view the content could be simplified by a merger of the two entities.
In short, the merger makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint. Comcast is probably near their peak and needs additional revenue streams, NBC is cheap right now and needs more $$$ to fund new content.
Disclaimer: I know people who work for both of these companies and have seen the business from their point of view.
Re:Agree with the FCC by bigngamer92 · 2010-06-21 12:29 · Score: 1

Shouldn't it be the FTC here? The one that's supposed to deal with Monopolies, not the one that's supposed to keep the airwaves clean?

--
Common Sense

Too Big to Fail by U8MyData · 2010-06-21 07:45 · Score: 1

Ah, shoot. Let 'em do it just like the banks did; they will be "too big to fail." Seriously...

Re:I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / by PRMan · 2010-06-21 07:47 · Score: 1

Why is this modded Offtopic? It shows how Comcast is already abusing a monopoly position on something, which is the fear of the article.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by fotbr · 2010-06-21 07:47 · Score: 0

Yes, I'm fine with missing all of the olympics, regardless of the year. I don't find sports all that interesting.

Re:I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / by U8MyData · 2010-06-21 07:54 · Score: 1

Money. Either not enough people in the stands (sooo, you can't watch it either) or some other mis-arrangement with the entities involved. In Cali, the Oakland Raiders would not allow broadcast of their games unless a certain percentage of seats were sold for the specific game in question (or at least that is how I understood it, not a fan.) It all boils down to money...

How is this any different by lcreech · 2010-06-21 08:05 · Score: 1

Than the AOL and Times-Warner merger that didn't work out so well?

There can be only one by nurb432 · 2010-06-21 08:06 · Score: 1

Or something like that.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Monopolies.. by nurb432 · 2010-06-21 08:08 · Score: 1

..are not always bad, but if they aren't well regulated/watched, free market goes out the window and it never turns out good for the consumer.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / by OldeTimeGeek · 2010-06-21 08:17 · Score: 1

That's an NFL rule, not the Raiders. The NFL blackout policy states that games sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff can be televised in the home city.

What about the FCC? by bonch · 2010-06-21 08:22 · Score: 1

In a letter sent to the FCC Monday (PDF), the groups argue the new $30 billion entity would have unprecedented control over the media landscape, raising antitrust concerns.

The same FCC that's trying to regain control of the internet and tax major websites? Where are the concerns over that?

AOL-Time Warner... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 08:23 · Score: 0

failed: http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/04/29/2222234/Time-Warner-To-Spin-Off-AOL?art_pos=1

This will fail too.

I read the same comments back in 2001: http://slashdot.org/story/01/01/12/0329253/FCC-Approves-AOL-Time-Warner-Merger?art_pos=21

Information will continue to flow.

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by Zantac69 · 2010-06-21 08:49 · Score: 1

You mean the last games before the Apocyclipse? *shrug* I would not miss them.

--
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.

idle CSS now everywhere? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 08:53 · Score: 0

Seriously? Previously, only idle was unusable. Now all of slashdot is unusable.

The "More" link doesn't work, and you can't adjust the comment threshold anymore - the slider is gone entirely.

So now, I can only see 20-ish comments per story, I can't expand the comments, and I can't show hidden comments. What is the point?

Urine ready by paiute · 2010-06-21 08:58 · Score: 1

"Among the threats listed are the potential for the new media giant to violate net neutrality and favor its own content both on television and online."

Potential? Yeah, and I have the potential to have to take a piss sometime in the next two days.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by MBGMorden · 2010-06-21 09:00 · Score: 1

Ok, I'm comfortable with the fact that SOME people watch the Olympics and enjoy it. That's all fine and good. I definately find it odd though that you'd state it like it's a given that someone just couldn't miss the Olympics. Of the people I know, 9 out of 10 really just don't give a shit about the Olympics. Even the people who are into (mainstream) sports.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

it's not that. Why is a WNBA on NBATV blacked out by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 09:46 · Score: 0

it's not that. Why is a WNBA on NBATV blacked out in Chicago on Directv? As it is on CN100 that is COMCAST only.

I want the Chicago Wolves gmaes on Directv as well. NHL network does AHL play offs so if the Wolves make it will NHL network get blacked out as well on Directv?

This carp is a joke and peopel in phlly have to deal if FOR PRO SPORTS not just lower league stuff.

By NFL rules comcast must keep Sunday Night on ota by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-21 09:50 · Score: 2, Informative

By NFL rules comcast must keep Sunday Night on ota or at least for teams in the game and there is no why they will the let games go cable / comcast only.

warehouse 13 and Eureka as good as well also by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-06-21 09:52 · Score: 1

warehouse 13 and Eureka as good as well also SGU is ok SG1 and SGA are better but SGU does have some good stuff in it.

Film Student History by speedlaw · 2010-06-21 11:16 · Score: 1

Once upon a time, movie studios made movies. People had to go to a movie theater to see those movies. The great grandfathers of the current RIAA thought it great to have a system where the studios owned the movies and the theaters. This was good as there was no issue of splitting receipts with the movie house or worrying about that movie house showing someone else's movies (film being open source). At some point, the movie makers were forced to sell off the "tied houses" and since then, there has been an ongoing battle between those making the movies and those showing them. The other idea from back then is the concept of pay per play. Easy to do with a nickelodeon, and the long, long term goal of all the new technology introduced by our phrends at RIAA/MPAA. (Readup on the lockdowns on your HDMI system) This merger proposal is zero new. The reasons have not changed. It is still bad for the consumer. What has changed is the fact that the consumer is now second to the corporation in this nation, and that is a truly sad fact. At least I live in a location where I have a choice of Sat, Cable, and OTA for TV and cable or fiber for broadband. I understand many have no choice. How much does it cost to buy a congresscritter. I've a few laws I'd like passed.

antitrust by Something+Witty+Here · 2010-06-21 11:26 · Score: 2

NBC is a free broadcast network. Comcrap is pay cable.
How well is comcrap going to support/maintain NBC's broadcasting
given that comcrap wants everyone to subscribe to their crappy
cable service?

OTA TV is less compressed than cable/satelite,
and recording it is legal. MIfiAA lawyers can take
a hike.

Yeah, NBC doesn't have much worth watching at the moment,
but that stuff goes in cycles, and someday NBC will have
great stuff again. Unless comcrap is allowed to destroy
NBC forever.

Clear antitrust, but is anyone paying attention? Where
is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

And now for something completely different:

> You couldn't get 90% of voters to oppose Hitler.

Dig out your history books and look up who was running
against Hitler. Reminds me of some recent US elections.

Re:By NFL rules comcast must keep Sunday Night on by MtViewGuy · 2010-06-21 11:58 · Score: 1

And there's another good reason for this: it's often by far the highest-rated NFL game of the week. And NBC doesn't have a decent cable network to dump it to, either, unless they want it on USA Network.

Even better would be to... by WindBourne · 2010-06-21 12:12 · Score: 1

Force the new company to split into 2 companies; Cable only and the other being services, media, etc.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

I'm less concerned about the merger of content creator and distributor than I am about the merger of copyright holder and service provider. Especially since the holder in this case is NBC, who's been quite aggressive in their attempts to track down torrent peers.

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 15:21 · Score: 0

answering a fucking direct question gets moderated down? which fucking moderators have their panties in a wad?

Re:I want CN100 on Directv as well as CSN phlly / by jonwil · 2010-06-21 15:32 · Score: 1

The blackout rules for the NFL are set by the NFL, not by the teams.

Same has happened here in Quebec by Hamsterdan · 2010-06-21 17:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quebecor, one of the largest media company owns Many papers, about 90% of all stand magazines, a TV network and the largest cable company in the province (Videotron). So when the owner's girlfriend has a new show, it's on cell phones, in all the media, on TV, on the ISP's home page, so on. They can control the information. All the news come from the same source, their own press agency. Even worse, about every of their companies have been/are/will be in a lock-out. Of course, since they own about every media you don't really hear about it.

And to make matters worse, Brian Mulroney (ex canadian PM) sits on the board so lobbying is not too difficult, as if cornering all the media wasn't enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebecor

--
I've got better things to do tonight than die.

Already Happening by JustABlitheringIdiot · 2010-06-22 02:24 · Score: 1

so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? But the 2010 mess says that NBC better drop it orlet comcast do it they do a much better job with sports.

We already have that problem in Philadelphia, Comcast owns the media rights to both the 76ers and the Flyers (not that they matter to 99.99% of the rest of the world) and routinely restricts the broadcast of their games to Comcast specific channels. For years I could never watch a game for either team b/c I was not a Comcast subscriber. So yes I am very afraid of the merger b/c I would like to see other events and shows besides what they sooo graciously allow me to see.

Comcast, NBC, GE by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-22 04:53 · Score: 0

Who cares they are already owned by the same parent company GE.

Slashdot Mirror

Groups Urge FCC To Block NBC-Comcast Merger

160 comments