Comcast Buys Out GE's Remaining 49% Stake In NBC

30 Rock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 04:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Kabletown

Re:30 Rock by Loliniel · 2013-02-13 04:44 · Score: 2

This is the end of an era, Lemon. I'm going to go sailing.
Re:30 Rock by Megane · 2013-02-13 04:47 · Score: 2

Nice of Comcast to wait until 30 Rock was over, rather than having them scramble to work "Kabletown buys out NBC" into the script.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:30 Rock by CohibaVancouver · 2013-02-13 05:05 · Score: 1

Transparent dishwashers!
Re:30 Rock by nthitz · 2013-02-13 06:19 · Score: 1

Uhh they already did do that story in an episode.
Re:30 Rock by ButchDeLoria · 2013-02-13 06:54 · Score: 1

Not only that, but the series finale was Kabletown finally buying out NBC.
Re:30 Rock by Luyseyal · 2013-02-13 08:02 · Score: 1

Jack Donaghy
Vice President of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!

Too much concentrated power by fustakrakich · 2013-02-13 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

These people will become the 'federal government' of the internet.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Too much concentrated power by interkin3tic · 2013-02-13 04:50 · Score: 2

One wonders when or if we'll reach a tipping point where voters realize that overgrown corporations and overgrown governments both can threaten their rights. Especially when they intertwine. Maybe voters will at that point start actually taking back control of regulatory agencies. Crazier things have happened, and revolutions often happen when no one is expecting them.
Re:Too much concentrated power by ByOhTek · 2013-02-13 04:57 · Score: 2

I think we may generally be past that point, however the government and corporations have gotten so intertwined with their political game of twister-fellato, that the public will have a lot of trouble overcoming them merely by voting in a system where they are convinced that a vote other than for a primary party, is a wasted vote.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Too much concentrated power by tripleevenfall · 2013-02-13 05:10 · Score: 1

Of course, voting for a non-primary party will in fact be a wasted vote until such time as that party garners enough votes to challenge the primary parties, at which point we'll have three primary parties which are all just as bad as one another, instead of the two we have now which are just as bad as one another.
Re:Too much concentrated power by Luckyo · 2013-02-13 05:14 · Score: 2

That is why corporations are focusing and concentrating mass media first and foremost. Propaganda is the power of control of the masses. As long as critical mass isn't reached, no one important cares about fringe thinkers understanding the reality. Propaganda will just discredit the thinkers, hide the atrocities committed to them and tell everyone that they have the best place to live in the world.
So to answer your question: most likely never unless some major catastrophe happens that will massively upset the current power structure. The current trend is concentration of power in private hands with little to no oversight of any kind.
Re:Too much concentrated power by ByOhTek · 2013-02-13 05:42 · Score: 1

except it cannot get enough votes to challenge the primary parties, unless people start voting for it first.
And, with more primary parties, the 'entry point' to becoming a primary party becomes lower. Hopefully, sooner or later the tide will turn and we can get more than 2 primaries, and have some faster cycling of parties.
catch-22

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Too much concentrated power by DragonWriter · 2013-02-13 06:29 · Score: 1

Of course, voting for a non-primary party will in fact be a wasted vote until such time as that party garners enough votes to challenge the primary parties, at which point we'll have three primary parties which are all just as bad as one another
No, we'll have two, just a different two: our electoral system structurally makes it so that a new party being competitive means (and usually follows rather than leads) an existing major party ceasing to be competitive.
Re:Too much concentrated power by Jawnn · 2013-02-13 06:34 · Score: 1

These people will become the 'federal government' of the internet.
Don't be daft. There's already no difference between a company of that size and "the government".
Re:Too much concentrated power by interkin3tic · 2013-02-13 06:34 · Score: 1

I strongly disagree. The two party system isn't the cause. It's the cost of campaigning and apathy on the part of the voters that keep corporations winning. Corporations can buy off any number of parties, like they do in plenty of other countries with more than two parties. Voters could easily vote for candidates who would get tough on white collar crime in both parties. They don't simply because they don't care and they get flooded with commercials for pro-corporate candidates.
Re:Too much concentrated power by UnknownSoldier · 2013-02-13 08:50 · Score: 1

> and we can get more than 2 primaries, and have some faster cycling of parties.
Unfortunately that won't solve the problem as the system is fundamentally flawed.
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Re:Too much concentrated power by tibman · 2013-02-13 09:30 · Score: 1

Aircraft carrier groups?

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Too much concentrated power by hairyfeet · 2013-02-13 11:32 · Score: 1

What do you mean "when"? Most people ALREADY know this, its the simple fact that thanks to "money equals speech" there isn't a damned thing they can do about it short of full on violent revolution. How many protested the wars? How many wated their time with occupy? didn't change shit did it? hell we get years worth of documents about the governments of the world doing dirty deeds and since the MSM is in bed with the gov it is focused not on the corruption, but whether Assange is an asshole.
Everything you see on TV, hear on the radio, and if the corps have their way read on the Internet WILL be controlled by the handful at the top. It isn't an accident that the ones controlling the ISPs are the same ones buying media companies, they want to turn the net into the home shopping network, where they use caps to steer the cattle by the nose where they want them to go. We are already seeing this in the caps, if I use Vonyage? Goes against the cap, cableco's VoIP? No cap. I watch netflix? Cap. watch their PPV? No cap.
Sadly there isn't a damned thing you can do about this new facist/corporatist system short of violent revolution because you have the whole system rigged to keep the status quo. throw out the bums? They get cushy lobbyist jobs which lets them hand checks to the new guys who then follow the same path. Its no accident that even though the left is VERY much against the policies dubya started Obama signed off on damned near every one, its all as fake as pro wrestling. They hand him a big fat check and tell him to sign what laws the lobbyists have written, that's all.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Too much concentrated power by mattack2 · 2013-02-13 12:55 · Score: 1

California now has a nonpartisan blanket primary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary#Use_in_California
The top 2 vote recipients in primary elections go to the general election, regardless of party.
Re:Too much concentrated power by interkin3tic · 2013-02-14 03:07 · Score: 1

You're engaging in defeatist hyperbole, possibly as an excuse not to care about politics. Or maybe you're trying to look for someone besides voters to blame.

Consider how few people bother voting in primaries. Or even the general election. When so few people express an opinion in a meaningful way, it's pretty easy for one interested party to dominate. If 51% of the country voted against telecom interests, it would take an armed coup on the part of the telecoms to stop it.

It's okay, good even, to be cynical about politics, but for fucks sake, we still live in a representative democracy. That we aren't using it very well doesn't mean we don't have it, at least not at the moment.
Re:Too much concentrated power by hairyfeet · 2013-02-14 19:00 · Score: 1

One sentence "Jon Stewart Ron Paul" go and look it up. There in video taken straight from the networks you will see with your own eyes the MSM influencing the direction of the primaries by making Paul "he who shall NOT be named" and they even go so far as to name the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers, making sure the name Ron Paul is NEVER spoken in the places having a primary. Since the majority get their "news" from the MSM this makes it easy to rig.
And while i never supported Ron Paul or Alex Jones for that matter you can also goes to Jones' website and see the behind the scenes video of the "voice count" on whether Paul's delegation will be heard, in the video you can CLEARLY see and hear the vote is too close to call yet there on the teleprompter before the vote is ever called the outcome is decided and the speaker simply read what was written.
i'm sorry but there is a REASON why so few vote in the primaries and general election, its because they can see its a waste of time. in my own state our "primaries" had a corporate owned pair of DINOs that sucked big corp cock VS a couple of corporate owned RINOs that suck corporate cock, tell me friend how EXACTLY are we given "choice" when all the choices are all long time players of the game with big money already owning their asses? Again do you think it an accident that Obama ended up supporting or even expanding every policy the left hated under Dubya? Its all kayfabe, you get what the corp says you can have, nothing more. this is why the "debates" will ALWAYS be about either vague subjects like "jobs" or about subjects like gays and abortion, its because the corps don't give a rat's ass about those topics so no matter how they go they don't care. when was the last time you saw a politician that had a snowball's chance talking about breaking up the relationship between big gov and the corps? or ending corporate welfare? or doing anything other than paying lip service to our leaking borders?
so you go to the primaries and waste your time voting for whichever shill the corps decide you can choose from, the rest of us can see the truth. money equals speech and unless your last name is Buffet or Gates you don't have a voice anymore.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Unprecidented control over US mind-share by MetalliQaZ · 2013-02-13 04:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been dealing with and reading about Comcast for a long time. This scares me. Already the country has forgotten about the obvious and egregious conflict of interest at the FCC. Face-palm. Comcast now has unprecedented access to the mind-share of the American public, from pre-production to eyeballs.

Comcast along with other companies like Disney, ClearChannel, etc. are not to be trusted. Be wary, my friends.

--
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 04:29 · Score: 1

This is absolutely not unprecidented. Ask your parents. This is an attempt to return to the "golden days" of broadcast monopolies/oligarchies.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by balsy2001 · 2013-02-13 04:49 · Score: 1

It is also sad that they have a monopoly over most of their customer base. They will slowly find ways to eliminate the alternatives that are available on-line to paid cable TV. They will throttle connections, impose more severe data caps etc. and then invent some BS reason for it all so that they aren't hit with an anti-trust law suit.

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 05:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Comcast along with other companies like Disney, ClearChannel, etc. are not to be trusted. Be wary, my friends.
Nonsense! Comcast is my broadband provider and they've never once stopped me from criticizing them. For example, I've been critical of them in the past for%%NO CARRIER
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 05:13 · Score: 1

then invent some BS reason for it

My bet is that they'll throw the "security" card, as in "The reason we have to restrict our users to our walled garden is to protect against malware and cyberwarfare."

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 05:25 · Score: 1

Add Time Warner, a subsidiary of Turner broadcasting (CNN, etc) to the list as well.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by ByOhTek · 2013-02-13 05:46 · Score: 1

So, you are saying the ability of people or groups to influence others in arbitrary ways, is linked to the idea of video games influencing individuals in specific ways (specifically to cause violence).
It can just as well be argued, that that video games reduce violence by providing a vicarious outlet for violence, so people don't actually go around doing it for real. Sorry to break your false association/link there.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by ByOhTek · 2013-02-13 05:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, TW scares the hell out of me, I know too many people who are stuck with TW since they are in areas with TW monopolies.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Lord+Lemur · 2013-02-13 06:06 · Score: 1

So, you are saying the ability of people or groups to intentionally influence others in the mannor of their choosing, is linked to the idea of video games incidentally influencing individuals in one way that is against the will of industry, bad for bussiness and grounds for lots of expensive lawsuits..
It can just as well be argued, that that video games reduce violence by providing a vicarious outlet for violence, so people don't actually go around doing it for real. Sorry to break your false association/link there.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by F34nor · 2013-02-13 10:10 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRMozyOVtk
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Drakonblayde · 2013-02-13 11:43 · Score: 1

Look, I'm a Comcast employee, on the operations side. I can assure you beyond the shadow of a doubt that we Ops folks do not think like this. Most of us are customers as well as employees, you think we want to be making our own service suck on purpose?
I do an awful lot of work in the realm of capacity increase and augmentation on the Comcast network. Restriction isn't what we're about. We would much rather beat our competitors by simply offering a better product.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Curate · 2013-02-13 15:48 · Score: 1

How much capacity increase and augmentation could Comcast have gotten for 16.7 billion dollars instead of buying NBC?
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by Jiro · 2013-02-14 04:19 · Score: 1

Restriction isn't what your job is about. You're not in marketing or management.
Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share by DrGamez · 2013-02-14 12:40 · Score: 1

I'm not worried about you guys.
I'm worried about who writes your checks and the implications that holds.

goodbye channels by Soron · 2013-02-13 04:03 · Score: 1

Say goodbye to certain channels on other networks in a few years...

Re:goodbye channels by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Comcast already killed off what little was left of TechTV on G4. Now it's going to be the "Esquire Channel" is some shit like that. All the good tech shows are online-only now.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:goodbye channels by necro81 · 2013-02-13 04:26 · Score: 1

All the good tech shows are online-only now
True, perhaps, but is that a problem? For instance, I've been very impressed with the programming from Revision3 - an online-only "TV" studio whose lineup is heavily aligned with the /. crowd. They even have their own "channel" on Roku devices.
Re:goodbye channels by JeanCroix · 2013-02-13 04:36 · Score: 2

It's what I like to call TV Entropy, and it's what turned the History Channel into Jesus'n Alienz, and SciFi into Wrasslin'.
Jesus'n Alienz was five years ago. Now the H channel is nothing but truckers, loggers, pawn shops, and "pickers". It actually makes me long for their bygone days of Jesus/Aliens/Nazis.
Re:goodbye channels by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 04:39 · Score: 1

TwiT has its own full studio now too. I generally prefer it to Revision3 (less all over the map and more consistent in their weekly programming). But the two are closely aligned, so to each his own. I do love me some Techzilla.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:goodbye channels by what2123 · 2013-02-13 04:43 · Score: 1

Yeah H2 is where the Jesus/Aliens/Nazis and if you're lucky, (Modern)Modern Marvels will play. H2 is usually a premium service channel though so you gotta cough up the dough to get it. Not that it's worth it by any means.
Re:goodbye channels by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-02-13 04:45 · Score: 1

How about meeting you halfway with truckers/Aliens/"pickers"/Nazis?
I remember somebody derisively referring to the "Hitler Channel" back in the mid-90s. Seems like those channels have always been half-assed.
Re:goodbye channels by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 04:51 · Score: 1

Now if they would tweak the Hitler Channel to the Downfall Parody Channel, they'd have something.
Re:goodbye channels by balsy2001 · 2013-02-13 04:53 · Score: 1

What about Discovery and National Geographic. They used to be science based Channels. Now they split their time fairly evenly between ghost hunting, psychic phenomenon, and dog whispering. At least there is still shark week, until it becomes "possessed shark week with with live shark exorcism."

--
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:goodbye channels by JWW · 2013-02-13 09:35 · Score: 1

At least SyFy (sigh) is making robots fight in a couple of weeks. There's more of an element of sci-fi to that than there is with Wrasslin'.

Thank god for the internet by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pretty soon a handful of companies will own every old media outlet out there. Well, at least we still have the internet.

My ISP? Oh, it's Comcas.....oh shit.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Thank god for the internet by Synerg1y · 2013-02-13 04:30 · Score: 2

And I really really hope I get to see them collapse under their own weight & finally get some decent service from the multitude of new comers that step in to take their place.
Re:Thank god for the internet by c · 2013-02-13 04:32 · Score: 2

Pretty soon a handful of companies will own every old media outlet out there.
Just think of how much more efficient if will be when you only need to direct your rage and hatred at a handful of companies.

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:Thank god for the internet by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 04:42 · Score: 1

Just think of how much more efficient if will be when you only need to direct your rage and hatred at a handful of companies.
Hell, I already do that now with MS, Sony, and Apple.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Thank god for the internet by bjwest · 2013-02-13 05:18 · Score: 1

Kind of like when AT&T collapsed under it's own weight in the 70's? Wait, our government stepped in and fixed that. Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now. I doubt we'll see anything like that again.

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..
Re:Thank god for the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now.

You can't buy what isn't for sale. When are people going to face the fact that the government's elite are taking in just as much as the corporations and finally set it straight?
Re:Thank god for the internet by Medievalist · 2013-02-13 05:53 · Score: 1

Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now.
You can't buy what isn't for sale. When are people going to face the fact that the government's elite are taking in just as much as the corporations and finally set it straight?
Well, see, I punched the button on the voting machine for "no corruption" and it read back THANK YOU FOR VOTING FOR CORRUPTION HAVE A NICE DAY.
Re:Thank god for the internet by johnny+cashed · 2013-02-13 07:30 · Score: 1

Just think of how much more efficient if will be when you only need to direct your rage and hatred at a handful of companies.

Central Services?
Re:Thank god for the internet by Guppy · 2013-02-13 07:35 · Score: 1

My ISP? Oh, it's Comcas.....oh shit.
For a while now, the mega-Providers have been threatening internet-based companies (like Google), seeing them as freeloaders making money off "their" pipes (never mind that as subscribers, we pay ISPs a monthly fee for them to get to Google's stuff, not their own crappy content portals). Being able to hold the last mile hostage -- that's the driver behind the lobbying campaigns against net-neutrality.
It's also the driver behind Google Fiber. Google doesn't have to actually build it out everywhere to be effective as a threat; they just need to make the ISPs realize they are not as indispensable as they think. Likewise, this dynamic handily explains which companies you can expect to be for/against Whitespace wireless technology.
Re:Thank god for the internet by Linktoreality · 2013-02-14 06:28 · Score: 1

This, and the six-strike system, are the reasons I switched over to a smaller ISP.

Control == Profit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 04:05 · Score: 1

Controlling the content creation, performances and delivery of the content is very profitable.

Vertical Integration by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 04:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Jack:The only thing I will be discussing with the House Subcommittee on Baseball, Quiz Shows, Terrorism, and Media is vertical integration.
Liz:What's vertical integration?
Jack:Imagine that your favourite corn chip manufacturer also owned the number one diarrhea medication.
Liz: That'd be great cuz then they could put a little sample of the medication in each bag.
Jack:Keep thinking.
Liz:Except then they might be tempted to make the corn chips GIVE you...
Jack:Vertical integration.

Re:Vertical Integration by crazyvas · 2013-02-13 06:58 · Score: 2

Jack:Imagine that your favourite corn chip manufacturer also owned the number one diarrhea medication.
Shouldn't that be number two?
Re:Vertical Integration by PoolOfThought · 2013-02-13 08:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Probably both... I mean... it is kind of cross between #1 and #2. (i somehow feel very wrong after that)

--
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.

Fuck Comcast by F34nor · 2013-02-13 04:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Largest military industrial complex member sells propaganda wing to oligopoly softcore porn distributor.

Re:Fuck Comcast by necro81 · 2013-02-13 04:28 · Score: 1

That'd make for some hilarious jokes in a TV sitcom, if it weren't also so very sad.
Re:Fuck Comcast by DarkOx · 2013-02-13 04:30 · Score: 1

30 Rock would have run with it.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Fuck Comcast by F34nor · 2013-02-13 10:05 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRMozyOVtk
The only SNL segment censored by the board of GE.

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? by crazyjj · 2013-02-13 04:23 · Score: 1

Even Comcast doesn't have the balls to kill off the affiliate system. That ancient system would probably survive a nuclear holocaust.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? by 2phar · 2013-02-13 04:26 · Score: 1

The broadcast radio spectrum is supposed to be a public resource, but Comcast probably see it as just another transport for their proprietary data. Expect the bought-and-paid-for FCC to make another attempt at the broadcast flag or worse in the near future.

Re:Capitalism ends with... by Sulphur · 2013-02-13 04:45 · Score: 1

one company owning everything...

The Phone Company (TPC)?

Re:Aren't there rules against this? by arekin · 2013-02-13 04:53 · Score: 2

Comcast has a kind of monopoly as it is.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos (alone or single) + polein (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)." Technically Comcast is part of an oligopoly at best. Their is direct competition in Comcast markets with AT&T, Dish, Direct TV, Fios, and in some areas such as Those in Michigan, a competing cable provider like WOW (http://www.wowway.com/). With the number of providers available it is hard to really even claim oligopoly. People go after cable franchising as monopolistic (if that's even a word), and with good reason, it would be if that was the only means by which to provide these services. It's not.

--
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-02-13 04:53 · Score: 1

for that to work they would need to kill all old equipment and sdr (software defined radio) broadcasting tv and radio from terrestrial transmitters must, by law, be unencrypted with exemptions made for cellular telephone systems

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Re:Capitalism ends with... by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-02-13 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about a new name at least? I vote for "Weylan-Yutani."

Syfy Channel Impact by guttentag · 2013-02-13 04:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Syfy is owned by NBC, and Comcast has already made changes there.

Syfy's Eureka series debuted in 2006. I was never a big fan, but it looked like it had promise, gained a following and did well. They'd throw out occasional references to things like the LHC and CERN, had Joe Morton (who played Miles Dyson in Terminator 2) as a regular character, and even brought in our buddy (and by that I mean he reads and posts on Slashdot) Wil Wheaton toward the end.

Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC in January 2011. By August, Eureka was cancelled. The show had good ratings, good viewership, and was considered "the golden child" of Syfy, but Comcast killed it because it was not profitable enough. It wasn't losing money, but Comcast decided that if you have to spend money on special effects to sell the show to viewers, there are lots of cheaper, more profitable ways to get viewers' attention.

With Comcast poised to take full control of NBC sooner, expect more of the shows that drive Syfy's viewership to be cancelled in the next couple of years, and if they take it far enough eventually Syfy may go away.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Jintsui · 2013-02-13 05:05 · Score: 1

One of the three reasons I have kept my Comcast cable was Syfy. If they change it much more, that will certainly make me cancel.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Hes+Nikke · 2013-02-13 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Face it: the Sci-Fi channel has been a rotting corpse ever since they mutiliated the name.

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by OhPlz · 2013-02-13 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Earlier than that. Unless there's some sci-fi aspect of wrestling that I'm unaware of.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 05:52 · Score: 1

Well, both are base upon fiction.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by dywolf · 2013-02-13 06:02 · Score: 2

Syfy won't go away. It'll just become the next SpikeTv....call it....AXE Tv.
Spike used to be TNN. TNN used to be The Nashvile Network. As they started showing less and less country/Nashville related programming, fewer outdoors shows, they started just going by the acronym more and more. Til people nearly forgot what TNN even stood for. Eventually, they just dropped even that, and now we have SpikeTV whos main claim to fame seems to be the 1000 Ways to Die show.
Or we could make the comparison to the lifecycle of everyones favorite computer/nerd channel....TechTv, now G$ I mean G4.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:16 · Score: 1

Sci-Fi went away long ago. When they changed the name to SyFy they made it clear that it was to detach the channel from it's association with science fiction.
Honestly I don't understand how someone can be so fucking retarded about their own model. They seem to want every single channel to have the highest ratings, but that's a paradox in and of itself. If you can't figure out why that's a paradox then you would do really well in their company.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Colonel+Korn · 2013-02-13 06:34 · Score: 1

Syfy is owned by NBC, and Comcast has already made changes there.
Syfy's Eureka series debuted in 2006. I was never a big fan, but it looked like it had promise, gained a following and did well. They'd throw out occasional references to things like the LHC and CERN, had Joe Morton (who played Miles Dyson in Terminator 2) as a regular character, and even brought in our buddy (and by that I mean he reads and posts on Slashdot) Wil Wheaton toward the end.
Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC in January 2011. By August, Eureka was cancelled. The show had good ratings, good viewership, and was considered "the golden child" of Syfy, but Comcast killed it because it was not profitable enough. It wasn't losing money, but Comcast decided that if you have to spend money on special effects to sell the show to viewers, there are lots of cheaper, more profitable ways to get viewers' attention.
With Comcast poised to take full control of NBC sooner, expect more of the shows that drive Syfy's viewership to be cancelled in the next couple of years, and if they take it far enough eventually Syfy may go away.
I miss the days of MST3K, Farscape, BSG and Star Trek reruns on Sci Fi. I'd settle for SG1 and Dr. Who. But hey, aspiring actors need low budget, low quality movies to build a career, right?

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by geoffrobinson · 2013-02-13 06:56 · Score: 1

I think the reason is that you can't trademark Sci-Fi.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Obfuscant · 2013-02-13 08:40 · Score: 2

This has been the history of cable channels since the beginning. Cable networks were initially created with the idea of providing lots of niche programming so that everyone could have something. Kinda like "Spatula City" and the Scotch Tape Store at the mall. Specialized.
Unfortunately, mass media means mass, and every niche channel thinks they need to grow and get more viewers. That, and the grand view of someday cable would be 500 channels of everything going away as the truth was realized: it costs money to pay for the niche programming and not many people would pay for 490 channels that they never watch. (Ala carte was not a possibility then; the dream died before the technology was available. The dream has now moved to the Internet.)
I remember MTV when it was music. I remember TNN when it was Nashville music. AMC when it was actually classic movies. TV Land when it was actually reruns of classic TV. Sci-Fi. Bravo. BBC America was all about British TV shows! PBS was actually advertising-free. Too many others to mention.
And what is fascinating to watch is the cycle repeating. METv has shown up in my parent's area, and they're TV Land reborn. I wish they were out here.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by dywolf · 2013-02-13 09:11 · Score: 1

they broadcast METV ota out here in oklahoma city, and it's actually not carried by Cox (that i've seen). I love it.
I can watch Maude and Jeffersons and Mary Tyler Moore like i did as a kid, and I gotta say, Big Bang Theory should absolutely be ashamed of itself. it just doesn't even compare, even though those shows are 40+ years old.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Obfuscant · 2013-02-13 10:31 · Score: 1

I miss the days of MST3K, Farscape, BSG and Star Trek reruns on Sci Fi.
Star Trek and BSG reruns are now on BBC America. Who knew that Star Trek and BSG were actually British-made television shows?
ST yes, those reruns serve a purpose. But BSG the second/third/etc time around is just violence without purpose. Once you know who all the human-looking Cylons are, it's really no fun anymore. It is kinda funny, though, a machine with an alcohol problem, who had his eye poked out by another machine.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Kaenneth · 2013-02-13 10:39 · Score: 1

I think a lot of TV accountants have it wrong.
They think making a reality show for $100,000 that makes $200,000 (100% margin) is better than a professionally written/acted show that costs $1,000,000 making $1,500,000. (50% margin). When in reality they are giving up $400,000 to other media.
As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money. The typical MBA knows how to cut costs, but not how to build a business.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by jonwil · 2013-02-13 11:01 · Score: 1

I think there are several factors at work here, the first being the demographics and the fact that the people who watch the reality show are more likely to be the right kind of people (the people who are most attractive to advertisers). The second is that if the show is a flop and doesn't make the money they thought it would (or doesn't get the eyeballs/ad dollars they thought it would) their sunk costs are much smaller so their risk is lower.
Plus with a reality show, its easy to make changes mid-series if the ratings start to slide (e.g. throw in a twist, bring in new contestants, bring back old contestants, kick off contestants, force the contestants to sing whatever song is #1 on the charts or whatever else) but its harder and more expensive to change a scripted show (especially when the scripted show already has x number of episodes in the can at the point the ratings start to slide)
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by MrNemesis · 2013-02-13 11:19 · Score: 1

Wrestling is broadcast from a parallel universe where it's actually considered worthwhile entertainment?
Hell, look at all the wrestlers with goatees.

--
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by Kaenneth · 2013-02-13 11:26 · Score: 1

True, I did have the insight recently, that advertizing is targeted at people who are influenced by advertizing.
Re:Syfy Channel Impact by mattack2 · 2013-02-13 13:04 · Score: 1

You should rent the DVDs. You're likely missing around 5 minutes of every episode cut out for more commercials.

why do you think they call it "programming"?! by Thud457 · 2013-02-13 05:22 · Score: 1

In 'Murica, only old people watch teevee.
And jocks.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Capitalism ends with... by Thud457 · 2013-02-13 05:42 · Score: 1

one company owning everything...

The Phone Company (TPC)?

ding ding ding!
I deduct that you are Dr Johhny Fever!
You owe me a coke!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Network by mill3d · 2013-02-13 05:52 · Score: 1

That 40 year old movie predicted this problem spot on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8

--
Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius

Re:Network by ButchDeLoria · 2013-02-13 06:52 · Score: 1

Well, I'm certainly mad as hell.

Re:INCOMING!!!! by fustakrakich · 2013-02-13 06:25 · Score: 2

ja...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:GE doesn't make weapons by chihowa · 2013-02-13 06:28 · Score: 1

What? GE makes lots of weapons. They had a big stake in nuke manufacture. They also make a lot of the gatling guns in service, like the M134 and the big gun on the A-10. I wouldn't say they're the largest member of the military industrial complex, but they're in the club. Anyway, making engines for warplanes is just as important as making guns for them.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.

Content viewing limitations by DewDude · 2013-02-13 06:36 · Score: 3, Funny

You can watch all the NBC you want; but after 250 hours your viewing will be reduced to MSNBC.

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup by DragonWriter · 2013-02-13 06:37 · Score: 1

In the 1980s, AT&T was forced to breakup into what were at the time known as the baby bells.

Which spent the 1990s-2000s buying each other up, including the biggest of them buying AT&T and taking its name.

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup by ButchDeLoria · 2013-02-13 06:48 · Score: 1

Except the federal government is owned by this monopoly.

Re:Aren't there rules against this? by LunaticTippy · 2013-02-13 07:00 · Score: 2

That isn't true for everyone. I know a lot of people who only have one option. If my line of sight was blocked I'd have exactly one potential tv provider, and blocked line of sight is common in my area. For internet, I have precisely two choices: The cable monopoly and the bastard step-grandpa of US West, whoever they are this year. CenturyLink (had to look it up)

Plain internet is $50 and up, and I am envious of people I know who live somewhere with competition.

I have one choice for tv, one choice for a landline, and two choices for internet which both conveniently charge the same inflated price. That is close enough to a monopoly to give them monopoly pricing on most of their services.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!

Comcast plans rate hikes to pay for this by HWguy · 2013-02-13 07:13 · Score: 1

So not only will they reduce the quality and variety of TV programming, they'll make you pay for it.

"Comcast executives warned analysts in the call that TV programming costs could increase in the "low double digits" in 2013 -- inflation that likely will passed to Comcast's TV customers -- after increasing about 7 percent in 2012."

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201302131211KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_2063_22042-1&params=timestamp%7C%7C02/13/2013%2012:11%20PM%20ET%7C%7Cheadline%7C%7CComcast%3A%20Rate%20hike%20likely%20to%20pay%20for%20programming%20%5BThe%20Philadelphia%20Inquirer%5D%7C%7CdocSource%7C%7CMcClatchy-Tribune%7C%7Cprovider%7C%7CACQUIREMEDIA%7C%7Cbridgesymbol%7C%7CUS;CMCSA&ticker=CMCSA

Re:GE doesn't make weapons by alexander_686 · 2013-02-13 07:23 · Score: 1

Anyway, making engines for warplanes is just as important as making guns for them

Which, in the grand scheme of things, means it’s not important.

GE is massive. GE does not bother breaking out it’s government defense contracts which means it accounts for only a thin slice of it’s income. It’s ancillary to GE core business. They make jet engines – extending it the military is easy. This is unlike Boeing, which is much more reliant of military contracts to fund it’s R&D.

They also make a lot of the gatling guns in service, like the M134

The wiki article uses the past tense when talking about GE.

Re:GE doesn't make weapons by johnny+cashed · 2013-02-13 07:24 · Score: 1

GE: We don't make weapons, we make weapons better

Re:ISP breakup by Sperbels · 2013-02-13 07:32 · Score: 2

Maybe we'll see a corporate mandated breakup of the government.

Re:Aren't there rules against this? by alexander_686 · 2013-02-13 08:02 · Score: 1

Modern Anti-Trust law is a bit more nuanced then the Greek definition.

Currently you run into anti-trust issues if a company’s dominate position causes market abuse – i.e. extract rents (i.e. economic profits which are above ordinary profits.) Some companies have been able to remain monopolies by keeping prices low so there is minimal market abuse and thus escape the eye of the Justice department.

Also, to but a finer detail on your post, most of the firms you mentioned are not competitors, but rather close substitutes. I have heard interesting arguments on how close a substitute a bundled cable/internet is verse a bundled phone/DSL competitor, and where to draw the line.

Re:GE doesn't make weapons by chromas · 2013-02-13 11:34 · Score: 1

BASF.

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup by Drakonblayde · 2013-02-13 11:54 · Score: 1

Don't you think the calls of an anti-monopoly breakup are a little melodramatic?

Last time I checked, there were other companies offering the same thing from the services side. Names like Cox, Charter, AT&T.

Last time I checked, there were other companies producing content. Names like ABC and CBS and Fox.

Comcast is in the unique position of being both a content delivery system, and a content generator, but it is hardly the only game in town on either side. Until we've reached a point where your only choice for delivery of services is the Comcast network, and the only source of content is that which was created by Comcast, any calls for an anti-trust breakup is a crock.

But you go on ahead and get your internet reactionary/revolutionary thing going on. And if you happen to be a Comcast customer, posting your drivel from the Comcast network, I hope you understand the irony.

Why buy it out? by Compaqt · 2013-02-13 15:35 · Score: 1

Most corps these days don't pay out dividends.

At 51% they already controlled NBC.

So why spend billions just to buy the rest?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:Why buy it out? by DrGamez · 2013-02-14 14:08 · Score: 1

As fun of a piece of media/writing it is, having 51% of the company doesn't mean you control the company.
Re:Why buy it out? by Compaqt · 2013-02-14 16:52 · Score: 1

What? Why not?
The board controls the company.
Shareholders elect the board.
51% gets you a majority of the board, which appoints the Chief Executive, who then "controls" the company.
What am I missing?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup by drinkypoo · 2013-02-13 17:00 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, there were other companies offering the same thing from the services side. Names like Cox, Charter, AT&T.

What percentage of Americans actually have a choice in broadband internet, where broadband is defined (by the FCC) as 4 Mbps or higher? I sure don't. I can get precisely one, and if I didn't have line of sight to the top of the local volcano I would have zero. And actually, they only offer a 3-6 Mbps plan, nothing 4+ Mbps, but let's just pretend that's 4+.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Does it want zero ratings in Cox/TWC-land? by tepples · 2013-02-14 04:22 · Score: 1

Xfinity TV isn't available in all markets. Does Comcast really want NBCU channels to have 0 ratings in cities served by a different cable TV provider or in rural areas not served by any cable TV provider?

Remember 480i? by tepples · 2013-02-14 04:26 · Score: 1

NBC could always cut its OTA affiliate feed back to SDTV.

Comcast is now totally responsible for NBC by JBaustian · 2013-02-14 19:14 · Score: 1

GE sent NBC on its downward spiral, and Comcast's partial ownership didn't lead to any improvement.

Now GE is out of the picture, and we'll know who to blame if NBC doesn't fix its problems.

Slashdot Mirror

Comcast Buys Out GE's Remaining 49% Stake In NBC

111 of 149 comments (clear)