Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report: Comcast In Talks To Buy DreamWorks For $3 Billion (usatoday.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fun-for-the-whole-family dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: Comcast is in talks to buy DreamWorks Animation in a multi-billion-dollar deal, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are reporting. The cost of the deal would be more than $3 billion, according to both news organizations, citing unnamed sources. Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, has been searching for a buyer for the company, which has a current market value of $2.3 billion. DreamWorks is based in Glendale, Calif., and was founded in 1994 by Katzenberg, filmmaker Steven Spielberg and movie and music executive David Geffen. The animation unit was spun off in 2004. Philadelphia-based Comcast has two primary businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast also owns Universal Parks and Resorts. Comcast already owns an animation studio, Illumination Entertainment, known for its work on the Despicable Me and Minions movies.

29 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. I for one... by freedom_surfer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new cable overlords.

    1. Re:I for one... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's our new "entertainment" overlords. Are people really okay with a single company not only controlling a huge amount of media content creation, but the (occasionally exclusive) delivery mechanism for that media as well? That seems tailor made for a built-in conflict of interest right there. These media conglomerates are getting ridiculous. I mean, thank goodness we actually have an alternative to cable TV in streaming media these days, but even so, a lot of people still rely on cable modems for their internet as well.

      What's perhaps most irritating to me is the notion that a company ends up getting so big that you can barely avoid doing any business with it. It will be a cold day in hell before I subscribe to Comcast cable again in my lifetime, but must I now avoid all Dreamworks films as well (or at least *paying* for them), assuming this deal happens?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:I for one... by freedom_surfer · · Score: 2

      I agree. I had the same thought the other day thinking about Netflix and how I like their original programming. What if they became the only game in town? Would they continue to be good after they had a controlling market share?

      Our only healthy choice is to make sure there are many players and many choices.

      (except if we have an 'overlord', then of course I was always with them.... :P)

    3. Re: I for one... by Bruha · · Score: 1

      Without banning exclusives you get a fragmented library and have to subscribe to multiple services and end up paying more. The rich Wall Street fat cat invests in both as well and makes twice the money but wait there's more! He buys tax breaks from congress for those multiple companies so you have to pay higher taxes to make up for it. Costing you more.

    4. Re:I for one... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Had the FTC included 1 founding rule in their charter, the 10% rule, these types of situations could be avoided. The 10% rule is simple: if your company via a merger or acquisition will exceed 10% of any market, you may not merge/acquire.

      It admittedly destroys the bigger plays on Wall Street, but I'm pretty sure no one cares except those 0.001%. It certainly plays to bigger competition and will require proper regulation of imports to prevent unfair trade practices.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re: I for one... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Let's not start legislating / regulating the crap out of a new industry before we see real problems emerge. I'm not even sure how you could justify "banning exclusives" when these services are producing their own original content, and such legislation would probably be on shaky legal ground even were that not the case.

      More to the point, while multiple players means you may have to pay for multiple services, these services are all directly competing with each other, which puts natural market pressure on keeping prices under control. At the moment, you could pretty much subscribe to most of the major streaming services (which seem to average around $10 or so) right now for significantly less than even a minimal package (let's say $65/mo), let alone the average cable bill of $100 a month. We certainly aren't anywhere close to the point that we're paying more for streaming, so I don't quite share your concerns about having to subscribe to a couple of services.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:I for one... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      They just got approved to by TWC, they now own the majority of the united states home internet and cable connections.

      Its not 'occasionally' anymore.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:I for one... by npslider · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with your display. Do not adjust your dial, tap your touchscreen, or click your mouse... we control both the refresh rate and resolution. If we wish to make it louder during the required unstoppable commercial, we will bring up the volume. We are controlling your bandwidth and requiring you to pay to play. For the rest of your life, sit quietly, without rational thought and we will control all that you see and hear. And now, one, and all, give a round of silent applause to your new media overlords!

  2. Wait a second.... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Anybody want to look up why Comcast and NBCUniversal merged?

  3. Re:Put Comcast out of business by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3

    You don't shut Comcast down, you spin off NBCU and the problem is solved.

  4. dear Comcast.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3

    how about fucking spending money on your infrastructure first?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:dear Comcast.... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Well, they're going to spend around $17 billion on infrastructure ($11B capex, $6B infrastructure-related opex) this year, so it's not like they're standing still...

    2. Re:dear Comcast.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are spending money on infrastructure. The more deals and schemes they put in place to keep the competition out the more valuable their network gets.

      Or did you mean spend money on improving it? For that, your best move is to get Google Fibre to come to your town.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Where the Money is going by Striikerr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting that Comcast imposes data caps and charges a pile of money for internet access, complaining that they need to do this to help manage their network infrastructure instead of investing back into infrastructure to accommodate their paying customers. Instead, they take money gained from their customers and use it to buy other companies. This is why it's so frustrating to see the FCC not push harder on these companies to prevent/remove data caps and increase bandwidth for customers, especially since the companies are doing all they can to punish customers for cord cutting. As a cable company, should they not focus on providing the best service available for their customers?
    I would be all in favor of Comcast's efforts to become a content creator if they were't using their position against their customers who don't want their content via a cable subscription.

    1. Re:Where the Money is going by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      In other areas in the world, like in europe, the FCC equivalent required the cable companies to allow competitors to access their cable infrastructure. The fees were made such that that the competitor can still make a business. Then the market decides on whether there are caps or not, and how big they are, instead of the monopolist.

      It's enabling a market in a place where a monopoly is the only viable option (running two cables to your home is just a dumb and wasteful idea). But seems it doesn't go well with the American idea of "freedom".

      In europe, the situation is much better than in the US, and that's partly thanks to these regulations.

    2. Re:Where the Money is going by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      This is 2016, the only thing they are focused on providing is shareholder value.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:Where the Money is going by Digicrat · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In fact, back in the days of DSL ruling broadband internet services, we had exactly those same regulations here in the USA. My mother is still using the same independent DSL provider she has for ages, which leases/shares equipment and lines with the local telco.

      The problem is that when the cable companies laid their wires later on, most municipalities granted them exclusive access to those lines in exchange for paying the full expenses. That, plus differences in the way Cable COAX vs Telephone wiring works, makes competition on the same line here infeasible.

      OTOH, it would probably be a lot easier for the same regulations that applied to the copper lines be extended to the newer Fiber optic lines, also generally operated by the phone companies, but we'd need elected representatives independent of corporations before that will ever happen ;-X

    4. Re:Where the Money is going by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      (running two cables to your home is just a dumb and wasteful idea).

      I have two cables running to my home, and if you count electricity it's three. While it may seem "dumb", it's called "redundancy". You see, when my cable goes out I can still call the cable company to report the problem, and when my landline phone goes out I can still call the phone company to report it.

      The funniest/saddest conversation I've had with Comcast is when the "customer service" person tried upselling me to Xfinity Voice while I was calling to report a complete cable outage. (I've had many stupid/angry/wasted conversations with Comcast, but this one was actually funny in a sad way.)

  6. Comcast, We don't give a F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just a reminder from your friendly Comcast, We don't give an F

  7. Next acquisition by rfrenzob · · Score: 2

    In other news, Comcast is in talks to buy the local water department.

    1. Re:Next acquisition by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Privately owned water went well in London, so well...

      You know if my internet is shit I can live with it but if I have no (or poisoned) water, then that's a different matter. And I'm saying this on slashdot.

  8. Re: I'd prefer that they buy Red Hat instead. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    They don't need to fork a distro or create their own. There's already a bunch of distros already made by people like this, such as Devuan. All they have to do is go use one of those.

  9. Re: I'd prefer that they buy Red Hat instead. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    If systemd really is as bad as some people say, why not fork a major distro and solve the problem?

    They already have!!! It's called "Devuan" (a fork of Debian). And that's just one of many.

    But apparently that's not good enough for them. The 17 people who use Devuan are still pissed that it isn't the most popular distro I guess.

  10. Phone call... by archer,+the · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, we'll each need to make a 3 hour phone call to leave the theater after the movie's over?

  11. Re:I'd prefer that they buy Red Hat instead. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and make you pay $10/mo per system with the shit iguide ui?

  12. Re:Use regulation to force shared infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The FCC tried this after the 1996 Telecom Deregulation bill with DSL line service. The problem is that the incumbent carriers still owned the local exchanges. For a 3rd party to hook up your DSL, their technician had to meet a telco technician; it was your job as the customer to schedule this meeting. Scheduling a telco technician involves a pretty wide open 4 hour window and they could be late within that; the 3rd party tech could usually come for an hour. So, if you got lucky, they'd meet up; half the time there would be a problem with the line that had to be resolved by the telco... which would involve yet another meeting at a later date.

    Effectively, the telcos used their local exchange monopoly to make it impossible for 3rd party DSL providers to compete and no reasonable customer would have the time to bother with it.

    So, the FCC would have to enforce some more stringent provisions that protect customers and 3rd party providers from this sort of abuse for it to work. I'm sure this was sensible done in Europe... in the US that never seems to happen because "OMG you're stopping capitalism!"

  13. Re:Use regulation to force shared infrastructure by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    For a 3rd party to hook up your DSL, their technician had to meet a telco technician; it was your job as the customer to schedule this meeting.

    You're saying that none of the third-party DSL vendors was smart enough to take on this job as part of their desire to sell service to people? They really told customers that they had to do this? They didn't want to sell DSL very bad then, did they?

    I know a third party DSL vendor in town, and I've never heard them say that I'd have to call the telco to try to schedule someone to meet them at the CO to install DSL, but then, I've only tried to get DSL once. CenturyLink botched the job so bad I just dropped it before it was ever completed.

    For the morbidly curious: I ordered the service on my second phone line after the tech I talked to for a long time told me I would be getting three (I think it was) static IP addresses. They installed it on the main line, and then told me that static IP would cost me $15/month extra.

  14. Could someone please explain to me by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    why any ISP is also allowed to be a content provider?

    At sufficient scale, this combination obviously creates perverse incentives.

    How would this not just worsen the market failure we're already seeing?

  15. Monopoly by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    First NBC for $12.3B, and now Dreamworks for $3B? How does a government-sanctioned monopoly have this much free capital in the first place?

    Oh right. They're a government-sanctioned monopoly.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere