# Comcast Said to be close to Controlling NBC Universal



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers.

Comcast Said to be close to Controlling NBC Universal

Source: The New York Times



> General Electric and the cable giant Comcast have moved close to deal giving control of NBC Universal to Comcast, and a formal announcement could be made sometime next week, people briefed on the talks said Sunday.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

That would be interesting indeed...as Comcast already has a track record of working very hard to negotiate top dollar on any of their content to other providers.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I tend to think that if Comcast tries to negotiate hard, they'll realize that the asset they're bargaining with is not worth as much as they thought.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Well, NBC isn't worth much, but USA, Syfy, Bravo, etc. are also part of the NBCU package. And then there's this nagging problem:


> Even if a deal is completed by next week, it would still require regulatory approval, a process that could take several months.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

Jtaylor1 said:


> Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers.
> 
> Comcast Said to be close to Controlling NBC Universal
> 
> Source: The New York Times


And by doing that, how does that help NBC/Universal? And taking 30+ million subscribers and probably 120 millions viewers away from the lowest rate network on TV right now?

Look at NBC, are there really any MUST see TV shows anymore? Then look at the entire NBC/Universal lineup.

The Law and Order series we really enjoy. But when they moved CI to USA, we stopped watching it. If we lose access to SVU and the Original, we will wait for DVD's to come out, if we even think about it.

Heroes is in the later portions of it's run. We enjoy it still, but really, we don't make any special arrangements to watch it. They are playing games with Chuck and honestly, I hope they do cancel it so one of the other networks can pick it up.

And do you think by cutting all those eyes and making the water murky is going to sit well with the major sports entities when it comes time to redo the TV contracts, which is not to far away. I am pretty sure that ESPN would LOVE to get their hands on both Sunday and Monday night football, is MLB even on NBC anymore? And the NFL would really frown on the idea of having the SuperBowl where major cities would NOT be able to watch it, let alone all the advertisers. NHL has a handful of late season games on there, but I bet NHL is already sour with VS.

Lets see what else, oh yes. The Olympics, which February's Winter olympics is probably fine as there is no way this deal will be signed by then and any clauses for carriage expire. then I think They only have the 2012 left under their existing contracts. And again, those people bidding for those things look at the companies track record as a whole, as it is all about the eyeballs.

And if the current trend continues, some of the new TV Shows looking for homes, will probably want to go else where for less money, if the viewership numbers are not there and they can't generate the revenue they want.

And you are also making the assumption that there isn't going to be some very high level of restrictions and rules placed on COMCAST on what they can and can't do with these channels, by the approving bodies.

So what again are we preparing for?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Fontano, you make an excellent point. They seem to be poised with a razor in front of NBCU's nose ready to cut it off to spite Comcast's face.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

IMO, to say, "Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers," because Comcast is close controlling NBCU is a little paranoia knee jerk reaction. 

Where's my tinfoil hat? :lol:


----------



## Rangers94 (Feb 12, 2008)

Look at NBC, are there really any MUST see TV shows anymore? Then look at the entire NBC/Universal lineup.

The Law and Order series we really enjoy. But when they moved CI to USA, we stopped watching it. If we lose access to SVU and the Original, we will wait for DVD's to come out, if we even think about it.

Heroes is in the later portions of it's run. We enjoy it still, but really, we don't make any special arrangements to watch it. They are playing games with Chuck and honestly, I hope they do cancel it so one of the other networks can pick it up.

And do you think by cutting all those eyes and making the water murky is going to sit well with the major sports entities when it comes time to redo the TV contracts, which is not to far away. I am pretty sure that ESPN would LOVE to get their hands on both Sunday and Monday night football, is MLB even on NBC anymore? And the NFL would really frown on the idea of having the SuperBowl where major cities would NOT be able to watch it, let alone all the advertisers. NHL has a handful of late season games on there, but I bet NHL is already sour with VS.

Lets see what else, oh yes. The Olympics, which February's Winter olympics is probably fine as there is no way this deal will be signed by then and any clauses for carriage expire. then I think They only have the 2012 left under their existing contracts. And again, those people bidding for those things look at the companies track record as a whole, as it is all about the eyeballs.

And if the current trend continues, some of the new TV Shows looking for homes, will probably want to go else where for less money, if the viewership numbers are not there and they can't generate the revenue they want.

And you are also making the assumption that there isn't going to be some very high level of restrictions and rules placed on COMCAST on what they can and can't do with these channels, by the approving bodies.

So what again are we preparing for?[/QUOTE]

Guess you haven't heard NBC basically canceled Trauma ( remaing eps will still air) then Chuck return with NBC ordering 6 more eps for a total of 19 this season.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

Rangers94 said:


> Guess you haven't heard NBC basically canceled Trauma ( remaing eps will still air) then Chuck return with NBC ordering 6 more eps for a total of 19 this season.


Yes, I have heard. And that goes right into the games they are playing with Chuck.

I was all set, for that to be the series to watch on Monday's after Heroes ended. Now it is coming back early and they want more episodes.

So after a summer of planning for 13 episodes, and having the story arc planned and written for 13, they are at the last minute adding 6 more.

Which great, more Chuck, but I bet we will now see a stretched story arc or some episodes that simply don't fit in the bigger picture.

A TV Series like this to me, is a good book. It has to be planned out, so the entire thing flows. Not just write chapter 1 then 2 then 3.

And just the same to Trama, wasn't a bad show. Wasn't great, but it is a new show that needs to get its footing and adjust to comments, reviews, and impact. but nah, just cancel it, air what we paid for.

I had 5 episodes of My Name is Earl on the DVR to watch over the summer, once I heard it was canceled and not picked up by TNT, delete went the rest of those episodes.

Just like Trama, delete went the schedule recording.

The games SciFi (at the time) did with BSG, killed it for me.

You wait a year to air the last season, then half way through say, oh we are only give you half now and you have to wait another year (roughly) to get the rest.

I still haven't gotten around to watching the last season of BSG.

Honestly out of the ENTIRE NBCU set of channels, the only program I am concerned about loosing access to is Wharehouse 13. Everything else, I will shrug my shoulders and move on to the other three networks as they have plenty to keep my eyes busy.

- CSI, NCIS, Bones that will give me my Law and Order fix
- House, Grey's are cover that area.
- I simply can't stand Office and Parks, 30 rock is sometimes okay, but Monday night CBS Comedy is right now as close as we get in my house to must watch. Let alone all the others during the week and ABC's new offerings.
- Sports, I can live without the Sunday night game as shown last night without it being on. The others they carry, there are so many other outlets to get instant scoring updates and radio coverage, oh well.
- Local News, 3 others to choose from to get the Weather from as by the end of the day most of the local news has already been covered by the national outlets

And while it sounds like this is all from the ME aspect, I doubt I am very much alone in my sentiments here regarding NBC as I consider myself and my family, on the higher side of TV consumption on the scale. We tend to give BAD shows a lot more time to get better, (I watched almost all the Knight Riders just hoping it would get better).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

While some claim its *N*othing *B*ut *C*rap on that main network these days...

...these kinds of decisions are much bigger than individual or a few programs.

NBC viewership has been off for some time, and the sister networks, while doing "OK" on several fronts, are not exactly setting any kinds of viewer records either. Universal also owns plenty on the content side.

If Comcrap indeed seizes control, I would look for some pretty quick resizing of the overall Universal organization.

Then, when transmission provider contracts come up, like DirecTV and Dish, I would not be in the least surprised to see vigorous carriage negotiations.

For all those reasons, the regulatory folks will likely take a hard look at any acquisition, and perhaps tie some stipulations to any agreement/approval.


----------



## Rangers94 (Feb 12, 2008)

Fontano said:


> Yes, I have heard. And that goes right into the games they are playing with Chuck.
> 
> I was all set, for that to be the series to watch on Monday's after Heroes ended. Now it is coming back early and they want more episodes.
> 
> ...


Do you not know a lot of networks order 13 eps, then depending how there doing will order more eps. So we cant say there had to change the arc of Chuck, as it isn't a show like 24, Lost ect that is 1 big story.
Also deleting Earl cause it wasn't picked up by another network seeing a little odd to me. why invent time into wathing a show then delete a few eps cause it was droped.
I Like Trauma, think it's a decent show & gives me the fill i been missing since NBC caned Third Watch, but i will watch the rest of the eps. Though the numbers aren't that great for the show, the main reason it will be caned cause of all the new shows this season it cost the most to make a ep. However maybe there is slim hope it survives since the new person running NBC has said he wants to make people like over show that make a lot of profit.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

Rangers94 said:


> Do you not know a lot of networks order 13 eps, then depending how there doing will order more eps. So we cant say there had to change the arc of Chuck, as it isn't a show like 24, Lost ect that is 1 big story.
> Also deleting Earl cause it wasn't picked up by another network seeing a little odd to me. why invent time into wathing a show then delete a few eps cause it was droped.
> I Like Trauma, think it's a decent show & gives me the fill i been missing since NBC caned Third Watch, but i will watch the rest of the eps. Though the numbers aren't that great for the show, the main reason it will be caned cause of all the new shows this season it cost the most to make a ep. However maybe there is slim hope it survives since the new person running NBC has said he wants to make people like over show that make a lot of profit.


I am very much aware of how the structure works, but it is not like Chuck is a "new" series. It pretty well established, it's viewer base is pretty well established, and it's story is pretty well established.

This isn't a pilot season for that particular show.
24 is just like any other series, while they advertise it as one story line, anyone has watched the show knows that isn't true. Not even close.
But it typically does have one long overall underlying story line.

Even LOST shifts gears and changes. But the point I was making is that Chuck was already told: 13 episodes, prepare for that. Then at zero hour, hey throw 6 more in there. Pointing at the "games" being played with that paritcular show, not that the writiers can't handle and embrase the extra episodes.

I delete the episodes, as I didn't want to invest the time into a show that had no future. I'll catch the repeats at a later time. With several other shows on the DVR we opted to just watch those.

We can go back and forth on this. It still doesn't change the fact that NBC and it's family of channels are some of the lowest rated ones out there, and the original premise that removing 30mil subscribers and 120mil vierwers isn't in NBCU's and COMCAST best intrest.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

A takeover by a company like Liberty or Comcast with their respective corporate philosophies isn't often in the consumer's best interest.

The problem with this idea is that NBC/Universal needs to be run by those who can produce good new content, not just distribute the same old crap.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

I tend to think if NBC/Uniersal and/or Comcast tries to be tough and ask for more money you'll hear a huge uproar from all providers well beyond D* and E*. Remember both ATT and Verzion have a lot of power within the Gov't. If any issues arise I am sure very soon it will be the Gov't hands to resolve the issues. Who knows, if they allow the deal to go through they might force NBC/Comcast to divest themselves of many stations and/or networks. NBC is a sinking ship, only need to look at their O/O stations and see all the cutbacks those stations have made. Honestly, can it get much wose?? The Weather Channel is showing movies..........


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

How do the "must carry" rules work? If Comcast owns NBC, can they raise the price of carrying local NBC stations and say "You must pay because you're required to carry the station" at least for ones owned by NBC like WNBC in the NYC area?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> How do the "must carry" rules work? If Comcast owns NBC, can they raise the price of carrying local NBC stations and say "You must pay because you're required to carry the station" at least for ones owned by NBC like WNBC in the NYC area?


They could try, but they face a serious regulatory problem. The worst part about Comcast owning 51% of NBC is going to be their relationship with other signal carriers. Comcast would risk its own stock value by doing something obviously stupid like trying to extort other carriers. Of course, companies have done some pretty stupid things.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

It was my understanding TV stations have one of two choices for their DMA's they can require Cable/Sat/Telco carry their channel (must carry) which is usually used by the home shopping channels, regligous channels etc or the larger stations (abc, nbc, cbs etc) can charge suppliers to carry them. Some stations have required their subchannels be carried instead of charging providers to carry their channel.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Tucked away in a Broadcasting & Cable report was this gem:


> The dealing, however, may not be done. One Wall Street player confirmed market rumors that bankers have already descended on [Comcast's] Philadelphia headquarters to work with management on selling the NBC Network and stations to a third party. Comcast had no immediate comment on that still-hypothetical possibility.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I tend to think that if Comcast tries to negotiate hard, they'll realize that the asset they're bargaining with is not worth as much as they thought.


Perhaps, but I think the folks at Comcast are darned smart and know what they're buying. Also, remember that NBCU comes with USA, Bravo, and Syfy, which are quite valuable, especially looking forward.

Regardless, this would be great news for Comcast shareholders, and probably for GE shareholders as well.



phrelin said:


> And then there's this nagging problem:
> 
> 
> > Even if a deal is completed by next week, it would still require regulatory approval, a process that could take several months.


Not really a problem: There is nothing about this deal that should cause any insurmountable SEC concerns. Until recently, another MSO owned a stack of cable networks, so there is precedent for this. And as a matter of vertical integration, the only issues that may come up are requirements to compete fairly with regard to offering of content to other distributors (which is already part of the law, so even saying so is just redundant), and perhaps a requirement to divest ownership interest in some of the O&Os.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> And by doing that, how does that help NBC/Universal?


NBCU is a division... it isn't an entity itself. So your question reduces down to how does this help GE, and it does by taking this comparatively insignificant distraction out of GE's hair, presumably at a fair price.



Fontano said:


> And taking 30+ million subscribers and probably 120 millions viewers away from the lowest rate network on TV right now?


Your question is based on patently erroneous assumptions. No subscribers are taken away from anything; no viewers are taken away from anything.



Fontano said:


> Look at NBC, are there really any MUST see TV shows anymore? Then look at the entire NBC/Universal lineup.


I watch a heck of a lot more on NBC than I watch on G4 and Versus. And I watch more on NBCU's USA Network than on any other cable television networks, with NBCU's Syfy also in the top three.



Fontano said:


> They are playing games with Chuck and honestly, I hope they do cancel it so one of the other networks can pick it up.


Ridiculous. NBC is giving Chuck a chance it does not deserve. Its ratings sucked: Essentially, Chuck has consistently failed to perform, yet NBC is still giving it a chance to do better this year. If Chuck continues to fail to perform, despite NBC giving it this additional chance, no one else would be stupid enough to pay for more episodes of the show to be produced. If Chuck fails, again, then I expect the only future for the show will be in the comics.



Fontano said:


> And do you think by cutting all those eyes and making the water murky is going to sit well with the major sports entities when it comes time to redo the TV contracts, which is not to far away.


Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. No eyes are being cut.



Fontano said:


> Lets see what else, oh yes. The Olympics, which February's Winter olympics is probably fine as there is no way this deal will be signed by then and any clauses for carriage expire. then I think They only have the 2012 left under their existing contracts. And again, those people bidding for those things look at the companies track record as a whole, as it is all about the eyeballs.


And there is little question that NBC will do fine with the Olympics. The only other company that could legitimately compete for US rights, Disney, seems substantially uninterested in taking such a risk every two years. (CBS does not have enough cable properties to make competing for the rights practical. They'd not even meet the reserve. There has been some talk of them working with Time Warner, but it is unlikely that a deal could be struck that both sides would consider fair.)


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> A takeover by a company like Liberty or Comcast with their respective corporate philosophies isn't often in the consumer's best interest.


While true, that's just one factor. With equal precedence, the regulators need to concern themselves with what's best for the shareholders of each of the companies. That balancing is what might result in some of the restrictions and some of the small divestment orders.



Fontano said:


> The problem with this idea is that NBC/Universal needs to be run by those who can produce good new content, not just distribute the same old crap.


Comcast is far better suited to accomplish that than *GE *is.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Tucked away in a Broadcasting & Cable report was this gem:


That's really interesting, if true. It would really show just how worthless the OTA television viewer is... It is basically saying that Comcast isn't after NBC at all, but rather all they want it USA, Bravo and Syfy... makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> NBCU is a division... it isn't an entity itself. So your question reduces down to how does this help GE, and it does by taking this comparatively insignificant distraction out of GE's hair, presumably at a fair price.


Umm... NBCU is the division in question on being sold, so my original question on how does it HELP that division, is the exact basis of the discussion. How does it help GE? They get money and no more concern of these channels, that is pretty clear cut about the entire thing.



bicker1 said:


> Your question is based on patently erroneous assumptions. No subscribers are taken away from anything; no viewers are taken away from anything.


You need to go back and read the entire thread, the original post that started this thread was the premise of "Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers." Which is the basis for the comment. The basis of that assumption, was derived from that statement. To discuss that comment, it is in the context that the 30+ million SAT customers, with an average of 4 viewers per account would be lost. So for the mater of this discussion and hypothesis by the original poster, 120 Million Viewers lost.



bicker1 said:


> I watch a heck of a lot more on NBC than I watch on G4 and Versus. And I watch more on NBCU's USA Network than on any other cable television networks, with NBCU's Syfy also in the top three.


So that is in your household, but in the entire spectrum of all the networks and the highest rated shows, they are not on the NBCU channels. So again, based on their old slogan... What is "must see TV" on those networks as a whole ?



bicker1 said:


> Ridiculous. NBC is giving Chuck a chance it does not deserve. Its ratings sucked: Essentially, Chuck has consistently failed to perform, yet NBC is still giving it a chance to do better this year. If Chuck continues to fail to perform, despite NBC giving it this additional chance, no one else would be stupid enough to pay for more episodes of the show to be produced. If Chuck fails, again, then I expect the only future for the show will be in the comics.


It must be doing something right as it continues to survive while others (Trama and Southland) get axed before they can even get their feet completely wet.



bicker1 said:


> Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. No eyes are being cut.


Again, refer to the original statement in this thread that is being discussed, and my comments above. So I have plenty of idea of what I am talking about, as this is the discussion in hand.



bicker1 said:


> And there is little question that NBC will do fine with the Olympics. The only other company that could legitimately compete for US rights, Disney, seems substantially uninterested in taking such a risk every two years. (CBS does not have enough cable properties to make competing for the rights practical. They'd not even meet the reserve. There has been some talk of them working with Time Warner, but it is unlikely that a deal could be struck that both sides would consider fair.)


NBC bid and won the rights to the Olympics what 10ish years ago? (I can't find an exact date), and they have them through the 2012 olympics.

That's it. The articles thinks there may be a clause where they can extended it without a bid process.

When you look at the TV ratings for the Olympics, they are not that good, and every time the questions is asked, was it worth the $$$ they pored into it. And in the context of this discussion in this thread, the bid for the next contract would be impacted if COMCAST mucks around with carriage rights for their cable outlets for their channels. Less eyeballs, less revenue they can charge for advertising, less they can afford to bid on the Olympics.

So yes, they are find for 2010 and probably 2012, but what about the next wave. FOX has a mega sized company behind it and certainly can make the push. You are ruling out ABC/ESPN/DISNEY, on what grounds? That combined entity didn't exist when the last contract was bid on. ABC used to have the olympics, so they are very familiar with the risk. And now with the ESPN foothold and their presence in the X-Games, they have experience and foundation to quantify a bid of that magnitude.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> While true, that's just one factor. With equal precedence, the regulators need to concern themselves with what's best for the shareholders of each of the companies. That balancing is what might result in some of the restrictions and some of the small divestment orders.
> 
> Comcast is far better suited to accomplish that than *GE *is.


Are they?

You wrote off Harsh's comments regarding the regulations that will be placed on this deal, and it has a LOT more to do with just the shareholders for COMCAST and GE.

Those regulations will be in place to protect other multichannel carriers from a direct competitors who own content channels. This is plenty of precedence on this and it is probably a safe bet that this deal would set some new precedences as well, given the track record and the very recent history of channel carriage rights negotiations amongst all companies


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

Is there any way to stop this from happening? Comcast wants to goble-up all the network cannels and make them "cable only".


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> _"Is there any way to stop this from happening? Comcast wants to goble-up all the network cannels and make them "cable only."_


Don't worry...that's _not _likely to happen.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> While true, that's just one factor. With equal precedence, the regulators need to concern themselves with what's best for the shareholders of each of the companies. That balancing is what might result in some of the restrictions and some of the small divestment orders.


While the FTC and/or SEC concern themselves with the shareholders, the FCC concentrates on the competition issue with respect to the public good.


> Comcast is far better suited to accomplish that than *GE *is.


I don't see Comcast's stewardship of any of their properties to be any better than GE's.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

Fontano said:


> So yes, they are find for 2010 and probably 2012, but what about the next wave. FOX has a mega sized company behind it and certainly can make the push. You are ruling out ABC/ESPN/DISNEY, on what grounds? That combined entity didn't exist when the last contract was bid on. ABC used to have the olympics, so they are very familiar with the risk. And now with the ESPN foothold and their presence in the X-Games, they have experience and foundation to quantify a bid of that magnitude.


ESPN has made it very well known they plan to bid on the Olympics and don't want to lose out, remember they bid a lot more than anyone else for the BCS. One long time rumor has it that ESPN Classic has been kept as is becuase they want to transition it to an Olympic's channel if they win the bid. Also remember Comcast and the USOC upset the OC over their failed attempt to launch a new Olympic channel, so there is already ill will towards Comcast. If anyone could pull off the Olympics it would be ESPN add up all their channels, plus ABC and ABC Family channel they'd have so many outlets to put events on that people are already use to seeing sports on. It wouldn't be the search for events like you see with NBC.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> Umm... NBCU is the division in question on being sold, so my original question on how does it HELP that division, is the exact basis of the discussion.


There is no relevance or significance to such a question. You're trafficking in FUD.



Fontano said:


> How does it help GE? They get money and no more concern of these channels, that is pretty clear cut about the entire thing.


Yup; and that's actually relevant.



Fontano said:


> You need to go back and read the entire thread, the original post that started this thread was the premise of "Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers."


A wild and baseless bit of FUD, not worthy of any further consideration.



Fontano said:


> ... but in the entire spectrum of all the networks and the highest rated shows, they are not on the NBCU channels.


This is the worst kind of FUD, since it not even clear enough for anyone to have any chance of being sure what the heck you're *trying* to say there. Who, specifically, is not on what, specifically, and specifically what is the implication you're trying to make?



Fontano said:


> It must be doing something right as it continues to survive while others (Trama and Southland) get axed before they can even get their feet completely wet.


Chuck has *a* fan ... a very rich man who can sway the advertising decisions of a company to support a show that objectively would probably not otherwise be supported. That's it. It's like winning at roulette.



Fontano said:


> So I have plenty of idea of what I am talking about, as this is the discussion in hand.


I disagree. That's why I made the comment I made. I guess we disagree about that.



Fontano said:


> NBC bid and won the rights to the Olympics what 10ish years ago? (I can't find an exact date), and they have them through the 2012 olympics.


And...

Stop with the inane innuendo. You cannot make a definitive statement because there is no definitive point to be made. You either don't know, or you know that the reality won't support the point you're trying to make people think you're making.



Fontano said:


> When you look at the TV ratings for the Olympics, they are not that good, and every time the questions is asked, was it worth the $$$ they pored into it.


And that's why with Comcast it may be _more_ likely that NBC would go for and win the bidding. Indeed, Disney's position is stronger with NBC in GE's hands, and weaker with NBC in Comcast's hands.



Fontano said:


> And in the context of this discussion in this thread, the bid for the next contract would be impacted if COMCAST mucks around with carriage rights for their cable outlets for their channels.


As likely as not _improved_. Comcast/NBC will have yet-even-more channels to present Olympic events.



Fontano said:


> Less eyeballs, less revenue they can charge for advertising, less they can afford to bid on the Olympics.


No substantiation. Just more FUD.



Fontano said:


> FOX has a mega sized company behind it and certainly can make the push.


It is ridiculous to think that Fox can itself pose serious competition to NBC or Disney.



Fontano said:


> You are ruling out ABC/ESPN/DISNEY, on what grounds?


(Unlike your Fox notion... ) I didn't rule Disney out. I simply said that NBC is stronger and would probably win. A Comcast acquisition makes NBC's hand even better, for two reasons.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> Are they?


Yes.



Fontano said:


> You wrote off Harsh's comments regarding the regulations that will be placed on this deal


No I didn't. I actually mentioned such things myself.

Stop lying about what I've written.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

richall01 said:


> Comcast wants to goble-up all the network cannels and make them "cable only".


Bull. You fell for the FUD. You've been fooled.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> _"Comcast and the USOC upset the OC over their failed attempt to launch a new Olympic channel..."_


For clarification, it's the "IOC" (International Olympic Committee), not the OC.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

harsh said:


> While the FTC and/or SEC concern themselves with the shareholders, the FCC concentrates on the competition issue with respect to the public good.


The public good *includes *what's good for our economy and for shareholders. Again, all government agencies must practice balance.



harsh said:


> I don't see Comcast's stewardship of any of their properties to be any better than GE's.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Some speculation this morning seems to indicate that Comcast's interest is *not* in NBCU's OTA broadcast network, but rather in their other properties, mostly bolstering the operations that Comcast already has. The rumor (unsubstantiated) is that GE won't sell pieces, and so Comcast will buy the whole thing, but either agree to, or just voluntarily, sell off the OTA resources as part of the acquisition, keeping the cable networks and probably UMS as well.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> There is no relevance or significance to such a question. You're trafficking in FUD.


Yes, there is a BIG relevance, if you like it or not.
GE gets their money, and they are done with the picture.

The future then is what is with the NBCU product, and it's new owner, which is the exact topic of converstation.

So the FUD, is the spin trying to not discuss that future



bicker1 said:


> Yup; and that's actually relevant.


The GE relevance is only in the context of what happens to GE as a company after the sale, and this topic is about the future of COMCAST with the NBCU product under their umbrella



bicker1 said:


> A wild and baseless bit of FUD, not worthy of any further consideration.


It is the basis of this entire thread, as started by the OP. Stating that DISH and DIRECTV customer to be ready to lose their locals. So again, how is discussing the lost of 30mill subscribers and 120 mil viewers eyes, not worth of any further discussion, as that in fact is what the OP (who started this thread) basically stated with the get ready to lose, statement.



bicker1 said:


> This is the worst kind of FUD, since it not even clear enough for anyone to have any chance of being sure what the heck you're *trying* to say there. Who, specifically, is not on what, specifically, and specifically what is the implication you're trying to make?


Sorry, maybe it was a little too high level for you to understand. I will simplify it.

Look at the list of TOP TV shows currently.
Look at the network they air on.
Look who owns that network.
Where does NBCU channels rank overall in that list?

Here is a link: For the past month:
http://www.tv.com/shows/top-shows/month.html?tag=content;main

Heroes is #5 and is the top rated show in the NBCU channel set.
The next: #15 - The Office
Then Stagate Universe at #20
Then #38 Law and Order SVU, follwed by the Office at #39

Here is another list, if you want to compare a second data source:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/za...le?SortBy=cdb_01_num+,cdb_05_txt+&PageSize=50

Out of the top 20: Sunday Night Football is #7
Which as we know, is something that can (and may) change networks with the next NFL TV Contract.

Put the Cable Raitings in:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/za...1_num+,cdb_05_txt+&PageSize=50&Page=1&Query=*

Monk is #5, which is ending this season
White Collar is #6, which was it's season premier lets reserver judgement on that one.

The others in that list are syndicated re-runs of shows, that originally aired on competitor networks. So while I will admit that USA does well with their re-runs, kinda of humours to think that Penguins of Madagascar have higher raitings.

Regarding Chuck, we will agree to disagree.



bicker1 said:


> Stop with the inane innuendo. You cannot make a definitive statement because there is no definitive point to be made. You either don't know, or you know that the reality won't support the point you're trying to make people think you're making.


I know for a fact, NBC has had the Olympics for several olympiad now.
I know for a fact, NBC only has the contract for 2010 and 2012.
What I haven't identified, is when the current NBC contract started. It only matters in the context of identifing who were the serious players then, if you want to compare it to the serious players when the renewal comes up in the next few years.



bicker1 said:


> And that's why with Comcast it may be _more_ likely that NBC would go for and win the bidding.


They may be able to go for and win the bid, doesn't mean that all the other issues won't play into it.



bicker1 said:


> No substantiation. Just more FUD.


Again, why? It is the foundation of this thread, that the argument was made that when the merger is complete, SAT based customers would lose their locals and presumed the other NBCU channels.

So keep calling it FUD, if you want to put blinders on to the basis of the discussion thread. ALL of this is speculation.



bicker1 said:


> It is ridiculous to think that Fox can itself pose serious competition to NBC or Disney.


Why? They pose serious competition to NFL, MLB, and NASCAR. Three major sports entities that they have a serious track record in. So if you don't think they would not be considered a player in the Olympic bidding, which is a once in 2 year , two week broadcast, think agai.



bicker1 said:


> (Unlike your Fox nothing... ) I didn't rule Disney out. I simply said that NBC is stronger and would probably win. A Comcast acquisition makes NBC's hand even better, for two reasons.


Your quote from your own post:


bicker said:


> The only other company that could legitimately compete for US rights, Disney, seems substantially uninterested in taking such a risk every two years


You didn't rule them out with the statement "substantially uninterested in taking such a risk every two years"? Sorry, I am not sure how I could have misinterpreted that statement as rulling them out.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

And before you drop the FUD bomb again.

This *IS* a discussion thread, about what "could" happen.
not what is GOING to happen, as no one knows. 

1) We don't even know if this deal will go through
2) We don't know how long this deal will take to complete
3) We don't know what the landscape of any network will be in 2 years for ceratin (basing that on the assumption by others that this could take 18-24 months to complete)
4) By your own words, we don't know exactly COMCAST is going to do with the NETWORK channels
5) We don't know what regulations will be placed on the deal (but we do know there will be some)

The original first post of this thread, was posted in the context assuming that all SAT subscribers would lose their locals.

My post, was actually a rebuttal that NONE of that would make sense to any business like that, to immediately exclude 30mil subscribers and 120mil eyes from their channels.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> Yes, there is a BIG relevance, if you like it or not.
> GE gets their money, and they are done with the picture.


And for all anyone knows, that's *good*.



Fontano said:


> The future then is what is with the NBCU product, and it's new owner, which is the exact topic of converstation.


And your feigned implication here doesn't actually mean anything. Like I said, it's perhaps *good*, not bad, like it seems like you're trying to make it sound.



Fontano said:


> So the FUD, is the spin trying to not discuss that future


Discussion of the statement that I took issue with requires you making a specific point, in regard to it.



Fontano said:


> The GE relevance is only in the context of what happens to GE as a company after the sale, and this topic is about the future of COMCAST with the NBCU product under their umbrella


And... (say *something* ... don't just insinuate ...)



Fontano said:


> It is the basis of this entire thread, as started by the OP. Stating that DISH and DIRECTV customer to be ready to lose their locals.


Yes, that's FUD, as a couple of us have already metnioned.



Fontano said:


> So again, how is discussing the lost of 30mill subscribers and 120 mil viewers eyes, not worth of any further discussion


Because it is FUD.



Fontano said:


> Sorry, maybe it was a little too high level for you to understand.


On the contrary: It wasn't a well-formed or -expressed thought on your part. Let's see how you do on Try #2.



Fontano said:


> Look at the list of TOP TV shows currently.
> Look at the network they air on.
> Look who owns that network.
> Where does NBCU channels rank overall in that list?


And how does any of that relate to what impact Comcast's acquisition will have.... You're not saying anything. If you just wanted to post, "NBC sucks," then you could have done that. That's a different thread though.

So on Try #2, you still have yet to say anything relevant to the Comcast acquisition. You do seem to be implying something, from your negative tone. That's why I labeled your earlier attempt as FUD.



Fontano said:


> They may be able to go for and win the bid, doesn't mean that all the other issues won't play into it.


And it also doesn't mean that it is won't be *all for the good*. Again, you seem to be insinuating something, from your negative tone, but you're not actually saying anything. (FUD.)



Fontano said:


> Again, why? It is the foundation of this thread, that the argument was made that when the merger is complete, SAT based customers would lose their locals and presumed the other NBCU channels.


Which is FUD, so anything that is based on that premise is FUD. It is *so* ridiculous that the only operational artifact of further discussion along those lines is to deceive casual readers into thinking something important is being discussed.



Fontano said:


> Why? They pose serious competition to NFL, MLB, and NASCAR.


Because the pricing model for the Olympics requires more distribution channels. As individual entities, only Disney and NBCU have enough.



Fontano said:


> Your quote from your own post:
> 
> You didn't rule them out with the statement "substantially uninterested in taking such a risk every two years"?


Do you know what the word "uninterested" means?


Fontano said:


> Sorry, I am not sure how I could have misinterpreted that statement as rulling them out.


I cannot account for your misunderstanding.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

It is obvious at this point that we are on two very different mind sets on what this thread was about, so we will leave it there.

But this one:



> Do you know what the word "uninterested" means? I cannot account for your misunderstanding.


Quote from: Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uninterested



> adjective
> 1. having or showing no feeling of interest; indifferent.
> 2. not personally concerned in something.


AKA, they are not INTRESTED in bidding for it.

How is that NOT you rulling out ABC/ESPN from the olympic discussion?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

My understanding of this "reorganization" is Comcast will own 51% of [insert future corporation name here] while GE retains 49% and whiich "reorganization" involves the following complex interests which should be the subject of significant regulatory concerns:

 *In the reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* Comcast's cable channels will be included in a single division with NBCU's owned or partially owned cable channels bringing together under one ownership:
CN8,
Comcast SportsNet,
SportsNet New York,
MLB Network
Comcast Sports Southeast/Charter Sports Southeast,
E! Entertainment,
Style Network,
G4,
Versus,
The Golf Channel
AZN Television
FEARnet
USA
Syfy
Bravo
Chiller
Oxygen
Sleuth
UniversalHD
ShopNBC
CNBC
CNBC World
MSNBC
mun2
A&E
the History Channel
History Channel International
the Biography Channel
National Geographic International
The Weather Channel

 *The reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* will include the content production companies Universal Studios, NBC Universal Television Group, and Telemundo Television Studios and the sports production operations of Comcast, NBC Sports, and the Olympic Games on cable and NBC.
 *The reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* will include NBCU's interests in HULU, qubo, iVillage, and MSNBC.com.
 *The reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* will include NBCU's complex international operations.
 *The reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* may include unless immediately sold the broadcast networks NBC and/or Telemundo.
 *The reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* may include unless immediately sold the local broadcast stations owned by NBCU that are affiliated with NBC and/or Telemundo.
I'm sure I've missed something given the complexity of NBCU and Comcast.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> AKA, they are not INTRESTED in bidding for it. How is that NOT you rulling out ABC/ESPN from the olympic discussion?


Go back and read the context within which you used the term "ruling out".

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask you: Is English your first language? If not, then that might explain why we're having such a conflict of communication.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> Go back and read the context within which you used the term "ruling out".
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to ask you: Is English your first language? If not, then that might explain why we're having such a conflict of communication.


Are you serious? You are going to play the "is English your first language" card? Anyone else having difficulty understanding the points I am attempting to make?

I know exactly the context I put the "rulling out" in. You stated that ABC isn't interested in bidding on the Olympics. Then I stated you ruled them out. There really isn't a lot of gray area there.


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

This thread has been interesting to say the least, but it has run it's course (at least for me)
Until the deal is done, and details are released and time has past, anything stated is nothing more then pure speculation and conjecture.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fontano said:


> Are you serious?


Yes, I'm serious. Read the question I wrote, and the conditionals around it.



Fontano said:


> You are going to play the "is English your first language" card?


It's not a "card". I very sincerely was wondering if perhaps the reason you weren't making sense in certain points in your diatribes was because some lack of mastery of the language. All you have to say in response is either "yes" or "no".

The fact that you didn't understand even _that _makes me still wonder.



Fontano said:


> I know exactly the context I put the "rulling out" in.


It is becoming obvious to me that you're now changing your mind about what you know. That's you prerogative... I wish you'd just be honest enough about it without trying to hide it.

\


----------



## Fontano (Feb 7, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> It is becoming obvious to me that you're now changing your mind about what you know. That's you prerogative... I wish you'd just be honest enough about it without trying to hide it.
> 
> \


Not a chance in the world I am changing my mind, it is more obvious that you want to "bicker" hence your tag name.

Then actually discuss anything.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I was actually discussing the issue. You decided to start discussing me. 

I'm flattered, by the way.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jtaylor1 said:


> Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, DirecTV and Dish subscribers.
> 
> Comcast Said to be close to Controlling NBC Universal
> 
> Source: The New York Times


PHOOY on comcast...........


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> There is no relevance or significance to such a question. You're trafficking in FUD.
> 
> Yup; and that's actually relevant.
> 
> ...


Script Howard just bought The Travel channel.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I watch the NFL games in Sundays and also watch The Biggest Loser every week. I know thats not much but I would hate to lose it. Then again I have an antenna so I would not really be losing it.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> Script Howard just bought The Travel channel.


Yup it was clear to me that Scripps Networks was best situated to take over Travel Channel. 
_
(BTW, Scripps Howard is a news service owned by another company, E. W. Scripps, which spun off Scripps Networks a couple of years ago, so there is no relationship between Scripps Howard and Scripps Networks anymore.)_


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

And now there's going to be a campaign to stop the merger.


Free Press Launches Online Campaign To Block Comcast/NBCU



> Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said the organization was launching *an online effort to block the merger,* and likened it to the online campaign in 2003 to block the FCC's media ownership rule rewrite.


Source: Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

It isn't a merger. I suppose it could be called an acquisition.

I'm hopeful the deal goes through. I think it would be a great thing for Comcast.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ABC is already talking about it as if it is practically a done deal:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9084036


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I posted this in the OT thread, but I'll post it here too. The AP has a story on the deal today with a lot of background on NBC. In the middle it reminds us of Comcast's primary motive:


> ...Cable properties such as USA, SyFy, CNBC and The Weather Channel mean more to NBC Universal's bottom line than staggering NBC, fourth place in the ratings.
> 
> And those cable properties - more than the flagship "Peacock" network - were the draw for Comcast. By owning more content, Comcast further hedges its bets as mainly a distributor of shows in case viewers ditch their cable TV subscriptions and migrate to the Internet, mobile devices or a platform that has yet to emerge. The company could charge for the shows or sell ads wherever the viewers are.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jtaylor1 said:


> And now there's going to be a campaign to stop the merger.
> 
> 
> Free Press Launches Online Campaign To Block Comcast/NBCU
> ...


Comcast will win I'm afraid.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> It isn't a merger. I suppose it could be called an acquisition.
> 
> I'm hopeful the deal goes through. I think it would be a great thing for Comcast.


I wish you hadn't say that.

If comcast gets their way. There will be:

1. Fewer Choices. They will control what you watch and how you watch.

2. Higher Prices. With less competition, they will jack up the prices even more. Comcast will make you pay even more to watch NBC shows over-the-air, satellite, the internet and other cable companies if you don't have Comcast.

3. NBC will lose more audience because of this deal. I refuse to subscribe to their service to watch their shows and I'm sure nobody else will.

In Conclusion, It's a terrible deal for Comcast and NBCU.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

phrelin said:


> *In the reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* Comcast's cable channels will be included in a single division with NBCU's owned or partially owned cable channels bringing together under one ownership:
> CN8,
> Comcast SportsNet,
> SportsNet New York,
> ...


They also own part of the NHL Network.

But if they get control of all those networks, satellite is screwed. :nono2:


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

phrelin;2265380[LIST said:


> [*] *In the reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* Comcast's cable channels will be included in a single division with NBCU's owned or partially owned cable channels bringing together under one ownership:
> 
> CN8,
> Comcast SportsNet,
> ...


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

There are quite a few channels on this this that I really like. I am very surprised that the FCC is going to allow this to move forward. Too much power for Comcast to muscle Directv or Dishnet for that matter.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> IMO, to say, "Prepare to lose your NBC affiliate, Directv and Dish subscribers," because Comcast is close controlling NBCU is a little paranoia knee jerk reaction.
> 
> Where's my tinfoil hat? :lol:


I believe Comcast wants to shed the NBC O/Os. Comcast would not have any say because Directv and Dish contract with each local affiliate for carriage, so if Comcast does not own any affiliates then it should be the status quo. Directv may have to negotiate new carriage agreements however with the new owners. The way things are going they may not be able to find buyers.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Jtaylor1 said:


> They will control what you watch and how you watch.


No, they won't.



Jtaylor1 said:


> With less competition


Switching Comcast for GE has an insignificant impact on competition. This is an instance of vertical integration, not consolidation.



Jtaylor1 said:


> they will jack up the prices even more.


 Prices will vary based on value no matter what. This won't affect that.



Jtaylor1 said:


> Comcast will make you pay even more to watch NBC shows over-the-air, satellite, the internet and other cable companies if you don't have Comcast.


As likely as NBC would have made you pay even more, while owned by GE.



Jtaylor1 said:


> NBC will lose more audience because of this deal.


NBC will lose more audience regardless, as likely as not. This will have insignificant impact on that.



Jtaylor1 said:


> ... I'm sure nobody else will.


Speak for yourself, only.



Jtaylor1 said:


> In Conclusion, It's a terrible deal for Comcast and NBCU.


It's a great deal for both Comcast and NBCU.


----------



## soloredd (Oct 21, 2007)

History Channel? Golf Channel? E!? 

I think we're seeing the end of TV as we know it. I don't know what to do. There's no way I'd keep D* if I lose all those channels. But I'm not going to Comcast.


----------



## soloredd (Oct 21, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> No, they won't.
> 
> Switching Comcast for GE has an insignificant impact on competition. This is an instance of vertical integration, not consolidation.
> 
> ...


How can you say it's a great deal? Look what Comcast did with Versus. They will do the same thing with NBC.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

How can you say it's not a great deal for both Comcast and NBCU?

I think you simply don't like the idea of the deal, from your own personal situation. Perhaps you're just looking at this from one narrow perspective.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

By selling off all the O/Os, Comcast is throwing NBC affiliates under the bus. Comcast is a "CABLE" company. They want to control enough programming to entice more people to get cable. They do not need NBC Network to accomplish that. This whole drill is to make satellite and all non cable delivery systems more expensive and less desirable.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

It is possible that Comcast won't even be keeping the over-the-air broadcast network and O/O affiliates. Indeed, if the concerns you outline were significant, regulators would make sure that Comcast divests themselves of those assets when the acquire control over NBCU.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> It is possible that Comcast won't even be keeping the over-the-air broadcast network and O/O affiliates. Indeed, if the concerns you outline were significant, regulators would make sure that Comcast divests themselves of those assets when the acquire control over NBCU.


Most reports of "insider" comments support this scenario. The theory is Comcast doesn't want to struggle with the restructuring of broadcast TV over the next 5 years - they'll have enough on their plate - and selling NBC and NBC-owned locals is a token that will satisfy regulators.

They'll end up with all those cable channels and the NBCU content production subsidiaries.

The thing about owning all those cable channels is that Comcast does understand there are limits to the value of any one channel to a signal carrier. In contrast, assuring that most people have access to the channel is the best way to build an audience for its content, the audience size being the only value a channel offers.

The ability to generate content will give Comcast a piece of future "on line" and "on demand" profits, vertical integration.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

And with the over-the-air stuff out of the mix, Comcast is just like TW/TWC was before the spin-off.


----------



## ahmed1 (Nov 16, 2009)

Interresting! what's gonna happen next


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> No, they won't.
> 
> Switching Comcast for GE has an insignificant impact on competition. This is an instance of vertical integration, not consolidation.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Always stick up for Comcast. I can do something else whatever I want, but I will refuse to subscribe to their service to watch NBC shows. But remember, Comcast blocks their internet subscribers from viewing and redirecting from certain sites and certain searches they don't like. They also block Torrents. This is why we need Net Neutrality. Some of the subscribers want to boycott Comcast.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I couldn't care less about Comcast. I'm even dumping them as my provider. That doesn't change the fact that this is a great deal for Comcast and NBCU. I don't let my own personal preferences and proclivities cloud my judgment. 

If you don't like Comcast as a cable and high-speed Internet service provider, then don't purchase their services. Your choice. That has nothing to do with this deal, actually. It's a deal for broadcast channels, cable networks, production studios and associated other assets -- not for cable or high-speed Internet service.

And don't complain about them being the best choice, because being the best choice is what they're supposed to be striving for. If you have no better choices then blame the companies unwilling to serve you. At least Comcast is willing to provide you service when no other providers are willing to give you what Comcast gives you.

Again, in summary: 
Me = don't care about Comcast. 
Deal = Good for Comcast and NBCU.

Thanks.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Jtaylor1 said:


> Yeah. Always stick up for Comcast. I can do something else whatever I want, but I will refuse to subscribe to their service to watch NBC shows. But remember, Comcast blocks their internet subscribers from viewing and redirecting from certain sites and certain searches they don't like. They also block Torrents. This is why we need Net Neutrality. Some of the subscribers want to boycott Comcast.


As near as I can tell, Comcast hasn't "blocked" anything that I use. I have observed over the past two years that I get great service from my home to/from Santa Rosa, CA, the nearest regional hub, and from Santa Rosa to/from San Francisco service is fine.

Once I attempt to get around in and outside of the Bay Area, it's clear that internet traffic is extremely congested and at some times of the day slows down. That congestion is not on Comcast's system very often. That congestion is because some sites and their users are using huge amounts of bandwidth.

Comcast has set usage ceilings on their customers. If you want to pay more to use download or upload huge file volumes, you can. Personally, I have no problem with that. I don't understand why others have a problem with it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

richall01 said:


> Is there any way to stop this from happening? Comcast wants to goble-up all the network cannels and make them "cable only".


The deal is sealed according to Multichannel News.:nono::nono::nono:


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> My understanding of this "reorganization" is Comcast will own 51% of [insert future corporation name here] while GE retains 49% and whiich "reorganization" involves the following complex interests which should be the subject of significant regulatory concerns:
> 
> *In the reorganized [insert future corporation name here]* Comcast's cable channels will be included in a single division with NBCU's owned or partially owned cable channels bringing together under one ownership:
> CN8,
> ...


My god I didn't know Comcast owned all of these. The government should look into this.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

To be clear, Comcast only owned #1 through #12, and a number of those (such as FEARnet) channels they only part own (sometimes a very small part, i.e., MLB Network). #13 through #30 were owned by NBCU.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Paul Secic said:


> The deal is sealed according to Multichannel News.:nono::nono::nono:


Where in Multichannel News do you hear that? I hope you're bluffing.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Paul Secic said:


> My god I didn't know Comcast owned all of these. The government should look into this.


The government hasn't done much about the media conglomerates. Here's the reality check.



> *Comcast* will own 51% of the newly reorganized corporation formerly known as NBCU. GE will retain a 49% ownership.
> 
> Comcast owns all or part of, and manages, the first 12 on the cable channel list. Presumably its interest and management of those 12 will become part of whatever the new corporation. The NBCU owns all or a part of, and manages most of, the remaining 18.
> 
> I've listed the related other NBCU interests in media.


Someone mentioned Time Warner.


> In comparison, *Time Warner* and its subsidiaries own: CNN, HLN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Boomerang, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, HBO, and Cinemax. Many of those listed represent more than one cable channel.
> 
> The wholly owned Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., in addition to owning 50% of The CW, owns Warner Bros. Studios, Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Animation, Warner Home Video, New Line Cinema, TheWB.com and DC Comics. Other subsidiaries of Time Warner are Kids' WB, The CW4Kids, Hanna-Barbera, and Ruby-Spears Productions.
> 
> Indeed, if TW hadn't spun off Time-Warner Cable, the new Comcast would look a lot like Time Warner without the publishing arm.


Every media conglomerate has its own peculiar structure.


> *The Walt Disney Company* owns Walt Disney Studio Entertainment, which includes the Walt, Disney Motion Pictures Group, Disney Music Group, and Walt Disney Theatrical, plus Radio Disney, Disney Interactive Media Group, Disney Consumer Products, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.
> 
> They own the Disney-ABC Television Group which includes the ABC Television Network, Disney Channel's worldwide portfolio of kids channels (including, among others, Playhouse Disney, ABC Kids, Disney XD, with 100% shares of Jetix Europe), ABC Family, SOAPnet, an 80% share of the ESPN, plus network television production and syndication divisions ABC Studios, Walt Disney Television, Greengrass Productions, Disney-ABC Domestic Television, Disney-ABC International Television and ABC Family Worldwide Inc. Disney-ABC Television Group also manages the the Company's 37.5% equity interest (NBCU owns 25% which would go to Comcast) in A&E Television Networks which includes the Lifetime Entertainment Services.


 Most people don't really understand the Redstone family empire.


> *National Amusements, Inc.*, which is a media and entertainment company owned by the Redstone family. In addition to more than 1,500 movie screens across the United States, the United Kingdom, Latin America, and Russia, National Amusements holds controlling voting interests in CBS Corporation and Viacom. CBS, of course, includes the CBS broadcast network, the CBS affiliates, and half The CW, plus the Showtime and The Movie Channel cable channels, CBS Television Studios, and the publisher Simon & Schuster. Viacom owns: the cable channels Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, [email protected], Nickelodeon, TeenNick, Nick Jr., MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT, Palladia, The Fight Network; the film at TV production and distribution companies Viacom International, Paramount Pictures (I won't even attempt to explain how many different operations are included here), Republic Pictures, MTV Films, Nickelodeon Movies, Go Fish Pictures; plus video gaming and other interests.


And of course we have Rupert Murdoch's Australian News Corporation, the world's second largest media conglomerate behind The Walt Disney Company.


> *News Corp* has its giant publishing empire and numerous satellite operations in other countries. For a complete list of News Corp holdings see this Wikipedia listing. For the discussion here, I'll limit it to U.S. TV related interests. The company owns Big Ten Network (49%), Fox Business Network, Fox College Sports, Fox Movie Channel, Fox News Channel, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Sports Enterprises, Fox Sports en Español, Fox Sports Net, FUEL TV, FX Networks, Fox Reality, National Geographic Channel (50%), Speed Channel, and SportSouth. In terms of production and distribution (not including its movie production arms) it owns 20th Television, Fox Television Studios, and Twentieth Century Fox Television. Of course it owns the Fox broadcast network and some local affiliates plus MyNetworkTV.


Taken together Comcast, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, National Amusements, and News Corp will own most of our TV. If no one cares about the other four, I can't see Comcast being regarded a problem.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Nothing new today. Last week, they did report that the deal will likely face minor hurdles but nothing significant. There is no reason to believe that either FCC or Justice will find any significant reason block the deal.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Taken together Comcast, Time Warner, The Walt Disney Company, National Amusements, and News Corp will own most of our TV. If no one cares about the other four, I can't see Comcast being regarded a problem.


Indeed. It's all fine-and-good to talk about splintering media ownership, but when the rubber hits the road, and the ball is in the government's court to incur the costs to make that happen, it doesn't, because it is a *bad idea*. The reality is that a lot of us (full disclosure: myself included) have a good bit of our kids' college funds and our own retirement savings tied up in these companies. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, if you add in Verizon and AT&T, that these seven companies are held by the greatest number of Americans, as compared to *any other* set of seven companies. There are *a lot* of people who would be severely harmed if the government castrated these companies. America, itself, would likely be significantly harmed, as that would almost surely decimate our preeminent position in one of the few industries for which we are still the worlds greatest exporter.

And the benefit to society from castrating these companies is specious. The idea of it appeals only to people who want benefits without costs, people who want control without responsibility, and/or people who are simply not considering the ramifications of their desires rationally.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I pray this deal does not go through! comcast is the enemy of the people!! they will ruin everything.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Over the last 6mon. to a year, most Comcast operations around the country have been adding the sub-channels (both SD and HD) of local broadcast channels, usually placing them in the 'digital' tiers.

Neither satellite DBS operators (Dish or DirecTV) do not retrans any subs, of course, except in rare circumstances (like where another local channels is on one of the subs, where that broadcaster is either a very low-power transmitter or the like).

I already have two local 'network' (ABC/NBC) stations that routinely use sub-channels (and NOT the 'main' -1 channel) to broadcast their 'main-line' local programming (i.e., news), and even 'network' 'prime-time' programming, freeing up their 'main' channel for more 'profitable' (for adverts) fare such as the usual strip shows such as 'Dr. Oz' and 'Oprah'.

Naturally, that means that satellite subscribers are left without the real 'local' fare (news and more), while their cable subscribers have all the sub-channels available on their sets.

What's really interesting is that the NBC channels is promo'ing that the upcoming Olympics 'extra' coverage will be on the sub-channel ONLY, meaning that the only way that the majority (non-prime-time or even prime-time coverage) will be able to be viewed only by those on cable, or very close to the weak (ATSC) transmitters. 

The you-know-what will hit the rotating machinery come next year if they follow through on relegating the majority of their coverage (NBC) to the sub-channels, effectively locking out a majority of sat subscribers (those without decent OTA reception capability).


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

You are making a great argument for having 7 national broadcast network-content channels delivered to us by satellite in the same fashion as HBO, East and West. The local broadcast stations will continue to move in a direction that will force Congress and maybe even the networks themselves to make that move.

Is there really anyone who thinks we need a government mandate requiring the satellite and cable signal carriers to deliver an average of 50+ broadcast channels in every DMA when we are getting close to the time that all 500+ cable channels could be delivered to you on your cell phone?


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

John Malone, who is chairman of Liberty Media Corp., which has a controlling stake in satellite TV carrier DirecTV Group Inc-



> Media mogul John Malone said Thursday that Comcast Corp.'s plan to buy a controlling stake in NBC Universal would give it too much market power and force competitors to consider similar acquisitions.
> 
> Malone's comments served as a reminder that Comcast's rivals figure to lobby regulators to take a close look at the deal and possibly impose restrictions on it. Malone said that if regulators approve the venture, it would cause a ripple effect among competitors that might try other acquisitions or partnerships as a way to "protect themselves."


Might just be laying the groundwork to get deals for those RSN's from Comcast by either Comcast making deals to clear any objections or restrictions imposed by regulators.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/John-Malone-ComcastNBC-would-apf-3844365833.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

John Malone has just made a promise to Comcast that if they get this deal approved, the war is on. Comcast tried a hostile take over of Disney. That would have been a real disaster with them controlling ESPN. Some kind of a deal between Liberty/Directv and Disney would counter Comcast nicely.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> John Malone has just made a promise to Comcast that if they get this deal approved, the war is on.


And fierce competition is good for consumers, so consumers should be all for this deal, now.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Vivendi: No Decision Yet on NBCU Stake



> GE, Comcast and Vivendi are expected by some to have a deal to create a new company out of NBC Universal and Comcast's cable channels by Monday Nov. 23, but Vivendi CFO Philippe Capron speaking today in Barcelona said the company still has not made a decision about its 20% stake in NBCU.


Source: Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Wonder if Comcast will un-NBC-ify the Weather Channel?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> And fierce competition is good for consumers, so consumers should be all for this deal, now.


When John Malone does it, it is good for consumers. When Charlie Ergen does it, it is just sad for DISH Network customers. Somehow I think the reality lies in the middle ground.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

The reality always lies in the middle ground, where consumers get some of what they want, and business gets some of what they want.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> The reality always lies in the middle ground, where consumers get some of what they want, and business gets some of what they want.


Comcast is pretty good at getting what they want without necessarily satisfying the customer and NBCU is clearly sputtering as a conglomerate without satisfying the customer much at all.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I think that's a rather harsh and one-sided view of things.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> I think that's a rather harsh and one-sided view of things.


I'd like to think so.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Malone: Key to NBCU-Comcast Deal Is What Government, Affiliates Want

Source: Broadcasting & Cable

The NBC network broadcast model is now broken as Malone said. NBC will now become a cable network. That means we're down to the Big 3 (ABC, CBS, and FOX).


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Jtaylor1 said:


> Malone: Key to NBCU-Comcast Deal Is What Government, Affiliates Want
> 
> Source: Broadcasting & Cable
> 
> The NBC network broadcast model is now broken as Malone said. NBC will now become a cable network. That means we're down to the Big 3 (ABC, CBS, and FOX).


You've *utterly misunderstood *the article you linked to. This is what it says:


> Liberty Media chairman says broadcast network model is broken, needs to be "subsidized."


It does not say, as you have claimed, that "The NBC network broadcast model is now broken."

Malone is upset about the NBCU deal. He feels that it is, essentially, _too good_ for Comcast and GE, and _not good enough_ for him, I suppose. (He wanted to get NBCU, instead of Comcast, but GE preferred to work with Comcast.)


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

i think it's one thing to speculate at what might be, but I think when they really try to pull the plug on all the competition getting these channels; the Government is going too step right in and force them to give fair access to all parties! They have to do that or within 10 years you will have to subscribe to 4 different providers just to receive the big 4!


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> i think it's one thing to speculate at what might be, but I think when they really try to pull the plug on all the competition getting these channels; the Government is going too step right in and force them to give fair access to all parties! They have to do that or within 10 years you will have to subscribe to 4 different providers just to receive the big 4!


In reality the government is already involved. This merger (whatever) will need regulatory approval. The government is already supposed to disallow mergers that are anti competitive.

I believe Directv can request arbitration in cases like this. The bad thing about arbitration, you have to live with the decision of the arbitrator.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Why is _imposed _fairness necessarily bad? 

Remember, folks -- there is no reason to think that Comcast would keep NBC. Most experts are still saying that Comcast is simply looking to purchase cable channels (USA, Syfy, etc.) and a production studio (UMS), and probably will sell the broadcast network. So concerns about access to NBC itself are probably unnecessary.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

One thing about this particular proposal: we'll find out just how much clout GE has with regulatory bodies other than the FCC.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

bicker1 said:


> Why is _imposed _fairness necessarily bad?


Because its ambiguous and subjective to enforce.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Just like everything else. No difference.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

phrelin said:


> One thing about this particular proposal: we'll find out just how much clout GE has with regulatory bodies other than the FCC.


GE's problem isn't with the regulatory agencies, it is with Vivendi. I doubt that the government is going to step in and force Vivendi to sell for a reasonable price.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

harsh said:


> GE's problem isn't with the regulatory agencies, it is with Vivendi. I doubt that the government is going to step in and force Vivendi to sell for a reasonable price.


I'm talking about if and after Vivendi and GE reach an agreement. The Vivendi deal is a whole other issue. I thought it strange that Comcast and GE went as far as they did while Vivendi sat back to see what they might be able to get out of the final deal. Now it's like Vivendi can see how far they could push before the dela-killing limit is reached. I thought an "impoverished" GE had a good chance to buy out Vivendi this year.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

If there's no agreement with Vivendi, there's no deal with Comcast.

Whether the regulators get involved depends on the deals going through and whether anybody sees the deal as a threat. None of those points seems to be assured.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

It appears to be getting closer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/ge-vivendi-deal-general-e_n_374717.html

or

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120970965


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes, since this has moved to a new phase, let's continue discussion here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=169011


----------

