Comcast Seeking Control of Both Pipes and Content?

techmuse writes "Reuters reports that Comcast may be attempting to use its huge cash reserves to purchase a large media content provider, such as Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner. This would result in Comcast controlling both the delivery mechanism for content, and the content itself. Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services, thus shutting out competing services (where they still exist at all)."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Disturbing

[darkpixel2k]

Yeah? I have the right use purchase anything I want (within legal boundaries*). I have the right to purchase PhoneX instead of PhoneY. I have the right to use TelecomA instead of TelecomB. Why shouldn't I have the right to use my desired phone with my desired telecom?

Because it's not your choice. Telecom is a bad example though because huge portions of their networks were built with taxpayer money--but most companies built up capital and decided to provide a service. They set the rules and price in which that service is offered. If you don't like the price and/or rules, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they go out of business. If someone like you gets annoyed and decides to start a company with less rules and restrictions and/or better service, you'll win more customers. Of course it goes both ways, the other company can turn around and 'compete' with you by lowering their costs, providing better services, etc... It's called capitalism.

Re:Bad timing

[iluvcapra]

This would likely not cross into anti-trust territory.

When the film industry was finally taken to court over their vertical integration in US v. Paramount [wikipedia.org] in 1948 the large holding companies that owned the production arms and theaters were forced to divest. Note though, the FTC had begun investigating the flim business for their abuse of their integrated delivery system in 1938, and it took 10 years of court cases and broken consent degrees with the Justice department before the deed was finally done.

Also note, the fact that Lowes owned MGM and Lowes Theaters, or that Paramount owned Paramount Studios and Publix Theaters was not sufficiently illegal for the court/FTC/Jusitce to take action. The real issue was that the holding companies used collusive formula deals and clearance and run arrangements to keep independent film producers from having a venue to show their own movies. The original complaints to the FTC were made by independent production companies that didn't own their own distro arm -- the first people to file suit were original United Artists partners and Sam Goldwyn, who sortof reminds of Mark Cuban minus the swearing.

Re:Hacker ethic, arise once more.

[cpghost]

The original concept of the internet was based on a flawed model that the network could be trusted to deliver packets from point A to point B using the same logic throughout; It was assumed that the network would be managed by a central authority.

As a WAN admin with 20+ years of experience in NOCs, I beg to disagree. The Internet design is based on the assumption that network pipes and routers (and whole Autonomous Systems (AS)) will fail, and that traffic will route automatically around disruptions. As such, it is extremely robust and resilient. Of course, that applies to backbones, which are usually meshed. There is NO central authority controlling the Internet, there are only peering ASes that route traffic back and forth.

The problem you're referring to has nothing to do with the Internet itself, but with telco monopolies owning the last mile to your home. Of course, this can be annoying, but that's not the Internet's fault. As long as you have only one uplink, you'll be at the mercy of your upstream provider. This has to do with you being at the edge of the network. It would be the same for an AS that would be foolish enough to peer with only one AS: no AS in their right mind does this. Acquire more links (e.g. to other upstream providers), and you'll realize that there is no central authority controlling the Net, only peers talking to each others. There's no need to change the design of the Internet protocols as they stand.

Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better

[Munden]

I believe nearly everything he said, perhaps you never listened. Track them yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com] While Obama made some overly optimistic promises it's pretty clear that congress and political fear mongering are limiting factors. Obama is not a genie. He has no magic wand. Real progress takes time.

Re:Bad timing

[DJRumpy]

Actually this administration is very much checking on anti-competitive industries unlike the previous administration. It's unlikely this sort of thing would get approved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101189.html [washingtonpost.com]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/31/fcc-takes-on-apple-and-att-over-google-voice-rejection/ [techcrunch.com]

It's already shining a light on many major companies like Google, AT&T, Apple, and Microsoft.

Re:Bad timing

[krou]

Actually, my point was that both Democrats and Republicans are different factions of the same party, namely the Corporate party. Bill Hicks's description is quite apt and correct. Just because he's a comedian doesn't mean he wasn't right. The OP's claim that Comcast are one Administration too late implies that somehow Democrats are going to be any different, which they're not, except perhaps superficially.