Comcast Wants To Buy Disney For $66 Billion 573
BenBenBen writes "Comcast have made a surprise $66 billion bid for Disney. The public bid (aimed at swaying shareholders) follows a period of secret negotiation which resulted in Eisner saying no.
Comcast has a statement on their website and there is better coverage available here."
Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a business tactic to try and sway the devil that is Eisner..
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Informative)
This is generally only possible with companies where the majority of the stock is held by a large number of minority shareholders. It would not be possible with, say, Microsoft, where Bill Gates still owns over 50% of the stock.
Usually a hostile takeover is done by so-called corporate raiders, whose plans are to dismantle the company and sell the pieces for more than the entire company would be worth if sold as one piece.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I should have said more than 50% of the stock is in "safe hands"...in the hands of people unlikely to go with a takeover bid.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Insightful)
See for yourself. [yahoo.com]
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Funny)
In the same respect that one might understood if I said,
"I 0WNs JOO!"
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Informative)
the phrase "laughing all the way to the bank" has some merit here.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
> I have never understood this part.
If you had the cash to actually buy them, sure, but do the math on how much that might be: # shared circulated * current market price. Disney has 2.05B shares issued @ $27.40 = ~$50B, or ~$25B in cash to "simply buy 51%"! If you had that much cash lying around you could just start up a competitor to Disney anyway - none of the legacy issues, just a fresh start! But Comcast isn't buying Disney because they want to be able to make cool movies and go to Disneyland for free - they just want content to support their cable products better so they can charge more so they make more money.
Just like the average USian consumer, people/companies who do hostile takeovers don't have that much money lying around for big purchases either: they borrow for a big purchase just like we borrow for a car or house. All the famous Corporate Raiders of the 70s and 80s all used borrowed money to do it. Usually they cut a deal with the lender for part of the liquidation profits that resulted. Pretty slimy on the part of NY investment banks, of course, but this is the same crowd that was involved in Enron and 150-odd years of sliminess dating back to the transcontinental railroad investments.
But say you could get the money, why borrow when you don't have to? Why not just get other people to do what you need: vote for your take-over bid. It costs you nothing beyond the cost to convince them. If you tell them that they'll make more money with a takeover than with following the current status quo ROI from the company, they may "give you" the value of shares by virtue of their vote for you. Shares are just the right of ownership which is mostly the right to vote on the board, directly or by proxy - the board of directors is to corporate ownership what the electoral college and legislature is to citizen ownership of the US government.
The borrowing part is also why "hostile takeovers" are also often called "leveraged buyouts" (leverage is business-speak for "borrow" because it gives you large advantage with small effort like a lever) as in they borrowed the money to buyout the minority shareholders or to create the impression through "large enough" minority ownership to appear to be a legitimate "black knight" with enough apparent power to do the job. The cost and requirements of the latter depend on the articles of incorporation for the company which includes a section on how strategic decisions are made by company. The term "poison pill" refers to changing these rules where they specifically relate to voting rights on decisions. So companies may "adopt a poison pill" to protect against takeover, or hope for a "white knight" to do a friendly takeover instead.
Nerd with an MBA
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
The buyer (Comcast) would like to buy a controlling interest in Disney, so they can appoint their own board members and chairman. So, if Eisner and his allies own 30% of all Disney stock, Comcast would need to buy just 31% to be able to outvote Eisner and friends every time. That gives Comcast the power to elect a new board of directors, who selects a new chairman of the board to replace Eisner. The new chairman serves Comcast, lest he also be replaced by Comcast.
I think it's only a "hostile" takeover when the management of the company to be bought opposes the sale. The company shareholders may be quite favorable to the buyout.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Gates does not own more than 50% of the Stock of Microsoft.
Bill has 1,209,713,228 shares of Microsoft Stock. Microsoft has a total of 10,700,000,000 shares outstanding, worth a total of $289,649,000,000, which is Microsoft's market capitalization. (That's $289.65 Billion.)
Bill has about 11.3% of the Stock in Microsoft.
Heck, Bill has NEVER owned more than 50%. He and Paul Allen each had 50% to start with, until they went IPO.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true [pbs.org]:
"Bill Gates received 64 percent of Microsoft to Paul Allen's 36 percent, which explains why Gates is the richest man in the world and Allen is only number two or three on the list."
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Funny)
-B
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Informative)
A hostile action, is one taken when you don't have the agreement of the target company's management. Eisner, disagreed, and Comcast is now attempting to do an end run around him straight to the shareholders. Personally, I hope Comcast succeeds, because Disney is in desperate need of a change in management.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
In the real world the board is ususally quite close to current management, most CEOs are also chairman of the board, and there are usually several former executives on the board. Disney has one of the more management friendly boards (Eisner was able to boot the founder's son off the board). Apple also fits in this boat.
When a company wants to buy another one, they usually go speak with current managment who is sometimes receptive, and negotiations begin, or isn't and an unsolicited offer is made, or the acquirer seeks more receptive management. A hostile takeover requres the rejection of the unsolicited offer, then a proxy fight. Proxy statements are the documents that are sent in preparation for a board meeting since most votes occur by proxy. This is the way new boards are elected. Incidentally, offers are usually at a large premium to the current price, and are one of the few things that almost always result in insider trading convictions if you get caught.
Shareholders get to vote, and management offers a slate of directors who do not want to sell and the acquirer offers a slate of directors who does. Usually the potential acquirer has already pruchased 5% of the company (which votes for the merger), that is the limit at which your ownership must be disclosed.
The reason the fight occurs is that in a takeover the current management is sacked and replaced with a management team from the new company. Oracle is currently trying a hostile takeover of Peoplesoft. Although that one has largely been fought in the DOJ halls rather than in a proxy battle (proxy fights are what HP went through prior to the Compaq acquisition).
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:4, Informative)
In a corporation the stockholders have a group known as the Board of Directors who represent them legally. This is doen to save time educating all the stockholders from complex issues, and let a few people specialize in the company. The board makes decisions for the stockholders on upper management, offers to buy or sell major assets, stock issuance and repurchase policies, compenstion plans, and other big issues (some charters require a vote of all the shareholders for these items).
This isn't an entirely correct characterization of a board of directors. The board represents the corporation, NOT the shareholders; the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. This is an important distinction. The board is not there to educate all the shareholders, nor is it there to make decisions "for" stockholders. The board has the sole responsibility to make decisions about the ordinary business of the company. This is why the board (and its agents) are generally protected by the "business judgment rule" in most jurisdictions -- shareholders really have no say about the regular business of a company. (Incidentally, this is also why most shareholder proposals (that have to do with company business and that are not in the form of recommendations) are excluded from proxy materials.)
The shareholders have only a few responsibilities, the most important being to decide who is on the board, to consent to amendments to the charter, and to consent to or make decisions as to major corporate changes, including the ones you mention as well as dissolution.
Hostile takeovers don't only involve proxy fights; much of the time, hostile takeovers are the result of hostile tender offers, which, if successful, don't require proxy fights. The Oracle takeover attempt of Peoplesoft, for example, started out as a tender offer, but they were (are) unsuccessful (so far). Thus, they're trying to do a proxy fight. This is in addition to the antitrust problems.
Incidentally, offers are usually at a large premium to the current price, and are one of the few things that almost always result in insider trading convictions if you get caught.
What do you mean by this?
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is often a cash element in the offer: but that cash is usually borrowed from banks secured against things the buyer owns, and needs to be paid back.
The stock market only works because the money goes round and round. Someone who makes a killing on the market doesn't take the money out in greenbacks. Either they re-invest it, or they deposit it in a bank, which reinvests it, or they buy things from people who reinvest it.
the whole financial system is a giant lie which we have all agreed to tell each other. You cannot take more than a certain amount out of it, or the Emperor will be revealed to have not clothes and the whole system will fall.
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:5, Funny)
But what would Comcast do with Iraq?
Re:Hostile takeover? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a mickey-mouse bid either! (Score:4, Funny)
We didn't get the job
Simon
Duh! Of course the job quote was for Disney (Score:5, Funny)
(clicks submit).
Just call me Homer.
Simon.
RMS - "Mickey Mouse" laws (Score:5, Funny)
ATTN Comcast customers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ATTN Comcast customers (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ATTN Comcast customers (Score:4, Informative)
Then, all the analysts said, "Comcast may irritate some of their customers into using rival broadband solutions."
Of course, they failed to take into account that in many areas (such as mine), there are NO rivals. We can't get DSL here because SBC and Covad refuse to bring it out to us. We can't get microwave broadband because we can't see the transmission tower. All we can get is Residential Cable modem for $60/mo or a T1 for $600/mo.
Oh, and IDSL for $100/mo (144kbps).
I bet Comcast wouldn't have 5.3 mil broadband subscribers if there _was_ actual competition.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Terminal Entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it will happen though. Some terminal systems may come that are nothing but internet-enabled TVs, but I doubt that anyone will manage to move the internet away from the basic protocols, which allow us all to create our own applications, and not just sit around waiting for the corporations to do it for us.
Re:Terminal Entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the big corporations taking over as long as this can happen... And "Yay!" to that!
Re:Terminal Entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot and thousands of communities like it still exist today, and there is no sign that they are on the decline. Come to me when they start collapsing.
Generally, we are clever enough to work around such problems.
Sure, the Internet can be used like a TV, but I dont see the other services vanishing because of that fact.
One-word reply (Score:5, Insightful)
How?
Re:Terminal Entertainment (Score:4, Interesting)
the Internet may be nothing more then a controlled system by Hollywood and the like
In short: It can't. Not unless the internet topology itself is radically altered.
So long as anyone can post a web server and serve content with a broadcast license or an expensive broadcasting 'vetting' system, they will. HTTP was dominated by the old guard of media because you and I can publish and consume via HTTP entirely without them, and apparently we netizens value such communication.
So unless 'hollywood' buys the entire fiber backbone, all the comsat time, overthrows ICANN, and starts blocking all IP server traffic from publishers it doesn't personally greenlight - nothing can change.
'Push' as a web technology never took off because no-one likes having to consume content at the schedule of a broadcaster. They tolerate it with TV and radio because there was no alternative. With an interactive alternative, push web technology was DOA.
So as long as there is an alternative, Push will be unable to achieve hegemony in any medium. Unless of course, several currently illegal steps are taken by old media.
Comcast and Disney (Score:5, Funny)
Anyhow, I hope Comcast cleans up Disney's act. I'm sick of their animators hiding age-inappropriate material in their cartoons.
Re:Comcast and Disney (Score:5, Informative)
-B
Re:Comcast and Disney (Score:5, Funny)
Well, they suggested one million dollars first, but got laughed right out the front door.
Re:Comcast and Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
Only wimps worry about cash! Just look at the mighty Worldcom/MCI and how they built their empire without cash or income. Buy up competitors, strip their support staff to nothing, and use them as collateral for the next aquistion, that's the way you do it!
Re:Comcast and Disney (Score:5, Interesting)
In the 80's it wasn't that unusual for companies to buy out other companies larger than themselves. Probably still happens today.
Re:Comcast and Disney (Score:3, Informative)
In this case the smaller company Comcast is willing to offer shares of Comcast stock in exchange for Disney stock. There will be some exhange rate set. Comcast will just be creating those shares out of thin air. At the end of the exchange the new and old shares will be backed by the combined assets of both the Comcast and Disney properties.
Comcast can't offer too many shares of Comcast or else they dilute their current shareholder's values too much. Likewise
In a related story (Score:5, Funny)
Com-who? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is like Blizzard buying Nabisco; shows you what I know about these companies. But I imagine many others thought the same about their relative sizes...
Re:Com-who? (Score:4, Informative)
Seems the quick-profit-by-merger fad in business strategy hasn't quite fallen out of fashion yet.
Question from non-usa (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:5, Informative)
This suprises me though, I expected Microsoft to attempt to by Comcast at some point, but not Comcast to buy Disney...
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason for the increase in cable bills is the cost of programming, especially for the ESPN sports channels. ESPN is owned by Disney.
Also, this bid is a reaction to Murdoch's putting together his Fox channels with DirectTV.
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:3, Informative)
And they own the Philadelphia 76ers (Basketball), and the Philadelphia Flyers (Hockey).
Re:Question from non-usa (Score:3, Informative)
Comcast Spectacor actually is the true owner of the Sixers, Wings, Flyers, my heart, my soul, etc. etc.
See below:
Comcast Spectacor General Info [comcast-spectacor.com]
Good Investment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good Investment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good Investment? (Score:5, Informative)
Disney owns the ABC network, several cable channels, the theme parks, two major studios and a huge catalog of material. They also have a global brand and can market their stuff worldwide.
The point is that Disney is not making anywhere near what those assets should produce. They are in a situation very similar to the pre-Eisner Disney.
The point of a takeover would be to ditch Eisner. That would be the quickest way of getting the company moving again. he did great for the company when he started. But he has gone flabby. Disney has not been scoring the hits it needs to keep the Empire going.
Look at the Mickey Mouse brand. My kid does not know who Mickey is. If you don't work the brand it soon looses traction. My kid knows Dora the Explorer and Max and Ruby better than what was once the worlds best known cartoon character.
The other problem with Disney is that the mawkish sentimentality that worked well through the 50s and 60s is no longer so much in vogue.
Disney needs a Jim Collins makeover.
Looks like a strange merger to me (Score:4, Interesting)
For comcast I (I'm from Europe) had to visit their website. Looks like a run-of-the-mill cable company. Telephone, internet and television over standard cable. They're probably big, but big enough to take on Disney...
Perhaps their stock price is way up so they can pay for this with stocks only... Stuff likes this just seems so artificial, just like there 's no real money involved. (Which probably is the case...)
Reinout
Re:Looks like a strange merger to me (Score:4, Insightful)
As mentioned before, Comcast [yahoo.com] is approximately 1.5x the size of Disney [yahoo.com], and are essentially a pure content distribution company. Disney under their umbrella would give them additional content to distribute... And think of all the movies that Disney has rights to, suddenly it would make the HBOs and Cinemaxes of the world a lot less powerful if Comcast could bring you Disney/Miramax/BuenaVista movies first. And look at what AOL did with TimeWarner, suddenly you had the Merry Melodies (Bugs Bunny et al) characters as part of their advertising campaigns == instant public mascot recognition. You better believe that Comcast would milk the Disney characters for commercials...
The biggest complaint last year is that ESPN sports content (who have a firm grip on broadcasting college sports nation-wide) was expensive... ESPN is a piece of Disney, so Comcast would own another valuable piece to the sports pie. The college NCAA tournaments in March are a month long advertising spree, and I'm sure Comcast would love to be a middle-man [brighthous...tising.com] in that system.
Personally, I hate what Eisner has done to the Disney legacy, so anything to remove him from CEO would be a good thing in my opinion. Unfortunatly, a buy-out like this would only contain a Platinum Parachute (this guy already paid himself enough gold) that would make Eisner richer... something he hasn't deserved for a decade.
deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:deja-vu^WAOL-Time-Warner all over again (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone should check the facts.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But Pixar made Toy Story, Disney just published it and Pixar have just dropped Disney. Almost like rats (mice) leaving a sinking ship
Rus
Re:Someone should check the facts.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The deal with Pixar was that Disney owns the films and pays for distribution, the two companies split production costs 50/50, but Pixar only gets 35% of the back end.
No wonder Pixar's shopping elsewhere.
Expansion (Score:5, Interesting)
Roberts' letter to Eisner - full text (Score:5, Informative)
This merger proposal is all about Roberts' ego.
Here's the letter:
**************
February 11, 2004
Mr. Michael D. Eisner
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, California 91521
Dear Michael:
I am writing following our conversation earlier this week in which I proposed that we enter into discussions to merge Disney and Comcast to create a premier entertainment and communications company. It is unfortunate that you are not willing to do so. Given this, the only way for us to proceed is to make a public proposal directly to you and your Board.
We have a wonderful opportunity to create a company that combines distribution and content in a way that is far stronger and more valuable than either Disney or Comcast can be standing alone. To this end, we are proposing a tax-free stock for stock merger in which Comcast would issue 0.78 of a share of its Class A voting common stock for each share of Disney. This represents a premium of over $5 billion for your shareholders, based on yesterday's closing prices. Under our proposal, your shareholders would own approximately 42% of the combined company.
The combined company would be uniquely positioned to take advantage of an extraordinary collection of assets. Together, we would unite the country's premier cable provider with Disney's leading filmed entertainment, media networks and theme park properties. In addition to serving over 21 million cable subscribers, Comcast is also the country's largest high speed internet service provider with over 5 million subscribers. As you have expressed on several occasions, one of Disney's top priorities involves the aggressive pursuit of technological innovation that enhances how Disney's content is created and delivered. We believe this combination helps accelerate the realization of that goal-whether through existing distribution channels and technologies such as video-on-demand and broadband video streaming or through emerging technologies still in development-to the benefit of all our shareholders, customers and employees.
We believe that improvements in operating performance, business creation opportunities and other combination benefits will generate enormous value for the shareholders of both companies. Together, as an integrated distribution and content company, we will be best positioned to meet our respective competitive challenges.
We have a stable and respected management team with a great track record for creating shareholder value. In fact, our shares have consistently outperformed leading stock indices by significant margins, including the S&P 500 by a margin of more than 2 to 1 since Comcast went public in 1972. The Comcast management team greatly appreciates and is highly respectful of the Disney heritage. We know that there are many talented executives at Disney who we envision would also play a key role in managing the combined company. We also would welcome directors from your Board joining our Board. We have analyzed the issues associated with regulatory approval and are confident that all necessary approvals can be obtained in a timely fashion. Given the landscape that has evolved in our industry over the past few years, the creation of integrated content and distribution companies is essential to increasing the level of competition. The FCC's existing program access and program carriage rules ensure that the combined company will continue to make all of its satellite-delivered national and regional cable networks available on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated programming services, all consistent with the undertakings made by News Corp. in its recent acquisition of DirecTV. We hope that the Disney Board will pursue the opportunity that this proposed combination presents to your shareholders.
Very truly yours,
Brian L. Roberts
President and Chief Executive Officer
Cc: Board of Directors,
The Walt Disney Company
ACK! (Score:4, Funny)
God forbid (Score:4, Funny)
Is there anyone out there who was with another company that got taken over by Comcast that doesn't have a complaint about how terrible they are? Or witness the recent discussion [slashdot.org] on cable vs satellite TV, and how many anti-Comcast diatribes came out there. Or do you want another view [dslreports.com]?
If Comcast takes over Disney, be prepared for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck unavailability on a frequent basis. Mind you, at least they'll be able to put a spin on all the comments about their Mickey Mouse technical support, so maybe that's the reason they're going for this.
Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
The Opportune Moment... (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like way too much to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Pixar have shown a start-up can outdo Disney at animation, Universal and Busch have shown the theme parks are cost effective to build from scratch, and the shops are nothing special.
Re:Sounds like way too much to me (Score:4, Informative)
They still have the NFL, MLB, and the NBA, plus all those college games and PTI on ESPN (whooo, acronym overload!). Disney is much more than an animated movie house anymore. Also, imagine if Comcast managed to score exclusive on-demand rights to the classic kiddie movies with this deal. That would put the hurt on DirecTV in households with small children.
Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget ABC and ESPN. Those are probably of more interest to Comcast than cartoons and theme parks.
Waiting in line at Comcast-land (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waiting in line at Comcast-land (Score:4, Funny)
Yea! I'm going to comcast world! (Score:3, Funny)
Comcast + Disney? (Score:4, Funny)
Great for M$ (Score:5, Interesting)
They're salivating over the chance to get their DRM-hooks into a big media company..
What does Roy Disney think? (Score:4, Interesting)
Conflict of Interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I understand, cable providers pay (and pass on those costs to customers) for channels like ESPN (which just raised how much they charge cable companies because of ESPN-HD, and had some fights with other cable companies about those rates) and having one company who creates TV shows (for ABC and others) and movies (Disney & Touchstone).
Wouldn't Comcast be able to give themselves exclusive content, whether it's a ESPN channel, first run of pay per view movies created by Disney et al, or save on syndication rights on Comcast / Disney run stations? How many times have we seen actors sue over syndication rights when a company like Fox only syndicates to FX? (Or ABC to ABC Family, etc).
And I have a hard time believing that Comcast would pass on those savings (creation & distribution) to their cable customers.
When Comcast runs Disneyland: (Score:5, Funny)
The park will vanish mysteriously for hours at a time then reappear with no explanation or refunds.
You'll be forced to ride really crappy rides if you want to ride the more popular ones.
No Linux users will be served food or drink or be allowed to use restroom facilities.
The fun will be capped at an undisclosed level.
tech support (Score:5, Funny)
to get tech support from Donald Duck press 2
to get tech support from Goofy press 3
*2*
Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: umm yeah i'm not getting any internet access
Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: reboot the router?
Donald: *nonsensical rambling*
Me: cool. that worked thanks!
Re:tech support (Score:3, Insightful)
cable rates and monopolies. (Score:5, Insightful)
they argue about regulation of the cable industry when they cry about razor thin profits.. then they BUY DISNEY?
cable companies are as weird a governmental supplied monopoly as baseball.. they have far to much a stranglehold over their individual market, and not enough oversight...
If they don't get Disney... (Score:3, Funny)
How appropriate... (Score:5, Funny)
Show Biz (Score:3, Insightful)
Exec moans, "Why don't people like our great new movie 'Finding Nemos Second Cousin Twice Removed 3D'? It had the most expensive graphics ever produced, I just don't understand these people".
The Union of the Two Towers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about this deal the next time your pay your cable bill, especially if they are a cable monopoly in your area as they are here in Baltimore...
Now I know where all those extra charges are going !
Oh, and then think about getting a dish [directtv.com].
Anyone here feel that Disney+Comcast would be a Good Thing ?
Re:The Union of the Two Towers... (Score:4, Interesting)
In 2001 when the Yankees did not renew with MSG but instead formed the YES Network, Cablevision refused to carry YES for that entire season because YES wanted to be on "basic" tier (like MSG, Fox Sports, etc.) while Cablevision wanted to charge it as a Premium Channel, like HBO.
Subscribers were the ones who got screwed for that year, while Cablevision just continually hikes their rates, and provides mediocre cable service. Their digial rollout was a complete disaster, too.
The Dolan Family who owns Cablevision also owns the Knicks and Rangers -- both of which have the higest payrolls but are among the worst teams. Thank heavens the Dolans never were able to buy into the Yankees a few years ago like they tried.
Can someone please explain if I can buy telehpone service, natural gas, or electricity from 15 differnet suppliers, why should cable tv be any different?
A partial listing of what Comcast would own (Score:5, Informative)
Comcast Internet
Disney Studios
Disney Animation (including The Mouse et al.)
Touchstone Pictures
Miramax
Buena Vista Studios
Buena Vista Theaters
Buena Vista Music
Disneyland/world/resorts/etc
ESPN
Disney Stores
Lifetime
A&E
E!
ABC
Radio Disney
Hyperion Books
SOAPnet
History Channel
Go.com
Movies.com
Re:A partial listing of what Comcast would own (Score:5, Informative)
CBS is part of the Viacom conglomerate (also Blockbuster, Paramount, MTV, VH1, Showtime, Movie Channel, UPN, Spike, Nickelodeon, BET, Famous Players/United Cinema theaters, Infinity radio/billboard advertising, Simon & Schuster)
NBC is owned by GE (RCA, CNBC, Bravo, Telemundo, a stake in Pax TV, Universal Pictures & Television*, USA Network*, Sci-Fi channel*, Trio*, GE consumer appliances, a whole portfolio of business-to-business divisions, and probably a small country or two)
Fox is part of News Corporation (20th Century Fox, TV Guide, NY Post, FX, Natl Geographic channel, DirecTV, BSkyB, News of the World, The Sun, The Times, Harper Collins, Zondervan, LA Dodgers)
WB is owned by TimeWarner (AOL, Time Warner Cable, Warner Books, Time Magazine, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune, DC Comics, HBO, Cinemax, New Line Cinema, Turner Broadcasting [TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, CNN], Warner Music Group, etc.)
PBS is owned by its member stations.
*When the Vivendi Universal merger is finished
So will this reduce my cable rates? (Score:4, Interesting)
If Comcast buys out Disney, hence, ESPN, would I see a reduction in rates since they own them?
What are you going to do next? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We're going to COMCASTLand!
Seriously, I've worked for the Walt Disney Company through thick and thin. I stuck with them when they flushed millions of $$$ down their dot-com debacle (and made me work with usavory characters like Patrick Naughton [rotten.com]. I've been laid off (on my 40th birthay) and hired back. They've tried to replace me with people half my age (and wanted me to train them!).
But I've stuck with them because I believed in the "concept" of the Walt Disney Conpany, even if I didn't have complete faith in the current administration. I just liked Disney.
I hope Comcast knows what they're doing!
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Informative)
On the other side of things, this definitly explains why my cable bill is so high.
-CPM
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Informative)
http://pixar.com/companyinfo/aboutus/index.html
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That blows my own cover now... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, if the price was lower, Microsoft could buy Disney without changing ANYTHING in their business. Zero impact, other than availabl cash.
Thats absolute insanity.
Re:AOL/TimeWarner Redux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ameicana (Score:3, Insightful)