Comcast Seeking Control of Both Pipes and Content? 241
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)."
Bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
We can only hope that they're one Administration too late to pull it off.
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, historically Democrats are in bed with the Hollywood types so it's not a certain thing that media owners might not see some love too.
But besides that I blame this on google. Yes google and their don't be evil motto. Seems like there's this fixed amount of evil and if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
...if one company tries not to use evil then it just accumulates somewhere else.
A systemic problem requires a systemic solution.
Re: (Score:2)
A systemic problem requires a systemic solution.
A good solution is 5% molarity sodium hypochlorite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Business != Conservative
Just because people are in business does not mean they're conservative. In fact, one would expect liberal-dominated industries to attract business-minded liberals. A quick look at opensecrets.org shows that donations from the "TV/Music/Movies" [opensecrets.org] category go overwhelmingly to the Democrats. This category represents employees of entertainment companies (rather than the artists who contract with them) so it would cover all those supposedly 'conservative' executives. In 2008, donations went 78% to Democrats and 22% to Republican. In 2004, at the height of the Republican tide, it was still 69% Dem - 30% Rep
If you break it down to the sub-categories, it gets even more lopsided. The 2008 percentages (Democrat - Republican):
The only subcategory that shows anything near parity is Commercial TV and Radio stations [opensecrets.org] with 53 - 47. Presumably this includes all those local TV stations in 'flyover country'.
So no, Hollywood is not divided politically, even among the non-artists it's overwhelmingly Democrat.
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they could pass the savings on to the consumer, by maybe not jacking up their rates yet again.
No wait, that would never happen. It's not like people are locked in to a single provider...
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Interesting)
what are you talking about? a very small percentage of people have the ability to choose between two, or even three providers! the system is obviously NOT flawed. /sarcasm
i agree with your sentiment, they'll never actually LOWER prices. my experience with comcast is that they will raise prices by at least a dime every month, just to condition you to it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With WiMax and 4G/LTE Networks deploying all over the place, we are starting to see real competition. Real unlimited data, just capped speeds (and very reasonable at that-- CLEAR has plans starting at $20/mo. and unlimited data @ 768/128).
Free market solving in a way we never expected it to, please leave alone for now.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess if you could live on less money, you would ask for less pay? Oh no, that would never happen, so why should a company, whose profits are much more important to its health, do the same?
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Informative)
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.
There can be only one. (Score:2)
In the end, there will be one huge provider that has control over both ends, as well as content. And it will be 'regulated' by the government as a 'required monopoly'.
We the people will lose out, as always. But it was fun while it lasted! Anyone else miss the early BBS days when freedom was a given?
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, like upgrade their effing infrastructure? Months ago they were complaining about how much money they were losing from "high-bandwidth users," peer-to-peer applications, and streaming video sites. But now they have huge cash reserves?
Kinda like how the RIAA companies always claim to be struggling after losing billions of dollars a year to piracy but turn around to their shareholders and say they're making more sales revenue than they ever have before.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they are regulated enough. Making money is not a bad thing.
Re:Bad timing (Score:5, Insightful)
A competitive company making money by producing a product that people are willing to use/pay for without coercion is not a bad thing.
However, a state-granted monopoly on common household services that makes obscene amounts of money by overcharging for said services and not developing the infrastructure is a bad thing. Internet services are more than a mere convenience in the modern world, and should be treated as a utility like power and water. Cable television is obviously less critical, although it should still be regulated more firmly since they are granted that monopoly. I'm a registered Republican and all for pro-business legislation and minimization of regulation where appropriate, but when there is no free market, you have to regulate it to protect consumers since they can't choose another option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can only hope that they're one Administration too late to pull it off.
If you're counting on one man to save the world, you've been watching too much TV.
Re:Bad timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme guess .... the puppet-master is a JOOO!?
Bill Hicks is a comedian. He might say things that sound clever and interesting, but don't for one second confuse his act with reality. You may as well get your political commentary from the teletubbies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world should the feds get involved in this? They buy Disney and... shudder... you can't see the newest Disney movie unless you buy Comcast cable?
Really, our government needs to worry about things that actually matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only provider of what? Cable TV? That's my point... who cares? Blockbuster, Netflix, the internet, video games, books, newspapers, magazines, over-the-air, satellite, "cellular" cable... the options for your idle time are nearly limitless.
Re:Hah! Their timing couldn't be better (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one.
If you care about the rest of your civil liberties you should care about the 2nd amendment. You don't have to own a firearm to realize the value of protecting the right of your fellow citizens to do the same. Put another way: If Government can infringe on the 2nd amendment then what's to stop it from infringing on the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?
Go take a look at the UK -- they started with gun "control" and have since neutered the right to keep silent, the right against self-incrimination and they keep e
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sheesh, bureaucrats and politicians undoing anything they don't get kickbacks for is done at a speed that makes glaciers look like Daytona Racers.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop with the insults, it's inappropriate.
Do I despise what Bush did? You bet!
Is Obama any better? Don't know yet, it takes more than a few months after jumping into the cesspool to find out if the new president is actually better, worse, or caught by the undertow.
No matter what, Obama is a politician, and that bodes not well... I'm willing to give him a chance to prove if he's the lesser evil or not...
The way the r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Obama any better? Don't know yet, it takes more than a few months after jumping into the cesspool to find out if the new president is actually better, worse, or caught by the undertow.
I'll help you out here and toss an apropos metaphor your way: "Out of the frying pan, into the fire" Let's see why:
Disturbing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We see this in many areas. Soon you will have to select brand of TV depending on cable operator too.
Like it is today with some telecom operators - you may only select the phones THEY are offering, not the phone you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The FCC is ahead of you on this one. All of the major cable companies offer CableCARD devices that handle the decryption, and that's a standard that allows you to purchase any compliant TV or settop box. TiVo's main product is now based on this technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yah, these rights are firmly installed in the Constitution AND the Bible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yah, these rights are firmly installed in the Constitution AND the Bible.
They are part of anti-trust. Or do you expect the supreme document to detail every last thing that we do in this country? Seems excessive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you have the "right" to use a different provider, which lots of people do when the right hardware comes along (or in the case of Comcast, when the wrong provider comes along.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some people who don't have access to the proper angle of southern sky to get a DBS signal, are in a location too lacking in population density for cable to be profitable, or don't control the building they live in so they must subscribe to the only provider available or none at all.
FCC! Now! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FCC! Now! (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC has no interest in protecting individual rights or promoting a competitive market. They are there to sell off public assets to private corporations, and enforce rules and fines to ensure societal conformity to the morals of politically important voting blocs.
If Comcast is prevented from acquiring someone due to federal interference, they will probably sue because they will claim that the free market is being tampered with. Just like any corporation, their definition of free market has nothing to do with the liberty of individuals to have access to a competitive market system. It has to do with the corporate right to be unbound by any rules and have the freedom to stifle competition and destroy the market for their own profit.
To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the publick; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens... It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. --Adam Smith
Re:FCC! Now! (Score:4, Insightful)
If Comcast is prevented from acquiring someone due to federal interference, they will probably sue because they will claim that the free market is being tampered with.
As the summary states, Comcast has an enormous stash of (not-so-hard-earned) cash. They're acting like squirrels: if they see food they don't need right away, they just shove it into a hole somewhere until they find a use for it. That probably should not be allowed: it's one thing to put something away for a rainy day, but when corporations end up so flush with cash that they can influence entire markets and ruthlessly suppress competition something is wrong. It also means they're probably significantly overcharging for their goods and services (as an ex-Comcast-down-to-the-depths-of-Hell subscriber I can attest to that.)
Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.
Re:FCC! Now! (Score:5, Funny)
Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.
They always have nuts in their mouths?
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast's management also has other things in common with squirrels.
They always have nuts in their mouths?
No, their customer's and, like squirrels, sometimes they get hungry.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Shouldn't there be FCC regulations against this potential nightmare scenario? If not, why not?
No there shouldn't be any FCC regulations preventing this. Actually the FCC should not exist, it was created for mass media businesses, there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to create the FCC.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
BS.
The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.
That's why TV stations are allowed to make money under the condition that they serve the public good (and agree to censorship limits) on the public resource. If you want to do content that doesn't fit the rules of broadcast TV, go to cable.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC was created to enforce communications law, with the most important goal of restricting the RF spectrum because if it was a free-for-all environment, too many people would be transmitting on the same part of the spectrum at the same time and nothing would work.
This is BS! Before the FCC was even created courts [mises.org] were already ruling that the first person broadcasting on a certain frequency had the right to that frequency. It's called homesteading [againstmonopoly.org] the airwaves.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to the FCC was complete control of the airwaves by the military.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to the FCC was complete control of the airwaves by the military.
No, before the FRC, the predecessor to the FCC was created courts were already ruling for homesteaders. The first person who broadcast on a specific frequency in a specific area was allowed to use that frequency there. If someone else in the same area started broadcasting on the same freq they could be forced to stop broadcasting on it.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the FTCs jack-of-all-trades card, not the FCC.
I disagree the feds have the authority, but I agree if it does it should be as part of the FTC. Fact is is before the Federal Radio Commission [wikipedia.org], the predecessor of the FCC, US courts [mises.org] were acknowledging and upholding homesteading rights to the first person who broadcast on a set frequency in a given location. Of course big businesses such as RCA [wikipedia.org], now NBC, didn't like the competition so they lobbied government to create a new government bureaucracy
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, there is. Cable networks that need to be distributed via satellite feed must be offered to all pay TV providers under reasonable terms, and broadcast TV stations have to either require they must be carried by all pay TV carriers in the area, or can collect reasonable retransmission rates. They can't exist on only the provider that owns them... there's only limited local sports and news channels that can afford to distribute via landline to stay cable-only.
The only place where we're seeing national prov
Say what? (Score:2)
I didn't realize that Cable TV was such a lucrative market that they could afford to buy a media conglomerate.
If there's so much profit in the market, maybe there isn't enough competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are also four mainstream Cell Phone providers, and they already Collude on things like SMS picing.
Comcast is a dumb pipe, just like ATT/Verizon, etc. Municipalities need to get there hands out of the lobbyist cookie jar and realize it would be better off for their citizens to just lay the fiber themselves then to contract it out to one (in some places two) companies who will screw the consumer given any chance to do so.
If they don't want to lay the fiber, then lay down 1-2 meter concrete conduits in a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you realize just how small the "media conglomerates" are. The pundits don't seem to consider Disney a likely target despite the Slashdot summary and the other two are much smaller than Comcast. Disney is slightly smaller and Comcast made a bid for it once before. While the "media" industry is very loud, it isn't all that large.
Its times like these... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its times like these where the landowners and cities that own ground where Comcast's wires are going through should have...
This isn't a problem for any self-respecting mad scientist with a penchant for high energy experiments on shielded wiring.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, place the obligation on others instead of the users of the service. Here is a capitalistic idea. . . . if YOU don't like the service, YOU stop using it, stop putting the onus of responsibility on someone else.
Who do you think those local governments represent?
Who do you think owns the ground that comcast's cabling run over?
We are them. Its our land, and our rights of way which we have collectively granted to comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast dosen't have infrastructure passing through 99% of its customers land.
Of course it does. The wiring runs across the property of every single person on the street where service is made available. If they want to get to house A+1 they gotta go across the property of house A.
The local governments represent ALL of the people in their area, not just the ones that use comcast. The great numbers of other non-comcast using members of that area are hurt by that idea
Tough shit. When it comes to right of way its no longer simply the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Property rights are one of the most scarosanct there are in the USA and violating them requires a much higher standard than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The only downside is if you don't tell the company how on earth are they going to know?
TDR. Seriously, it isn't that hard for a network technician to measure the quality of network infrastructure without the active participation of the end-points.
I like this better the first time (Score:5, Interesting)
when it was called AOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it'll be ironic if they end up buying Time Warner.
1) TW just recently split off TW-Cable from the TW-content empire. So, it would be weird if TW-Cable's competitor comcast, would buy TW-Cable's previous owners, the TC-content group. Genealogically I guess it would be like .... I really can't describe it. But I don't think it fits the definition of ironic, unless you subscribe to the "street definition" where ironic simply means anything that makes you think.
2) Last time around, the pipe-company AOL bought the combined TW empire, mostly for the content.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
If anything spells antitrust it's this (Score:3, Interesting)
Using one market to leverage another? I'm not lawyer and I've been mistaken about this sort of thing before, but this really looks like a bad thing and that the justice department should weigh in on this sort of thing. I think sooner rather than later the ISPs need to be designated as common carriers and not allowed to play in certain arenas.
Please do (Score:2)
This seems like a fast way to force Net Neutrality laws, as the resulting carnage of takeovers and mergers create segregated islands of content. Even congressmen and senators should find it difficult to swallow needing all of a Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon connections to obtain their Disney, FOX, and HGTV channels.
Although I also think the telecoms are underestimating the power of the "independent" content providers, like Google or Yahoo. Clout-wise, companies like that might actually be able to extract p
Re: (Score:2)
Hacker ethic, arise once more. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's clear that our strength is technology and our weakness is the legal system. The legal system will always be in favor of those with deep pockets and have (at best) a tenuous grip on the ethical and moral considerations of the larger society. It's become so ineffective, insepid and innane as to become harmful to society -- Forget them. Laws do not govern moral conduct and never have. Integrity has no need of rules! But that's just a stop-gap. We need new technology -- and I think we need to go back to the basics to get there.
We need to bring the internet back as a peer-to-peer exchange, but to do that we're going to need to create protocols that are specifically designed to resist attack and interference from intermediaries. 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. This hasn't been the case for awhile, and now we are seeing an increasing desire to bend and break the original standards to serve commercial interests. The protocols must be redesigned to only present the minimal amount of information necessary -- the source and destination, and the actual payload encrypted and made tamper-evident.
To hell with demands that we have protocols with data exposed for "law enforcement", "national security" or "protecting the children" or any other specious argument. The ultimate expression of democracy is the free flow of information between citizens, and that's an ideal that comes ahead of all other considerations: We need to make a conscious and deliberate choice to accept the risks that come in embracing those early ideals, and not let the edge cases (terrorism, sexual predators, and elvis) sway us from the immense benefits of doing this. If the signal is to travel at all, it must travel freely.
If this doesn't come to pass then our future as a democratic society is at an end. Democracy is more important to me (and I hope you as well) than my personal safety or material comforts. A free and open communication medium between all members of society must be a universal, because it's the only way to maximize our individual and collective potentials. This is another step in a slow descent into a life we do not want, and we won't notice until it's too late how much we've lost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 s
Bring the internet back as a peer-to-peer exchange (Score:2)
Oh, like Freenet? Its a nice idea to take it back, except they will just throttle any alternatives out of existence.
Comcast already owns the pipes and the content. (Score:2)
The pipes being the last mile cable line to your house. This is why they can get away with much of what they do.
The FCC would do well to force the cable companies to give up ownership of last mile infrastructure to allow cities and neighborhoods to open those lines up for multiple, competing ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we've got a better solution in the pipeline. Phone companies are actively re-wiring their service areas with new networks capable of delivering phone, TV, and 'net. It'll take some time for them to fully deploy, but everywhere they have hit, Comcast has been forced to update their network to compete.
Regulation is nothing compared to a solid competitor.
AOL tried this and failed (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't anyone remember the AOL/Time Warner merger? it was approximately 10 years ago now that it was announced. it was a dismal failure as technology changed in 2 years to make the whole thing worthless. The only media deal that can make sense is to buy the NFL, MLB, NASCAR or NBA because people will pay up for sports even in a recession. If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.
and with Verizon laying fiber along with AT&T were a few years away from another networking technology explosion that will make this deal obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Disney channel suddenly becomes a premium channel I won't be getting it. even though i have a child.
You forgot your history. Disney Channel launched as a pay-for-like-HBO scrambled premium channel. So did most of the sports networks that show local games.
What these content baskets realized was that it was more profitable to take a few cents for every subscriber (even the ones that don't care about you) instead of getting a few bucks from everybody willing to pay just for you. That's why everybody's c
Old news, surely (Score:3, Interesting)
They've already tried to purchase Disney once before, as I recall. I think there's no question of anti-trust on this; we're talking a straightforward attempt at vertical integration within an industry. Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.
Correct, Time Warner had a cable unit. [wikipedia.org] So this kind of deal is not anything new. However, I think the scariest scenario is Comcast owning Disney.
Limiting the number of people exposed to... (Score:2)
...Disney, Viacom, or Time Warner sounds like a real public service to me. Seems improbable, though. More likely they would make some of the pay services of whatever outfit they bought free to their subscribers. That might squeak y the antitrust "regulators", as well as actually being commercially feasible.
Content providers w/o ISP subsid are already doing (Score:2)
disney is already doing this to all ISP's with compulsory wholesale licensing a-la cable TV.
If you have any major ISP (ATT, Comcast, etc) you are unknowingly paying disney for ESPN360 even if you dont use it.
ISP's resisted this for quite some time, but disney/espn started offering it free to university students, and presenting them with a message when they went home in the summer saying "complain to your ISP because they're not paying us".
It doesn't matter at this point of comcast buys disney/viacom/whateve
"Huge Cash Reserves?!" (Score:2)
Comcast has roughly $1B in cash, and $30B in debt. Disney has a market cap of ~$45B, and Viacom $15B, Time Warner is at ~$30B. Comcast's total market cap is $45B.
While they would love to own a "must have" content provider, so would I. I think we are both roughly in the same position for being able to pull it off. I have a $5 bill handy...
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is not considered a candidate, despite the Slashdot summary. They could easily borrow enough to finance a combination cash-stock deal for either of the other two (i.e., each Viacom shareholder would get some cash and some Comcast stock. The loan would be secured with Viacom's assets).
I don't think it will happen, though. Wall Street seems to be pretty down on the idea.
Vertical integration! (Score:2)
If it's good for the shareholders, it's good for you!
Time Warner did it with AOL, and look how well that .... errrr ... heh. NVM.
Re: (Score:2)
> If it's good for the shareholders, it's good for you!
If you aren't a shareholder it doesn't involve you, but the shareholders don't seem to think it's good for them: the stock is down on the rumor.
> Time Warner did it with AOL, and look how well that .... errrr ... heh. NVM.
Lots of commemtators are pointing to that example.
Easy solution: (Score:2)
Shut out Comcast completely. Who needs "traditional media" anyway nowadays.
You can even do it all alone by yourself.
Remind me again how well that worked for AOL? (Score:2)
Limited Access? (Score:2)
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).
Isn't that pretty much the old "AOL" plan of attack... stuff you could only get from us (as long as you don't look around very hard).
Road Runner? (Score:2)
I think the question of whether Time Warner's content can be owned by an internet provider was answered many many years ago.
And for their next trick... (Score:2)
Potentially, it could limit access to content it owns to subscribers to its own services...
That's step 1. What's step 2?
Limit subscribers' access to just the content it owns.
I like it (Score:2)
They better not have more cable only channels I wa (Score:2)
They better not have more cable only channels I want CLTV on direct tv, wow cable, rcn cable, dish network and U-verse.
Comcast Chicago land is big rip off we pay same as the city of Chicago but get less HD, Syfy is in preferred / classic and speed is in sports pack other comcast areas have both in lower cost analog (ending 2010), starter and clear qam. There also have high box rent costs $16-$20 per HD DVR and $7-$10 per HD box. $5-$7 per SD box (needed to get many channels) The free DTA will not get all th
Well DUH (Score:2)
Isn't this the trend in general? Not that i approve, but why are we sitting here acting surprised? This is what tiered service is all about.
Er.. Time Warner... Hello ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Has the poster never heard of Time Warner Cable? You know.. the nations second largest cable network and one of the largest ISPs in the US?
Pretty sure Time Warner already owns pipes AND content... seeing how they still own AOL and about a dozen high-traffic websites, not to mention a ton of TV channels and network programs (each of which has substantial web content of course)
Very interesting... (Score:2)
On the other side, you have the fact that Comcast has dipped its foot into web technology. They bought Plaxo [wikipedia.org] in March of 2008. But they haven't been acquiring traditional media.
I don't see this as likely.
Re:Didn't AOL try this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only because AOL utterly failed to capitalize on their market dominance or prepare for the future. What did they think, dialup would last forever? That people would actually want their terrible service on top of broadband?
Re: (Score:2)
They are trying to branch out their resouces so they get have a greater flow of cash to keep them self's in business. It's kind of anoying to think people see other companies as giants and that they wan't to take over the world or something.
Wow, just, wow. I hope English isn't your first language.
In order to stay on topic I'll say this: Most companies will buy another company that sells services or products in a different market rather than just buying stock in the other company. Microsoft has done that many times then re-brands the products as their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't checked, but I am guessing comcast has more piles of $$$ available in addition to being more widespread (i.e. physical locationwise)?