dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2009-12-03 10:06:58: Comcast and General Electric sent out announcements to the press this morning saying that the long-expected Comcast and NBC Universal deal is official. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

i lol'd

at that guy in the pic

mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

Re: i lol'd

It's funny when I first heard about this, the thing that popped into my head was 30 rock which that guy is on and then I see it on the dslr homepage!
MRCUR

join:2007-03-09
Columbia, PA
Haha, agreed. 30 Rock is great, I guess they'll have to throw in some Comcast references now.

Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
said by Duramax08:

at that guy in the pic
He needs to tone it down my hair just lit on fire from the flames coming off of him.
Fire island Bud Fox????

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

Re: i lol'd

said by Corehhi:

said by Duramax08:

at that guy in the pic
He needs to tone it down my hair just lit on fire from the flames coming off of him.
Fire island Bud Fox????
No one mocks Kenneth!
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Corehhi:

said by Duramax08:

at that guy in the pic
He needs to tone it down my hair just lit on fire from the flames coming off of him.
Fire island Bud Fox????
His character can't be toned down. Its a huge part of the success of the show.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.

juilinsandar
Texas Gooner
Premium
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX

I don't like it

Would it also be ok for Time Warner to also own CBS?
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: I don't like it

said by juilinsandar:

Would it also be ok for Time Warner to also own CBS?
Ummmm.. Time Warner owned Time Warner... what's the difference? The world never came to an end back then did it?

This B.S. of "the world will come to an end" crowd simply needs to get a hobby and get beyond their issues.. I'm sure there are medications to help with their problems..

Besides.. isn't "TV as we know it dead" according this this crowd? ... isn't the internet the new place and source for everything video, news, and entertainment? (which, since they say it is, I still don't see why they expect the internet connection price to keep DROPPING when it continues to raise in value..)

So yes.. would it also be of for TWC to own CBS? Sure.

Besides, NBC TV Network is pretty much always in the bottom of the ratings anyway.. who really cares...
Big Dawg 23

join:2002-03-27
Northfield, MN

Re: I don't like it

Take a look at the track record of Comcast and its dealing with other cable operators and satelite providers. As an example it has not been 3 months since Versus was pulled from Directv.

Also look at the control of the signal for Comcast Sports Philly. They are not even negotiatie the rights to channel to any one. Many Philly fans loose out on Hockey and Baseball because of this poor business plan.

Other providers own channels but dont play hardball to zero negotiation like Comcast does. Have you seen Directv withold its signal to Starz?? Nope. Directv now owns a good portion of many Fox Sports affiliates and I dont see that change. How would it go if they pull the signal to Comcast. That doesnt appear to be there business plan.

In the end they need to make it not possible for Providers to own channels. Another example of that is MSG and MSG+. Currently no one outside the NY area can view Hockey in HD because of the Rangers Spat with the NHL. And the Rangers are owned by who.... Cablevision. This no HD signal also effects the Devils, Sabres and Islanders.

Comcast continues to gouge people for no reason. They will do anything to stop the defect of consumers to Satelite, FIOS and AT&T UVerse
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: I don't like it

I think you need to do a little more research and you will find that many of your observations aren't quite as pleasant as you seem to think they are.

They've ALL done it at one time or another.. be it they also own a broadcasting delivery system or not..

But, to answer your question, and the information is easily out there for you to find, MSOs of ALL kinds out there DO in fact hardball their services.. the consumer, which you are simply one, doesn't see everything that goes on in these negotiations.. you only see the ugly ones.

And for the record, DirecTv participated, right along, with a few networks who hard-balled cable operators on their retrans agreements, even allowing advertised subsidies for cable subscribers to move away from cable to DirecTv as a tool to get cable operators to pay more for those networks... They ALL do it.. sorry!
Big Dawg 23

join:2002-03-27
Northfield, MN

Re: I don't like it

You missed my point. All the other companies come to an agreement. Comcast does not. They hold the channel so it forces people to there system. So you may want to do research as that information is out there.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: I don't like it

said by Big Dawg 23:

You missed my point. All the other companies come to an agreement. Comcast does not. They hold the channel so it forces people to there system. So you may want to do research as that information is out there.
I didn't miss the point, as you said.. I gave you one example already... I believe it was WE or Lifetime, one of those two networks.. they did NOT come to an agreement.. Mediacom lost the signal while DirecTV was receiving benefit from the network holding MediaCom customers hostage.. they used a scroll on TV telling MC customers that they were going to loose Lifetime.. that they could call DirecTV for free installation...

Um.. no agreement was made there. MC didn't want such a rise in fees or what ever their dispute was.. the "agreement" they 'settled on" was to accept what the network wanted so they didn't bleed more customers...

So, sorry.. I didn't miss the point.

I've seen, over the years, PLENTY of these so called "coming to agreements" you speak of.. it's gotten worse with competition as they simply play the consumer against each other..

... oh, and how fair is the NFL and DirecTv deal? I RARELY ever hear people bitch about that train-wreck.. there is NO reason why there should be an exclusive deal there.. if people believe it should be, then those who also believe cable can't have exclusive apartment building agreements need to re-think their positions as well..

This kinda stuff happens ALL the time.. its not exclusive to the small examples people are trying to make here..

People need to think long and hard before they, themselves, cherry pick their own fights.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

1 edit

Re: I don't like it

said by fiberguy See Profileoh, and how fair is the NFL and DirecTv deal? I RARELY ever hear people bitch about that train-wreck
What?

I am not sure I have seen something SO COMPLAINED about then that deal when it comes to DirecTV, Comcast, or anyone

If you aren't seeing it bitched about, it's because you are either not paying attention or just pretending it doesn't exist
Big Dawg 23

join:2002-03-27
Northfield, MN
There is a lot of complaining over Directv and NFL Sunday Ticket. If a company ponies up the money why does it matter? Business 101... exclusivity gets you the cost you best desire. Saturation will lower your margins. NFL is stupid to move it off of Directv unless they do a dual agreement with another company.

With Directv they are assured of all SD and HD being delivered. That is not going to happen with Cable. Just look at MLBEI or NHLCI. They limit the HD coverage. NFL is all about HD.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: I don't like it

Umm... first off, NFL and DirecTicket is HARDLY complained about here in comparison as everything else.. I'm not stupid - by far.

Second, if a company ponies up the money, why does it matter? AWESOME!! Then BACK THE F' OFF the apartment exclusive contracts then.. becuase Cable ponied up the money and purchased their way into a contract with the building owners by spending thousands upon thousands of money to wire the buildings for an exclusive agreement for X amount of years...

See how this all works??

You guys like to have your cake, and eat it too, when it's convenient for your agenda..

Sorry.. you take it all, or leave it all. THAT is how it works.

You're also saying "that is not going to happen with cable".. well, you should change professions and get your pretty clothes and scarves and crystal ball out and start telling people's futures too.. in other words, you have No idea until and unless it happens.. and saying "they can't do something because they MIGHT do something we don't like (or in your case, what I don't like) isn't an acceptable answer.. so you either set rules NOW or you let the deals happen.. the AMERICAN way is capitalism and this is part of it.. if when something happens and we as people don't like it, we work to change and regulate it.. that's how it works... otherwise, you have communism.. screw that!

You, like everyone else, have to give things a chance to fail on their own first.. otherwise, you get more bailouts and other BS stuff.. THIS is how our country works.. like it or not.. and if you don't.. then leave. Stop pissing all over everything becuase of your own ideals.

myosh

join:2001-05-03
Cupertino, CA
This has also happened in Northern California. Back in April the Oakland A's were moved from Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area (CSN-BA) to Comcast Sportsnet California (CSN-CA) but Comcast Sportsnet withheld the A's broadcasts until Dish "updated" their deal to carry the channel. At first Dish resisted but when their subs complained and Comcast started rolling out their "Hey wanna watch the A's? Then switch to Comcast" campaign, Dish caved in.

There were concerns that the CSN would pull the same stunt with the San Jose Sharks moving to CSN-CA but it looks that didn't happen although some of the smaller cable systems (Charter Communications for one) that carry CSN-BA can't/won't pick-up CSN-CA.

Steve Mehs
Gun Control Is Using A Steady Hand
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1
quote:
As an example it has not been 3 months since Versus was pulled from Directv.
Invalid point. Versus is still on Dish Network, Verizon, AT&T and over builders that Comcast competes with directly in some areas like RCN and WOW. Just because DirecTV is being cheap means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

quote:
Also look at the control of the signal for Comcast Sports Philly. They are not even negotiatie the rights to channel to any one. Many Philly fans loose out on Hockey and Baseball because of this poor business plan.
How is this a poor business plan? If you own a pizzeria and you create a secrete sauce that is an instant hit, are you supposed to sell that recipe to the competition? This is a great business plan!

And FYI, Verizon Fios carries Comcast Sports Net Philly. Whihc was pretty stupid for them to allow.
quote:
Have you seen Directv withold its signal to Starz??
Liberty only owns 48% of the DirecTV Group. Considering DirecTV is the red headed stepchild no one wants, I wouldn't equate Starz to DirecTV quite yet. AT&T will probably end up owning it in a few years, for a few years then sell it off.
quote:
now owns a good portion of many Fox Sports affiliates and I dont see that change.
Three out of about twenty does not equal 'good portion' in my book.

You conveniently forgot to mention DirecTV carries Comcast Sports Net California, Comcast Sports Net New England, Comcast Sports Net Mid Atlantic, Comcast Sports Net Chicago and SportsNet New York, along with E!, Style, Golf Channel, G4 and TV One.

quote:
Currently no one outside the NY area can view Hockey in HD because of the Rangers Spat with the NHL. And the Rangers are owned by who.... Cablevision. This no HD signal also effects the Devils, Sabres and Islanders.
If Cablevision does not want to provide the competition with HD feeds that's their decision. Companies should be able to refuse service to anyone, including the competition

quote:
Comcast continues to gouge people for no reason. They will do anything to stop the defect of consumers to Satelite, FIOS and AT&T UVerse
And if you were CEO of Comcast, wouldn't you do the same thing? Why would you want to make things easier for your competition? Philadelphia has the lowest satellite penetration in the country, if you can get a leg up on your competition, you better damn well take full advantage of it. This isn't a group of preschoolers getting together to play house, this is real life business, and I'm guessing if you ever owned your owned business you'd be bankrupt before you even got off the ground. Comcast is a $35 BILLION dollar operation for a reason.
--
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For McCain
Welcome to The SSA, The Socialist States of Amerika, Lead By Your Dictator, Hussein Obama
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, B. Hussein Obama
Obama = Terrorist

JasonOD

@comcast.net

Goodbye Hulu........

or, at least the free (ad supported) version. Hello subscription model!
CybermatriX

join:2008-06-13
North Hollywood, CA

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

Goodbye [Free] Hulu, you will be missed. I know I'll miss it.
Mark F1

join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

I only watch internet TV (Hulu, AOLin2TV, Youtube, etc) to watch the great classic TV that used to be on cable.

If monopolistic Comcast thinks that Hulu is too much competition, then why not put the classic TV shows back on cable? That's better than denying us the abilty to watch TV shows only available online. But, I doubt that they would do that.

So, the best idea would be to leave Hulu alone. It's bad for the consumer when too much content is controlled by any one distributor. Instead of watching what we want, we'll end up with what they want to give us.
Mark F.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
... and what makes you guys think it's going to be 100% pay? Even with out Comcast, I'm sure Hulu will be going to some sort of a pay model.

Okay.. time to stroll down memory lane.. let's go back to a time called 1997.. MOST of the stuff on the internet was "free"... guess what happened about 2000? ... most everything went MAJORLY ad supported OR pay...

... so, if anything that came out "free" in this day, which draws MAJOR attraction to the product giving it a name and exposure, winds up going to a pay or partial pay model, why is anyone shocked, upset, or even "angry" as so many of you people here get?

... isn't it time to stop thinking and believing EVERYTHING should be free?? sheesh! Grow up people. It takes MONEY to make this economy and world go around..

The other choice.. go to work, take 10% of your pay for yourself and let the government dish out what you need... aka, the former Soviet Union..
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

said by fiberguy:

Okay.. time to stroll down memory lane.. let's go back to a time called 1997.. MOST of the stuff on the internet was "free"... guess what happened about 2000? ... most everything went MAJORLY ad supported OR pay...
Sherman, set the way back machine to 1978. MicroNet was being marketed by Radio Shack and would, eventually, become Compuserve. This dial up service actually charged by the minutes and even charged higher rates with those using faster modems (1200 baud.) At times, it cost up to $30/hour to be connected to them.

AOL came along and introduced flat rate pricing which effectively changed the game and forced Compuserve to go into the same pricing model.

You can also take into account that most of the internet stuff out there is free already and asking people to pay for it AFTERWARDS will make many go elsewhere.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

Micronet / Compuserve is your example? and AOL? Really????

First off, you, like so many other BBR people make a HUGE mistake.. you forget that companies are in the business to make a profit.. not break even.. not be consumer friendly (that's like saying "the customer is always right - that's a touchy feel good saying)

Maybe Micronet was cheap.. Compuserve also expanded and made investment.. back then it was VERY common to bill by the minute.. phone companies did it for years, and still does. Technology changes.. it cost money.. they obviously figured it was best to charge by the minute..

AOL... they did not just "introduce flat rate pricing".. you forget they used to have a monthly fee AND per minute pricing for the longest time! AOL is actually a good example and I'm glad you brought it up! When they moved away from fee + minute billing to flat rate, you remember what happened, right?? .. the system got SO over loaded from people abusing the resource. They had people logging in and walking away for an hour or more taking up limited phone lines.. they got sued. Hmmm I wonder if the AOL story has any merrit moving forward with why ISPs want to move BACK to a flat rate + overage model. When AOL was by the minute, people did what they needed too. there was no waste..

And, while most of the "internet stuff" is "free" , which it is still paid for, it's paid by advertisements... those very things.. those "pesky" things that the very people on this site condone blocking..

You also forget that while people may go elsewhere.. where are they going to go? once the model is created, they will all follow.

NOTHING in life is free..
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

said by fiberguy:

Micronet / Compuserve is your example? and AOL? Really????

First off, you, like so many other BBR people make a HUGE mistake.. you forget that companies are in the business to make a profit.. not break even.. not be consumer friendly (that's like saying "the customer is always right - that's a touchy feel good saying)
Actually, yes, those are my examples.

And, yes, I know businesses are trying to make profits but I also know the early days of the internet were more about information than selling. In fact, most companies use their websites for support and marketing(in addition to selling things.) Cheaper than a support rep on a phone.

said by fiberguy:

Maybe Micronet was cheap.. Compuserve also expanded and made investment.. back then it was VERY common to bill by the minute.. phone companies did it for years, and still does. Technology changes.. it cost money.. they obviously figured it was best to charge by the minute..

AOL... they did not just "introduce flat rate pricing".. you forget they used to have a monthly fee AND per minute pricing for the longest time! AOL is actually a good example and I'm glad you brought it up! When they moved away from fee + minute billing to flat rate, you remember what happened, right?? .. the system got SO over loaded from people abusing the resource. They had people logging in and walking away for an hour or more taking up limited phone lines.. they got sued. Hmmm I wonder if the AOL story has any merrit moving forward with why ISPs want to move BACK to a flat rate + overage model. When AOL was by the minute, people did what they needed too. there was no waste..
Micronet was Compuserve sold by Radio Shack. And they were the same price.

AOL was using the same model as Compuserve and even Prodigy until they decided to offer their $19.99 unlimited plan. And again, yes, I remember when their system became overloaded. They added extra capacity and even made you click on windows to make sure you were still in front of your computer and not just trying to hold a connection.

And look what happened when AOL went to unlimited.....Compuserve and others either followed or gave up and shut down. In fact, many independent dial up ISPs used that same unlimited model and they flourished until the cable companies introduced high speed internet service.

said by fiberguy:

And, while most of the "internet stuff" is "free" , which it is still paid for, it's paid by advertisements... those very things.. those "pesky" things that the very people on this site condone blocking..
People block them because what started out as a small ad on the side because intrusive popups. Even IE will blocked them now.

said by fiberguy:

You also forget that while people may go elsewhere.. where are they going to go? once the model is created, they will all follow.

NOTHING in life is free..
Many newspaper companies when to a web subscription model and most lost readership. People get the news elsewhere.

Hulu started off as free and it is mostly stuff you get for free.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

I don't disagree with MOST of what you say, however, you're still,.. um.. wrong in your thinking.

First of all, listen to you.. it's not about non-profit and it's not about "information".. we live in a capitalistic society.. you want socialism? Sure.. go for it.. but until then, it's not about doing the common good.. it's business.

AOL was a pay per minute FAR longer than they were unlimited. You're talking about competition and advancement.. well, not all advancement goes the same way.. back then, it was internet only.. today, its a model of MSO.. if it wasn't for the MSO model, the price of internet would be more like $80 as it was when BB first came out... still.

The AOL unlimited plan, as I said, was, in full, shorter than their per minute plan.. I know MANY people that had $100+ bills with AOL.. why don't you mention that in your posts? Compuserve didn't really shut down until a few years ago.. it was still around and was part of AOL for a long time.. why do you think it "died"..

Still, when you talk about ads, um, no.. they were still using the same similar sized banner ads.. I don't care if it's 1 pixel by 1 pixel, there are MANY people here that believe they shouldn't be sent to their computer.. don't even get me started on this becuase I'll become an ass about it.. I can NOT stand selfish, greedy, unreasonable people.. you want a service for free, take the ads that pay for it.. and if you don't like it.. stop bitching and go elsewhere.. I wonder how many sites would remain on line if the ads went away.. hrmmm.. I dunno, they'd probably go the way of compuserve "and the others"... try to deny that.

Newspapers went off for many reasons.. not one single reason. A lot of it also has to do with competition.. there are MANY sources to get news these days.. AND, many people really don't care about the news like they did in the old days with 4 channels and 2 papers... there's thousands of sources for what people want to call news these days..

And you know what? If hulu goes pay and dies.. WHO CARES! The model didn't work either way.. it can't run for free forever.. and it can't run as a pay site.. what do you want them to do? Its one way or the other.. I could REALLY care less about those that want everything free.. who ever told people that all of the internet was free should check themselves in.. unreasonable selfish greedy people think they are entitled to everything for free.. there are no such things as free rides.. it's people like that who piss me off becuase the REST OF US get to pay their way..

NO THANKS!
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

said by fiberguy:

I don't disagree with MOST of what you say, however, you're still,.. um.. wrong in your thinking.

First of all, listen to you.. it's not about non-profit and it's not about "information".. we live in a capitalistic society.. you want socialism? Sure.. go for it.. but until then, it's not about doing the common good.. it's business.
My thinking is not wrong.

Think about it this way. Why do banks love ATMs? Because they no longer have to have a teller take care of easy tasks like cashing checks (use the card), making simple deposits, and even paying loans through the bank. Let a machine that works 24 hours a day take the job of a person who works MAYBE 10 hours at most with various smoke breaks and 30 minutes for lunch.

said by fiberguy:

AOL was a pay per minute FAR longer than they were unlimited. You're talking about competition and advancement.. well, not all advancement goes the same way.. back then, it was internet only.. today, its a model of MSO.. if it wasn't for the MSO model, the price of internet would be more like $80 as it was when BB first came out... still.

The AOL unlimited plan, as I said, was, in full, shorter than their per minute plan.. I know MANY people that had $100+ bills with AOL.. why don't you mention that in your posts? Compuserve didn't really shut down until a few years ago.. it was still around and was part of AOL for a long time.. why do you think it "died"..
AOL was not doing much since they were still a per minute service. Compuserve was around much longer and had the users. I know many people (from techies to normal) that would not touch either because of the per minute charges. One of my old bosses even got a trial to Prodigy and gave it up because of the per minute charges (wasn't worth it.) And even I knew people with high Compuserve bills back in 1987.

When AOL first went to a few hours included and then to unlimited, their subscriber base exploded causing the issues you stated earlier. However, the damage to Compuserve was down and even through various name changes, it became irrelavent, gobbled up and, eventually, put out of its misery. It was held onto mostly so people could keep their email addresses (which is still a concern by some these days.)

said by fiberguy:

Still, when you talk about ads, um, no.. they were still using the same similar sized banner ads.. I don't care if it's 1 pixel by 1 pixel, there are MANY people here that believe they shouldn't be sent to their computer.. don't even get me started on this becuase I'll become an ass about it.. I can NOT stand selfish, greedy, unreasonable people.. you want a service for free, take the ads that pay for it.. and if you don't like it.. stop bitching and go elsewhere.. I wonder how many sites would remain on line if the ads went away.. hrmmm.. I dunno, they'd probably go the way of compuserve "and the others"... try to deny that.
And here is the counter argument. Telemarketers used to call all hours of the day and night. When the law came out to control them came out, they cried they couldn't make money and would "self-police" themselves (which never worked anyway.) They became a nuisance and paid the price. Yes, you still have illegal operations but people get a LOT less calls than before.

Now, many ISPs are looking at per byte billing. Each ad will add bytes to the stream and can add costs to a user's bill. Ads are supposed to drum up business, not cost anything to the viewer.

Also, look at some of the ads out there. Many are for stuff that doesn't exist or are bogus in nature. Some even infect your system. Look what Google did with some of their questionable ad servers. That's why many, on this board in particular, block those ads as most will not buy anything from them. Remember when pop-ups would harass you yet advertisers were saying they were o.k? Because a few want to be idiots about it, people rebelled. The good guys are paying for the deeds of the scam artists.

said by fiberguy:

Newspapers went off for many reasons.. not one single reason. A lot of it also has to do with competition.. there are MANY sources to get news these days.. AND, many people really don't care about the news like they did in the old days with 4 channels and 2 papers... there's thousands of sources for what people want to call news these days..
The same could be said for Hulu. There are many places (legal and illegal) to get those same shows they broadcast. There is still over the air broadcasting and buying a DVR (either TIVO or a Media Center PC.)

said by fiberguy:

And you know what? If hulu goes pay and dies.. WHO CARES! The model didn't work either way.. it can't run for free forever.. and it can't run as a pay site.. what do you want them to do? Its one way or the other.. I could REALLY care less about those that want everything free.. who ever told people that all of the internet was free should check themselves in.. unreasonable selfish greedy people think they are entitled to everything for free.. there are no such things as free rides.. it's people like that who piss me off becuase the REST OF US get to pay their way..

NO THANKS!
Where is the value? That should be asked of any service or product. With Hulu, under the free model, advertisers get their ads shown and Hulu can sell ad time based on number of views.

Under a subscription model, Hulu would have to add something to make people pay for it in numbers that make it profitable. Just using it as a time-shifting DVR won't do unless you have someone with a lot of disposable cash and no time.

Hulu is free for a reason. It drew people in and now, the powers that be are thinking that they won't want to be without it. If people don't have the money, they won't sign up and if it was free before, why charge now for the same service?
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

Please go back and re-read the whole thread.. and include what I actually said.. .. maybe it will make more sense.. cuz I'm talking about one thing.. you're off on another continent.

skuv

@rr.com
said by moonpuppy:

AOL came along and introduced flat rate pricing which effectively changed the game and forced Compuserve to go into the same pricing model.
You're misremembering. AOL also charged by the minute/hour, and more for 9600 baud modems. They certainly didn't just "come along" with flat rate pricing. I paid hourly rates to AOL for a few years.

Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

said by skuv :

said by moonpuppy:

AOL came along and introduced flat rate pricing which effectively changed the game and forced Compuserve to go into the same pricing model.
You're misremembering. AOL also charged by the minute/hour, and more for 9600 baud modems. They certainly didn't just "come along" with flat rate pricing. I paid hourly rates to AOL for a few years.
I the beginning you are right. I remember the big move to 56K modemns, LOL. I was excited about it.

JasonOD

@comcast.net
I don't think anyone is complaining. And as a stockholder, I fully expect Comcast to validate spending this kind of money by pulling as much profit out of the NBC holdings as possible. If Comcast can maximize Hulu's profitability using the free/ad driven model, then I'm for it. But Comcast really knows the subscription and pay-per model, and I'd expect that's where they'd want to take Hulu.

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up

join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

the problem is the free limited ad my not be profitable or not for long; I have not seen NET profit statement.

At the same time paying for commercial free versions can appeal to me.

cameronsfx

join:2009-01-08
Panama City, FL
said by JasonOD :

I don't think anyone is complaining. And as a stockholder, I fully expect Comcast to validate spending this kind of money by pulling as much profit out of the NBC holdings as possible. If Comcast can maximize Hulu's profitability using the free/ad driven model, then I'm for it. But Comcast really knows the subscription and pay-per model, and I'd expect that's where they'd want to take Hulu.
GE is kinda laughing since NBC loses money at an alarming rate each year. NBC news loses a ton of cash. It was known GE wanted to sell it since it was a drain on GE.

"This is the nightly news brought to you by the great folks at Comcast. I'm Brian Williams and our Comcastic news begins right now:

A new poll today finds Comcast to be the highest rated by customers. John Roberts reporting:

'Comcast was rated highest in customer satisfaction over everyone including Directv, Dish, FIOS, Cox, and Time Warner...."


Corehhi

join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Re: Goodbye Hulu........

GE builds stuff they really should have never gotten in that business. In fact entertainment is still a better operation if run by a strong focused leader/owner. Decision by committee just isn't going to cut it.
Mordhem
Love it, Hate it.

join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD
Ad supported is free to the consumer.... If they choose a pay for service hopefully their will be no ad support for since well what is the point.

Btw 10% of my check to pay for tv, internet, heat, electric. Dam that be wonderful! Also just fyi there is nothing wrong with socialism the problem is the same thing wrong with this country right now. Its people, for the fact that they are greedy & abuse power. Socialism would be the best working model in the world if it was not for bad people who would abuse their powers.

Just to also note that we are not a democracy or anything close to it, we are a capitalist republic & as you might be starting to notice our system is not perfect by far! In fact our republic is starting to follow the same footsteps of Rome. capitalism works for so long, but not for ever.
--
"Thats Daddy Comcast to you Ma'bell." "I love TV but god dam don't burn my house down" "Comcast subscribers have been giving local new channels high ratings watching Verizon set peoples houses on fire" "Now Thats TV"

danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 recommendation

deal should be voided

This is slow power grabbing and we are the frogs in the pot... anytime a major content provider is bought by a major content delivery system owner...no good will come of it. Lets be honest here there is no altruism going on here. Verizon and other cable providers will be impacted at some point down the road and more likely sooner rather than later.

Sadly i dont see congress or any of its oversight bodies halting this or placing any kid of restrictions on this deal.
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

Re: deal should be voided

said by danclan:

Sadly i dont see congress or any of its oversight bodies halting this or placing any kid of restrictions on this deal.
Two reasons:
First, they have much of congress feeding out of their pockets.
Second, they have much of the country brainwashed into thinking giving them everything they want will somehow turn into lower prices and better service.
--

- "Techie" Jim

pizz
bye bye twc. hello Comcast.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 step closer...

To killing IPTV.. 1 even closer step to Tiered/Metered whatever flavor of the month you want to call it billing. Oh btw comcast users, incoming higher rates again for this deal
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.

•••••••••••••••••••

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Blackwood, NJ

flawed logic

quote:
"Regulators will have to make certain that Comcast does not give advantage to NBC programs and films over others."
that's not even logical. why would they not take advantage of owning NBCU, and who's to say it wouldnt benefit consumers, anyway?
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Will Comcast follow Sony's lead?

How long will it take for Comcast to start installing spyware on their customers computers to monitor the viewing of the content that Comcast owns. Sorry I forgot that Comcast can already monitor what customer download, through deep packet inspection.

What will happen to fair use when the ISP's own the content. Here comes the content filters.

Remember when Sony fought the MPAA over fair use. The Supreme Court decided that Sony had the right to continue to manufacture and sell Betamax Video Recorders. How quickly Sony forgot their position on fair use when they owned the content. Sony decided to fight piracy by including spyware root kit software on their Compact Discs, that automatically installed on customers computers without their knowledge. The purpose was to spy on customers even if they only wanted to play the CD on their computer.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Will Comcast follow Sony's lead?

said by Mr Matt:

What will happen to fair use when the ISP's own the content. Here comes the content filters.
I'm not sure I understand your fair use concerns. How does your right to legal and authorized "fair use" of content change based on who owns the copyright and distribution rights of the content?
jus10

join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA
I think you're overreacting simply because NBC already has all of their content lock away in its own walled garden. Set-top boxes are crippled, both in DRM and in features. Hulu uses flash garbage to render a horrible excuse for digital video. Stuff is already locked down.

They have no reason to jump on content filters as they already have controls on the media. And in terms of content filtering, it would be important to remember that Comcast would have to pay to install and maintain them as well (the internet side of Comcast vs the legacy media side).

As for your concerns about content filtering, encrypt your traffic. That's the way everything is going to go anyway. End to end encryption will eventually be the norm the way things are going. That's probably a good thing.

meh37II

@verizon.net

Where are the regulators...

who used to worry about Microsoft's OS and applications being too closely tied together? Frankly, Comcast's Internet and TV businesses are already too close for comfort. Isn't this like pouring oil on a fire?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Where are the regulators...

said by meh37II :

who used to worry about Microsoft's OS and applications being too closely tied together? Frankly, Comcast's Internet and TV businesses are already too close for comfort. Isn't this like pouring oil on a fire?
Not until Comcast approaches 95% market share, requires all of their subscribers to watch their NBCU content, and doesn't allow their network affiliates the right to provide non-NBCU content in addition to NBCU content.
caco
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

at least we'll get a discount at Universal Studios

EOM

Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

1 recommendation

Umm..Karl...

Your statement saying "General Electric meanwhile is taking on $9.1 billion in debt to finance the deal."

Is incorrect.

NBCU is taking on the debt to PAY to GE.

This in addition to the 6.5 Billion cash payment and cable assets from Comcast is how GE is getting paid for spinning off their 51% interest.

And, does anyone besides me find this statement totally laughable?
"The combination of the country’s largest cable company, a TV network and a movie studio could present grave dangers to a free and open Internet," complains Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge.

Grave dangers to the internet?
While no doubt these media assets are significant with all the outlets there are today not only with tv stations but with the internet personally I think in looking at the whole scheme of things this isn't really that big of a deal. And certainly not one
that going to present "grave danger" to either tv viewers or certainly not the internet.

Anyways..I think it's a good deal for all involved. It makes more sense for Comcast to be in these businesses than GE at this point and I think it will help to shape the online video experience in a positive way over time.

Give it time to work out.

~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

••••••••••••••••••••••
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

You reap what you sow.

Kevin Martin's FCC was so anti-cable with the Comcast subscriber cap, Comcast decided to grow in other ways. Now you see the result.

Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

Oh noez!

Comcast is taking over the world!

••••

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

2 edits

Some links to dig in to details of this deal

Press release by Comcast:
»www.comcast.com/About/PressRelea···PRID=938

Web site setup to explain the deal:
»www.nbcutransaction.com/

A couple short PDF's that shows what the joint venture will control in the way of cable networks; OTA broadcast outlets; and internet sites:
»www.nbcutransaction.com/pdfs/Joi···heet.pdf
»www.nbcutransaction.com/pdfs/JV_···view.pdf

Comcast blog on the deal:
»blog.comcast.com/nbcucommitment/

36 Slides from the presentation to Wall St by Comcast:
»files.shareholder.com/downloads/···3.09.pdf

7 Slides from the GE presentation to Wall St:
»www.ge.com/pdf/investors/events/···2009.pdf

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

FCC's Copps has made up his mind against deal

I'd look for tough going for this deal at the FCC.

Copps begins by saying he is neutral. But every word he utters after that says he has made up his mind and that he is against the Comcast-NBCU deal.

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···80A1.pdf
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Watch your cable/sat rates go up even more

Now that Comcast can extort money from other cable companies and satellite to either carry NBC or force them to carry( and pay for ) a bunch of bullshit channels or they won't get to have access to NBC
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Watch your cable/sat rates go up even more

said by 88615298:

Now that Comcast can extort money from other cable companies and satellite to either carry NBC or force them to carry( and pay for ) a bunch of bullshit channels or they won't get to have access to NBC
This was happening long before Comcast stepped in. NBC and their affiliates routinely raised rates for pay TV providers. I don't see much changing.
n0ym

join:2004-12-21
Montgomery Village, MD

Re: Watch your cable/sat rates go up even more

This was happening long before Comcast stepped in.
Comcast didn't invent media consolidation, and I don't think anyone is saying they did. Of course, it doesn't follow that 1) this merger isn't somewhat unprecedented or 2) it's no big deal and should be allowed, just like all the rest.

Decreased competition and increased media monopolization aren't good things for consumers. The line must be drawn somewhere.
flyingjoey

join:2005-11-07
Jersey City, NJ

FCC

Are you guys forgetting that the FCC has the final word on this deal... Not that they aren't already being worked by lobbyists to get this done.

But anyway, let's see what happens, at the end of the day, I just want to keep my job.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: FCC

said by flyingjoey:

Are you guys forgetting that the FCC has the final word on this deal... Not that they aren't already being worked by lobbyists to get this done.

But anyway, let's see what happens, at the end of the day, I just want to keep my job.
Ummmm.. technically, there are a few other agencies that can have "the final word"... all it takes is one of them to say 'no' and that would be.. "the final word"...

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

1 recommendation

Re: FCC


Oh, Hmmmm, Well, ah, and a job on the board of directors, hmmm well.
The grease that lubricates deals at the FCC.

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet

Get ready for it

"Under the new model, Comcast would own one out of every five viewing hours on television."

Here comes the super-fantastic "Attack of the Show" to your humble abodes!
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!

•••••

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

Prepare to see Deep Packet Scanning

If, and I strongly disagree that this acquisition will be allowed, this goes through, who in the world is stupid enough to think that comcast won't begin to monitor ALL the traffic that goes over their network to protect their 'investment'. This is the like letting a toll road owner search your car before they let you get on the road (think MPAA), and letting them charge you MORE if you get to the exit before your 'scheduled time' (caps). How in the world will ANY CUSTOMER (note, I say customer, not consumer), benefit if the gatekeeper that controls the roads also controls what cars are allowed on the road? Comcast is, and SHOULD BE, a dumb pipe provider (I consider cable TV to also be dumb pipe). Letting any one company control both the pipe (road), access (tolls), and content(type of cars), can only end in disaster for everyone who is subject to their rules.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!

Technogeez
Agape in amazement.
Premium
join:2007-01-20

It's a marriage made in heaven...

Crappy programs and crappy delivery service.

BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO

Need Regulation

The regulators should let it go through, then pass net neutrality to ensure this behemoth doesn't DPI/Shape their network etc... It is the perfect case to pass net neutrality as others have said, ensuring the Internet's openness.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..

Comcast is paying $6.5 billion in cash up front...

"Comcast is paying $6.5 billion in cash up front, as well as an additional $7.25 billion in cable assets"

Since Comcast has this kind of cash hanging around I see no reason for a rate increase for the next couple years.

In fact they should be rebating customers not buying NBC.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Comcast is paying $6.5 billion in cash up front...

said by b10010011:

Since Comcast has this kind of cash hanging around
They don't anymore