 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | How does this matter to subscribers or internet users? Commenters elsewhere are deploring the prospect of more vertical integration, but why should we care if Comcast owned, say, some TV production as well as cable?
On the other hand, cableco consolidation would reduce competition when we need more of it. |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | You might see a quicker turn around on pictures from theatre to ON Demand, even day and date. Viacom would be a good pick up. They have lots of popular channels and also Paramount pictures.
MTV
Spike
Comedy Central
Nichelodeon
VH1
CMT
Bet
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:Commenters elsewhere are deploring the prospect of more vertical integration, but why should we care if Comcast owned, say, Vertical integration through acquisition tends to be bad for consumers. For one thing who do you think pays for such needless acquisitions? |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:Commenters elsewhere are deploring the prospect of more vertical integration, but why should we care if Comcast owned, say, some TV production as well as cable? because then they can charge a lot or refuse to even offer content to other cable companies or satellite. So in other words people like me in Charter territory can be denied channels. Or because of the high price my bill goes WAY up. It's not like they compete for the same customers but they don't see it that way thus everyone else gets screwed. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to caco
While it would be disturbing to see a single company owning both content (including a lot of college newspaper websites in fact) and physical plant, at least you wouldn't have to worry about Viacom running around in a wahmbulance crying for higher rates from their networks.
Heck, Comcast might actually get closer to a la carte TV (doubt it though) by moving less popular networks to either another tier or to online viewing or what have you. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
The more likely thing that would happen is TelcoTV/fiber projects would be denied the channels. Comcast doesn't have anything to lose if they, like Cablevision and MSG, give out their channels to other MSOs since they don't compete with each other. Heck, give the channels to DirecTV as well so rural customers don't whine and complain because they can't get cable.
Then hold the networks from FiOS and U-Verse (and any other TelcoTV situation) and keep your dying cable business alive. Brilliant, really. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:Commenters elsewhere are deploring the prospect of more vertical integration, but why should we care if Comcast owned, say, some TV production as well as cable? I thought vertical integration was the reason the Gov't broke up the original Ma Bell in 1984. Those who decry the current, "new" AT&T forget that it was the vertical integration of service, R&D, and manufacturing which was the target of that anti-trust action; and the "new" AT&T is most definitely not vertically integrated.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | AT&T was broken up because the execs wanted to diversify into IT/computer and getting rid of local operations is what they offered to the prosecutors. The settlement didn't have to include breaking it up.
The lawsuit was really caused by MCI giving a suitcase of cash to the FCC/regulatory capture. |
|
