Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

FCC May Require Comcast-NBC Deal to Offer Content to Apple

shartypants said:
NBC executives need to get a clue and join us in the 21st century. We want TV show rentals from them!
Click to expand...

Agreed, the free market way would be for the content providers to release their content into various markets and see what the consumer wants. Then build up those areas that succeed. Consumers get a fair deal, providers get profits.

Artificially restricting the free market in a vain attempt to control the flood of history just makes them look bad.
 
Chaszmyr said:
This seems like a really weird for the government to mandate (or to even be able to mandate).

I don't like Comcast at all, and so I don't support any merger that makes them even bigger than they already
Click to expand...

So do you have a solution other tha gov't to fight monopolies?
This knee jerk 'gov't is evil' crap is getting old.
 
two private companies should be more than free to combine and make their content exclusive. we live in a free country don't we? don't like it? don't buy their stuff. then they'll see that their business model doesn't work and they'll change accordingly. the government isn't the answer to everything, folks.
 
NokX said:
two private companies should be more than free to combine and make their content exclusive. we live in a free country don't we? don't like it? don't buy their stuff. then they'll see that their business model doesn't work and they'll change accordingly. the government isn't the answer to everything, folks.
Click to expand...
LOL! You are *completely* missing the point.

When it becomes a monopoly, they already exert enough influence that "don't buy their stuff" is no longer an option.

If there were no barriers to entry, someone could come in with another business model and fill that gap or void. With significant barriers to entry (say, a limited amount of government-assigned public bandwidth for TV stations or only one cable operator in your neighborhood), that gap or void may be difficult or impossible to fill.

Seriously, do they not teach Basic Econ anymore?
 
The anti-government freaks out there

Yes, the government must approve any merger this big, and properly so. They have to look over the details of it, to see if there's a substantial risk of a monopoly developing. For those who don't understand, a monopoly is not the free market. Government has a role in protecting the free market.

It seems that they're leaning, in this account anyway, towards accepting the merger, and that to me is a disastrous idea. Letting the pipe owner own the content they stream over it is a conflict of interest.

But if they approve the merger, they're saying that KableTown must license their content to other sources, including Apple, Amazon, etc.

The irony is, given the hack management that Comcast has, they will likely destroy NBC, making them the first network that implodes. That will be a good idea for us all. The end to broadcasting will mean the beginning of HD podcasting for us all.

The next step would be to make NBC make all its programming available on the net.

End the tyranny of the schedule.
 
Comcast is a PIA

Comcast is a pain. They bounce mail and blacklist people who are not spamming. Their overly sensitive tests for spamming result in false positives. Thus I can't email people I know because they have Comcast service. Comcast sx.
 
This helps explain why NBC is being so coy with the "value" of their content. Didn't realize they were in merger talks.

gcliv said:
And just who the heck is the government to define who they must compete with and how they will compete with them? Which companies get favorable deals and which don't?...
Click to expand...
This government:
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Congress makes the laws and the Executive (here, the FCC) enforces them.
 
NokX said:
two private companies should be more than free to combine and make their content exclusive. we live in a free country don't we? don't like it? don't buy their stuff. then they'll see that their business model doesn't work and they'll change accordingly. the government isn't the answer to everything, folks.
Click to expand...

Imagine if AT&T and Verizon merged. They could easily crush t-mobile, sprint, and all the small guys in the US in no time.

At that point, "Don't like it? Don't buy it" would leave you with NO options. None.

Now imagine that with media companies. Now take into account that media companies don't hide their political leanings anymore, sometimes bordering on straight up propoganda. It gets scary fast.
 
When this merger is approved, I'm sure in 5 years the OTA NBC stations will be no more and everybody will be required to have cable and satellite.

Next in line i'm sure is CBS will be bought by someone as there financial's are the weakest of the BIG 3.
 
I think the solution would be for NBC to replace all of their programing with reruns of Gilligan's Island. It could not be any worse than the reality shows they have now.

I must say, Chuck is not that bad.

PS. I think this fits the definition of interstate commerce. If this does not meet the criteria for government regulation, nothing does and it is time to shut down the country and just go home.

MCIowaRulz said:
When this merger is approved, I'm sure in 5 years the OTA NBC stations will be no more and everybody will be required to have cable and satellite.

Next in line i'm sure is CBS will be bought by someone as there financial's are the weakest of the BIG 3.
Click to expand...

No, not cable and satellite, only Comcast.
 
NokX said:
two private companies should be more than free to combine and make their content exclusive. we live in a free country don't we? don't like it? don't buy their stuff. then they'll see that their business model doesn't work and they'll change accordingly. the government isn't the answer to everything, folks.
Click to expand...

No, but it's the answer to some things. Remember when consumers banded together and made cell phone companies offer number portability, so you could switch between Verizon and AT&T without having to change your phone number? Oh, right, that never happened...it took government "interference" to make this happen.
 
My main objection over the Comcast/NBC merger was Comcast's ability to restrict content from internet syndication to iTunes and elsewhere!

I have a lot of respect for the FCC! Their stances on net neutrality and doing the right thing with this merger are perfect examples of smart policy that's good for American consumers (which is the theoretical reason such agencies exist)!
 
NebulaClash said:
Not everyone has a choice, as you noted by using the word "soon" in your message. Maybe one day we'll have that environment where people have choice, but for now there are many people for whom it's Comcast or nothing. In that case it is the legal authority of the government (since the dawn of broadcasting) to ensure monopoly positions are not being abused.

Too much government paranoia in this country nowadays. I realize propaganda is effective, but I really do wish people would exercise common sense. Then they would see there is no government overreaching going on.
Click to expand...

This idea that cable providers are monopolies, and thus require government intervention to maintain a multitude of consumer friendly choices, is a straw man. The very reason that Comcast is the ONLY choice for many people is a direct cause of government - be it federal or local levels, government only licenses one provider per area. The effects of government micro-managing do not give way to additional micro-managing. I'm reminded of the AOL Time Warner merger. The internet world was scared to death of a big media monopoly on the internet - turned out to be a complete flop.

There is not enough government paranoia in the country. The formative figures of our republic instituted a model that makes the government held hostage to the people - we are very quickly becoming the reverse.
 
John.B said:
What you're missing is that other companies (NetFlix, Amazon, yes even Apple) would probably be locked out of that content in favor or having to have Comcast broadband. I realize I'm repeating myself, but there are already examples of this sort of thing. So much for Teh Interwebz turning the industry upside down...


The FCC consists of a bipartisan commission to (ostensibly) prevent that from happening. It's not about picking winning and losing content or technologies or corporations, it's about making sure that any one corporation doesn't wield too much power given their use of publicly owned airwaves (a partial oligopoly, as I mentioned earlier in this thread).


All the FCC is saying in this case is that the merger probably won't be approved with no restrictions. If Comcast and NBCU want to move forward, they will ultimately have to decide if they can make that work with concessions or if they should continue as separate entities.

Seriously, dude, I think you're a bit wrapped up in your emotions on this one. Realize that this could impact other people than yourself, some of which don't even have Internet or a computer in their house, others who have no way to get content except through whoever their city cable provider happens to be.
Click to expand...

Then let them be locked out. Consumers can choose whether or not to consume their content under the creator's restrictions or not. If the creator's restrictions are excessive or unreasonable, the market will not bear it.

The internet will continue to turn the industry upside down. That does not mean it will be an ideal, perfect scenario overnight. This is one of Comcast's last ditch efforts to be relevant as more than a broadband delivery service. They will fail, just as Verizon has (or ultimately will) with their "VCAST" services. I say let them have whatever they want, it won't work anyway. AT&T, Comcast, etc. - all the delivery systems are going to be forced into the position of being providers only. All content will be internet driven, its just a matter of time.

Whether the FCC aims to favor one corporation or industry or technology over another is irrelevant, government action always has that result. All government action inherently removes liberty from one entity and assigning it to another - whether this is financial (taxation, federal reserve interest rates, etc) or FCC requirements or what have you. Of course, this cannot be entirely avoided.....government is a necessary evil, but we are far too quick to accept government involvement without an understanding of all the unintended consequences. With the FCC especially, who monitors these decisions? Who overrides them? Its easy to say "well, congress is," but let's be honest....the FCC (and many other federal agencies) have carte blanche power.
 
barkomatic said:
Libertarian/objectivist philosophies simply don't work when it comes to commerce. When left on their own, companies *always* seek to create monopolies--NOT choices for consumers to choose from. Companies maximize profits when there are no choices.
Click to expand...

I find this interesting. I'm trying really hard to think of modern monopolies. Its the government that creates or ensures monopolies far more than those greedy corporations.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the reason the cable companies have (what many here are perceiving to be) a TV delivery monopoly is precisely BECAUSE of government. Similarly with all your public utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc).

If I want TV, I can choose between Comcast or AT&T's TV services in my area. Or I can choose to watch my shows online. Or I can choose between a couple satellite options. All are comparatively priced (though the internet shows are free). This is hardly a monopoly. But what kind of choices do I have to educate my children? Government schools. Only the economic elite may choose private schooling that's a true alternative to government schools. What if I don't like the school my son or daughter is at? I'm at the mercy of requesting a transfer to a different government school, which would likely be declined. Sounds like my son or daughter is stuck at their low performing school. That's a monopoly.

A few years ago, Microsoft was declared the evil monopoly. The Federal government went after them like rabid dogs (which I'm sure wasn't politically or financially motivated, since the government is full proof from such human greed). Yet, 15 years later, Microsoft has very real competition from Apple and open-source projects on the workstation space, open-source projects in the server world, and Apple/BlackBerry/Google/etc in a whole new mobile world. This was no thanks to the government.

My ultimate point is this: the government has its hand in creating far more monopolies than it does in preventing them. Even if monopolies do develop, government is made up of the same greedy people that make up corporations....they will police the system as is politically or economically advantageous to do so. The free market has the surprising ability to police itself if its allowed to and given the time. This is especially true with technological advances - new ideas, companies, and people can compete in amazing ways with even large corporations. Industries change and develop overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back