?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
rtfirefly
Feb. 11th, 2004 05:27 am (UTC)
Ummm, that's $66 Billion.
sterlingnorth
Feb. 11th, 2004 05:29 am (UTC)
Re:
corrected, and I'm still floored by it.
mannyvision
Feb. 11th, 2004 07:09 am (UTC)
Interesting reminder for those who may have lost track: Microsoft owns 7.4% of Comcast. (They own less of the voting stock and have no management or board representation, and Brian Roberts is definitely his own man, so this isn't a case of MSFT running things from behind the scenes or anything like that -- just an interesting aside.)

In other news, it's a lowball bid.
sterlingnorth
Feb. 11th, 2004 11:48 am (UTC)
Bidding
They probably thought with all of the problems going on at Disney itself, and Eisner fighting for his job, they could come in and sweep it up from him. If anything could have helped Eisner keep running the show it would be thwarting a hostile takeover bid. People in Burbank and Orlando had already been suspicious that Mikey might be trying to sell the company for scrap. If Eisner successfully stands up to Comcast and keeps Disney from being sold, he'll be the white knight once again.

This chain of events isn't good for Roy Disney and the SaveDisney crew, for I think they lose either way the Comcast crumbles.
mannyvision
Feb. 11th, 2004 12:30 pm (UTC)
Re: Bidding
Heh. Stanley and Roy think it's good for them. They just had a call with institutional shareholders urging a "no" vote on keeping Eisner. Roy Disney said that Burke was a "Disney kind of guy" and that he left because of Eisner.
kelly_lynn
Feb. 11th, 2004 07:13 am (UTC)
I didn't see this particular consolidation coming, but it's been known for some time that Big Media has been trying to merge with Telecommunications. It's much easier to control what people watch when you control the means they use to watch it.

I worry that with a Disney/Comcast combination, I won't be able to go to non-Disney-approved Internet content without paying a "service fee" (or even at all).

The FCC ought to, by rights, block this attempt at a merger, but of course they won't.
mannyvision
Feb. 11th, 2004 07:31 am (UTC)
Re:
On what do you base that fear? TimeWarner has been merged with AOL for a while now (and had it's own cable systems for even longer). The only result is that they spam you mercilessly to "upgrade" your cablemodem to the "extra" AOL content for six bucks. I'm wholly unaware of any content restriction, by money or otherwise, in the Road Runner service.

Similarly, Cablevision, the big local provider here, has a ton of content (in particular, the Rangers and Knicks). The only "content abuse" I'm aware of is they tried to tell the Yankees to FO when the Yanks tried to charge $2/subscriber to provide the games after their contract with Cablevision subsidiary MSG Networks expired. Sadly, Cablevision ended up getting slapped by the local Yankee-sycophant politicians.

And, of course, internet service provision is defined as a common carrier service. Any intent to block content (unless the content is illegal) is itself illegal. And the big cable companies, in their role as broadband ISPs, fought mightily against the RIAA's subpoenas.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )