JakesDTVBlog

__________________
Visit Jake's DTV Blog!

bicker

No, it doesn't. Why would you even say that?

Why do you say, "now"? They already are for some of the content they own.

bicker

There is a general lack of maturity among consumers when it comes to large companies, especially these days.

They can, and extremely well. Consumers just like to whine about not getting their own way. Some consumers even think that the entire nation should be structured around doing whatever consumers want, except when they go into the voting booth, when it really counts.

The government will review the deal, should it make it past the negotiating stage, and impose some conditions, and that'll be enough to protect the marketplace.

Orrymain

Well, I'm against it, except for one thing. If Comcast owns these stations, then maybe that means every Comcast area would have to carry the channels and since we don't get Sleuth and I really want Sleuth then I could deal with it. That's a selfish angle. On the whole though I think it's a bad idea. It seems too much of a conflict of interest to me.

bicker

Of course, we could go down the path that Verizon went down with its rural states terrestrial service: They sold their local telephone service in NH, VT and ME to Fairpoint, which is an (ahem) economy company, and worse yet, on the brink of bankruptcy now. So given that GE has a right to sell their asset, how about they sell it to QVC? There would be no possibility of conflict of interest there. Who cares if the networks start all turning into shop-at-home services. :rotfl:

Be careful what you wish for: If GE doesn't sell NBCU to Comcast, you could end up with a much worse situation.

Don_M

Nothing has been decided yet:
GE looking at partnership or IPO for NBC Universal

As big as they might be, I've got to wonder where Comcast would come up with financing for such an acquisition. CMCSA has a lengthy history of being very deeply in debt -- nearly $29 billion as of June 30, against about $35 billion in annual sales -- thanks to an almost constant stream of system buildouts, earlier acquisitions (both large and small), and technological upgrades. While today's debt market isn't seized up like it was a year ago, there still isn't anywhere near the appetite for risk-based debt financing (read "junk bonds," which is just about all CMCSA is able to issue) as there once was. We're not going back to the Wild West days of 2005-06 anytime soon, regardless of whether the borrower is a consumer or a "big dog" like Comcast.

I don't see it happening absent some really creative dealmaking that involves neither large amounts of debt nor a big secondary stock offering. Companies that issue large numbers of new shares dilute the value of existing shares, prompting current stockholders to dump them, thus rapidly flattening the share price. Equity deals have a habit of evaporating when share prices on either side of the table fall too far.

Lurker Lee

Just curious - if Comcast were to own NBC, could they then limit the distribution of NBC to other companies? Eg, if there are multiple cable companies in one area, could Comcast refuse to allow NBC to be carried by the others?

bicker

Stifel Nicolaus Analysts: Comcast/NBCU Deal Would Likely Pass Government Muster - 2009-10-02 10:52:34 EDT | Multichannel News



They would not be allowed to do so, no.

Piggie

I already stated why I said that, along with several others that chimed in with their opinions as well.

The only way I would consider rephrasing it would be "It's just as insidious being vertical."

I believe in this case terming vertical is double speak. Yes, I understand vertical integration, but that is like saying orange poop is better than purple poop, it's still poop.

But after the merger it would no longer be vertical, as Comcast could give sweetheart deals to it's own internal network, NBC. It could more easily control competition. So would it still be vertical after the fact? I don't think so.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.

Piggie

Blaming the consumers for being immature is ludicrous. In my lifetime I have seen many companies not have nearly instant disdain from customers as I have seen in the last 15 years. So yes there is more outrage, but I don't see it as maturity issue just because people have had enough of mergers, outsourcing, job loss, cost of living decreases in their salary, all justified by complying with government regulations. I think people are getting really sick of it.

If what happened a year ago from laws to protect competition, fair practices and usury being tossed out because we are in a "new age" where they are needed isn't obvious now, when will it be. People don't trust the government any more to do the right thing, they are not paranoid as they were called 10 to 15 years ago, they now have proof positive they like many other times in our history are being subjugated economically and if they speak they are immature?

Well if that is the case, add me to the list of names that is immature, buy me a hat and t-shirt and I will wear it proudly.

__________________
The more I understand, the less I know.