DOJ could force Comcast to offer NBCUniversal content for Apple's Web television service

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    (See embedded text)

     

    I mean the Comcast situation. Creating part of the content accessible across a cable and owning the cable across which it moves.

     

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

    So utility companies can choose to not sell Water to certain customers?  Or electricity?  Even if they can pay the bill? Or hospitals can choose not to provide services to certain customers?  Really?


     

    Enjoy your own, separate argument, different from what I’m discussing. There’s no response here.

     

    Originally Posted by GQB View Post

    a fantasy world where there is competition (almost nose-spit my coke at the comment that there was no cable monopoly) and the almighty free market is the all knowing arbiter of justice.

     

    You apparently don’t comprehend that places in which free market doesn’t exist are the sole result of government intervention in said places. But no, enjoy your reducto ad absurdum, too.

     

    I'll take DOJ as my advocate any day.


     

    The Department of Justice that gave guns used to kill Americans to drug cartels.

    The Department of Justice that places people in double jeopardy because they don’t like the outcome of trials.

    The Department of Justice that investigates itself when it does wrong.

    The Department of Justice that dismissed defaulted legal victories against persons responsible for violating voting laws.

    The Department of Justice that dismissed the results of civil service examinations, demanding a racist outcome.

    ?The Department of Justice that blocked intelligent students from entering a better school on the grounds that schools should be forcibly multicultural.

     

    Then you deserve what will happen to you.

  • Reply 22 of 47

    A couple issues with this article (and most of the ones recently).

     

    I'm pretty sure they are wrong about the cost thing.  Comcast will have to make thier programming available at a cost comparable to what they charge other companies like Dish Network/DirecTV/Verizon Fios etc.  Not a price comparable to CBS's deals with Apple.  However, comparable is a pretty broad term, so don't think that just because DirecTV pays Comcast $3 a sub that Apple will get that same price, Comcast can maybe ask for like $3.50 or maybe $4 which seems close, but when you start to add up millions of customers it is a big difference in cost.  They can also make other unreasonable demands about packaging channels together, etc. that will make it not worth Apple signing a contract.  Most DirecTV customers are pretty familiar with this situation, especially those in the Philly market as they still can't get CSN Philly on DirecTV because Comcast and DirecTV can't come to an agreement.

     

    They keep referring to channels, but really that isn't what these are going to be in the way I understand it.  You are going to be able to get streaming on demand content of the shows that air on those channels, but you will not get a live streaming version of that channel airing the same shows at the same time as the cable/satellite channel.  It is going to be like on demand, once the show has aired on cable/satellite then it will be made available on these apps after a certain period of time (some immediately after air, some a few hours later, some a few days later, etc).  So pretty much it is going to work the same as the apps we have right now, but instead of entering your Comcast/DirecTV/Dish Network login email/password to authorize that app to work you will use your iTunes login/password and subscribe and pay for the channel through Apple/iTunes.

  • Reply 23 of 47
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I disagree. There should be much less regulation against these kinds of mergers, because these businesses are far too insulated from the rigors of competition as it is now. There is no monopoly at work here, unless otherwise caused by local or Federal government having made sweetheart deals keeping competitors shut out.

    Isn't that kind of the point of his post though? NBC/Comcast got special deals and recieved special government treatment. That special treatment and access to politicians comes with regulations and other rules and requirements. 

  • Reply 24 of 47
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

     

    They keep referring to channels, but really that isn't what these are going to be in the way I understand it.  You are going to be able to get streaming on demand content of the shows that air on those channels, but you will not get a live streaming version of that channel airing the same shows at the same time as the cable/satellite channel.  It is going to be like on demand, once the show has aired on cable/satellite then it will be made available on these apps after a certain period of time (some immediately after air, some a few hours later, some a few days later, etc).  So pretty much it is going to work the same as the apps we have right now, but instead of entering your Comcast/DirecTV/Dish Network login email/password to authorize that app to work you will use your iTunes login/password and subscribe and pay for the channel through Apple/iTunes.


     

    Can I ask where you read this?  That wouldn't bother me, anyways, as I rarely watch anything live (other than sports).

     

    I'm just curious.

  • Reply 25 of 47
    xixoxixo Posts: 431member
    "the company is reportedly offering to share viewership data with content owners to entice them to cooperate."

    In American oligarchy, cable watches you!
  • Reply 26 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Whatever the reason for its existence, it would be silly for anyone to suggest that Comcast is not a monopoly in a vast region in which it operates. So what if it's the federal or local government that granted or enabled it?

     

    What the government gives, it can take away. Sauce for the goose.... etc...


     

    So... government CREATES problem, government "fixes" problem? Nope! They should not have been involved in the first place!

  • Reply 27 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    Yeah, I don’t like this at all. No one should be forced to sell something if or where they don’t want to.

    Nor do I like content creators being content providers.

    The purpose of the first thing you mentioned you didn't like is to mitigate the dangers involved with allowing the second thing you didn't like. So sure, I can see where in another world, it would have been better not to have allowed the second thing to happen so measures like the first thing would be unnecessary.

    But that is not our world right now. Given that Comcast owns NBC, I am fine that they have to endure such stipulations.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post

     

    Its so entertaining to watch the Libertarian types (most of whom no doubt would love cable cutting) who live in a fantasy world where there is competition (almost nose-spit my coke at the comment that there was no cable monopoly) and the almighty free market is the all knowing arbiter of justice.

    I have to admire the masochistic faith in corporations that y'all seem to embrace. I'll take DOJ as my advocate any day.

    Not only should the NBC merger have been denied, but Comcast/Viacom need to be split up to separate content from pipes.


     

    On the other hand, I personally find it endlessly amusing that anyone would seriously believe our "pals" in Washington are doing anything for "your" benefit. The problem with government acting as the central planner and enforcer has been blatantly spelled out by the Snowden revelations. Who has not been paying attention? Politics and government is making people and businesses do something by force. Businesses have to ASK for your money. They don't get to print money whenever they need more.

     

    In addition, the very large businesses you are supposedly criticizing here are currently THE ONES MAKING THE LAWS by contributing to the lawmakers. I urge you to look up the definition of the word "corporatism". We do not have a free market economy in many, many respects.

  • Reply 29 of 47
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post

    But that is not our world right now.

     

    So make it that world.

  • Reply 30 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Broadcast TV (NBC) is a utility.  All our tax dollars paid for that infrastructure.  Those should be available to all who can pay for it.

    Many stations (including NBC) are available for free over the air right now. I don't buy your argument that my tax dollars have somehow been used in a way that gives me the right to specify HOW I receive my programming, for example by "using AppleTV".

    But all of that is a moot argument anyway, because Comcast isn't out there saying that they don't want their content (NBC stuff) to be available to everyone. They are saying that they don't want it available through a specific delivery mechanism that competes with their own (which they attempt to make as available - and expensive - as possible). And therein lies a problem: they can compete unfairly against competition and maintain the (ridiculous) status quo simply by gimping their competitors by withholding critical content. In my view, given that the Comcast/NBC combination was approved, it was wise of the Feds to include this apparent caveat.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    So make it that world.

    I'll leave that to you, since you are the one complaining about the situation. Doesn't that seem reasonable?
  • Reply 32 of 47
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

     

    A couple issues with this article (and most of the ones recently).

     

    I'm pretty sure they are wrong about the cost thing.  Comcast will have to make thier programming available at a cost comparable to what they charge other companies like Dish Network/DirecTV/Verizon Fios etc.  Not a price comparable to CBS's deals with Apple.  However, comparable is a pretty broad term, so don't think that just because DirecTV pays Comcast $3 a sub that Apple will get that same price, Comcast can maybe ask for like $3.50 or maybe $4 which seems close, but when you start to add up millions of customers it is a big difference in cost.  They can also make other unreasonable demands about packaging channels together, etc. that will make it not worth Apple signing a contract.  Most DirecTV customers are pretty familiar with this situation, especially those in the Philly market as they still can't get CSN Philly on DirecTV because Comcast and DirecTV can't come to an agreement.

     

    They keep referring to channels, but really that isn't what these are going to be in the way I understand it.  You are going to be able to get streaming on demand content of the shows that air on those channels, but you will not get a live streaming version of that channel airing the same shows at the same time as the cable/satellite channel.  It is going to be like on demand, once the show has aired on cable/satellite then it will be made available on these apps after a certain period of time (some immediately after air, some a few hours later, some a few days later, etc).  So pretty much it is going to work the same as the apps we have right now, but instead of entering your Comcast/DirecTV/Dish Network login email/password to authorize that app to work you will use your iTunes login/password and subscribe and pay for the channel through Apple/iTunes.




    Since Apple hasn't announced anything about this purely 'rumored' service your entire comment is all  speculation and opinion.

  • Reply 33 of 47
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    I can do without NBC content. Anything with the name Comcast turns my stomach.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    A couple issues with this article (and most of the ones recently).

    I'm pretty sure they are wrong about the cost thing.  Comcast will have to make thier programming available at a cost comparable to what they charge other companies like Dish Network/DirecTV/Verizon Fios etc.  Not a price comparable to CBS's deals with Apple.  However, comparable is a pretty broad term, so don't think that just because DirecTV pays Comcast $3 a sub that Apple will get that same price, Comcast can maybe ask for like $3.50 or maybe $4 which seems close, but when you start to add up millions of customers it is a big difference in cost.  They can also make other unreasonable demands about packaging channels together, etc. that will make it not worth Apple signing a contract.  Most DirecTV customers are pretty familiar with this situation, especially those in the Philly market as they still can't get CSN Philly on DirecTV because Comcast and DirecTV can't come to an agreement.

    They keep referring to channels, but really that isn't what these are going to be in the way I understand it.  You are going to be able to get streaming on demand content of the shows that air on those channels, but you will not get a live streaming version of that channel airing the same shows at the same time as the cable/satellite channel.  It is going to be like on demand, once the show has aired on cable/satellite then it will be made available on these apps after a certain period of time (some immediately after air, some a few hours later, some a few days later, etc).  So pretty much it is going to work the same as the apps we have right now, but instead of entering your Comcast/DirecTV/Dish Network login email/password to authorize that app to work you will use your iTunes login/password and subscribe and pay for the channel through Apple/iTunes.

    Agree with much of what you said here. However, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the stories about this lately have referred to "live streaming" and not just "on demand".
  • Reply 35 of 47
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    In addition, the very large businesses you are supposedly criticizing here are currently THE ONES MAKING THE LAWS by contributing to the lawmakers. I urge you to look up the definition of the word "corporatism". We do not have a free market economy in many, many respects.


    Wouldn't total deregulation be the equivalent of business writing it's own rules (probably worse because there would be NO opposition to unfair/destructive practices)? So you're against regulations for business yet, it bothers you when businesses write bills that are pretty much a precursor to what they would do without regulations?

  • Reply 36 of 47
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by axual View Post



    I can do without NBC content. Anything with the name Comcast turns my stomach.



    I would agree with you concerning most NBC content, were it not for the fact that NBC covers the Olympics, the French Open in tennis, the US Open in golf, etc.

  • Reply 37 of 47
    macbook promacbook pro Posts: 1,605member
    sog35 wrote: »
    funny how Apple waited for Net Neutrality to really push this content deal.

    Coincedence?  Hell no

    Apple has created their own content delivery network
    Apple has tripled the number of content partners on AppleTV in the past 5 years
    Apple has increased their data center space by approximately 800% in the past 5 years
    HBO has announced HBO Now stand-alone streaming service
  • Reply 38 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

     



    Since Apple hasn't announced anything about this purely 'rumored' service your entire comment is all  speculation and opinion.


    You are right, and that is why I said things like "I'm pretty sure they are wrong", and "as I understand it".

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thompr View Post





    Agree with much of what you said here. However, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the stories about this lately have referred to "live streaming" and not just "on demand".

    I know that is what the articles say, I believe they are wrong.  HBO has stated that there will be no live streaming versions of the channels, just on demand content available after it had aired on the channels (I thought it was on the HBO Now FAQ page but I just looked and don't see it now).  This was important becuase some people were asking about boxing, and the person from HBO was talking about how not all boxing will be available through the service because of the rights not belonging to HBO.  I'm guessing HBO sometimes only has the rights to show the fights live on TV but not streaming, or sometimes they only have the rights for live and not recorded repeats, etc.

     

    This is especially true with the OTA stations like ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc.  Local stations own the rights to some/all programming within their areas.  So ABC can't stream the stuff live in an area where ABC does not own the rights some company like Sinclair or Granite own the rights.

  • Reply 39 of 47
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,068member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Most reasonable people would argue that a cable connection is an essential service too. This is how people get on the internet, receive and send information, receive and make phone calls, access their work and educational services, etc. The fact that you own the pipe should not enable you to control in any way what is being sent through it.

     

    In fact, that is precisely what the FCC is currently doing with its net neutrality rules.




    It just seems like people who live in the country/rural areas should pay the cost for running those power and telecommunication lines.   Historically there has been essentially subsidized support for those that live in the country with things like rural free delivery of mail even though it costs more.   There was a lot of socialism in the Great Society that brought power to rural areas.    Time to end this welfare.    There are definitely higher costs that come with some aspects of living in a city, but we should not have to subsidize those who already have a lower cost of living.

  • Reply 40 of 47

    Comcast has been playing with data caps on its network (250 or 350GB/month). Up until now, they're not enforced, but they could be at any time. Now, 250GB is a lot of data for an ordinary internet user, but a family streaming HD content will go through it quickly. Unless they stream through Comcast's own XFinity player: that data does not count against the cap. Of course, they insert their own unskippable commercials into any programming they stream. Should AppleTV be a little too successful and, combined with Netflix, start eating into their bottom line and get too many people to stop paying them for cable TV, they could very well decide to not only enforce but lower the caps, or come up with more expensive tiers. Their quasi-monopoly on fast broadband, combined with the merger with Time-Warner, would put them in a position where they can dictate prices on the market. The Time Warner merger must not be allowed to proceed.

Sign In or Register to comment.