Comcast seeks NBC-U [Telecom]
Neal McLain
> Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
> providing telephone service and Internet service.
> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
> Now that Comcast is providing telephone and internet service,
> perhaps it would be too big as well if it included NBC in its
> portfolio.
NBC is not the same thing as NBC Universal. NBC is a broadcast network
and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
> In other words, what was the point of breaking up the old AT&T
> if we're gonna allow new companies to become as big and
> powerful?
Like GE for example?
> The idea of a cable [television] company--the distributor--
> owning the production company troubles me.
Comcast already owns numerous production entities.
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast
Under the proposed agreement, Vivendi SA would sell the 20% of NBCU that
is presently owns. If the deal goes through, Comcast would own 51% of
NBCU, and GE would own 49%.
http://losangeles.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2009/10/12/daily14.html
> Before WW II, the big movie studios owned the theatres and
> controlled what movies appeared. It was hard for independents
> to get their films shown if they didn't have the blessings of
> the big guys. After the war an anti-trust action forced the
> studios to sell off the theatres, and it appeared things worked
> better accordingly.
More to the point, independent theater owners couldn't get access to
popular films owned by the big guys.
By the same token, "big guy" CATV companies don't want to sell their
programming to competitors (MMDS, private cable companies, telcos,
DirecTV, Dish Network). Long-standing federal program-access rules
require them to do so. These rules have accomplished that goal without
requiring the CATVs to divest their program production entities.
Neal McLain
Neal McLain
It looks like Comcast isn't the only media company with its eyes on
NBCU. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and John Malone's Liberty Media
are also interested.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010044.html?categoryid=3765&cs=1
Meanwhile, Vivendi and GE are still arguing about the value of Vivendi's
20% stake in NBCU.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010044.html?categoryid=3765&cs=1
Steven <diesp...@killspammers.com> wrote:
> All 4 major networks; ABC,CBS,NBC and FOX also own production
> companies for TV, movies. Allowing Comcast would make it worse
> and drive up costs.
Every company that currently owns, or wants to own, a piece of NBCU
already owns production companies:
GE: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
Comcast: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast
News Corporation: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=newscorp
Liberty Media: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=libertymedia
Vivendi: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=vivendi
Why would Comcast be any "worse" than any of the others?
Neal McLain
Scott Dorsey
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
> > providing telephone service and Internet service.
> > It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
>
> > Now that Comcast is providing telephone and internet service,
> > perhaps it would be too big as well if it included NBC in its
> > portfolio.
>
>NBC is not the same thing as NBC Universal. NBC is a broadcast network
>and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
>controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
NBCU is a TV production company, a movie production company, a movie
distributor, and most interestingly an archive of intellectual property
that is worth big money.
The TV and film sides of the house don't seem to talk to one another at
all, either.
My assumption is that anyone buying NBCU is buying it for their archives
and not their current production facilities, and that they probably have
the intention of gutting those archives for short-term gain. I hope I am
wrong, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
John Mayson
Local television stations are hurting financially. Much like
newspapers their ad revenue is down. There are more advertising
boulevards out there and TV has to compete against more businesses for
fewer dollars. Local stations also have to compete against cable and
satellite channels for eyeballs. How soon will be before an NBC or
CBS decides they're going cable/satellite/Internet only and allow
local affiliates to die?
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Steven
> Neal McLain <nmc...@annsgarden.com> wrote:
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> Comcast, a major cable TV distributor, has branched out into
>>> providing telephone service and Internet service.
>>> It now seeks to purchase NBC/Universal...
>>
>> and broadcast station owner; NBCU is a TV production company. Both are
>> controlled by General Electric. http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=ge
>
> NBCU is a TV production company, a movie production company, a movie
> distributor, and most interestingly an archive of intellectual property
> that is worth big money.
Universal City, just as CBS moved to Studio City a few years ago.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Neal McLain
> My assumption is that anyone buying NBCU is buying it for their archives
> and not their current production facilities, and that they probably have
> the intention of gutting those archives for short-term gain. �I hope I am
> wrong, though.
Quite possibly. This reminds me of Ted Turner's purchase of the old
MGM studio a few years ago. Pundits thought he was crazy for
"overpaying" for a motion picture production company. But he wasn't
buying the production company; he was buying the master negatives in
MGM's vault. Those films have been feeding TBS Superstation, TNT, and
Turner Classic Movies ever since.
Neal McLain
David Clayton
Don't forget DVD/BluRay sales - just have a think about how much it costs
to manufacture one of these and then think of the worldwide sales (and
profits...) of just one moderately popular old movie. Then multiply it out
over the many titles each of these places holds copyright on.
Money for jam.......
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
Neal McLain
> This thread got me thinking about something.
>
> Local television stations are hurting financially. Much like
> newspapers their ad revenue is down. There are more advertising
> boulevards out there and TV has to compete against more
> businesses for fewer dollars. Local stations also have to
> compete against cable and satellite channels for eyeballs. How
> soon will be before an NBC or CBS decides they're going
> cable/satellite/Internet only and allow local affiliates to
< die?
I don't think it's at all likely. Broadcasters may be having a rough
time these days, but a television broadcast license is still a valuable
property.
Furthermore, broadcasters enjoy significant government-mandated
advantages over non-broadcast programmers:
- Broadcasters enjoy mandatory carriage on cable/telco/satellite
retailers within their local markets. If a broadcast licensee can't
negotiate a retransmission consent agreement with a c/t/s retailer, it
can fall back on must-carry. If it's in such severe financial stress
that can't make it even with must-carry, it would probably just go off
the air. But it's highly unlikely that whatever programming it had been
carrying would be so valuable that it could charge c/t/s retailers more
than it could charge when it had the must-carry fallback option.
We hear a lot about how popular networks like ESPN can demand huge
license fees from retailers. But few non-broadcast programmers have
that kind of market power. For every ESPN, there's a dozen ESPN
wannabes that never make it.
- Network affiliate broadcast stations have exclusive access to network
programming within local markets. The entire country is divided into
Designated Market Areas (DMA). Within its DMA, every network-affiliate
station is the exclusive vendor for the network programming.
Cable/telco/satellite retailers are required, by federal law, to obtain
network programming from the affiliate within the DMA, and they are
prohibited from obtaining the identical programming from any affiliate
of the same network in any other DMA.
In any other industry, this arrangement would be a called a monopoly.
But in the case of the broadcast industry, it's called "consumer
protection."
These same issues were discussed here in June when I started a thread
"Cable TV Broadcast Retransmission Consent Feuds 'Ease Up'." See
http://tinyurl.com/yglb3nd .
Follow the link to
http://www.multichannel.com/article/talkback/295393-Retrans_Feuds_Ease_Up.php
and scroll down to my comment "Response to Julius Powell.'
As for internet carriage, I think that's even less likely unless
copyright laws are extensively revised. As I've noted here before,
*radio* broadcast stations that stream their own signals have to pay
substantially more for internet copyright than they pay for broadcast
copyright for the identical programming.
http://tinyurl.com/yldchuq
AFAIK, no TV station currently streams its signals. But I doubt that
copyright liability would be any less onerous for TV than it is for radio.
And that, of course, assumes that some future internet is capable of
vastly faster transmission speeds than the one we've got now.
Neal McLain
aka Texas Cable Guy
***** Moderator's Note *****
Neal, no offense, but I think you're missing something.
Your argument assumes that local TV station are still needed, and
that's not the case. As it stands now, local TV executives are on the
same dead-end road as the record executives of yesterday: their
influence comes from their position astride a distribution bottleneck
which has been greatly diminished and will soon disappear.
Local television transmission is going to go away: the only question
is how long it will take. The new Digital TV standard was a gift to
the cable/satellite/etc industry: it's not usable for over-the-air
transmission, and those like me who used to rely on rabbit ears will
have to either put up expensive outdoor antennas or put up the money
to rent a pipe from Comcrap et al. Even if (as you said) 30% of
consumers still use rabbit ears, that percentage - and the consumers
who it measures - will quickly fade to a marginal factor, both because
those whose antennas come down in ice storms will be looking to their
elected officials for cheaper solutions, and because the current
generation of children is so used to having cable TV that they won't
accept the limits of over-the-air reception. Either way, the local
stations lose: their bottleneck will be ineffective as a source of
profit and political influence within my son's lifetime.
We could debate the time line, but I think the endpoint is
certain. This is the almost the same thing that happened to radio
broadcasting, although in the case of radio it was the distribution
channel which caused the change: program delivery via satellites
obviated the need for local employees, and most radio programs now
come from a "Jock in the box" in Cleveland (or wherever). Although
radio still requires local transmitters, the lesson is the same:
economies of scale *will* doom local TV stations.
You heard it here first[tm].
Bill Horne
Moderator
P.S. This _is_ telecom related: Shannon was right, and Ma Bell's
bottleneck is _also_ going to go away. It's just a question of when:
just ask yourself what happens when satellite phones cost as much as
cell phones.
David Kaye
>How soon will be before an NBC or
>CBS decides they're going cable/satellite/Internet only and allow
>local affiliates to die?
Bingo, but it's not about Comcast buying NBC and letting affiliates die. It's
about Comcast selling off NBC owned station spectrum for reuse. It's a
brilliant strategy.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Wes...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/20/2009 11:29:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
nmc...@annsgarden.com writes:
> AFAIK, no TV station currently streams its signals. But I doubt
> that copyright liability would be any less onerous for TV than it is
> for radio.
KFOR, the NBC outlet in Oklahoma City, announces at the beginning of
every news program "We are streaming our program worldwife."
Wes Leatherock
wes...@aol.com
wlea...@yahoo.com
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>
> that's not the case. As it stands now, local TV executives are on the
> same dead-end road as the record executives of yesterday: their
> influence comes from their position astride a distribution bottleneck
> which has been greatly diminished and will soon disappear.
I'm not sure I agree.
In a sense, much of local TV broadcasting has always been 'out of the
box', that is, coming from the network. Things like national news and
documentaries, daytime soaps, prime time viewing, and Saturday
mornings all come the network and always did. Much of the rest of
broadcasting comes from syndicated sources.
Local TV stations do very little of their own programming; and almost
all that they do do is very cheap stuff.
One thing money is spent on is local news and sports--because--local
news and sports makes good money.
I don't think television advertising has been hit the way newspapers
have been by the Internet. The 'net has hit very specific things such
as classified ads which TV never did carry. The local ads carried by
TV stations are for both local businesses and local outlets of
national chains (banks, drugstores, department stores, fast food,
cars, etc.) While the recession has temporarily dried that up, it's
not permanent.
AFAIK, local television stations are rather profitable.
***** Moderator's Note *****
In his famous "Vast wasteland" speech, Newton Minow said that
broadcasters had a "license to print money", and you're correct that
TV stations in major markets are profitable.
That, however, is not my point.
However profitable TV stations are, they are also serving as middlemen
in between the content producers and the public. As I said, they are
enjoying control of a bottleneck which I think will disappear.
The networks and the syndicators all have access to satellites, and
every TV distribution system operator does too. Sooner or later, those
men will realize that the price isn't right anymore: they're paying
for a local delivery service that they don't need.
Someone always wants more, and the network brass - never the brightest
bulbs in the studio, to be sure - will realize that they can
distribute their programs to something like 80% of their current
audience without paying local stations "carry" fees. The few viewers
that they might lose by bypassing local TV stations aren't enough of a
factor to stop this change, and IMNSHO, local TV will fade away.
Yes, there will be various rear-guard actions that will delay the
inevitable, but the artificial barriers will give way to a more
efficient distribution model, and the Negroponte Switch will be
complete.
Bill Horne
Moderator
John Mayson
>
> In a message dated 10/20/2009 11:29:54 AM Central � Daylight Time,
> nmc...@annsgarden.com writes:
>
>> AFAIK, no TV station currently streams its signals. But I doubt
>> that copyright liability would be any less onerous for TV than it
>> is for radio.
>
> KFOR, the NBC outlet in Oklahoma City, announces at the beginning of
> every news program "We are streaming our program worldwife."
KXAN in Austin offers their nightly newscast as audio and video
podcasts. But I think the original poster was speaking of streaming
the regular broadcast schedule, including prime time shows.
Neal McLain
> How soon will be before an NBC or CBS decides they're going
> cable/satellite/Internet only and allow local affiliates to
> die?
I wrote:
> I don't think it's at all likely. Broadcasters may be having a
> rough time these days, but a television broadcast license is
> still a valuable property.
> Furthermore, broadcasters enjoy significant government-mandated
> advantages over non-broadcast programmers...
Continued at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.telecom/msg/6e76980a3cc9ea49?hlen
Bill Horne wrote:
> Neal, no offense, but I think you're missing something.
> Your argument assumes that local TV station are still needed,
> and that's not the case.
I didn't say that local TV stations are needed. I said (or was trying
to say) that the National Association of Broadcasters has convinced
Congress that local TV stations are needed.
> As it stands now, local TV executives are on the same dead-end
> road as the record executives of yesterday: their influence
> comes from their position astride a distribution bottleneck
> which has been greatly diminished and will soon disappear.
What bottleneck? As long as the NAB gets its way, local TV stations
will continue to be carried by cable TV retailers, and they will
continue to enj oy favored treatment vis-a-vis non-broadcast
programmers.
A local TV station doesn't have to provide a usable signal to all
viewers within its DMA. Simply by virtue of operating a broadcast
transmitter within its DMA, a broadcast TV station licensee has
preferential access to cable TV distribution networks:
- Mandatory carriage by either must-carry or retransmission consent rules.
- Mandatory access to the basic tier.
- Exclusive geographic territory based on half-century-old market
definitions.
If you're saying that many programmers will bypass broadcast stations
and deliver their programming directly to cable TV retailers, I agree.
They've been doing just that since 1977. But that hasn't killed
broadcast stations.
> Local television transmission is going to go away: the only question
> is how long it will take. The new Digital TV standard was a gift to
> the cable/satellite/etc industry: it's not usable for over-the-air
> transmission, and those like me who used to rely on rabbit ears will
> have to either put up expensive outdoor antennas or put up the money
> to rent a pipe from Comcrap et al. Even if (as you said) 30% of
> consumers still use rabbit ears, that percentage - and the consumers
> who it measures - will quickly fade to a marginal factor, both
> because those whose antennas come down in ice storms will be looking
> to their elected officials for cheaper solutions...
Which elected officials? Congress, the puppet of the NAB? Or your
Local Franchising Authority, forever addicted to that 5.26% franchise
fee?
What kind of "cheaper solution" do you have in mind, if not "Comcrap
et al"?
> ... and because the current generation of children is so used to
> having cable TV that they won't accept the limits of over-the-air
> reception. Either way, the local stations lose: their bottleneck
> will be ineffective as a source of profit and political influence
> within my son's lifetime.
I think you're a generation behind. The generation that came of age
in the 90s was already used to cable TV.
That didn't kill local broadcast stations. It did, however, largely
erase the perceptual distinction between broadcast and non-broadcast
programming. In the minds of members of that generation today, cable
TV is just television. Beyond the fact that some channels may be more
likely to have local news, they simply don't perceive a distinction.
> We could debate the time line, but I think the endpoint is certain.
> This is the almost the same thing that happened to radio broadcasting,
> although in the case of radio it was the distribution channel which
> caused the change: program delivery via satellites obviated the need
> for local employees, and most radio programs now come from a "Jock in
> the box" in Cleveland (or wherever). Although radio still require
> local transmitters, the lesson is the same: economies of scale *will*
> doom local TV stations.
> You heard it here first[tm].
Perhaps so. But never underestimate the power of the NAB.
> P.S. This _is_ telecom related: Shannon was right, and Ma Bell's
> bottleneck is _also_ going to go away. It's just a question of when:
> just ask yourself what happens when satellite phones cost as much as
> cell phones.
I submit that video distribution systems are "telecom-related" for
reasons more fundamental than that. IMO (admittedly not unbiased),
the technologies and regulatory policies of video distribution are
valid topics for Telecom Digest - as valid as telephone or VOIP. I
hope you'll agree.
I also wrote:
> AFAIK, no TV station currently streams its signals. But I doubt
> that copyright liability would be any less onerous for TV than it is
> for radio.
Wes Leatherock wrote:
> KFOR, the NBC outlet in Oklahoma City, announces at the beginning of
> every news program "We are streaming our program worldwide."
John Mayson wrote:
> KXAN in Austin offers their nightly newscast as audio and video
> podcasts. But I think the original poster was speaking of streaming
> the regular broadcast schedule, including prime time shows.
That would be me. You're right.
Broadcast stations can stream their newscasts because they own the
copyrights to those newscasts. But they don't own the copyrights to
programming provided by affiliated networks or purchased from
syndicators.
In a later post, Bill Horne wrote:
> However profitable TV stations are, they are also serving as
> middlemen in between the content producers and the public. As I
> said, they are enjoying control of a bottleneck which I think will
> disappear.
> The networks and the syndicators all have access to satellites, and
> every TV distribution system operator does too. Sooner or later,
> those men will realize that the price isn't right anymore: they're
> paying for a local delivery service that they don't need.
> Someone always wants more, and the network brass - never the
> brightest bulbs in the studio, to be sure - will realize that they
> can distribute their programs to something like 80% of their current
> audience without paying local stations "carry" fees. The few viewers
> that they might lose by bypassing local TV stations aren't enough of
> a factor to stop this change, and IMNSHO, local TV will fade away.
That argument ignores the fact that broadcast stations have
preferential access to satellite and cable TV retail distribution
networks.
"Network brass" folks already understand that they can reach
"something like 80% of their current audience" without paying local
stations "carry" (properly known as "compensation") fees. Indeed, if
they distribute their programming directly to cable and satellite
retailers, they can actually *charge* for it instead of paying
compensation.
But they also understand that if they try to bypass local stations and
sell their wares directly to cable and satellite retailers, they lose
their government-mandated access. Their programming becomes just one
more video stream in an already-crowded field. The retailers decide
what programming they carry, not the federal government.
Neal McLain