VIDEO: Roberts & Immelt Talk To CNBC

COMMENTS (12)

• NBCU was never a perfect fit with GE and less so today. The deal makes sense to GE, Comcast and consumers. Why consumers? With comcast being able to control original content, that original content can be monetized resulting in funding for more content. The “everything is free” Internet is not good for anyone long term. Immelt’s comments about the value of content is dead on. I don’t foresee lots of layoffs since not a big overlap. Comcast wants to run with NBCU and make it more successful.

  Comment by sp — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 9:08am PST  Reply to this post

• Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….bottom line? Immelt is has a 666 carved into the back of his scalp and Comcast was in trouble. So Comcast decided to do a deal with the devil. Google the GE/Immelt decision to sell GE products to our enemies. I don’t trust him and now I don’t trust Comcast.

  Comment by tp — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 9:38am PST  Reply to this post

• This is garbage for consumers. Look to Comcast’s dealing with Directv over something as paltry as VS. for an indication of where this is headed.

  FCC should slap this down on the grounds that Comcast can barely perform competently in the business it’s already in. They hold desired content/channel providers and their customers hostage as SOP, downgrade the paltry HD offerings they have and still charge a premium for the priveledge and can barely provide their normal content at acceptable quality, and I haven’t even touched on their abysmal customer service record or hostile to consumers internet business plan.

  This is a giant pool of vomit.

  Comment by Joe — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 10:22am PST  Reply to this post

• Where is the Great and Powerful Zucker?

  Comment by Alyx — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 11:04am PST  Reply to this post

• This is the opposite of good for consumers, that would be BAD for those keeping score. It’s allowing the media landscape to be dominated by single players, about as healthy for an economy (remember too big to fail?) as having one store to shop in (Walmart would LOVE that!). Or having movie producers OWN the movie theaters. Well they finally got rid of that and prices have continued to go up and up while less people go to movie theaters every year.
  The consolidation of media power is not good for consumers in any way, shape or form. The Government is forced to operate with three levels of checks and balances. In the media haunted house being built there are no checks and balances. Pay Comcast for your phone, for you internet, for your programming for your mobile access. If you don’t like it, then don’t watch TV or use the internet. The Entity will decide what gets produced, what gets the best access to the ‘pipes’ what is advertised. Next up they want to charge tiers for access to high speed internet, imagine that! You use the Comast Pay Per View or pay three times as much. Bit by bit choice is dying and we are handing over the media keys to monolithic entities who don’t even have competition across access/development or distribution because they have bought (leveraged) there way into being dominant. Not because of great abilities or service or wonderful products. Mostly because consumers have so little choice.

  Comment by Mark — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 11:12am PST  Reply to this post

  • Sorry, I should have clarified. Good news for the consumers tired of seeing all the reality shows and other crap on tv. Comcast’s acquisition of NBCU assets won’t allow it to dominate anything, just the original content it will now own. If comcast goes on a buying spree and buys others, then that could be a problem. But there’s plenty of competition amoung the content creators, who are now all competing with (if you can all it that) the “everything is free” internet and other media platforms.

    Comment by sp — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 5:46pm PST  Reply to this post

• We’ve been through this before. Comcast will not take over the world.

  Time Warner Cable was just spun out of Time Warner b/c it doesn’t make sense to combine content and distribution assets. The companies are more successful apart.

  Even in a case like Cablevision (where they have Rainbow cable assets) the companies have to basically be run as separate entities for it to work, and conduct arms length negotiations on any inter-company deals. Cablevision pays Rainbow more for its carriage than other cable providers do.

  Over/under on Comcast selling this whole thing off is 5 years.

  Comment by Calm down mark — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 2:14pm PST  Reply to this post

• Too big to fail? If Comcast were on the brink of failure, I don’t think there’d be a “run on” the movie theater. Content can’t be too big to fail. Plus, value can evaporate, but hard assets don’t just disappear, i.e. fiber optic lines, IP, etc. FCC will approve.

  Comment by SK — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 5:15pm PST  Reply to this post

  • The issue isn’t a run on assets per se. What I meant in the comparison is that we are allowing corporations that are so big they resist market forces to the point that they control the market. They end up dictating the market and any notion of a ‘free market’ goes POOF. They will own everything they need to dictate what consumers are offered. They can execute tremendous power over what is developed, what is produced and what sees the light of day and at what cost. They are trying to gain leverage over the still fairly open internet realm. We know they want to price high speed by amount of data. This will be the next step as they will continue to cut out competing formats and players. Consumers will pay more to get pay-per view via iTunes that what Comcast offers.
    Think of it this way – if you drive on a street to shop at Ralphs what happens when Vons owns the street and charges you $25.00 to use it unless you drive and shop at Ralphs?

    Comment by MarkF — Friday December 4, 2009 @ 7:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• Considering that News Corp. sold off their interest in DirecTV and Time Warner is spinning off Time Warner Cable, I’m curious on why Comcast thinks this is a good idea.

  I also wonder if investors rejected Comcast taking over the Walt Disney Company, which is massively successful, why would they go for NBC Universal, which is kinda failing asides from it’s cable networks.

  Comment by Jesse — Thursday December 3, 2009 @ 6:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Just to be clear, News Corp didn’t sell off Direct TV so much as it switched it’s share in that company with Liberty Media’s shares in News Corp to get rid John Malone, who had a seat on the News Corp board and had been a thorn in Rupert’s side…..

  Comment by SlyFox — Friday December 4, 2009 @ 10:09am PST  Reply to this post

  • But if combining content creators with content distributors like Time Warner/Time Warner Cable and News Corp./DirecTV was as crucial as Comcast makes it out to be, News Corp. could have just bought Malone’s shares or traded another asset(s) (like MySpace, HarperCollins, IGN, etc.) for the shares.

    Not only that, but I still raise the point again that if Comcast investors were heavily opposed to the takeover of the Walt Disney Company which has the far more successful ABC, the more successful Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, a stronger cable line-up, a more successful theme park franchise, the Disney Music Group, and much more; what would make them approve of NBC Universal which has far less content (no music, smaller film library, smaller television presence, etc), a failing television studio, a film studio that has been plagued with box office disappointment, a smaller theme park chain, and inept leadership which will remain intact?

    Comment by Jesse — Friday December 4, 2009 @ 8:40pm PST  Reply to this post