Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comcast Buys Out GE's Remaining 49% Stake In NBC

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-conflict-of-interest-here dept.

Businesses 149

Bob the Super Hamste writes "On Tuesday Comcast announced that it would accelerate its acquisition of NBCUniversal and purchase the remaining 49% owned by GE for $16.7 billion. Previously GE and Comcast were expected to operate NBCUniversal jointly until mid 2014 with Comcast having the option to extend that out until 2018. So far there are not details on when the deal with be completed but the article indicates that Comcast's complete acquisition of NBCUniversal will be completed years earlier that initially thought."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

30 Rock (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884251)

Kabletown

Re:30 Rock (2)

Loliniel (1292928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884799)

This is the end of an era, Lemon. I'm going to go sailing.

Re:30 Rock (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885017)

Transparent dishwashers!

Re:30 Rock (2)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884831)

Nice of Comcast to wait until 30 Rock was over, rather than having them scramble to work "Kabletown buys out NBC" into the script.

Re:30 Rock (1)

nthitz (840462) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885803)

Uhh they already did do that story in an episode.

Re:30 Rock (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886295)

Not only that, but the series finale was Kabletown finally buying out NBC.

Re:30 Rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884879)

The roll the sidewalks up at night, this place goes underground,
thanks to the condo kings, there's cable now in zombie town!

Too much concentrated power (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884257)

These people will become the 'federal government' of the internet.

Re:Too much concentrated power (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884881)

One wonders when or if we'll reach a tipping point where voters realize that overgrown corporations and overgrown governments both can threaten their rights. Especially when they intertwine. Maybe voters will at that point start actually taking back control of regulatory agencies. Crazier things have happened, and revolutions often happen when no one is expecting them.

Re:Too much concentrated power (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884951)

I think we may generally be past that point, however the government and corporations have gotten so intertwined with their political game of twister-fellato, that the public will have a lot of trouble overcoming them merely by voting in a system where they are convinced that a vote other than for a primary party, is a wasted vote.

Re:Too much concentrated power (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885067)

Of course, voting for a non-primary party will in fact be a wasted vote until such time as that party garners enough votes to challenge the primary parties, at which point we'll have three primary parties which are all just as bad as one another, instead of the two we have now which are just as bad as one another.

Re:Too much concentrated power (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885375)

except it cannot get enough votes to challenge the primary parties, unless people start voting for it first.

And, with more primary parties, the 'entry point' to becoming a primary party becomes lower. Hopefully, sooner or later the tide will turn and we can get more than 2 primaries, and have some faster cycling of parties.

catch-22

Re:Too much concentrated power (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885977)

Of course, voting for a non-primary party will in fact be a wasted vote until such time as that party garners enough votes to challenge the primary parties, at which point we'll have three primary parties which are all just as bad as one another

No, we'll have two, just a different two: our electoral system structurally makes it so that a new party being competitive means (and usually follows rather than leads) an existing major party ceasing to be competitive.

Re:Too much concentrated power (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886049)

I strongly disagree. The two party system isn't the cause. It's the cost of campaigning and apathy on the part of the voters that keep corporations winning. Corporations can buy off any number of parties, like they do in plenty of other countries with more than two parties. Voters could easily vote for candidates who would get tough on white collar crime in both parties. They don't simply because they don't care and they get flooded with commercials for pro-corporate candidates.

Re:Too much concentrated power (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885109)

That is why corporations are focusing and concentrating mass media first and foremost. Propaganda is the power of control of the masses. As long as critical mass isn't reached, no one important cares about fringe thinkers understanding the reality. Propaganda will just discredit the thinkers, hide the atrocities committed to them and tell everyone that they have the best place to live in the world.

So to answer your question: most likely never unless some major catastrophe happens that will massively upset the current power structure. The current trend is concentration of power in private hands with little to no oversight of any kind.

Re:Too much concentrated power (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886035)

These people will become the 'federal government' of the internet.

Don't be daft. There's already no difference between a company of that size and "the government".

Re:Too much concentrated power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886229)

What makes you think these two entities will remain separate? See "water empire".

Unprecidented control over US mind-share (5, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884261)

I've been dealing with and reading about Comcast for a long time. This scares me. Already the country has forgotten about the obvious and egregious conflict of interest at the FCC [latimes.com] . Face-palm. Comcast now has unprecedented access to the mind-share of the American public, from pre-production to eyeballs.

Comcast along with other companies like Disney, ClearChannel, etc. are not to be trusted. Be wary, my friends.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884629)

This is absolutely not unprecidented. Ask your parents. This is an attempt to return to the "golden days" of broadcast monopolies/oligarchies.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884851)

It is also sad that they have a monopoly over most of their customer base. They will slowly find ways to eliminate the alternatives that are available on-line to paid cable TV. They will throttle connections, impose more severe data caps etc. and then invent some BS reason for it all so that they aren't hit with an anti-trust law suit.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885105)

then invent some BS reason for it

My bet is that they'll throw the "security" card, as in "The reason we have to restrict our users to our walled garden is to protect against malware and cyberwarfare."

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884963)

If "mind-share" is a real concept then so is video games causing violence. One way or the other, Slashdork hypocrites.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885425)

So, you are saying the ability of people or groups to influence others in arbitrary ways, is linked to the idea of video games influencing individuals in specific ways (specifically to cause violence).

It can just as well be argued, that that video games reduce violence by providing a vicarious outlet for violence, so people don't actually go around doing it for real. Sorry to break your false association/link there.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885641)

So, you are saying the ability of people or groups to intentionally influence others in the mannor of their choosing, is linked to the idea of video games incidentally influencing individuals in one way that is against the will of industry, bad for bussiness and grounds for lots of expensive lawsuits..

It can just as well be argued, that that video games reduce violence by providing a vicarious outlet for violence, so people don't actually go around doing it for real. Sorry to break your false association/link there.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885061)

Comcast along with other companies like Disney, ClearChannel, etc. are not to be trusted. Be wary, my friends.

Nonsense! Comcast is my broadband provider and they've never once stopped me from criticizing them. For example, I've been critical of them in the past for%%NO CARRIER

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885223)

Add Time Warner, a subsidiary of Turner broadcasting (CNN, etc) to the list as well.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885437)

Yeah, TW scares the hell out of me, I know too many people who are stuck with TW since they are in areas with TW monopolies.

Re:Unprecidented control over US mind-share (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885315)

Mars gets it right, too bad it won't be free until 2146.

read "Greenies", by Al Steiner. A 500,000 word political/sci-fi novel that is frighteningly accurate in its depiction of what this planet is turning into.

http://storiesonline.net/s/46291 [storiesonline.net]

(while the author is known for 'erotica' this the story is mostly SFW aside from language/drugs/violence. the site linked-to above, however is NSFW)

goodbye channels (1)

Soron (2515290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884265)

Say goodbye to certain channels on other networks in a few years...

Re:goodbye channels (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884315)

Comcast already killed off what little was left of TechTV on G4. Now it's going to be the "Esquire Channel" is some shit like that. All the good tech shows are online-only now.

Re:goodbye channels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884461)

All the good shows are online-only now.

Fixed that for you.

Okay, I kid - there's the rare Breaking Bad out there, and HBO usually knows their business. But they'll dwindle and disappear as well eventually.

It's what I like to call TV Entropy, and it's what turned the History Channel into Jesus'n Alienz, and SciFi into Wrasslin'.

Re:goodbye channels (2)

JeanCroix (99825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884683)

It's what I like to call TV Entropy, and it's what turned the History Channel into Jesus'n Alienz, and SciFi into Wrasslin'.

Jesus'n Alienz was five years ago. Now the H channel is nothing but truckers, loggers, pawn shops, and "pickers". It actually makes me long for their bygone days of Jesus/Aliens/Nazis.

Re:goodbye channels (1)

what2123 (1116571) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884783)

Yeah H2 is where the Jesus/Aliens/Nazis and if you're lucky, (Modern)Modern Marvels will play. H2 is usually a premium service channel though so you gotta cough up the dough to get it. Not that it's worth it by any means.

Re:goodbye channels (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884813)

How about meeting you halfway with truckers/Aliens/"pickers"/Nazis?

I remember somebody derisively referring to the "Hitler Channel" back in the mid-90s. Seems like those channels have always been half-assed.

Re:goodbye channels (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884889)

Now if they would tweak the Hitler Channel to the Downfall Parody Channel, they'd have something.

Re:goodbye channels (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884905)

What about Discovery and National Geographic. They used to be science based Channels. Now they split their time fairly evenly between ghost hunting, psychic phenomenon, and dog whispering. At least there is still shark week, until it becomes "possessed shark week with with live shark exorcism."

Re:goodbye channels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886269)

You should see what's left of "The 'Learning' Channel" (makes MTV look educational)

Re:goodbye channels (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884589)

All the good tech shows are online-only now

True, perhaps, but is that a problem? For instance, I've been very impressed with the programming from Revision3 [revision3.com] - an online-only "TV" studio whose lineup is heavily aligned with the /. crowd. They even have their own "channel" on Roku devices.

Re:goodbye channels (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884741)

TwiT [twit.tv] has its own full studio now too. I generally prefer it to Revision3 (less all over the map and more consistent in their weekly programming). But the two are closely aligned, so to each his own. I do love me some Techzilla [revision3.com] .

why do you think they call it "programming"?! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885191)

In 'Murica, only old people watch teevee.
And jocks.

Re:goodbye channels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885687)

Rev3 also has a few of the old cast members from TechTV, most notably Patrick Norton from The Screen Savers is now on Techzilla.

Honestly I like having all the tech shows online and free to watch. Beats the hell out of paying for some higher than basic package just for the tech channels.

and that only got on directv was to buy out techtv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884769)

and that only got on directv was to buy out techtv and likely when the deal ran out is when directv dropped them.

Thank god for the internet (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884295)

Pretty soon a handful of companies will own every old media outlet out there. Well, at least we still have the internet.

My ISP? Oh, it's Comcas.....oh shit.

Re:Thank god for the internet (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884635)

And I really really hope I get to see them collapse under their own weight & finally get some decent service from the multitude of new comers that step in to take their place.

Re:Thank god for the internet (1)

bjwest (14070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885161)

Kind of like when AT&T collapsed under it's own weight in the 70's? Wait, our government stepped in and fixed that. Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now. I doubt we'll see anything like that again.

Re:Thank god for the internet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885251)

Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now.
 
You can't buy what isn't for sale. When are people going to face the fact that the government's elite are taking in just as much as the corporations and finally set it straight?

Re:Thank god for the internet (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885503)

Too bad our government is owned by the mega corporations now.

You can't buy what isn't for sale. When are people going to face the fact that the government's elite are taking in just as much as the corporations and finally set it straight?

Well, see, I punched the button on the voting machine for "no corruption" and it read back THANK YOU FOR VOTING FOR CORRUPTION HAVE A NICE DAY.

Re:Thank god for the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885301)

collapse under their own weight

Too big to fail. We can't just let the internets break!

Re:Thank god for the internet (2)

c (8461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884653)

Pretty soon a handful of companies will own every old media outlet out there.

Just think of how much more efficient if will be when you only need to direct your rage and hatred at a handful of companies.

Re:Thank god for the internet (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884775)

Just think of how much more efficient if will be when you only need to direct your rage and hatred at a handful of companies.

Hell, I already do that now with MS, Sony, and Apple.

Control == Profit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884297)

Controlling the content creation, performances and delivery of the content is very profitable.

Over the Air Broadcasts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884305)

Does this mean no more over the air broadcast for NBC affiliate channels?

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884547)

Even Comcast doesn't have the balls to kill off the affiliate system. That ancient system would probably survive a nuclear holocaust.

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? (1)

2phar (137027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884601)

The broadcast radio spectrum is supposed to be a public resource, but Comcast probably see it as just another transport for their proprietary data. Expect the bought-and-paid-for FCC to make another attempt at the broadcast flag [wikipedia.org] or worse in the near future.

Re:Over the Air Broadcasts? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884913)

for that to work they would need to kill all old equipment and sdr (software defined radio) broadcasting tv and radio from terrestrial transmitters must, by law, be unencrypted with exemptions made for cellular telephone systems

Vertical Integration (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884313)

Jack:The only thing I will be discussing with the House Subcommittee on Baseball, Quiz Shows, Terrorism, and Media is vertical integration.
  Liz:What's vertical integration?
  Jack:Imagine that your favourite corn chip manufacturer also owned the number one diarrhea medication.
    Liz: That'd be great cuz then they could put a little sample of the medication in each bag.
  Jack:Keep thinking.
  Liz:Except then they might be tempted to make the corn chips GIVE you...
  Jack:Vertical integration.

Re:Vertical Integration (2)

crazyvas (853396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886371)

Jack:Imagine that your favourite corn chip manufacturer also owned the number one diarrhea medication.

Shouldn't that be number two?

Fuck Comcast (4, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884331)

Largest military industrial complex member sells propaganda wing to oligopoly softcore porn distributor.

Re:Fuck Comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884539)

Largest military industrial complex member sells propaganda wing to oligopoly softcore porn distributor.

^This. QFT.

Re:Fuck Comcast (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884611)

That'd make for some hilarious jokes in a TV sitcom, if it weren't also so very sad.

Re:Fuck Comcast (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884637)

30 Rock would have run with it.

Re:Fuck Comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885465)

30 Rock would have run with it.

CABLETOWN!!

GE doesn't make weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885355)

General Electric does not make weapons, and should not be counted as part of the military industrial complex. GE makes steam turbines, locomotives, medical equipment, wind turbines, jet engines, yes for fighter jets, but for civilian aircraft too, they had (have?) a major banking operation and GE made some other stuff also.

Military industrial complex would be Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins, etc.

Re:GE doesn't make weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885539)

Now don't get in the OP's way... probably an Alex Jones fan too.

Re:GE doesn't make weapons (1)

chihowa (366380) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885953)

What? GE makes lots of weapons. They had a big stake in nuke manufacture. They also make a lot of the gatling guns in service, like the M134 [wikipedia.org] and the big gun on the A-10 [slashdot.org] . I wouldn't say they're the largest member of the military industrial complex, but they're in the club. Anyway, making engines for warplanes is just as important as making guns for them.

Re:GE doesn't make weapons (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886695)

Anyway, making engines for warplanes is just as important as making guns for them

Which, in the grand scheme of things, means it’s not important.

GE is massive. GE does not bother breaking out it’s government defense contracts which means it accounts for only a thin slice of it’s income. It’s ancillary to GE core business. They make jet engines – extending it the military is easy. This is unlike Boeing, which is much more reliant of military contracts to fund it’s R&D.

They also make a lot of the gatling guns in service, like the M134

The wiki article uses the past tense when talking about GE.

This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884597)

Comcast to make it so NBC flickers in and out every five minutes, so that their TV users won't have an advantage over their internet ones.

Aren't there rules against this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884615)

Should the company that owns the "pipes" also be able to own the content streaming through those pipes? Shouldn't the antitrust people be stopping this? An example of a negative: NBC channels could be given lower channel numbers than the competition making it more likely that people watch those while channel surfing. Also, Comcast has a kind of monopoly as it is.

Re:Aren't there rules against this? (2)

arekin (2605525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884911)

Comcast has a kind of monopoly as it is.

"A monopoly (from Greek monos (alone or single) + polein (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)." Technically Comcast is part of an oligopoly at best. Their is direct competition in Comcast markets with AT&T, Dish, Direct TV, Fios, and in some areas such as Those in Michigan, a competing cable provider like WOW (http://www.wowway.com/). With the number of providers available it is hard to really even claim oligopoly. People go after cable franchising as monopolistic (if that's even a word), and with good reason, it would be if that was the only means by which to provide these services. It's not.

Re:Aren't there rules against this? (2)

LunaticTippy (872397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886389)

That isn't true for everyone. I know a lot of people who only have one option. If my line of sight was blocked I'd have exactly one potential tv provider, and blocked line of sight is common in my area. For internet, I have precisely two choices: The cable monopoly and the bastard step-grandpa of US West, whoever they are this year. CenturyLink (had to look it up)

Plain internet is $50 and up, and I am envious of people I know who live somewhere with competition.

I have one choice for tv, one choice for a landline, and two choices for internet which both conveniently charge the same inflated price. That is close enough to a monopoly to give them monopoly pricing on most of their services.

Capitalism ends with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884655)

one company owning everything...

Re:Capitalism ends with... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884811)

one company owning everything...

The Phone Company (TPC)?

Re:Capitalism ends with... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885381)

one company owning everything...

The Phone Company (TPC)?

ding ding ding!
I deduct that you are Dr Johhny Fever [wikipedia.org] !
You owe me a coke!

Re:Capitalism ends with... (3, Insightful)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884933)

How about a new name at least? I vote for "Weylan-Yutani."

Maybe we will see another breakup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884681)

The federal government has broken up monopolies before. In the 1980s, AT&T was forced to breakup into what were at the time known as the baby bells.

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886085)

In the 1980s, AT&T was forced to breakup into what were at the time known as the baby bells.

Which spent the 1990s-2000s buying each other up, including the biggest of them buying AT&T and taking its name.

Re:Maybe we will see another breakup (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886225)

Except the federal government is owned by this monopoly.

ISP breakup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884729)

Maybe we will see another government mandated breakup similar to the telco breakup of the 80s.

Syfy Channel Impact (5, Interesting)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42884943)

Syfy is owned by NBC, and Comcast has already made changes there.

Syfy's Eureka series debuted in 2006. I was never a big fan, but it looked like it had promise, gained a following and did well. They'd throw out occasional references to things like the LHC and CERN, had Joe Morton (who played Miles Dyson in Terminator 2) as a regular character, and even brought in our buddy (and by that I mean he reads and posts [slashdot.org] on Slashdot) Wil Wheaton toward the end.

Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC in January 2011. By August, Eureka was cancelled. The show had good ratings, good viewership, and was considered "the golden child" of Syfy, but Comcast killed it [wikipedia.org] because it was not profitable enough. It wasn't losing money, but Comcast decided that if you have to spend money on special effects to sell the show to viewers, there are lots of cheaper, more profitable ways to get viewers' attention.

With Comcast poised to take full control of NBC sooner, expect more of the shows that drive Syfy's viewership to be cancelled in the next couple of years, and if they take it far enough eventually Syfy may go away.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (1)

Jintsui (2759005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885027)

One of the three reasons I have kept my Comcast cable was Syfy. If they change it much more, that will certainly make me cancel.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885069)

And nothing of value will be lost. Where will you get your fill of badly-made-for-cable weather disaster movies when SyFy is gone?

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (4, Insightful)

Hes Nikke (237581) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885323)

Face it: the Sci-Fi channel has been a rotting corpse ever since they mutiliated the name.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (3, Interesting)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885445)

Earlier than that. Unless there's some sci-fi aspect of wrestling that I'm unaware of.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885493)

Well, both are base upon fiction.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885569)

zing!

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885427)

I'm not a big Eureka fan, but Will was great playing a smug asshole.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885603)

Syfy won't go away. It'll just become the next SpikeTv....call it....AXE Tv.

Spike used to be TNN. TNN used to be The Nashvile Network. As they started showing less and less country/Nashville related programming, fewer outdoors shows, they started just going by the acronym more and more. Til people nearly forgot what TNN even stood for. Eventually, they just dropped even that, and now we have SpikeTV whos main claim to fame seems to be the 1000 Ways to Die show.

Or we could make the comparison to the lifecycle of everyones favorite computer/nerd channel....TechTv, now G$ I mean G4.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885771)

Sci-Fi went away long ago. When they changed the name to SyFy they made it clear that it was to detach the channel from it's association with science fiction.

Honestly I don't understand how someone can be so fucking retarded about their own model. They seem to want every single channel to have the highest ratings, but that's a paradox in and of itself. If you can't figure out why that's a paradox then you would do really well in their company.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886347)

I think the reason is that you can't trademark Sci-Fi.

Re:Syfy Channel Impact (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886051)

Syfy is owned by NBC, and Comcast has already made changes there.

Syfy's Eureka series debuted in 2006. I was never a big fan, but it looked like it had promise, gained a following and did well. They'd throw out occasional references to things like the LHC and CERN, had Joe Morton (who played Miles Dyson in Terminator 2) as a regular character, and even brought in our buddy (and by that I mean he reads and posts [slashdot.org] on Slashdot) Wil Wheaton toward the end.

Comcast purchased a majority stake in NBC in January 2011. By August, Eureka was cancelled. The show had good ratings, good viewership, and was considered "the golden child" of Syfy, but Comcast killed it [wikipedia.org] because it was not profitable enough. It wasn't losing money, but Comcast decided that if you have to spend money on special effects to sell the show to viewers, there are lots of cheaper, more profitable ways to get viewers' attention.

With Comcast poised to take full control of NBC sooner, expect more of the shows that drive Syfy's viewership to be cancelled in the next couple of years, and if they take it far enough eventually Syfy may go away.

I miss the days of MST3K, Farscape, BSG and Star Trek reruns on Sci Fi. I'd settle for SG1 and Dr. Who. But hey, aspiring actors need low budget, low quality movies to build a career, right?

Failzor4s!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884989)

a BSD box that Schemes. Frankly sales 4nd so on,

INCOMING!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42884993)

Price increase!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:INCOMING!!!! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885895)

ja [philly.com] ...

Network (1)

mill3d (1647417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885495)

That 40 year old movie predicted this problem spot on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8 [youtube.com]

Re:Network (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886271)

Well, I'm certainly mad as hell.

I wish ghosts were real (0)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886009)

We really need Teddy Rosevelt to come back and bust all these greedy bastards that for all practical purposes are trusts.

Re:I wish ghosts were real (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886193)

"I will bust you like Zombie Roosevelt manhandling a Brain Trust."

Re:I wish ghosts were real (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886363)

Your are expecting a Republican to come out for anti-business measures?

Anyhoo, T.R. was probably the most progressive American President in the 20th century, trumping even his evil cousin F.D.R.

Where is progressivism when you need it?

-AC

Content viewing limitations (3, Funny)

DewDude (537374) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886069)

You can watch all the NBC you want; but after 250 hours your viewing will be reduced to MSNBC.

Comcast plans rate hikes to pay for this (1)

HWguy (147772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886557)

So not only will they reduce the quality and variety of TV programming, they'll make you pay for it.

"Comcast executives warned analysts in the call that TV programming costs could increase in the "low double digits" in 2013 -- inflation that likely will passed to Comcast's TV customers -- after increasing about 7 percent in 2012."

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201302131211KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_2063_22042-1&params=timestamp%7C%7C02/13/2013%2012:11%20PM%20ET%7C%7Cheadline%7C%7CComcast%3A%20Rate%20hike%20likely%20to%20pay%20for%20programming%20%5BThe%20Philadelphia%20Inquirer%5D%7C%7CdocSource%7C%7CMcClatchy-Tribune%7C%7Cprovider%7C%7CACQUIREMEDIA%7C%7Cbridgesymbol%7C%7CUS;CMCSA&ticker=CMCSA

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?