Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses The Media

Comcast-NBC Merger Approved By FCC 268

Posted by timothy
from the gov't-power-concentration-is-fine-though dept.
AndyAndyAndyAndy writes "It seems that the FCC has approved the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC, effectively kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks. Pres. Obama's 2008 goal also goes ignored: 'I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group.' The Dept. of Justice is also onboard, leaving little hope that this will be stopped."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast-NBC Merger Approved By FCC

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sweet, I cant wait to see the great programs they have to offer

    • ...was heard from some exec's top floor corner office.

      think of the lawyer on the simpson's episode who stood up on his desk to do a dance when apu's wife wanted to file for divorce. yes, the guy who looked like the animal who stole her chickens back in india.

      PARTY TIME for our cable overlords.

    • This was modded down, but I couldn't help but smell the faint fumes of sarcasm from the parent's post.
  • Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mirix (1649853) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:38PM (#34922510)

    One step closer to a single outfit controlling^Wsupplying all your media needs.

    • Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:02PM (#34922748) Homepage Journal

      One step closer to a single outfit controlling^Wsupplying all your media needs.

      Along with that, it will be interesting to see what happens when Comcast gets Universal Studios along with NBC. I guess it means they'll start suing their own file-sharing customers -- which they won't even have to subpoena the names for. Maybe you'll even just see a charge on your next bill:

      Comcast High Speed Internet Service: $52.99
      Movie Sharing Fee: $25,000.00
      Total due by Feb 8, 2011: $25,052.99

      Thank you for choosing Comcast!

      • Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Funny)

        by mysidia (191772) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @09:19PM (#34923314)

        Hm.. no that's too short and readable by a mere mortal.

        There, fixed it for ya..

        Movie Sharing Fee: $200
        Surcharge for IP packets received from competitors networks/websites (Qty: 63,250 packets * $0.003): $189.75
        Surcharge for IP packets sent to competitors networks/websites (Qty: 8,260 packets * $0.03): $247.80
        Surcharge for 100 movie uploads (above sharing allowance): $1.50 * 100: $150
        Surcharge for uploading to off-network users ( 200 * $5) : $1000
        Surcharge for downloading files from off-network users ( 200 * $1) : $200
        Surcharge for viewing websites outside partner network (Qty: 5000 page hits * $0.10) : $500
        Surcharge for accepting TCP connection from off-network user (Qty: 768 TCP connections * $0.40) : $307.20
        Surcharge for HTTPS usage (Qty: 1733 connections * $0.02 ): $34.66
        Surcharge for SSH usage (Qty: 15 unique hosts * $2.50): $37.50
        Surcharge for e-mail to out of network e-mail addresses (Qty: 63 * $1.50) : $94.50
        Surcharge for IRC usage (Qty: 6332 msgs sent/received * $0.05): $316.60
        Surcharge for miscellaneous TCP protocol usage (Qty: 566 connection hours * $0.08) : $45.28
        Surcharge for SIP UDP usage (Qty: 1289 SIP INVITES * 0.15) : $193.35
        Music industry partner sharing charge (Qty: 50 MP3s uploaded * $10) : $500
        Music industry partner download charge (Qty: 14 MP3s downloaded * $5) : $70
        Music industry partner internet radio charge (Qty: 50 songs streamed * $1.50) : $75.00
        Disney.com access surcharge (Qty: 45 page views * $1.25): $56.25
        Pandora.com access surcharge (Qty: 36 hours listening * $60): $2,160
        Youtube.com access surcharge (Qty: 90 videos viewed * $2.50) : $225.00
        Youtube.com access surcharge (Qty: 10 videos viewed with NBC content * $25.00) : $250.00
        Youtube.com access surcharge (Qty: 45 videos "liked" * $0.95) : $42.50
        Youtube.com access surcharge (Qty: 45 videos "disliked" * $0.10) : $4.50
        Youtube.com access surcharge (Qty: 15 comments posted * $3) : $45.00
        Facebook.com access surcharge (Qty: 500 page loads * $0.10): $50
        Facebook.com access surcharge (Qty: 220 status updates submitted * $0.15): $33.00
        Google.com access surcharge (Qty: 240 web searches * $0.75): $180
        Twitter.com access surcharge (Qty: 100 tweets submitted * $1.99) : $199.00
        NyTimes.com access surcharge (Qty: 50 page loads * $0.30) : $15.00
        Mortal soul surcharge: $19784.10
        Finance.yahoo.com access surcharge (Qty: 100 stock charts viewed * $0.45) : $5
        Amazon.com access surcharge (flat fee) : $10
        Timewarner.com access surcharge (flat fee): $30

        Total due by Feb 8, 2011: $25,252.99

        Thank you for choosing Comcast!

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      One step closer to a single outfit controlling^Wsupplying all your media needs.

      You think this is just about media?

    • by cosm (1072588)
      I don't have a citation, but from what I've read Comcast has some of the shittiest customer service of them all. You get AOL-Time Warner, Comcast-NBC, I'm sure there are others. As the media producers combine with the new-age distribution channels, we are going to get the corporate internet we all dread. Its coming, and Washington isn't going to do a fucking thing about it.

      Its going to be like AOL all over again, except you will have to pay extra for third party email, third party content. Shit--ISP and b
      • by shentino (1139071)

        The FCC has just been proven to be in bed with the media.

        Do you think for one second they will hesitate to use their spectrum regulating and licensing powers to squeeze out mobile competition like that?

      • Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @01:21AM (#34924486)

        Mesh Networks, Mesh Networks, Mesh Networks, Mesh Networks!

        *sigh*

        If only it were really that simple. Unfortunately, it isn't. Mesh Networks would suffer from quite a few problems trying to create a 2nd Internet with the infrastructure owned and operated entirely by the people.

        1) Density. If every single person had this magical box fully capable of doing everything we wanted it to do in Los Angeles, it would not be able to communicate with everyone doing it in Las Vegas. There are large patches of dead space in which the only way to get across are dedicated pathways, which shockingly, are expensive. The only difference between the Atlantic ocean and Death Valley is the cost of running of the fiber through it. Other than that, they are pretty much the same as far as networking is concerned.

        2) Bandwidth. We better create a Darknet with distribution principles similar to Freenet. Even then, it will be slow. You just can't take for granted edge network delivery, aka, CDN's like Akamai for granted. If Mesh Network nodes are like little leaves, then it will really suck if the whole network is connected together with twigs and branches. You actually need the ISPs here with their fat ass trunks and peering and transit agreements.

        3) Latency. Another thing you are taking for granted, and probably the worst one to be taking for granted. With CDN, I have seen as little as 4 hops to get to Google. Most places you need to get to will be between 10-15 hops, and a good portion of on fiber. Meaning, pulses of light . That 30-70ms latency you have been enjoying is going to get a lot worse with Mesh Networking. It's just Physics. Remember all the little twigs and branches right? Well to get all the way from one end of Los Angeles to the other I am betting you will be going through dozens of wireless nodes. So on top of being limited the biggest pipe for bandwidth along the route, you are going to be enjoying latencies that make most real time stuff like gaming, voip, etc. impossible.

        Every last mile provider sucks ass. They all do because there really is very little competition. But we need the backbone ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, etc. They are the *only* way we currently have to create an actual functioning Internet with the peering and transit agreements that make the whole darn thing work.

        There is *only* ONE way Mesh Networking can succeed. We must have wireless POPs distributed throughout all of the communities that allow those Mesh Network nodes to connect and send traffic through them that they can't reach, which is going to be a lot more than you think.

        Mesh Networks are a pipe dream. If the government can't get together, or won't get together, to stop shit like this NBC-Comcast merger, then we have no hope at all of getting cities to lay down their own fiber and start operating their own wireless POPs for the citizenry.

        Which is really really really fucking sad . We gave easements to the telecom corporations for years with the understanding they would contribute to the community. Not only have the telcos mostly fucked the people, but now they are gouging the crap out of us. We the people own most of the damned land they run their fiber across. When are we going to start to see a payback on all the leeway and incentives we have given those bastards for decades?

        Why is it that when cities start wanting to put down their own fiber the telcos start crying like little bitches and bring out the lawyers?

        The whole thing just reeks of corruption and oppression at this point. The Internet is dying at this point. It will turn into some sort of pathetic shadow of itself. What I predict will happen is that people will go back to Sneakernet style sharing since storage is getting so massive. At that point it would probably be faster and safer anyways. Not only will the bandwidth be expensive, but anything that is not being paid a premium will be throttled down into something not viable for its purpose. Encryption might not be outlawed, but it will certainly be given lower priority because they can't analyze it and figure out if it is competition to them.

  • Fuck It. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:38PM (#34922514) Homepage Journal
    Let's just start making all our own content and distributing it by sneaker net and avian protocols. I'm tired of every single damn decision going towards funneling more funds and freedom (for abuse) to the megacorps. We'll hire Kenyans drinking powerthirst to be the runners for the sneakernet version of gmail.
  • Get out of te way! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aldenissin (976329) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:39PM (#34922520)

    Big business coming through!

  • It seems these kinds of excesses are only dealt with after some severe abuse. Even though the potential for abuse is clear, the regulatory approach always starts with vague promises by corporations with spotty histories and some limited, in scope and duration, conditions with questionable enforcement provisions.
  • by intellitech (1912116) * on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:43PM (#34922568)
    I wouldn't suggest downloading any NBC-related torrents on Comcast.. because you know they'll be watching.

    And, for the record, I don't condone illegal torrents, but I would merely like to point out the large privacy concern this merger presents.
    • by Simon80 (874052)
      There's a (somewhat costly) countermeasure to this, which is to route tracker queries through either https or tor to prevent eavesdropping, and scrape trackers instead of adding your IP address to the swarm (i.e. don't advertise a listen port), to prevent passive monitoring of swarm participants. The cost is that now your client no longer accepts incoming connections, so it can only make outgoing connections. For small torrents or initial seeding, this can be a problem, but for torrents with many peers, the
  • I will not be voting D or R this election. I don't care who it is, but it won't be them (tea party isn't a party).

    I have friends who work at Universal, according to HR, "it is quite an exciting time to be working apart of the NBC Universal family."

    Who wants to predict a big round of layoffs in the entertainment industry pretty soon?

    • predict?

      I'd like to HELP accelerate it.

      out of work 'entertainment' folks is what I call good old fashioned JUSTICE.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:43PM (#34923132) Homepage Journal

      I will not be voting D or R this election.

      What in the world makes you believe that voting means anything? Supposedly, according to the media (and not just the "mainstream media" but ALL media, left-wing, right-wing, blogs, etc) there have been HUGE ideological swings in the parties in power. We've had republicans running everything and democrats running everything but regardless of the rhetoric, the end result is the same. But don't think it's because there are no difference between the parties. No, it's because the parties, the elections, even the government itself is nothing more than the "circuses" part of "bread and circuses". The whole shooting match is nothing but a distraction. Something to make us feel like we're doing something.

      Here you are, puffing out your chest and asserting that "Hell no! I'll not be voting for a Democrat nor a Republican in the next election". And you'll spend time pouring over information, choosing just the right third party or independent candidate who will most closely mirror your worldview. You will march down to the polling place, secure in the belief that you have done some sort of "civic duty". Really, you're passing responsibility from your hands into an invisible system so you can then say "don't blame me, I voted for "X"". The time you spent reading up on the candidates on the issues on the important matters of the day, the time you spent deciding, the time you spent voting will have amounted to nothing. Those in power will not have noticed one bit. It means nothing.

      Polls are taken, published, trumpeted by partisan media. People point and say "See? Most of the country agrees with me!" and it will make you feel as though you are "in the right" that you are connected to something that in some way will effect outcomes. The board of directors at General Electric, at Comcast, are as aware of you, of your dreams, your goals, your complaints, your anger and rage as you are of the bacteria that live in the soil in the dirt in the postage-stamp sized bit of grass in front of your house or apartment.

      When a tiny percentage of the population own virtually everything and forty percent of the population own zero - not one bit of anything why would you think that this "politics" thing, this thing which is done for your entertainment, to keep you amused and engaged like a 2pm game of Bejeweled is actually going to matter to the people in power?

      Geez, I'm a fuckin' ray of sunshine today, ain't I?

      • Well...SOMEBODY has to pay for those big reelection bills, don't they?

        And, no, that's not really a joke...

        The vast amount of politicians (and journalists) look on the public as poor, dumb sheeple who can't make it on their own.

      • by areusche (1297613)
        You know what, I agree with you. Our votes are useless. At least voting gives me an opportunity to say I tried when the system fails and I grab the rifle with my fellow patriot.
  • Monopolies... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Yaa 101 (664725) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:50PM (#34922626) Journal

    It is in the interest of governments to allow monopolies, it is much easier to order 1 big entity to cough up certain needed information or to force them to execute the government plans, than a lot of small entities.

    This revolving door between big corporate US and the government (fascism) is starting to be a real burden on the people, all we have to wait for now is government to draw the wrong cards and finding that in reality their power is more and more subdued by the corporates.

    But then, the people lost already 50 years ago when Ike proclaimed his farewell speech, this is just the final stage of that losing battle.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @07:55PM (#34922666)

    It seems like Obama has betrayed a large fraction of the ideals he stated during his campaign.

    What I'd like to know is, during his campaign, did he...

    (a) Lie about those ideals, never intending to pursue them?

    (b) Tell the truth about what his ideals where, but know he was exaggerating about being able to accomplish all of them?

    (c) Intend to achieve them all, but not realize that he could only chose a handful to push through?

    (d) Once in office (and with access to all classified info), realize that some of his campaign promises were unwise, although he believed them to be wise at the time?

    The answers to these may suggest whether we as citizens need to be more realistic about what's really possible (for example, effective counterintelligence while prosecuting your state torturers), or whether Obama is really just a far worse person than people give him credit for.

    • Well... "c" and "d" imply that he wasn't lying at all, and we know for a fact that all successful politicians lie, so I'll with "b" since the easiest lie to tell is the one that's rooted in truth. For better or worse, nobody keeps all their campaign promises. Though I do think he (and many others) saw the Democratic majority in the house and senate as somewhat of a free pass, underestimating the strength of the obstructors.

      Even if "d" could be a little true, it certainly doesn't hold much water in this case

    • by corbettw (214229) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `wttebroc'> on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:50PM (#34923176) Journal

      You know, you see a lot of false dichotomies these days. But it's not often one gets to see a true, blue false trichotomy. So thank you for that.

      • You know, you see a lot of false dichotomies these days. But it's not often one gets to see a true, blue false trichotomy. So thank you for that.

        I was trying to enumerate all of the plausible explanations I could think of for why Obama failed to fulfill core campaign promises.

        I wasn't trying to provide a logically closed set of alternatives.

    • by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:58PM (#34923216)

      Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?

      Here's a summary of the ones I know of, based on Politifact:

      1) Stimulus package. Passed, and current estimated at having added 3.5M jobs to the economy.
      2) Raise taxes for people making over $250k/year. He ultimately caved rather than let the GOP cut off unemployment checks to millions of people.
      3) Health care reform. Done, though lacking the public option he had touted on the campaign trail. He tried to get it, but ultimately Lieberman and a few others wouldn't budge.
      4) Keep lobbyists out of the system for at least two years from their last job. I don't know how, or if, he ever intended to do that one. Oddly, he mainly talked about it after he was elected. Maybe he just really didn't understand how DC works...
      5) Establish consumer credit safeguards. Done (for credit cards, mortgages, and student loans).
      6) Allow bankruptcy courts to modify predatory mortgages. He tried, but it got voted down in the House. Badly.
      7) Cap and trade. Filibustered to death in the Senate.
      8) Immigration reform. Hasn't really been addressed. The DREAM act was by no means comprehensive reform.
      9) Increase investment in science and technology. Considering he's increased science budgets by around $75 billion over the past two years, I'd say he's stuck by that one.
      10) Repeal DADT. Done.
      11) More transparency in the government. He has stood by that one, just not to the extent that most people on Slashdot want. "More transparency" doesn't mean putting Assange in charge of the NSA. You can now find freely available audits on the use of the stimulus funds, for example. Good luck tracing the TARP money sent out under Bush.
      12) Net Neutrality. Let's be honest. While this is probably the top of Slashdot's agenda, it's likely the bottom of his. He hasn't touched the issue much one way or the other.

      So of the top 12, there are 3 that he hasn't really tried to accomplish: Cutting down on lobbying, reforming immigration, and net neutrality. I'd say telling the truth 75% of the time is remarkably good for a politician, pathetically low as that standard may be.

      • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @09:16PM (#34923290)

        Can you be specific about which ideals he's gone back on?

        Here's a pretty good list: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/ [politifact.com]

        The ones I especially care about are:

        No. 234: A five-day reading period for proposed legislation.

        No. 491: Provide an annual report on "state of our energy future"

        No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

        No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

        No. 525: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year

        Also, from this list: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286 [wnd.com]

        Probably the most important to me is #10: greater government transparency.

        And from John Stewart: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/08/jon-stewart-bashes-obamas-broken-campaign-promises [newsbusters.org] : Closing Gitmo within a year of his campaign promise being made.

        It's also interesting to note the things which I felt he'd promised, but which PolitiFact (which I generally trust) has no record of:

        • An end to warrantless wiretapping by the NSA.
        • Prosecution of CIA torturers.

        It would seem that I confused the general image he projected with actual promises on some important issues.

        • To be honest, quite a few on that list were obviously a wish list with a snowball's chance in hell of coming true (either because of legislative opposition or logistic impossibility):
          * Gitmo cannot close any time soon. We don't know what to do with who's there.
          * An entire bill being debated on C-SPAN from start to finish, where the bill goes beyond someone's birthday being acknowledged.
          * a health plan that includes anything smelling like a national health care system. America isn't ready for it.
          * Prosecutio

    • Is Obama from a major party? That pretty much answers the question: he is a liar.
    • by antdude (79039)

      All presidents and other officials are like this. Show me one who promised stuff.

  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:04PM (#34922768) Homepage Journal
    Really, the Obama Administration has been just a continuation of the Bush Administration. Every time they have had a choice, they have chosen to keep the status quo and to continue to favor large business. This is no exception. The only change we got is in the last name of the POTUS.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Doesn't matter what administration is in power...

      With the job-market $#!tstorm happening all over the country...can't you imagine this scenario going down?

      The Prez: "Yo Big Biz, we're tired of your shenanigans"
      Big Biz: "Well we're just going to take our jobs, money, and intellectual properties elsewhere"

      If Obama lets that happen, then you get headlines like "President refuses to work with businesses; loses millions in revenue, thousands of jobs"

      If he does work with them, then you get "President approves tax

    • by corbettw (214229)

      I so wish I had some mod points to throw your way. Anyone who thinks there's a perceptible difference between Bush and Obama is frankly blinded by partisanship.

      • by maxume (22995)

        One's a formerly drunk Texan. The other is a formerly high Hawaiian with slightly darker skin.

        Is a difference is it not?

        Of course you meant policy, but if you really think they are exactly the same there, I don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise (I do see the parallels in an aggressive strategy in the middle east and in not taking a hilarious hard line with big business though).

    • To be fair, the first name is different too.

      • To be fair, the first name is different too.

        Astute observation, for sure.

        That said, we tend to refer to it as the "(last name) administration" or "(last name) white house". Really the first name is pretty unimportant. :)

    • STOP, PLEASE! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PixelScuba (686633) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @10:10PM (#34923564)
      Downvote this garbage, PLEASE. This is becoming such a tired meme born of cynics who fail to objectively look at the world around them. What the hell did people honestly think was going to happen... that Obama was going to change the world and usher in a utopia to please every libertarian and liberal alike? Jesus people! The president is clearly a moderate and a consensus builder. Despite conservative talking points, there has clearly been a concerted effort to engage conservative and liberal proposals and find something that both find appealing... something lacking the last 8 fucking years! Did we suddenly forget that the previous president stopped engaging other nations, ordered people to be tortured, invaded sovereign nations, passed absolutely NO domestic bills to address any looming problems (healthcare? They had the House/Senate/White House), Guantanamo, lying about weapons of mass destruction, an anti-science agenda actively trying to discredit science findings, ousting CIA agents to discredit them, commuting the sentences administration members who committed crimes, Ordering the NSA to wiretap US civilians... did everyone suddenly get amnesia and forget what the fuck happened during the last 8 years of the Bush administration!?

      Jesus Christ, people... I don't approve of everything the Obama administration does but shut the fuck up, please... this "meet the new boss same as the old boss" bullshit is so grating. Yes, Obama is a politician and does politician things. Yes, the Obama administration has continued some of the Bush era prcatices. But there is no fucking way you can objectively sit there and tell me he is anywhere NEAR the level of fuckup the previous president was... he is a massive improvement.

      Tell you what, come talk to me when Obama knowingly manufactures evidence to start a war with Iran, discredits everyone who knows he's lying, and pardons Timothy Geithner after he leaks classified information to the press... then punches a baby in the face... then we'll talk about how bad Obama is.
      • that Obama was going to change the world and usher in a utopia to please every libertarian and liberal alike?

        I don't think anyone expected that to happen, either immediately or ... ever. But nonetheless we were promised "change", which we have not received.

        there has clearly been a concerted effort to engage conservative and liberal proposals

        If by that you mean there has been an effort to discard all the liberal proposals in the name of "bipartisanship"; then sure.

        Did we suddenly forget that the previous president stopped engaging other nations

        It appears that the countries we intentionally isolate remain intentionally isolated at this time as well.

        ordered people to be tortured

        And yet we are still torturing people...

        invaded sovereign nations

        And yet we are still occupying those sovereign nations...

  • Is Justice the final word on mergers? I thought the SEC and other financial watchdogs had to sign off on mergers like this, and not just the FCC or DOJ.

  • Any minute now...

    Tum Te Tum.

    • Yeah, the free market. We should give that a try sometime, see how it goes. It couldn't be worse than what we have now, which is a market that lives and dies by regulatory capture.

  • Been there . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:15PM (#34922880)
    . . . heard that. Remember when GE made TVs? Remember when they made other TV equipment (post RCA, per-RCA re-aquisition) like TV cameras, too? Remember when they owned Universal Studios, too? Remember when pundits said GE was going to control the airwaves (as they did when they first owned RCA) and the minds of America? Now, who is selling NBC to Comcast?
    • GE/NBC/MSNBC spent tons of money and pundit time getting Obama Elected, so this must be the payback they were looking for, to dump the network and the only company big enough and positioned enough to acquire NBC(Universal) is Comcast.

      The FCC and SEC had to pretty much agree to it, in spite of the objections of people worried about media control. Soon as I saw the proposal, I knew it would go through.

      And people think there is a difference between (R) and (D). Meh

  • This is fucking bad !

  • ...ck. That about sums up my thoughts.
  • Anybody who truly understands the details of what transpired here and who has at least a shred of respect for the truth understand we live in a Kleptocracy.
  • by Rockoon (1252108) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:25PM (#34922970)
    Weren't you one of the slashdot guys telling us how great the FCC would be at regulating the internet?

    We told you that the FCC had no intention of promoting net neutrality, but you didn't fucking listen. The FCC then put forth bullshit neutrality rules that not enforce neutrality.

    Now the FCC is condoning the creation of a real neutrality problem (not just one you fucking imagined.)

    Are you ready to concede, that the FCC should not to be in charge of regulating the internet? ..or do you need the FCC to fuck you over a couple more times before you will listen?
    • by SETIGuy (33768) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:47PM (#34923162) Homepage

      Are you ready to concede, that the FCC should not to be in charge of regulating the internet? ..or do you need the FCC to fuck you over a couple more times before you will listen?

      You are drawing exactly the wrong conclusion. In this case, the FCC is letting Comcast fuck us over. If the FCC is not in charge of regulating the internet, everyone with money and power will be able to fuck us over. At least with net neutrality regulation, they'll at least have to ask the FCC before they do it. It's not the best possible world, but it's better than the one we get without net neutrality.

  • with business concerns in mind but without concern to the citizenry!

    Regulatory Capture of the FCC is kind of a given at this point.

    The Worshipers of the Grand Free Market (except where the tariffs and controls prevent others from competing with the Grand Free Established and Entrenched) are full force and full on in genesis of this decay.

    Sure the FCC makes stupid token actions in terms of the indecency of seeing aging female nipple or any male appendage over the airwaves to keep the proles feeling "protecte

  • I agree with all the posters here that have seen where America is going. It is no longer a multi party democracy. When was the last time Americans had any control of important legislation? Where was the vote on the Health Care Plan that Obama pushed through with his majority vote?

    This country no longer is controlled by the citizens. At least at my state level I can vote on certain state initiatives but I did not get a chance to vote on the Health Care Plan and the Health Care Plan will wind up costing me
  • Obama's 'goals' (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GF678 (1453005) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:51PM (#34923184)

    He might say he "strongly favors" this and that, but it's quite likely his power is much more limited than people realize. He's just one man against an entire bureaucracy with established connections between various groups that aren't going to be particularly willing to budge, no matter what he says. For him to make a difference he would have to put his political career on the line and risk significant retribution from those who don't want the change he's after.

    For this reason I'm not sure whether to blame Obama just yet. Of course, maybe he was just naive in thinking he could conduct change without any personal risk.

    • by GF678 (1453005)

      I wish I understood how moderation works as well, so that I could look-up who marked me as a troll for what is clearly a non-troll comment.

      Then again, you can't make a level-headed comment about anything involving politics before some dumbfuck rages against you.

  • there were rules AGAINST media companies owning one another and cross-media ownership. It seems those days are gone forever. It is very sad that we are allowing so much power to concentrate in so few hands.

  • Who knew that the purchase of NBC by Kabletown was really Comcast! Life imitates art.

    Jack Donaghy would really be mad!

    see
    http://www.kabletown.com/ [kabletown.com]

    see
    http://campuswham.com/umasswham/blog/kabletowncomcast-a-kind-and-generous-company-30-rock/2010/03/11/ [campuswham.com]
    • by EMR (13768)

      Either that or NBC was just buttering up the public the the idea of a cable company owning a tv studio. Which would be even scarier.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Working...