Comcast-NBC Merger Approved By FCC 268
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."
Yeah baby, way to go Comcast (Score:2, Funny)
Sweet, I cant wait to see the great programs they have to offer
Bill baby, Bill! (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
One step closer to a single outfit controlling^Wsupplying all your media needs.
Re:Awesome. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Hm.. no that's too short and readable by a mere mortal.
There, fixed it for ya..
Re: (Score:3)
Needs work: you should disguise those so they look like government fees and/or taxes....
Re: (Score:3)
You think this is just about media?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck It. (Score:4, Informative)
LMFAO avian protocalls. I've heard of sneakernet but that's funny. +1
Kids these days, don't know nothing [wikipedia.org].
Re:Fuck It. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My campus has its own internal sharing program DTella [dtella.org]. A mashup of DC++ and IRC.
The source code is open, so you should be able to adapt it to any other subnet. I will take my laptop to campus and find a Gigabit ethernet port a few times a week. Makes me feel I'm living in a first world country. I'll can exceed my "Comcast 250GB Limit" in under an hour. Pondering setting up a dark net in my apartment complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Avian protocols?
Revive canine protocols!
bring back Fidonet [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bareback Oboingo is a kenyan.
People like you need to fuck *miles* of off.
Get out of te way! (Score:3, Interesting)
Big business coming through!
React After the Fact (Score:2)
Conflict of Interests (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone was surprised by this? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
predict?
I'd like to HELP accelerate it.
out of work 'entertainment' folks is what I call good old fashioned JUSTICE.
Re:And anyone was surprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumed using credit provided by the ownership class.
At some point, they'll just look to cut out the middle "man" (as in "mankind").
Re: (Score:2)
I think GP was referring to wealth, not consumption. And in that case, he's reasonable accurate to say that the poorest 40% of Americans have a net worth of no more than $0. The average household savings rate has been negative for much of the last 2 decades, so what would be more surprising is if these families weren't running out of money.
Monopolies... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Monopolies... (Score:4, Informative)
big corporate US and the government (fascism)
For the love of all that's holy, that's not what fascism is. Fascism is a political philosophy in which the state is the primary component. In a fascist system, there are no true property rights and business owners can lose everything if they are proscribed by a powerful individual.
Fascism has more in common with communism (they're both totalitarian systems in which the state is the most important element) than collusion between business interests and government. That's more of a mercantilist system.
Re:Monopolies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bother.
They have long sense redefined the term.
Fascism: Anything a liberal doesn't like.
Communism: Anything a conservative doesn't like. See also Socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Mussolini would disagree with you.
Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:5, Informative)
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:
It would seem that I confused the general image he projected with actual promises on some important issues.
Re: (Score:3)
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 he from a major party? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All presidents and other officials are like this. Show me one who promised stuff.
Re:Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least regarding the invasion of Iraq, the "Patriot" Act, etc., you didn't see many Democrats question him much either. At least not publicly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Obama: liar, weak, or naive? (Score:4, Funny)
Considering that he had both a firearm and a red thong and photographed himself with both, he clearly had Republican leanings. And, he'll be leaning over in jail for a long time. With that shaved head, and an extra 100 pounds, he'd be like Cartman come to life.
And we are surprised why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the first name is different too.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
What about the SEC? (Score:2)
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.
Don't worry ! The free market will save us! (Score:2)
Any minute now...
Tum Te Tum.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
a short summary (Score:2)
This is fucking bad !
Fuuuuuuuuu... (Score:2)
Pretty sad (Score:2)
To whome is may concern (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:To whome is may concern (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
NEWSFLASH! FCC makes unilateral decision (Score:2)
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
Can you say "Plutocracy"? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 was a time when . . . (Score:2)
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.
30 Rock was almost right! (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its President Obama's agency heads who have signed off on this.
The President has to be in favor of it.
So why vote Democrat when they are the ones who do this?
Re: (Score:3)
It's both, you pinheads! When are you douchebags going to wise up to the fact that the Democrats AND Republicans are both full of shit, corrupt entities? The right vs. left "fight" is only a diversion to keep you from noticing that the corporations continue to bribe, I mean, lobby their point home with tons of cash for anyone willing to vote their way? You think your vote does anything useful? You're fooling yourself. You think the Tea Party is going to be any different? Good luck, citizens. The corp
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm supporting the d
Re:For the love of Pete ppl... (Score:5, Insightful)
leader of their party...
...appointed the current FCC chairman and is responsible for the D majority of the FCC.
leader of their party...
...is the largest recipient of Hollywood campaign contributions in the history of US politics, and is about to embark on a $1E9+ re-election effort. NBCCOMCA$T? No Problem!
Keep drinking the anti-republican cool-aid, numpty. It's helping a lot. But for wise folk such as you we'd really be messed up. Quick, everyone mod this brilliant mofo way the hell up!
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-republican kool-aid. Anti-democrat kool-aid. Same formula, same factory, same vat. Only the label's different.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Republicans have certain ideological commitments to "free market" (i.e. free for the incumbents) content creation and distribution, the Democrats just get too much in campaign contributions to let this sort of thing fall apart. You'd be better off pushing for public financing of elections, or organizing your friends into a cadre of nutty "patriots" who show up at town hall meetings with rifles and threaten "second amendment remedies" to the problems of media consolidation.
Of course, as long as t
Re: (Score:2)
voting?
how cute. someone who still thinks there is a connection between the will of the people and those in charge.
for your 15th birthday, I'll get you the video game of your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote neither. Either vote third party, or stop voting at all. At least that way your hands are clean of this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
How about stop voting for either?
Re:Who's Pete? (Score:3)
Personally I think both "sides" are bad.
...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!
In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?
...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.
Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:
...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...
But having just The Washington Post opinion really
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my fault, I voted for Kodos.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
"Democrats" and "Republicans" haven't run anything in the United States for at least a few decades.
These terms are only used for betting purposes now. Political power belongs to people for whom limiting terms such as "party" or "ideology" have no meaning.
Today, power is vested with people whose names are not widely known. "Dems" and "Repubs" are little more than handy punching bags that can be blamed for problems so the people in power won't be disturbed.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
My political take on the situation is that Obama is facing criticism that he isn't "business friendly", and the GOP is using this impression to pin the lingering jobs problem on him. For this reason, he has been reluctant to address mergers.
I don't agree with the GOP on the business-friendly issue; for companies have plenty of profits and cash of late. However, in politics, impressions are everything and Obama is facing re-election soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't be an apologist (for him or any other politician). He's a politician and always has been. He'll cave to PACs as quickly as the next guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Only three of the five FCC commissioners can be of the same party - meaning, you only need one democrat and the two republicans to allow something like that.
I have no idea if that's what's happened in this case, though.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
It seems it's not - according to TFA, the decision was approved with 4 - 1 votes. Michael Copps was the only one to vote against. I salute him.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the media confuse you with their hot button left/right bullshit propaganda.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Like that damn liberal Reupert Murdoch
NBC sports (Score:2)
2012 the year of the cable only or PPV olympics then in 2014 EPSN or fox get's them.
I've been wondering for quite a while anyone would watch the Olympics. Are they really that interested in how much the death of the bronze medal winner's great grandmother affected his childhood? I really don't care if Michael Phelp's socks make his feet itch. Personally I hope that they go PPV and nobody pays.
the usa canada games where big in 2010 but nbc f** (Score:2)
the usa canada games where big in 2010 but nbc f*** up game one by having it on MSNBC that very few had in HD (comcast Chicago did not have it) but they had the end of the game on NBC in HD but did not tell any one that it was moved there.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting random sports with no commentary would be much better than what we get now. The worst thing that ever happened to US sports was John Madden.
Re: (Score:2)
NBC is General Electric. They have authority over everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Its okay to say Pigfarker here, we are on the cable internet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
now I will have to get the darn near 80$ a month package to watch ... um ... hm the office or 30Rock? nah that is on hulu,
You mean it was on hulu. Now it will be on comcast.com for Comcast subscribers, or you can pay the $5 an episode at itunes.
Re: (Score:2)