7
What the puck?
I plopped down on the couch yesterday to watch a good ole hockey game, only to discover that it wasn't on because Directv and the Versus network are having a nasty feud. Now, you might not care that I missed my hockey game, but there may be something here to care about.
Unfortunately, Versus is no longer available on DIRECTV. Comcast, the largest cable company in the U.S. and our largest competitor, owns the channel and has forced us to pull it down...
... if we were to accept their unreasonable demands, we would have no choice but to pass on the increase in cost to our valued customers. We do not want this to happen, especially in these difficult economic times. That's why we're standing firm in our negotiations with Comcast.
Directv says Comcast is demanding "outrageous" new programming fees. Comcast says Directv wants to put Versus on a new tier and charge customers more to get it, and that Directv is lying about the rate hike.
Here's why this childish bickering has broader interest: Comcast is a content provider AND a cable company. Let's say Comcast is asking for higher fees. Why wouldn't they? Yes, fewer people are watching Versus right now, but Directv may be losing subscribers over this. And that's a win for Comcast. So what are they more concerned with?
These feuds and conflicting interests may become more uh, universal if Comcast gets majority ownership of NBC Universal. Today, Vivendi shareholders met in France to talk about the possibility of selling their stake.
Comcast already owns several other cable channels besides Versus, including E! and the Golf Channel. If Comcast gets control of NBC Universal, it will have much more content, including Hulu. The end of free TV on the web?
The group, Free Press, is lobbying against the Comcast-NBC Universal deal:
The idea of this mega-merger raises many troubling questions regarding media concentration, competition and the public interest. The union of Comcast and NBC Universal would create a juggernaut large enough to dictate what programming U.S. consumers can watch, and whether independent and diverse viewpoints will be heard on the largest cable systems and on the Internet.
Last week on Marketplace, reporter Jeremy Hobson looked at what this would mean for NBC Universal:
Analyst Laura Martin at Soleil Securities says GE's frugality has been downright harmful to NBC.
Laura Martin: They've been cutting back and doing stupid things like putting Leno in prime time, which has really destroyed a lot of value and angered a lot of advertisers, because they're trying to save money.
If Comcast runs the show, Martin expects NBC will have better programming.
But for some reason, Comcast's cable rival Time Warner is overjoyed that Comcast might get NBC Universal. The CEO's quote:
"We love to see our competitors taking risks," Bewkes said.
I don't know. I don't see a lot of risk, but I can see the potential for more blackouts in my future.
I agree with RGR. I really counldn't care less about this kind of fude because the internet (plus sometimes a Netflix subscripton) provides all the content I have time to consume. NPR podcasts, Hulu.com, Youtube and others add up to a tremendous amount of variety, with minimal comercial interuption (for now, anyway). I really don't understand why anyone pays high cable/satellite bills anymore; any content that is really exceptional will eventually be made available through some other source (except, I suppose, for sports, but even some sports now come out on DVDs).
I've been living through the cable/DirecTV wars for several years in San Diego. The local professional baseball team can only be seen on cable television. Not having cable TV this year was probably a blessing this season as The Padres were truly horrible but not having the option to watch is annoying. Not enough to switch service though.
I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of television as a seperate entity of the internet. Ironically, Comcast could hasten this change, but they're doing it for the wrong reasons.
This is a little troubling because Comcast is building a "Vertical Monopoly" of sorts. Controling production and distribution of entertainment from start to finish. It may even reach "Ma Bell"-like proportions, and we may have to seriously think about setting upper limits to insure health competition.
Myself, I gave up Satellite Television in favor of Cable internet as my primary source of entertainment. I only gave it up when Comcast was allowing you to bundle Digital Phone and Internet. I watched much less TV that I used to and became much more focused in my watching habits.
I can't even remember the last time I watched a show on television. The only reason I have cable internet (through Comcast) is to watch Hulu. If Comcast starts charging an outrageous amount for Hulu (I would pay something small), I won't even need them for internet anymore. A slower, cheaper DSL would work just fine for checking email and downloading podcasts. Granted, I may be in the minority, but there may be others like me that would have no need for any Comcast services should their online video be taken away (or placed out of range by high fees).
