• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

FCC Approves NBC/Comcast Merger

KeithE4 said:
If that's the case, then rather than NBC (and the other networks) having affiliates in each market, they could just be a syndicator, contracting with local stations on a program-by-program basis and selling to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

It's a whole lot easier and more efficient to have affiliates under contract than going after stations piecemeal, one by one. It's very time intensive to handle all that. Comcast deals with self-contained channels in its cable business. NBC network is another channel for them. And its a well known brand, promoted localluy by the affiliates. They don't have that with Comcast. They have already begun taking first run shows and re-running them at different times on Bravo or other cable channels. I'd expect to see more of that. Maybe a late feed of NBC Nightly News on MSNBC or CNBC.
 
bpatrick said:
If Comcast converts NBC to a cable network, I'm looking for the biggest bunch of affiliate switches since the '90s. Consider some of the possibilities: ABC moving from WOLO to WIS in Columbia, SC; ABC from WXLV to WXII in Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point; CBS from WKMG to WESH in Orlando; ABC from WGNO to WDSU in New Orleans. Speculation, of course, but don't think ABC, CBS, and Fox wouldn't be looking to upgrade themselves where they're weak now.
Click to expand...

I think Comcast will hold off on the idea to convert NBC to a cable network, outright, atleast so soon. However, I could see more content produced by them going to the owned cable networks over NBC broadcast. NBC broadcast will still have its signature shows: Today, NBC Nightly News, Leno, SNL, but the better prime-time content could shift to the cable networks.

Much like how NewsCorp handles Fox and FX, with more and more acclaimed programming going to FX. NewsCorp could have just put the higher quality content on Fox.

Affiliate switches maybe likely though, and we might see it some smaller and mid-size markets before any of the top 10 or 15 markets.

In Monterey-Salinas, Hearst picked up ABC for the subchannel on KSBW (NBC). It wouldn't surprise me to see ABC going to the primary channel, NBC to the subchannel - and then eventually, Comcast agreeing and deciding to run and operate the NBC station (as they would own the cable system and the NBC rights). Comcast would be required to offer it to DirecTV and Dish. Hopefully they'd also let the OTA only audience still able to get NBC on a subchannel (if on another station's bandwith).

The FCC conditions seem to appease other providers, but it's legit for Comcast to screw the OTA only audience (and the numbers in the small markets may show that Comcast could make more revenue not having NBC on OTA but having it subscription only). However, the networks technically can do that now - ABC chose to not to affiliate with any of the smaller low power operators in Monterey Salinas DMA and was not available OTA in the region for years (after KNTV lost ABC).
 
ding12 said:
NBC broadcast will still have its signature shows Today, NBC Nightly News, Leno, SNL but the better dramas and comedies moving to cable networks.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. A bad night on NBC is still better than a good night on most of all other cable channels except for Lifetime. I think network competition will require them to keep up a certain level of quality or they'll lose affiliates.
 
TheBigA said:
ding12 said:
NBC broadcast will still have its signature shows Today, NBC Nightly News, Leno, SNL but the better dramas and comedies moving to cable networks.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. A bad night on NBC is still better than a good night on most of all other cable channels except for Lifetime. I think network competition will require them to keep up a certain level of quality or they'll lose affiliates.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but Comcast may decide it's ok to lose affiliates, for the benefit that their owned cable networks can command more value.

It somewhat akin to Comcast's calculated decision of withholding CSN Philly from Dish Network and DirecTV for so long. Comcast realized that potential advertising revenue from CSN Philly was hurt by having less exposure (less TV homes), as well as less subscription revenue from CSN not having DirecTV/Dish customers, but the Comcast systems in the region fared off better with less churn by customers switching to DirecTV or Dish.
 
ding12 said:
Agreed, but Comcast may decide it's ok to lose affiliates, for the benefit that their owned cable networks can command more value.
Click to expand...

It's not the way these bigger companies operate when they merge in a new company. A good example is Time Warner. It would have made a lot of sense for them to run the whole conglomerate as one company, but they don't do that. Each division has its own Chairman and is run very independently. When they owned a record label, artists on Warner Brothers received no favors from HBO or Time magazine. So I expect this to be the same. The bonuses for each division chief will be based on their division's growth, so the head of network TV will be very protective of his affiliates and his content.
 
Cable is a monopoly in most places. A monopoly means one.

Dish and VIOS type delivery services don't alter that.

A car and a motorcycle as well as subway can get you from point A to point B but they aren't substitutes for each other.

DISH and VIOS type delivery services are not substitutes for cable.

I live in Chicago and cannot get DISH or U-Verse in my flat, but I can get cable.

To NOT be a monopoly Comcast would have to have other companies with the SAME delivery methods.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I can go on a torrent site and illegally download all the cable content I want, but that doesn't mean it destroys a monopoly.

This is why cable is a utility in most places. This is why we have utility boards to oversee monopolies.

What we need is a break up of cable like AT&T was broken up. And now we have former lines owned by AT&T that can be used by any phone company.

We need to break up the cable so that anyone with enough capital can use the exisiting cable line to provided delivered content over the lines.

The thing is free market is best, but it only works in a TRUE free market.

Even over the air TV isn't free market. Free market means anyone with enough capital can go into that business. But TV by nature only has a limited amount of bandwidth or channels per city or market. And once those are gone, that is that.

So absent a true free market SOME sort of governmental oversight is needed. Now how MUCH oversight is a matter for debate.

Now you also have "effective monopolies." This means they are not by defintion a monopoly but are so huge they effectively control the market. Google and eBay are examples of this.

Be no true defination of monopoly do Google and eBay qualify but their respective market shares in the search engine and online auction are so large they effectively control it. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be challanged, just that it would take a lot of capital and nous to do it.

And until such time they remain for all purposes a monopoly, though not a true monopoly but an effective one.

I think that using affiliates to deliver network (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW) is no longer the best way to do this.

I think our spectrum right now is a mess due to the digital TV conversion. It would be interesting to see someone like TRIP who knows about this, come up with a plan to maximize the number of OTA allocations in each market.

Obviously political considerations would work against pure maximization. For instance, Baltimore and DC could easily be combined freeing up at least five channels (no need for duplicate ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, MYNetwork) affiliates but for poltical reasons the markets would have to remain seperate
 
Mark said:
What we need is a break up of cable like AT&T was broken up. And now we have former lines owned by AT&T that can be used by any phone company.
Click to expand...

Although AT&T was once broken up, recent mergers have allowed it to mostly come back together as a national and even international player. Sure they have a couple competitors, but the marketplace is very different. Certainly in terms of cellular service, AT&T is the same company it was before the break-up. And the fact that the government has allowed cable companies over the years to change their business and add new services, like phone and internet services, means they aren't strictly cable companies. And as I said in my previous post, how they run them will determine if they are or are not a monopoly.
 
Mark said:
Cable is a monopoly in most places. A monopoly means one.

Dish and VIOS type delivery services don't alter that.

A car and a motorcycle as well as subway can get you from point A to point B but they aren't substitutes for each other.

DISH and VIOS type delivery services are not substitutes for cable.

I live in Chicago and cannot get DISH or U-Verse in my flat, but I can get cable.

To NOT be a monopoly Comcast would have to have other companies with the SAME delivery methods.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I can go on a torrent site and illegally download all the cable content I want, but that doesn't mean it destroys a monopoly.

This is why cable is a utility in most places. This is why we have utility boards to oversee monopolies.

What we need is a break up of cable like AT&T was broken up. And now we have former lines owned by AT&T that can be used by any phone company.

We need to break up the cable so that anyone with enough capital can use the exisiting cable line to provided delivered content over the lines.

The thing is free market is best, but it only works in a TRUE free market.

Even over the air TV isn't free market. Free market means anyone with enough capital can go into that business. But TV by nature only has a limited amount of bandwidth or channels per city or market. And once those are gone, that is that.

So absent a true free market SOME sort of governmental oversight is needed. Now how MUCH oversight is a matter for debate.

Now you also have "effective monopolies." This means they are not by defintion a monopoly but are so huge they effectively control the market. Google and eBay are examples of this.

Be no true defination of monopoly do Google and eBay qualify but their respective market shares in the search engine and online auction are so large they effectively control it. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be challanged, just that it would take a lot of capital and nous to do it.

And until such time they remain for all purposes a monopoly, though not a true monopoly but an effective one.

I think that using affiliates to deliver network (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW) is no longer the best way to do this.

I think our spectrum right now is a mess due to the digital TV conversion. It would be interesting to see someone like TRIP who knows about this, come up with a plan to maximize the number of OTA allocations in each market.

Obviously political considerations would work against pure maximization. For instance, Baltimore and DC could easily be combined freeing up at least five channels (no need for duplicate ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, MYNetwork) affiliates but for poltical reasons the markets would have to remain seperate
Click to expand...
VIOS? Do you mean FiOS? Where FiOS competes with Comcast, it is like having 2 cable companies and 2 phone companies. Comcast want to sell you phone and Verizon wants to sell you cable TV and both want to sell internet. You can get your triple play from one or another. I just switched from Xfinity to FiOS. I get Comcast SportsNet Philly and Comcast Network Philly on my Verizon cable TV.
 
Mark said:
Cable is a monopoly in most places. A monopoly means one.

Dish and VIOS type delivery services don't alter that.

A car and a motorcycle as well as subway can get you from point A to point B but they aren't substitutes for each other.

DISH and VIOS type delivery services are not substitutes for cable.

I live in Chicago and cannot get DISH or U-Verse in my flat, but I can get cable.

To NOT be a monopoly Comcast would have to have other companies with the SAME delivery methods.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I can go on a torrent site and illegally download all the cable content I want, but that doesn't mean it destroys a monopoly.

This is why cable is a utility in most places. This is why we have utility boards to oversee monopolies.

What we need is a break up of cable like AT&T was broken up. And now we have former lines owned by AT&T that can be used by any phone company.

We need to break up the cable so that anyone with enough capital can use the exisiting cable line to provided delivered content over the lines.

The thing is free market is best, but it only works in a TRUE free market.

Even over the air TV isn't free market. Free market means anyone with enough capital can go into that business. But TV by nature only has a limited amount of bandwidth or channels per city or market. And once those are gone, that is that.

So absent a true free market SOME sort of governmental oversight is needed. Now how MUCH oversight is a matter for debate.

Now you also have "effective monopolies." This means they are not by defintion a monopoly but are so huge they effectively control the market. Google and eBay are examples of this.

Be no true defination of monopoly do Google and eBay qualify but their respective market shares in the search engine and online auction are so large they effectively control it. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be challanged, just that it would take a lot of capital and nous to do it.

And until such time they remain for all purposes a monopoly, though not a true monopoly but an effective one.

I think that using affiliates to deliver network (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW) is no longer the best way to do this.

I think our spectrum right now is a mess due to the digital TV conversion. It would be interesting to see someone like TRIP who knows about this, come up with a plan to maximize the number of OTA allocations in each market.

Obviously political considerations would work against pure maximization. For instance, Baltimore and DC could easily be combined freeing up at least five channels (no need for duplicate ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, MYNetwork) affiliates but for poltical reasons the markets would have to remain seperate
Click to expand...

Just remember, if you break up Comcast, what you will end up with is less service for more money. Yes, people like to beat up on giant evil cable companies, but coming from a community with a small (once independent) cable company, I can tell you that it has it's disadvantages. For one, they aren't able to leverage programming contracts like Comcast is, so they end up paying more for programming. They also aren't able to leverage other things, like equipment. When our small independent cable company was bought by Mediacom a few years ago, they were able to add 20 channels to the basic lineup, add digital, phone, and internet, and also (later) add HD. When I moved into a Comcast area, for around the same price, I got faster internet, more channels, and even more HD channels.

Just food for thought.
 
TheBigA said:
stationless listener said:
The IOC should be breathing a sigh of relief, even though many of us weren't particularly wowed by the coverage of the last Winter Olympics, because now they don't have to face the specter of sharp cuts in rights fees for future Games.
Click to expand...

Really? I think the opposite. NBC has been losing money with the Olympics. Comcast doesn't like to lose money. I predict that NBC will not bid again for the Olympics, and it'll end up on ESPN...for a lower rights fee.
Click to expand...

I think I may have to give you that one, if the articles that came out yesterday offer any clues as to what Comcast has in mind, vis-a-vis, future Olympics TV rights: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i9e5af4b7bc02e18f99bd36d7afbd6149
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-comcast-20110217,0,4952998.story

However, NBC is still favored to retain NHL rights beyond 2011.
 
Comcast doesn't want to lose money like NBC did last year. Also in the last linked article it says NBC loses money for Sunday Night Football. Why is it always NBC losing money with sporting rights but you hardly ever hear CBS, ABC, FOX losing money.

Also to add about the NHL, Vereus might be in a bidding war with ESPN after the 2011 season when their deal expires for NHL cable rights.
 
@Ken: The fact that we aware of NBC's losing money with sports, and not so much the others... I don't know, maybe the fact that NBC was in somewhat of a financial bind not too long ago might have something to do with it?

@Mad Cow: This is exactly why networks who dabble in the waters of live sports need a good advertising salesperson. If you're able to move into the black area with enough revenue, that's all that matters.

And regarding the NHL's rights up for grabs later on... Don't be surprised if the newly-rebranded CBS Sports Network throws its puck on the ice for this conversation.
 
"In 2010, CBS Sports president Sean McManus said regarding the prospects of the NHL returning to CBS in the foreseeable future"
“ It’s a great property, but with our commitment to golf and college basketball, there just isn’t room on our schedule.”

Sure this is regarding CBS and not the new CBS Sports Network. I just think if they wanted to air the NHL, CBS Sports would want to have both rights. Just my opinion.

CBS Sports Network could bid on soccer as the rights for Major League Soccer are up after 2011 season with FOX Soccer Channel. This could be CBS's turn to pull something from FOX just as FOX did back in the early 90s with the NFC NFL rights.
 
Ken said:
Comcast doesn't want to lose money like NBC did last year. Also in the last linked article it says NBC loses money for Sunday Night Football. Why is it always NBC losing money with sporting rights but you hardly ever hear CBS, ABC, FOX losing money.

Also to add about the NHL, Vereus might be in a bidding war with ESPN after the 2011 season when their deal expires for NHL cable rights.
Click to expand...

NBC loses money, but Versus (assuming it achieves basic cable parity to ESPN2) probably wouldn't lose as much. Disney shifted its lone NFL telecast in Monday Night Football to ESPN not simply because it would bolster the WWL, but also the dual revenue of cable fees and advertising made the balance sheet work better.

I doubt Comcast will make that same switch--at least not right away.
 
Well, I just read through an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...263033267695112.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

Here's a very telling quote:

NBC is accustomed to digging deep into its pockets for sports programming. The difference now, though, under Mr. Burke, is that the days of NBC hoarding marquee coverage for the broadcast network are over. Instead, in a move that signals just how far the major media companies will go to push major sports events onto pay-TV, NBCU will bid for deals only when coverage of popular sporting events can be split across the combined company's cable-TV and broadcast assets.

It is part of Mr. Burke's broader attempt to break down the walls between Comcast and NBCU's cable networks and broadcast business, as he tries to prove that the cable company's $13.45 billion purchase of a controlling stake in the entertainment giant can revitalize NBC and transform Comcast beyond its core business of being a cable-TV service provider.

People familiar with the matter say the old NBC sports regime, led by the vocal Dick Ebersol—an industry legend closely associated with NBC's patriotic Olympic coverage—is adjusting to Mr. Burke's new approach. How successful it will be remains unclear. Comcast has vowed it will do deals only if it can make money on them. How many it can win with that approach, even while leveraging its cable networks, remains unclear.
Click to expand...

They're looking to pounce on some more sports rights to keep the likes of ESPN and Fox from further benefiting off of them. That is the main point, it seems, of the article. But the quote about how they want to use the NBCU channel for future sporting events is also major.
 
DToTheJ said:
And regarding the NHL's rights up for grabs later on... Don't be surprised if the newly-rebranded CBS Sports Network throws its puck on the ice for this conversation.
Click to expand...
Ditto with Universal Sports (However since Comcast/NBC own the network, they could modify the present deal to include Universal Sports if they wanted to)

Cheers :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom