Comcast makes bid for Disney

[Golazo]

Holy Cr ap

[obie]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/11/news/companies/comcast_disney/index.htm

I think that overall, this won't affect MLS' standing on the Mouse any time soon, but Comcast has been removing FSW from its systems and replacing it with networks that it owns. So it's not like Comcast respects soccer to begin with.

[texgator]

Obie,
According to the "experts" here on Bigsoccer the reason Comcast is removing FSW is because they own Outdoor Life Network, and they feel that FSW and OLN are competitors in the "foreign sports market" because they have the rights to Tour de France and a few other foreign sport programs.

[tobycharles]

Comcast was an investor in the WUSA...

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by texgator
Obie,
According to the "experts" here on Bigsoccer the reason Comcast is removing FSW is because they own Outdoor Life Network, and they feel that FSW and OLN are competitors in the "foreign sports market" because they have the rights to Tour de France and a few other foreign sport programs.

The other element of the "experts'" analysis of the situation between Comcast and FSW is that they're owned by a competing conglomerates AND there's limited space on digital systems, so FSW gets dropped occasionally (though I still have it even though Comcast took over my cable with their AT&T merger). Here, Comcast seems to deal with the space issue on my system by keeping FSW on channel 401 and moving OLN from 404 to 65, in other words, taking it off digital cable and putting it on regular cable. Incidently, the Outdoor Channel, which is even more directly competing with OLN for the fishin' and huntin' crowd, was added since the merger, and remains on channel 406.

As I've said before, the day Comcast removes FSW is the day before I get a Dish. Of course, if they keep jacking the rates, I may look into it sooner.

[microbrew]

If the merger happens, Disney is now vertically integrated with a service provider (ala Time-Warner, Fox). That leaves Viacom and NBC. What next?

[da_cfo]

Originally posted by tobycharles
Comcast was an investor in the WUSA...

And Comcast was the FIRST WUSA investor to bail out, less than 6 weeks after the start of the 2001 season, after the local ratings in the Philadelphia market for the first batch of games was less than 30% of what WUSA management predicted.

Comcast invests in TV programming, not soccer.

[aleaguer]

Originally posted by da_cfo
And Comcast was the FIRST WUSA investor to bail out, less than 6 weeks after the start of the 2001 season, after the local ratings in the Philadelphia market for the first batch of games was less than 30% of what WUSA management predicted.

You just have that on your clipboard somewhere, don't you? And you just wait for the opportunity to use the exact same wording every single goddamn time, don't you? Shut up.

[Deuteriumoxide]

Seems to me that this might run afoul of some anti trust regulations... something about a cable company owning a broadcast network...

They might have to spin ABC off into an independant company.

[da_cfo]

Comcast will have to spin off many parts of Disney in order to make this thing work, that is if Disney eventually accepts the bid (not likely without a long fight.)

The one big property in Disney's portfolio that Comcast really wants is ESPN, Inc. ESPN, Inc. was what Disney was after when it bought Cap Cities in 1996.

ESPN's primary network in the US generates over $2.5 billion each year on subscriber fees alone.

($2.60 per subscriber per month x 12 months per year x 86 million households = $2.68 billion)

(All the other ESPN properties don't make much money, if any. ESPN2 should be a break-even business by now, but the rest of the networks all lose money.)

Furthermore, Comcast will add an established national sports network to go with its regional sports networks (Philly, Baltimore/Washington, Chicago, Atlanta) and its niche sports networks (OLN, Golf Channel).

Originally posted by Deuteriumoxide
Seems to me that this might run afoul of some anti trust regulations... something about a cable company owning a broadcast network...

They might have to spin ABC off into an independant company.

[Autogolazo]

Any thoughts on how this would affect MLS Direct Kick (formerly Shootout)?

Haven't people with Comcast had a tough time getting it in the past?

If Comcast has shown itself averse to money-losing products, what ramifications does that have for its dealings with MLS?

Everything I've heard about Comcast and soccer has been negative, so I'm waiting to hear someone defend the company as a friend of soccer with some facts....

[Golazo]

Originally posted by Autogolazo
so I'm waiting to hear someone defend the company as a friend of soccer with some facts....


/crickets chirping/

(I have ex-ATT Comcast. Though it was a little tricky convincing the non-high-school-homework-doing-CSRs that Shootout existed until the free trial period was over, eventually they were able to get it going. It got thoroughly effed up during college football season, however, as it shares channels with ESPN Gameplan, which I didn't subsribe to. No Gameplan = no access to Gameplan channels, nevermind that MLS games were shown on the same channels at different times. [sigh])

[monster]

Originally posted by Autogolazo
Any thoughts on how this would affect MLS Direct Kick (formerly Shootout)?

Haven't people with Comcast had a tough time getting it in the past?

If Comcast has shown itself averse to money-losing products, what ramifications does that have for its dealings with MLS?

Everything I've heard about Comcast and soccer has been negative, so I'm waiting to hear someone defend the company as a friend of soccer with some facts....

Can anyone show anything that demonstrates that they don't like soccer? Some anecdotal evidence of problems with the Shootout - which can be blamed on HITS or iNDemand as much as Comcast - really doesn't hold water for me. And the FSW isn't about soccer, IMHO. It's about control of product. Just like this merger.

This will take a long time to consummate. I heard an estimate of one year on CNBC this morning. I doubt if soccer has even come up in this early talks and it probably won't ever be anything major of discussion.

[denver_mugwamp]

It's not like ESPN and ABC are going to make or break soccer in the US. What this is about is that Direct TV and Dish are eating Comcast cable's lunch in the US. The cable infrastructure is old and would take billions to be able to provide the same level of service. Before too long, the only peolple who will have cable will be those who are forced to have it because they live in apartment houses. Anybody who has a dish will tell you that it's a superior technology. Comcast wants to buy a leading content provider so they can put the screws to the dish companies and force up their prices. I have a lot of problems with the people who produce the programs being able to control who can and can't distribute them and at what price. Is it unconstitutional? Probably not the way things are done today. But it's wrong.

[da_cfo]

MLS would be more screwed then it is now.

Currently, MLS/SUM is able use the "MLS Network" ploy to get TV time from FOX Sports Int'l.

Why?

Because FOX knows that MLS/SUM can go across the street to Comcast to get its network started.

Comcast has shown that it is capable of doing anything it can to screw NewsCorp/FOX when it comes to sports programming.

At the first opportunity, Comcast would move Speed Channel to a digital premium tier and drop FOX Sports World in order to protect its niche sports channels OLN, and to a lesser extent, Golf Channel.

If Comcast were to take over Disney and take control of ESPN, Inc., then Comcast vaults from a distant #3 in the US pay sports TV business to #1.

Instead of being the feisty #3 competitor on the attack, Comcast would be #1 and would have something valuable to defend in ESPN, Inc.

MLS would be screwed because it can no longer use the threat of Comcast to get what it wants out of FOX.

FOX would know that MLS won't be able to get anything out of Comcast (because Comcast won't have to take big risks in sports TV) so FOX can tighten up and offer MLS less TV time.


Originally posted by Autogolazo
Any thoughts on how this would affect MLS Direct Kick (formerly Shootout)?

Haven't people with Comcast had a tough time getting it in the past?

If Comcast has shown itself averse to money-losing products, what ramifications does that have for its dealings with MLS?

Everything I've heard about Comcast and soccer has been negative, so I'm waiting to hear someone defend the company as a friend of soccer with some facts....

[Cannon]

Originally posted by texgator
Obie,
According to the "experts" here on Bigsoccer the reason Comcast is removing FSW is because they own Outdoor Life Network, and they feel that FSW and OLN are competitors in the "foreign sports market" because they have the rights to Tour de France and a few other foreign sport programs.

I've never understood the reasoning behind this stance. FSW and OLN have nearly zero overlap. Can someone explain this to me? I could understand it if they were really developing their own FSW-like channels. Anyone know the cost and implications of adding FSW to their lineup?

Also why does Comcast carry FSW in places like Philly but not down here around DC? I would expect the exact opposite based on the populations. Is it the result of some grandfather contract issue?

This drives me nuts since I can't get a dish because my view is blocked by trees and am stuck with Comcast. I'm looking forward to moving when my lease is up next year and will make sure that I get a house with a view for Directv this time.

[TOTC]

Originally posted by Deuteriumoxide
Seems to me that this might run afoul of some anti trust regulations... something about a cable company owning a broadcast network...

They might have to spin ABC off into an independant company.

I'm hoping they'll spin of ESPN. NO MORE FREAKIN KISSING UP TO ABC!!!! EDITORIAL FREEDOM!!!! NO SPORTS AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!! SMASH MICHAEL EISNER!!!!

[billf]

Originally posted by Cannon
I've never understood the reasoning behind this stance. FSW and OLN have nearly zero overlap. Can someone explain this to me? I could understand it if they were really developing their own FSW-like channels. Anyone know the cost and implications of adding FSW to their lineup?

Also why does Comcast carry FSW in places like Philly but not down here around DC? I would expect the exact opposite based on the populations. Is it the result of some grandfather contract issue?

This drives me nuts since I can't get a dish because my view is blocked by trees and am stuck with Comcast. I'm looking forward to moving when my lease is up next year and will make sure that I get a house with a view for Directv this time.

I don't know what you're talking about with respect to Comcast offering FSW in Philly because they don't anymore.

I'm not worried about how this merger would affect soccer coverage on TV. Soccer found its way to TV before the 500 channel universe and I think this still will happen. However, this is such a bad move because it screws consumers by providing less options and driving up prices. I could write a book on why I believe this, but it is not about soccer coverage. It's about choking off valid competitors offering quality products, and it is about controling both content and delivery in most of the company.

At least DirecTV has a direct DBS competitor. Comcast is free to operate as a monopoly in an overwhelming majority of the territories in which it operates.

[monster]

Originally posted by TOTC
I'm hoping they'll spin of ESPN. NO MORE FREAKIN KISSING UP TO ABC!!!! EDITORIAL FREEDOM!!!! NO SPORTS AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!! SMASH MICHAEL EISNER!!!!

Oh yeah, ESPN is the only company that presents sports as entertainment. :rolleyes:

[billf]

Originally posted by TOTC
I'm hoping they'll spin of ESPN. NO MORE FREAKIN KISSING UP TO ABC!!!! EDITORIAL FREEDOM!!!! NO SPORTS AS ENTERTAINMENT!!!! SMASH MICHAEL EISNER!!!!

Why would they spin off ESPN? It's the most valuable property in the Disney arsenal from a pure dollars persepctive.