Topic: Disney bought Fox: Fox Shareholders Agreed to $71B Disney Buyout!!

[segagamersteph]

The fact nobody who opposes this is coming forward proves how political it is. The united front who always get away with their bullying speak up, act smug and then everyone else hides in the shadows shaking their heads, holding their tongues because they know *I* will be the one banned and they won't risk a banning for speaking out. Then when I do get banned for having enough being the ONLY ONE who has to defend their vies, a certain person will start a celebratory thread claiming victory like they always do.
I've been down this road before. I am just trying to keep it civil. Again, I am the only one having to defend my points of view and I was the only one told my opinions don't matter and are uninformed.

Again, making a reply stating unfair this or untrue that, isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if my opinion is based in the same logic as yours or if it is based on an ideology I would have to not only disclose but double down on to defend? I shouldn't have to have this discussion. The government is politics period. Discussing or debating a government policy is politics. That isn't delusional that is a fact.

[segagamersteph]

Take politics out of it. Comcast gets more CONTENT. They are not getting more infrastructure. I pointed that out and it was dismissed. It is still a fact.
Also, take politics out of it, (which means we can't debate the merits of having to pay more for products)

then the objections or discussion should focus on, as I tried to keep it, the IP, as that is the only aspect not politically charged.

I, regret saying entitled and being passive aggressive. But, whether you see it or not, *I* see it as being attacked for having an opposing political view.

Why do I see it that way? Because. As I pointed out. Every single Comcast subscriber does, in fact, have alternatives. So how is pointing that out false? In fact, until I came to this forum and long before this whole ordeal, I didn't even hear the name Comcast ever. I never had them and from the sounds of it I never will. But it doesn't matter, as I stated the stakes are literally just people having to pay more money. How, is that bad?

[nickmitch]

Again, what are the real stakes? You have to pay more money for your internet? How is that bad?

I don't want to sound petty or like I'm attacking you, but how don't you see that as bad?

SO what? I have a web server, if I want faster, higher bandwidth I have to pay for it, why can't Netflix pay for it too? I mean they are the ones clogging the lines why shouldn't they have to pay for it?

Here's the problem with that argument: You would pay your ISP for more bandwidth, so more people can access your site.  You would also buy better servers in order to handle the traffic.  Now, what if on top of that, an ISP whom you wouldn't otherwise deal with decides to A) charge consumers just to access your page or B) charge YOU for consumers accessing your page.  That's the problem.

[BranDonk Kong]

I think one big issue is service providers owning any networks. It's bad enough that Comcast owns NBC, do you really want Comcast owning Fox too? All Comcast has to do at that point is charge extra for other providers to carry NBC and Fox - meaning they raise their prices or they stop carrying Comcast-owned networks, meaning more people switch to Comcast. It's already happened with Viacom channels - PlayStation Vue dropped them and YouTube TV still doesn't carry them - but guess who does - DirecTV Now.

[nickmitch]

Take politics out of it. Comcast gets more CONTENT. They are not getting more infrastructure. I pointed that out and it was dismissed. It is still a fact.

The problem is owning content and infrastructure.  Comcast already has both.  This is bad.  Them getting more content is bad.  And no, they aren't getting more infrastructure.

Just that, explain to me how Dish doesn't compete with Comcast? Explain to me how a person who is unhappy with Comcast, if this is true why aren't more people leaving them? They must be doing something right.

Paid cable subscriptions are on the decline. Source

But it doesn't matter, as I stated the stakes are literally just people having to pay more money. How, is that bad?

That's the primary reason why monopolies are generally bad.  Being able to dictate prices (i.e., making people pay more) is an inherently bad thing.

[oohhboy]

Do you or do you not want faster, better, fair internet at cheaper prices in packages of your choosing? If not why not? Are you just going to sacrifice yourself on the alter of dogma just for the sake of it?

The other governments work towards and have a higher standards because they want to make their country better even if it is just to keep them in power via bread and circuses. Some recognize the fact that the internet has become a need, part of the fabric of civilisation. People support this because it makes their lives measurably better. It's civilisation.

I pointed it out because the American system is broken and need points of comparison as to why. You argue to make it even more broken for vapid reasons like superheroes and dogma.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm so glad others picked up the argument and stepped through so many wide open holes in the rebuttal. I wouldn't even know where to begin, and don't have to time to do a point by point, but luckily it is no longer needed.

So I'll just ramble about something here, and come back later to ramble something else.
But this is exactly why I didn't even want to start this debate.... :/

Wrong, you are just biased and I am trying to be reasonable. So what if they charge more? Your entire argument is based on entitlement. You act like you are owed content to you, I disagree. Content costs money to produce they have a right to charge for it. They have a right to charge a premium for it. HBO costs extra. I am sure you have no problem paying extra for HBO because you want access to the titties. You want titties you have for it. If you want Simpsons you have to pay extra for it, I see nothing wrong with that. I see the market doing what it is supposed to.

Uh huh.... I don't think you quite understand how it works, or how it even effects your precious Dishnetwork, or whoever you use for TV/Cable Internet.

Comcast(and other Major Internet providers) wanted to break up the internet into tiered packages to work like the tiered packages for cable. If Comcast, being a MAJOR internet provider to the U.S. is in control of the very content many are already used to seeing, now has control over not just the content, but your ability to access it.... things start to go bad as they have already shown examples of.

They have the content channels, your cable provider would like to provide said channels for cable parity on their service, but now that Comcast also owns all these other premium content channels, they up the price on them all for your favorite cable provider, who now passes that cost on to you.
Meanwhile, Comcast is able to offer these same content channels (plus all of your other standard channels that your favorite provider supplies.... for parity sake) at a cheaper price (since they don't have to pay themselves a premium for their own content), which somewhere down the line drives the consumers to switch to Comcast.... now your favorite provider can either lower the price and eat the additional cost to their bottom line, or they can charge more to cover it.... pushing even more customers away, who eventually go to the cable provider that gives them all the channels at the cheaper cost, therefore driving away the competition. (anti-competitive practices)

Your rebuttal may be that the other providers will just raise the cost they sell to Comcast for their cable... ok, but then Comcast has the upperhand with major channels that everyone else also wants access to, so they just raise the price again.... vicious cycle begins. Consumers lose in the end

It's a slippery slope to start down.
The argument for Net Neutrality is that the internet is supposed to work like the freeway. There's an inherent cost to use it, but once you're on it, you can go where you want when you want.
Companies starting to abuse it want to install "fast lanes" so that if you want to continue to drive at the speed you're used to, pay extra, other wise we will make you drive in this lane with speed bumps every 200ft. Oh and if you want to use this convenient exit to get where you are going, instead of being forces to get off at the next one and navigate city streets just to get back here... you need to upgrade to the Premium Exit package. And if that place you were trying to go wants them to keep that premium Exit package available, then they need to pay up as well, otherwise everyone can get off at the next exit, and regardless of where you are going... it's always the next exit from the one you wanted.

For Comcast to gain more desired content and assets would just give them more leverage to continue to try to hold everything and anyone interested in cable, TV, Movies, Internet hostage through their BS tactics to nickel and dime us while offering nothing to justify the increases in return.

p.s. DishNetwork w/ *up to* 20Mbps down is NOT a competition to Comcast 1GB down
http://about.dish.com/news-releases?item=122741

Dish Network is probably the largest struggling provider trying to stay relevant. It's why DirectTV merged with AT&T, and why the local providers are usually propped up by the local government... to provide an alternative to the big provider so that there isn't technically a "monopoly" on service. (They actually got paid by the Gov decades ago to expand broadband service and in return, made it so that other major service providers couldn't encroach on their areas. This is why we don't have 1GB service everywhere, as there isn't enough competition to force them to spend the money *that they were already paid* to upgrade and maintain such service)
There also a reason why Big Old School providers have been fighting internet being classified at a Title II service.
The Internet much like running water, electricity and a telephone in your house, the internet is now a necessary service for standard of life in our 1st world privileged society.

Comcast going after all of this, while in their right to do so, just screams a future of them continuing to practice or push some anti-competitive behavior when it comes to control of the access to cable and internet that allows you to access the content you chose to entertain yourself with...


and I've been typing this long enough for 9 more replies since I've started. LOL

edit:

You do know you could get internet from other providers and cut the cord too right? There is YouTube, there is IPTV, Playstation has an option, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, those are alternatives to Comcast. (Except for their stake in Hulu)

You still need to pay an internet provider (like Comcast), before you have the privilege to pay for and have access to all those "cord cutting" options.

and based on your repeated political slant for argument... I guess we know who originally hit that button even when the conversation was not political in nature. Please drop the political slant and stick to the topic at hand.
If you can't discuss why you think Comcast is a better suitor for 21CF and associated IP/assets without repeatedly bringing up "politics" then just stop discussing it.

[segagamersteph]

I AGREED Comcast getting it was bad, I explained why I think its bot worse than Disney.

UES, i want, WANT, fastet internet, but I pay for what I can afford and live without it, THAT is the line, that is ehat makes it pokitical, I can accept having a slower speed because that is what the narket offers or pay more for the luxory
Dish is not the only exanple. ATT, Netflix, Amazon, Playstation, YouTube, those are all legit, viable alternatives that exist right now.


Again one last time for those who forgot history, the GOVERNMENT did break content from delicery in the past, so repeatedly usibg scare tactic they wont so ot again is not working
What is the issue? You dobt like Comcast you find a different ISP, you falsely claim if you are in their marlet they are IT, there id absolutelty not a single other isp in the same market, I can prove to you that is falsebut you reject that bot based on facts, based in your entitlement, you believe anything less than fiber optic doesnt even count and fisniss it, you have alternativea, you justbreject them.

[Khushrenada]

This is how you all want to be spending your Saturday?

Time for a time out for this thread. Everybody can walk away for awhile and focus on something else.

[Khushrenada]

I hear there may be new developments so let's try this thread again.

[broodwars]

And the monopoly got larger. *sigh*

[Adrock]

And the monopoly got larger. *sigh*

Disney wasn’t a monopoly to begin with.

[Stratos]

I suspected this might happen. I also think Comcast's hand is played because of the big deal made in their attempts to raise the capital necessary for their initial bid. With Disney so quickly and firmly upping the ante and Fox's obvious lack on interest in Comcast it appears to be pretty much in the bag for Disney.


Hopefully they can start integrating some of Marvel's lost children into the MCU after 2019. I'm sure they have the plans to do it in place.

[segagamersteph]

I just read Fox has accepted the Disney deal so it sounds like the X-Men join the MCU and everyone gets what they wanted.

For me personally the biggest positive of this is it will strengthen the chances of the Disney streaming platform knocking Netflix down a peg and could end up killing Hulu off together.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Disney hasn't closed anything yet. Comcast can still respond if they dare to risk lowering their credit rating further.
From what I've been reading, they may just up their bid on SKY instead, and cut their losses in Fox. They forced Disney to stretch a bit thin to reach this far, so not a total loss for Comcast.

I have a link or two to post from this morning in a bit too.
Was just waiting for the thread unlock to happen.

Oh, and Hulu ain't going anywhere. Disney (or Comcast) would just own 60%. Disney already stated intentions to use Hulu for all the non-family friendly content from Fox and probably Marvel, all the rest on the Disney Streaming Vault.

edit: Here's some links to bring everyone up to speed.

Proposed Acquisition Items from FOX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox#Assets_to_be_acquired_by_Disney_or_Comcast

FOX Accepts Disney's $71M Bid
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/fox-agrees-to-sweetened-bid-from-disney-dealing-blow-to-comcast

also gives some insight into how they view Comcast's response should they even offer up more.



another article:
https://www.thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-company-signs-amended-acquisition-agreement-to-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-for-71-3-billion-in-cash-and-stock/

and the Disney Investor Call
https://edge.media-server.com/m6/p/oh8qi22i

edit2:
foreign opinion on the matter - gives reason why Comcast may not be able to counter effectively
https://www.afp.com/en/news/206/disney-boosts-fox-bid-713-bn-counter-comcast-doc-16a1fa7

and Disney is further along in the approval process than we all thought....
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3365287-bloomberg-disney-nears-antitrust-ok-fox-bid-blow-comcast

They could be clear to close before the summer is over.... Not sure if Comcast can top that... Guaranteed Disney Stock & Cash NOW or start the regulatory process all over again with Comcast (and pay Disney for backing out the deal.)

[Plugabugz]

For the same reason why you guys dont want Comcast to have Fox is the same reason I don't want Comcast to have Sky. They are already the third (second?) largest ISP in the UK and biggest in TV services across Europe. It's instantly buying a monopoly here.

There was already concerns by the UK/EU Competition Commission about Fox buying Sky the first time around so i believe that Comcast wouldnt be any different to that.

[BlackNMild2k1]

All the more reason why I don't why anyone that is not a Comcast shareholder is even rooting for Comcast on any level of this deal

and before anyone jumps in with "i'd rather it not be anyone, or that they split the assets or..." anything other than what is happening - Fox is selling. Disney or Comcast are buying, and those are our 2 choices. Disney is not interested in sharing. period.

Disney is by far the superior suitor for this acquisition. They took the time to "surgically" carve out the assets they would take, vs what they were willing to leave on the table just to ensure this deal got through regulatory committees as smoothly and quickly as possible.

Comcast has shown their true colors (same at AT&T) about how quickly they are ready to flex their monopolistic fist on the market they already nearly control in so many areas around the country (cable tv/ISP). For them to get more territory and content to tighten that fist around would not be in the interest of any general consumer in any market. Between price hikes, pay-walls, exclusive content, and package shifts.... its scary to think how much we would all regret Comcast getting more powerful after the fact, even as a Comcast customer.

Something I read yesterday stated that Disney may be actually leaving the RSN's on the table to speed the closure of this deal up by at least 6 months (not sure if true though). Quicker than expected approval to push this deal over the top for the investors by putting the choice of 50/50-cash/stock option with approval this year, vs Comcast "All Cash" offer that still needs to start the regulatory process with no guarantees, but minimum of 14-18 month regulatory process.

Comcast still has still I think next wed morning to respond. But even if they choose to up their bid to include some stock, Dis stock (with guaranteed value clause) is still worth more, and has no tax implications, vs Cash which is heavily taxed.... so my understanding (which is extremely limited on these matters) is that Comcast would have to put up a pretty significant amount of more cash to make up for the tax implications and still be a better deal than what Disney is offering now.

[ThePerm]

I think one of the factors is when a company buys another company their stock takes a bit of a dip(is that right?). Disney's is valued at $70 dollars more than Comcast so if it takes a dip it wont become worthless. I'd rather have Disney stock than comcast stock. The Universal Dark Universe didn't go anywhere. They do have Jurassic Park though. Ant-Man and the Wasp is coming out. About to make a bunch of money. Jeez I got too many movies to watch.

That being said if I could personally run Universal I would. I'd do so much with The Thing. I'd make a weird movie without people.

[BranDonk Kong]

Just some food for thought - of you earned $1 per *second*, it would take you 2,260 years to make as much money as Disney is offering. Jeff Bezos is worth roughly twice that. If you made $100 per second ($8,640,000 per day), it would take you 22 years to make enough to match that deal, or 44 years to be worth what Jeff Bezos is worth. That is pure insanity to me.

[ThePerm]

I think I remember reading in the 90s Bill Gates was making $50 a second. But that can't be right because that is only 1.5 billion a year. It was probably about $200 a second. He was worth about $60 billion then and he had been making money like that for about 15 years.

[BranDonk Kong]

If Jeff Bezos drops $100 on the ground, it's literally not worth his time to pick it up.

[segagamersteph]

If Fox shareholders are getting Disney stock for "selling" doesn't that just mean they are getting more control of Disney?

Disney can show boat all they want on Hulu there is no way they can support two streaming platforms. I know they only have 60 percent of the share but they are removing a lot of the incentive for keeping it around. There is no guarantee Comcast is going to want to continue doing business with Disney after this deal either.

I would be willing to place a very high wager on Hulu becoming defunct in less than 5 years after this deal. They're basically worthless now. If they lose the family friendly stuff it doesn't matter how much crap they have left, Netflix, Amazon and whatever Warner ends up doing plus HBO are all going to be better options.

I don't see Disney keeping Hulu going. They are saying that now to appease share holders and the government but you know they will back out or jack up the price of their content, either way it's going down hill anyways. (Again let's not either of us pretend our crystal ball is anymore clear than the others okay we're all speculating)
The numbers, the assets, the IP, it's all a lot for anyone to absorb.

If Disney doesn't put their newly acquired Fox assets on their streaming service and they try to keep it Pixar and Disney channel stuff they're setting it up to fail, and they are not that stupid. I don't see Hulu surviving even if Disney doesn't get to make the decision they will affect it with the shuffling of their content.
I don't know, my foot hurts, its hot I been out of work two damn months I guess I don't care anymore who gets what. Comcast or Disney customers lose in the end.

[BlackNMild2k1]

except Disney already layed out their (high level) plans for Hulu.... and the Disney Vault.
They co-exist and one is a companion to the other.

Of course that doesn't change what Comcast and the other 2-3 content providers decide to do, but honestly, this deal doesn't change their compensation from Hulu subscription, it just doubles Disney's. Unless they all want to sell their shares to Disney, I don't see much changing.

We also don't know the exact details of how the Disney Vault will work, but Hulu would probably still be relevant as the portal to watch next day TV shows from ABC/FX and whatever other channels they currently have on there. The Vault will just be needed to probably watch beyond the last 4-5 episodes and all the previous seasons (plus all the exclusive content), but the Vault was mentioned to be a companion to a Hulu subscription if I remember correctly (not that you couldn't get it separately).

[nickmitch]

I could see Disney trying to incentivize Comcast into sticking with the Hulu deal by potentially offering up some of the ownership at a bargain.  Disney might not want to give up control of Hulu, so it may be only 9%, protecting Disney's majority, but it will give Comcast a potentially larger share of the profit from the service just for sticking around.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It's over, it's over now, move over, it's Disney's turn, it's over... The bids shut down?

Fox deems Comcast potential new bid as much riskier for anti trust approval that Disney's current bid...
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3366303-fox-filing-antitrust-issues-scuttle-comcast-bid?dr=1#/email_link

And why Comcast might not be able to offer up more cash anyway.... Well, at least not reasonably, and still be business sound.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4184025-4-ds-disneys-deal-fox

The SEC Filing, for someone that may want to summarize all this for us, we'd be appreciative
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1744489/000119312518201596/d770960ds4.htm

Reference for opening statement.
https://youtu.be/b7--cBpWnJs