Why would the affils support a deal that condemns local broadcasting to a slow kill? Comcast has made clear its desire to control the distribution of its programming under a pay TV model. What Malone fails to mention is the adverse effects of this proposed deal on marketplace competition and the public interest. If the government enforced the antitrust laws and prohibited media companies from owning both cable and broadcast properties, then broadcasters would actually compete with cable/broadband instead of being co-opted by the lure of retrans revenues... revenues that will evaporate if cable/broadband gets away with its avowed goal to destroy OTA broadcast TV.

I think the regulatory hurdles are insurmountable.

Is the transfer of the NBC television stations to Comcast "...in the public interest, convenience and necessity....according the Federal Communication Commission, Act 1934 as amended?

MSNBC, CNBC, Weather Channel, Bravo, Universal, (and I'm sure I missed one) all controlled by Comcast. This is good for us? Also, the Network Model with local over the air distribution is not broken. It is how people receive news and information for free. Mr. Malone wants everyone to pay for media, and for Comcast to control all the media. Where are the watchdogs?

Fascinating how a model that once worked so well has become so negated by the same people who built their fortunes on the same electronic signals emanating today from the same local television stations. Total the local programming television station shares in any market and that figure will dwarf the combined shares of the dozens of cable programming sources available. Maybe cable has surmised that the only way they can ever gain market viewing superiority is gettng rid of these pesky, service oriented dinosaurs!

Why would anyone expect a cable guy to say anything other than cable is the way.. I would submit that the the exact opposit is going to happen when the viewing public will turns off cable the moment they try to pass down those $10. per month subscription increases as a result of retrans payments. NBC-cable will become a mini network just like all the other cable nets. Compare and contrast The West Wing verses Mad Men. Both stacked up trophies and neither had many viewers yet West Wing has sold a ton of DVD's. No one can find Mad Men to sample it.

Malone is former cable guy. Keep in mind he is chairman of the company that controls DirecTV, Comcast's largest competitor. I am not sure he wants Comcast to contol all media, Credo. Also, keep in mind that as chairman of Liberty, Dr. Malone has 100% control of two broadcast stations. He sees and understands the local television business pretty well. If you don't think Malone knows what he is talking about, your head is buried in the sand. Direct affiliation is currently in discussion with all the networks and it is a real possibility. Another real possibility is regulation related to retrans. With consumer prices affected and the broadcast industry opposed to the government's plan to take back its free spectrum, look out. Broadcasters can't have it all ways, free spectrum, retrans fees, no sharing with the networks, etc. If you get all sides alligned against you, it won't be pretty.

Here's an interesting concept that I have not heard or seen discussed much. What if each of the networks that also has substantial cable networks - e.g., NBCU with USA, ScyFy, Bravo and whatever else, put the strongest of those networks on their multicast digital channels? While I haven't done any calculating, off the top of my head the strongest cable networks are mostly owned by the broadcast networks (e.g., ESPN, USA, etc.) with the exception of TNT/TBS. Presumably, this is not something that could happen overnight as I assume the contracts between the MSOs and networks have some language precluding such an option, for now. But, if the broadcast networks did that it could radically alter the current cable/broadcast business environment and relationships. It presumably would strengthen local affiliates as distributors of such programming, and would give these networks similar circulation as the broadcast networks, rather than the much reduced availability in homes with multi-channel distribution services (i.e., cable or satellite). On the down side, it would likely reduce the amount they could get from cable operators for licensing fees if they are no longer the "sole" distributor of such programming. Perhaps that lost value far exceeds what the networks could make up in additional distribution and, presumably, greater viewing levels. If the local affiliates are distributing such signals, and could benefit from increased ad revenues for whatever local spots are available, there probably also would need to be adjusted network/affiliate deals. I assume someone, somewhere within the networks has considered this option, and perhaps the economics don't work. But why should cable/satellite be the only distribution avenues for such programming?

Are some of us "still" delivery-system (cable,broadcast etc.) loyalists? Must the fight against electronic evolution continue to slow the obvious migration pattern? Isn't it really about using content to deliver viewers/users to the advertiser's message?

The concentration of controlling of stations ( including cable) with programming production and libraries, must cease. In 1946-47 the major theater owing chains had to divest themselves of their production facilities under the theat of a a major anti-trust suit by the US Government. Fox Theaters cast off Twentieth Century Fox Studios, Loew's theaters cast off MGM, Paramount Theaters cast off Pararmount Pictures, RKO Theaters cast off RKO Studio, and Warner Brothers Theaters cast off Warner Studio. Columbia, United Artists, and Universal
had no theater holdings in the US. Yet, concurrently Universal concluded a longterm contract with Rank of the UK which had some 1,800 theaters in the then British Empire and Europe.

The parallels with today's structure of the television industry is all too apparent. Instead of the FCC approval
of the MGM sale with its its giant library, it should seek, in concert with the Department of Justice, seek the breakup of television industry along the same lines. Power threatens control. Absolute Power controls absolutely.