WSJ’s Apple / Comcast story not accurate, news being overblown on Wall Street

“I wasn’t planning to write anything about the WSJ‘s news story about Apple and Comcast being in discussions to work together, but since I have gotten so many inquiries from others asking me to comment on the post… From sources I have spoken to, no such deal between Apple and Comcast is being considered today the way the WSJ describes it,” Dan Rayburn,, writes via Seeking Alpha.

“Apple routinely has discussions with all the major content owners but Apple is not working on any special streaming service that will be delivered via Comcast,” Rayburn writes. “While one could always speculate that such a service might, could or should come to the market in the future, anything is possible, but not the way the WSJ details it.”

“For starters, the WSJ post says that Apple would get “special treatment on Comcast’s cables to ensure it bypasses congestion on the Web.” Not only would Comcast not offer that, legally they aren’t allowed to,” Rayburn writes. “The post goes on to say that Apple ‘wants the new TV service’s traffic to be separated from public Internet traffic over the last mile.’ This makes no sense. Once the content is already inside the last mile, it’s no longer ‘public Internet traffic,’ so the WSJ authors simply [don’t] understand, from a basic technical level, how content is delivered.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
An Apple, Comcast tie-up would likely invite U.S. DOJ, FCC scrutiny – March 25, 2014
Apple-Comcast TV deal? Don’t hold your breath – March 24, 2014
3 major hurdles for any Apple-Comcast streaming TV deal – March 24, 2014
Something smells fishy about that Comcast–Apple TV story – March 24, 2014
The ‘Apple television’ is the magical unicorn of consumer tech – March 24, 2014
Apple has built a team cable industry insiders – March 24, 2014
Apple’s cable box replacement to feature dramatically overhauled interface, big emphasis on gaming, sources say – March 24, 2014
Apple in talks with Comcast about streaming-TV service; companies discussing deal to bypass web congestion – March 24, 2014


    1. Many of us believe the WSJ is becoming/has become a Wall Street Tabloid. No longer can the articles be viewed as unbiased reporting of new. Frequently, the articles are reported with an obvious bias.

    1. This is exactly what I said to you yesterday!

      Between the thought and the deed you arrived at, “Don’t pay their blood money Apple. Don’t pay.”

      Why don’t we give Apple a little credit before jumping to specious conclusions.

      Admit it, you said the same thing about Apple when they teamed up with the music industry to bring music to iPod & iTunes, or movies and television to TV from the film & television industries.

      You’re conflating what “people familiar with the matter say” and your cut & paste from Wiki’s definition of Racketeering to proffer some silly notion this process is not only criminal, but blood is involved?

      You shot your wad prematurely. Why don’t we wait and see if this in fact the truth or just another of WSJs attempts to garner page views at Apple’s expense.

    2. For your edification, Comcast has none, zero, nada, zip business presence here in Arizona.

      I have been defending Apple’s formidable position all along.

      You’re the one who has been arguing how powerful Comcast is and what they would to to Tim Cook in negotiations.

      What was it you said they’d be serving up to Mr Cook?

      Shill, indeed.

  1. Bottom line is, Apple has nothing COMCAST needs or wants. COMCRAP would own over 30% of the market. This is not the same as AT&T being hot to get a new phone from Apple.

    The ISP Cabal controls access to the end user. We are not seen as customers or clients. We are seen as owned market share. The existing system serves them well. There is no incentive to improve it dramatically for experience or anything else, because bottom line is, where ya gonna go?

    This is why none of that madness yesterday made any sense whatsoever. First they’re saying that Apple would bet special treatment, but that this wouldn’t violate net neutrality. Huh? The very nature of “special treatment” indicates you’ve violated net neutrality. “Managed Service?” Managed in what way?

    The only thing that protects the Internet as we know it from the cartel carving it up and turning it into a packaged “cable tv like nightmare” is net neutrality.

    1. Your opening statement speaks volumes about how superior you think Comcast is, proclaiming Apple has nothing Comcast needs.

      That sure sounds like an endorsement of Comcast to me.

      Shill? heh heh heh

      I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word.

    1. Odd. On this issue I’m left leaning. Net Neutrality has unfortunately become a left vs. right thing in Washington. Hidebound conservatives see it as nothing more than a government power grab and more regulation on the cable industry. They recite the time honored mantra of let the market handle it. The problem is there is no free market here.

      The left gets the value of net neutrality and does (unfortunately) tend to be smarter when it comes to technology. At least a whole hell of a lot smarter than the conservatives on the hill, who not only don’t get it, but couldn’t care less.

  2. WSJ is slowly loosing any credibility. But why should that be a surprise when it is now owned by Murdock and his bumbling herd. It is a great loss of a wonderful, reliable institution. Might just as well watch Faux News.

  3. Just looking at the basics of this, is it really even a ‘net or ‘net neutrality issue? It just looks like a classic “bypass” play to me. Think about all those FM and DMX signals that are inserted into your CATV service at the head-end. These are program services that don’t travel over the ‘net. It sounds like Apple would like to do something similar.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.