Groups Urge FCC To Block NBC-Comcast Merger

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Groups Urge FCC To Block NBC-Comcast Merger

Posted by Soulskill on Monday June 21, 2010 @06:50AM from the my-tv-is-comcastic-enough-thanks dept.

GovTechGuy writes "A coalition of media companies, labor groups and privacy advocates have combined to urge the FCC to block the proposed merger of NBC Universal and cable giant Comcast. In a letter sent to the FCC Monday (PDF), the groups argue the new $30 billion entity would have unprecedented control over the media landscape, raising antitrust concerns. Among the threats listed are the potential for the new media giant to violate net neutrality and favor its own content both on television and online."

16 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Makes sense to me... by nebaz · 2010-06-21 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think monopoly is bad enough, but when you have businesses getting both into the content and distribution business, it allows for market abuse.

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
1. Re:Makes sense to me... by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Time-Warner has been doing this for years. This is just the latest entry in a long trend of media consolidation (one almost certain to continue)
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Makes sense to me... by PopeRatzo · 2010-06-21 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah... it's like owning Park Place, Boardwalk, AND all the railroads at the same time. It sucks when it isn't you. :p
  No, it's a lot worse than that. In Monopoly, when someone else owns a lot of valuable properties, at least it's another player who has the same goals you have, albeit adversarial. When your opponent makes money, although he takes it from you, it at least stays in the game and the rules don't change. Through smart play and careful management, you at least have a chance to get some of that back. There is still capital in the game. You can borrow, you can play.
  When corporations own the same monopoly of say, all the railroads and both utilities, it changes the fundamental rules of the game. It doesn't just add to their holdings, it wrecks the game for everybody. They don't want to just beat you, they want to make it so that you can't ever play again. People tend to make some fundamental mistakes when thinking about corporations. They're not people. They're legal fictions with destruction of the market built into their fictional DNA. Their agenda is of a much different nature than yours or mine.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well also there's the fact that Monopoly is... you know... a game. When someone owns Park Place, Boardwalk, and the railroads it simply "sucks when it isn't you". You were trying to do the same thing, because that's the point of the game. You're not worried about whether the railroads continue to provide good service to their customers, because that's not part of the game.
  But what we're talking about here is telecommunications infrastructure and information dissemination. These are not simply entertainment services, but you're talking about companies that control portions of the Internet and the news. These are essentially vital public services that we allow private companies to perform under the belief that private companies will do a better job. We can't afford to allow them to be abused, since it could have dire consequences for the future of our society. Worse: In an era where we could realistically damage our own planet to the point of making it unlivable for ourselves, abusing telecommunications infrastructure and information dissemination could threaten the existence of our species.
  Whereas Monopoly is a game.
4. Re:Makes sense to me... by nine-times · 2010-06-21 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We've allowed them to take control of the discussion to the point where it's conventional wisdom that this nonexistent entity called the "free-market" is good and government is bad.
  Yes. The problem there is, they're not *exactly* flat-out wrong. A real free market is not necessarily absolutely "free", basically a situation where a consumer has real valid choices between multiple competing vendors. Very often, giving consumers real choice allows for greater economic efficiency than having any kind of central authority make economic choices for everyone.
  There are a couple problems, though. First, very often, the vendors will seek to limit the choices of the consumers, thereby subverting the supposed "free-market forces". This is most obvious in cases where a monopoly or cartel is able to arbitrarily set prices for necessary goods, but it happens in other more subtle ways.
  Second, though the "free market" is often more efficient, there may be cases where "efficiency" is not the chief concern. It can be "more efficient" to ignore safety standards in manufacturing. It can be "more efficient" for the police to simply arrest and jail whoever they think is guilty, without need of evidence or a trial.
  I like free markets, but I'm also in favor of good government. The "free market" is a method we use to organize ourselves in order to produce cheap stuff, but "government" is a method we use to organize ourselves to ensure our lives have safety and justice.
Let it happen by jgagnon · 2010-06-21 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I vote to let it happen and then watch it fail. It may take a few years, but it will most certainly fail. If history is any indication, the bigger companies get the more out of touch they get with their customers and the more fragile their success becomes.

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
1. Re:Let it happen by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because that's worked so well with Microsoft?
2. Re:Let it happen by NeutronCowboy · 2010-06-21 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But if you control the entire entertainment and delivery vertical for a population that has only one choice in delivery, then there is no need to be in touch with your customer. Remember ATT? "We're the phone company, we don't have to care."
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:I'm not worried by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it hard to believe that you don't use at least something in the following list all owned by NBC.
NBC, Universal Studios, NBC Universal Television Group, NBC News, USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC Cable TV, NBC.com, MSNBC.com, iVillage, Bravo, qubo, Telemundo Television Studios, The Weather Channel, Hulu, A&E Television Networks
All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Universal
Have to admire their gusto by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

They apparently think that a glorified letter-writing campaign is a match for the lobbying (aka "bribing") money that a major corporation can throw at Washington. That's almost as adorable as an environmentalist in Texas or Alaska writing his Congressman asking him to oppose big oil. Even if you could get the FCC to listen, the lobbyists would just get their slaves in Congress to override them (just like they did on net neutrality).

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Have to admire their gusto by vxice · 2010-06-21 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well if 90% of people are against something and lobbyists do buy votes and the voters are angry enough they can vote the representative out of office, something money can't do directly, and he will no longer be in a position to take bribes. Once you think you have no power you're right.
  
  --
  every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
2. Re:Have to admire their gusto by elrous0 · 2010-06-21 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You couldn't get 90% of voters to oppose Hitler.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:AOL Time Warner? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-21 07:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Because AOL was easily undercut by different ISPs. Don't like AOL? Dial-in to a different server! Don't like NBComcast? Oh wait! I have no other "high speed" internet option in my area.
Re:I'm not worried by socrplayr813 · 2010-06-21 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Personally, I only use one from that particular list (SciFi), and I wouldn't care too much if I lost it. Regardless, I'm still very concerned about NBC-Comcast because of the dangerous precedent it might set. If the merger went through and NBC-Comcast was able to start favoring its own content (even in a small way), you know it would only be a matter of time until Time Warner and such start making similar deals. By then, it may be too late to stop without turning the market upside-down.
Turning the market upside-down may not be a bad thing, but I'd hate to have to find out that way.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010 by h4rr4r · 2010-06-21 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since they play more human interest crap than events, I think many folks would be ok with missing the olympics.
I realize those pieces are cheaper, but they are pointless.
Re:I'm not worried by jythie · 2010-06-21 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

AP and Reuters represent an indirect effect. Both organizations sell their content to downstream providers like many of the sub companies owned by NBC. As NBC/Comcast become more powerful, they become larger consumers of what AP/Reuters put out. Once a downstream becomes powerful enough, they can start exerting pressure upward on content and focus, or potentially (if they find another source they prefer) cut them out and reduce their exposure, which reduces their funding/strength, which results in worse services. So while they do not directly effect you, the merger effects companies that you do interact with.