Groups Urge FCC To Block NBC-Comcast Merger

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."

Comments

Makes sense to me...

[nebaz]

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

Re:Makes sense to me...

[jgagnon]

Yeah... it's like owning Park Place, Boardwalk, AND all the railroads at the same time. It sucks when it isn't you. :p

Re:Makes sense to me...

[h4rr4r]

The community has already provided said patches. You can find them in the usual locations.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[elrous0]

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)

Re:Makes sense to me...

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[kramerd]

You're not worried about whether the railroads continue to provide good service to their customers, because that's not part of the game

Actually it is part of the game. If you own all of the railroads, it costs more to "use" them individually than if 4 different players each own one. Same with utilities or any property monopoly.

Re:Makes sense to me...

[nine-times]

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.

I'm not worried

[fortapocalypse]

So what? I don't have Comcast.

Re:I'm not worried

[somaTh]

So, it's okay for Comcast and NBC to merge then? What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?

Re:I'm not worried

[jgagnon]

They could have a very successful Furry channel together...

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm not worried

[socrplayr813]

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.

Re:I'm not worried

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hard to avoid a company when you're not part of their target audience.

Is it hard to act so smug about it, or does that come naturally?

Re:I'm not worried

[tibman]

*gasp* You don't watch stargate?!

eek, what about when battlestar was running? what about farscape! The outer limits? oh god.. the horror

Re:I'm not worried

[Que914]

Many people who are customer of Comast are out of necessity, not choice. All the same, it has a couple of implications for non-customers with an overriding theme of big media maintaining their control on culture distribution.

Prior to the Internet broadcast video content had something of a natural monopoly simply by the limited bandwidth over the airwaves. The Internet has a lot of potential to change that because it doesn't suffer from the same limitation. I consume a great deal of "TV Show" like content that's not on TV so my Internet connection is essentially competing with the TV Networks.

To demonstrate, hypothetically say I'm a recent film student grad who has a great idea for a TV show (and for the sake of argument lets pretend it is good). I've enough money to produce it myself, but I have no notoriety and have zero chance of getting a network to distribute it. Alternatively, I could put it up on the web, try and get some ad revenue, or maybe if good enough charge users to download. But now, I'm competing with Comcast/NBC and since Comcast/NBC is in both content and distribution, they may well 'traffic shape' in such a way that interferes with traffic of competing products, so out of the gate my potential audience is reduced by 30% (or whatever Comcast's market share is).

That's the problem with this, and what's more important, that why they want to merge.

Re:I'm not worried

[jythie]

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.

Re:I'm not worried

[frank_adrian314159]

What about Fox and Cox? Would you claim that rocks?

That Fox and Cox! That Fox and Cox! I do not like that Fox and Cox. The merger rocks for Fox and Cox. But put them both into a box. And keep them both secured with locks.

Re:I'm not worried

[Monkeedude1212]

So you're among the very few people who exist on the internet who don't access any of the regular forms of entertainment. Even I don't watch TV but given the movies I've SEEN in my lifetime let alone what I may want to see in the future, its nearly impossible to miss universal studios. Even if I had somehow managed to dodge every VCR, DVD, and Blu-ray in the world and never visitted a movie theatre I would have somehow played one of the video games loosely based off of one of their movies.

And all of its really a moot point though - even if YOU aren't DIRECTLY affected, perhaps half of your friends are affected by NBC and with anti-trust media practices you'll get very 1 sided opinions forming, so you'll either have to ditch half your friends for being narrow minded, or you'll have to be annoyed by your friends every time they're around, or you and your friends will become the social outcasts of society. You know the kinds, who don't work well with others in the work-place because they can't talk about current events and if they do, they upset other people when they tell them they are wrong, and it won't matter if you're right because your manager will get pissed that you are refuting the very facts they believe coming from their "trusted source". It's like if you don't jump on board you're "That guy" that no one wants to invite out to lunch.

However, if you live under a rock, like to play chess by yourself by torchlight, and only visit the internet by tapping binary into a magnetic rock that sends signals to an access point, than you probably won't be affected by this merger too much.

Let it happen

[jgagnon]

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.

Re:Let it happen

[NeutronCowboy]

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."

Have to admire their gusto

[elrous0]

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).

Re:Have to admire their gusto

[vxice]

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.

Re:Have to admire their gusto

[elrous0]

You couldn't get 90% of voters to oppose Hitler.

Re:Have to admire their gusto

[AndersOSU]

The FTC issues reports
In the FY2008 report they tout:

One of the Commission’s notable challenges was against the consummated merger of Polypore International and Microporous Products in which the Commission asserted that the February 2008 acquisition reduced competition and raised prices in the markets for multiple types of battery separator film used in the power supplies of various vehicles and in battery backup generators. The Commission also challenged and effectively blocked the proposed merger of Inova Health System Foundation and Prince William Health System, which would have substantially harmed competition in the Northern Virginia market for general acute care inpatient hospital services.

I'm not sure if those are "mega mergers" but they're doing more than zero...

Considering what Comcast did to TechTV...

[leonbev]

Do you really want these guys taking over several major TV networks?

They would probably cancel all of the news shows, and replace them video game reviews and badly edited Star Trek reruns.

Re:so you are ok with missing the 2012 games? 2010

[h4rr4r]

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.

Agree with the FCC

[DaMattster]

Given Comcast's strong anti-net neutrality stance and propsensity towards censorship, I agree with the FCC. The merger should be blocked because it does not serve a really good purpose. It just creates a giant media conglomerate with far reaching arms into government. Comcast and NBC Universal should remain separate entities.

Re:Agree with the FCC

[Just Some Guy]

The merger should be blocked because it does not serve a really good purpose.

Erm, what? I think the merger should be blocked, too, but not because "it does not serve a really good purpose". People and corporations do a lot of things that seem rather dumb to me, but I find the idea of stopping them on that reason alone to be pretty scary.

Re:Govenor David Patterson supports the merger?!

[h4rr4r]

Maybe he has the vision to see what such a merger would mean? He can clearly see that this could change the market in a big way.

By NFL rules comcast must keep Sunday Night on ota

[Joe The Dragon]

By NFL rules comcast must keep Sunday Night on ota or at least for teams in the game and there is no why they will the let games go cable / comcast only.

antitrust

[Something Witty Here]

NBC is a free broadcast network. Comcrap is pay cable.
How well is comcrap going to support/maintain NBC's broadcasting
given that comcrap wants everyone to subscribe to their crappy
cable service?

OTA TV is less compressed than cable/satelite,
and recording it is legal. MIfiAA lawyers can take
a hike.

Yeah, NBC doesn't have much worth watching at the moment,
but that stuff goes in cycles, and someday NBC will have
great stuff again. Unless comcrap is allowed to destroy
NBC forever.

Clear antitrust, but is anyone paying attention? Where
is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

And now for something completely different:

> You couldn't get 90% of voters to oppose Hitler.

Dig out your history books and look up who was running
against Hitler. Reminds me of some recent US elections.

Same has happened here in Quebec

[Hamsterdan]

Quebecor, one of the largest media company owns Many papers, about 90% of all stand magazines, a TV network and the largest cable company in the province (Videotron). So when the owner's girlfriend has a new show, it's on cell phones, in all the media, on TV, on the ISP's home page, so on. They can control the information. All the news come from the same source, their own press agency. Even worse, about every of their companies have been/are/will be in a lock-out. Of course, since they own about every media you don't really hear about it.

And to make matters worse, Brian Mulroney (ex canadian PM) sits on the board so lobbying is not too difficult, as if cornering all the media wasn't enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebecor