Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Chair Seeks Comcast-NBC Merger Conditions

Posted by Soulskill on from the go-stifle-yourself dept.

Anarki2004 writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press report: "The head of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing regulatory conditions to ensure that cable TV giant Comcast Corp. cannot stifle competition in the video market once it takes control of NBC Universal. The conditions laid out Thursday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski are intended to guarantee that satellite providers and other rival television services can still carry marquee NBC programming and that new Internet video distributors can get the content they need to grow and compete. ... Genachowski wants to ensure that Comcast won't be able to use its control over NBC's vast media empire to withhold content from emerging online competitors such as Netflix Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. — locking consumers into costly monthly cable bills to get access to a wide range of popular programming. Genachowski now needs at least two of the other four FCC commissioners to back his proposal, and he is likely to make modifications to win the support he needs to cap off the yearlong regulatory review."

15 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Great Idea by Metabolife · · Score: 2

    How about making it a condition that they can't purposely slow down the guide menu just so you see the ads for longer? K thx

    1. Re:Great Idea by onionman · · Score: 2

      How about making it a condition that they can't purposely slow down the guide menu just so you see the ads for longer? K thx

      I'd also like a condition that says they have to increase their network architecture to support their advertised broadband speeds.

    2. Re:Great Idea by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd also like a condition that says they have to increase their network architecture to support their advertised broadband speeds.

      What would they do that? Only pirates use their Internet connections to the fullest capacity!

      Sincerely,
      RIAA & MPAA

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  2. Really? by Thornburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let me get this straight.

    The head of the FCC has just said, "We know this merger could be bad for consumers in several ways. Here are the ways: 'A, B, C'. However, I'd like to let the merger go through, if Comcast just promises not to do those bad things."

    Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit. Sounds like a brilliant plan.

    Even if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.

    1. Re:Really? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2

      And that's just the bad things we THINK they would try to get away with.

      That doesn't include the bad things they will do very underhandedly, things we probably didn't consider.

    2. Re:Really? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      o let me get this straight.

      The head of the FCC has just said, "We know this merger could be bad for consumers in several ways. Here are the ways: 'A, B, C'. However, I'd like to let the merger go through, if Comcast just promises not to do those bad things."

      Its not "just promises".

      It "accepts being legally prohibited from doing them."

      Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit.

      Its not about "trust". Its about imposing requirements.

      en if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.

      Their legal mandate is not to cover every bad thing Comcast can do, it is to establish conditions under which the acquisition would not be unacceptable given the things the FCC is legally charged with protecting, at which point Comcast can choose to accept the conditions or not go forward with the acquisition.

      The FCC is not, say, one of the central planning organizations of the USSR with unlimited and arbitrary power over commerce (or even the limited domain of communications systems.) It has specific powers which it can exercise in support of specific policy objectives dictated by Congress.

  3. Block the Sale by Felix+Da+Rat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If there are such serious concerns for what impact the sale will make, block it on anti-trust issues. I'm not one for government regulation, but we have some laws for situations like this.

    These weak concessions, and planning on negotiating them down, makes this appear as little but a panacea for the citizens anger when they start getting shafted.

  4. They might be sued otherwise by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Suppose the FCC showed some spine and said, "No, this is not a merger that we can allow to happen, it would not be in the best interests of the American public." Comcast would sue, and say something to the effect of, "The FCC is going to prevent us from becoming more profitable than we already are, which is clearly a bad thing!" to which the judge would reply, "Hm, yes, you do need to be more profitable," and the FCC would be overruled. The problem is much broader: our government has forgotten that it is supposed to do what is best for all its citizens, not just those who hold stock in large corporations.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:They might be sued otherwise by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with shareholders in large corporations making money?

      At what point did I say large corporations should not be making money? Did I say they should not be profitable? I said the reason we are seeing these enormous, anti-competitive mergers is that large corporations want to become more profitable than they already are, and that the government will allow it without regard for whether or not it best serves the people.

      The government we were given is supposed to provide for a basic "Rule of Law" environment and prevent one Citizen (or group) from causing direct harm to other Citizens (or groups) of same.

      That is only part of what the government is supposed to do. Take another look at your constitution, you seem to have missed a few things about what the government can do.

      They aren't supposed to be DOing much of anything FOR us.

      Oh, funny, I thought you were a big fan of corporations, a creation of the government that gives the owners of certain businesses limited liability, which they would not otherwise have. Or, is that not the government "doing" something? I guess granting a corporate charter is not really "doing" anything in the libertarian world view.

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights was all about circumscribing the power of the Federal Government with all sorts of "Thou Shalt Not..."

      Except for all those parts that allow the government to do things; maybe you have heard of the "enumerated powers." Like the part that allows congress to regulate commerce, or the part that allows congress to pass laws that are necessary to carry out other enumerated powers. Yeah, I guess someone (Ron Paul, perhaps?) must have snipped out those parts of your copy of the constitution.

      Revive the most "Federalist" Founding Father and their response upon seeing what had become of their creation would be to journey to Washington DC and register their opinion with a musket to the junk of the first Congresscritter they met.

      Of course, in the early days of America, corporate charters expired after a limited time, so I guess you would not be too happy with the aftermath of all that bloodshed. Back then, corporations were chartered to do things that were necessary or benefited the public; the fact that their investors would profit from it was simply incentive, rather than the primary purpose of corporations.

      Yes, times have changed; the constitution was amended and interpreted, we elected leaders who believed that "America's business is business," and our politicians were bought off by out-of-control corporations. I agree, we need to fix things. Somehow, though, I do not think you and I agree on what needs to be fixed.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  5. conditions? lol by Weezul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to see them break up both Comcast and NBC into smaller regional outfits. :P

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  6. Content vs Distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be happy if there were laws against the joining of Content and Distribution. This vertical model is bad for the marketplace and for consumers.

  7. Vertical Integration by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is what this is. Anticompetitive practices is what it is ALL about.

    They're not doing this to save money in their accounting offices.

    They're doing this so they can make life hard on other cable/internet providers.

    And that's exactly what will happen.

    If you don't want that to happen, this right here, is the moment in time to do something about it.

  8. Extortion by loafing_oaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?

    --
    Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
  9. Only one solution by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Split the content provider and the common carrier apart.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Only one solution by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Split the content provider and the common carrier apart.

      You mean something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

      "United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements."

      Why is this country so hell bent on going backwards when it comes to corporate power and monopolies? I can't believe this merger was ever even considered by the feds, let alone treated as a done deal from the beginning as it has been.