Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast-NBC Deal Accidentally Protects Internet?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

jfruhlinger writes "Details of the conditions that the Department of Justice required to approve Comcast's purchase of NBC have emerged today. Blogger Kevin Fogarty looks at the details — Comcast is forbidden from blocking Netflix over its pipes, and must sell NBC shows via iTunes and other similar services — and concludes that Internet access for everybody, including business users, has been protected, more or less by accident."

5 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Not at all by captaindomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:Not at all by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I haven't RTFA yet but from the summary it doesn't sound like a matter of agreed contractual language between corporations but rather a demand from the DoJ to the merged corporations. While it doesn't go so far as to assert an inherent right to a free internet, it does seem to acknowledge that potential harm can come from an ISP also being a content provider.

    2. Re:Not at all by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

      And back in reality, I'm happy about this. Adding specific regulations and requirements to a merger of this sort is exactly how the DoJ is supposed to do its job. Just saying "the internet should be free and open" doesn't do crap - you need specific regulations on specific companies to make that happen.

      Specifically with regards to this merger: without the merger there would be no need for requirements like this, because there is no conflict of interest between the content producer (NBC) and any one distributor. NBC would like to license its content to all distributors so as to maximize its own profit. Once a distributor (Comcast) buys the content producer, there's the conflict of interest (for example, the distributor wants to make NBC content available only on its distribution network so as to make subscribers who want to watch NBC shows have to come over to Comcast's distribution system), and there's the need for DoJ or FCC to intervene.

      I see this as good news. Vague language about openness and neutrality is ripe for loopholes and other asshattery by the distributors and content producers. Specific regulations on them like this should have more teeth.

    3. Re:Not at all by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What this actually does is accept the fact that a corporate merger can specify what is blocked and what isn't. This is actually a dangerous trend for network neutrality, because we are seeing the Justice Department agree with the idea that what is blocked and what isn't is a matter of contractual language between corporations, instead of the inherent right to a free internet.

      I can see your point, but I'm not at all sure that this is a negative development in the interim. Because what it does is drive a wedge between the different ISPs.

      Before this deal if you tried to propose network neutrality rules, all the ISPs were against it with a united front. Now, if Comcast already has to follow the rules, why shouldn't they take the position that their competitors should have to as well? They certainly don't want a situation where AT&T can block or delay NBC content in favor of AT&T's "preferred" partners or whatever, or charge NBC for access to AT&T customers.

      The real problem is if the settlement rules aren't really effective. If Comcast can still pull the sort of thing they are with Level 3 and Netflix and that isn't considered a violation of the settlement then the settlement is meaningless, because it isn't a barrier to bad behavior -- it's a fence post they can just walk around. In which case they retain a shared interest with the other ISPs to be able to keep doing things like that.

  2. Yeah, but - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comcast is forbidden from blocking Netflix over its pipes, and must sell NBC shows via iTunes and other similar services

    Are they forbidden to charge more, or deliver at lower priority than their own content?

    We've got to get back to forbidding mergers of infrastructure providers with content providers. Look at what happened when the "approve anything" frenzy let the banks spread into areas that created conflicts of interest.