Senator Al Franken stole the show at this week’s Senate hearing on Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC-Universal. As a former employee of NBC and a long-time media insider, Franken unleashed a scathing critique of both Comcast and NBC, outlining their long history as corporate bad actors with a string of broken promises.
Franken drew on his years as a writer and performer on “Saturday Night Live,” arguing that previous actions by both companies give him “reason to be very concerned about this potential merger.” However, Franken did not just feel betrayed by past actions. At the hearing, he argued that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts had misled him about the company’s commitment to public interest concessions. It turns out that Comcast promised Senator Franken that FCC rules would protect the public and prevent the company from discriminating against competing video distributors and programmers even while Comcast was trying to get those rules thrown out.
Witnesses at the hearing pointed out that, in addition to challenging the existence of rules, Comcast is the frequent subject of complaints from rival programmers and cable operators for violating the rules. The company has also been cited for lying to the FCC about blocking Internet users’ access to a competing a video application.
“You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t trust these promises,” Franken said in his remarks.
While Sen. Franken was the most vocal in his concerns about this merger, he was far from alone. Sen. Kohl, the chairman of the subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Feingold were also skeptical about the deal. There was a significant amount of concern about what this deal would mean for local affiliate stations, local sports coverage, small businesses and jobs.
Andy Schwartzman from the Media Access Project and Mark Cooper of Consumers Federation of America offered powerful arguments against the merger.
Schwartzman focused his criticism on the ways this merger would impact the nation at large. “Concentration of control in the mass media poses unique questions for policymakers and regulators,” Schwartzman argued. “Unlike any other line of business, media properties raise important questions which go to the very nature of democratic self-governance.”
He pointed to three threats this merger poses: It would increase Comcast’s power to squeeze out independent programmers with diverse editorial perspectives; give the merged company vastly increased power over content distribution markets; and, jeopardize development of a free and open Internet. Cooper, instead, honed in on the unique local issues raised by this deal. Comcast competes head to head with NBC for eyeballs and advertising revenue in at least 11 cities. These 11 markets account for nearly a quarter of U.S. TV households.
Cooper argued that the decreased competition in these cities will have a chilling effect, leading to a greater consolidation of voices and viewpoints.
“NBC and Comcast do not sell widgets,” Cooper reminded the Senators. “They sell news and information and access to the primary platforms Americans use to receive this news and information. Control over production and distribution of information has critical implications for society and democracy.” Franken echoed this statement, “It matters who owns our media. When one company owns the production and distribution of content it gives reason for concern.”
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts stammered through the afternoon, clearly caught off guard by the hard questioning. Members of both the House and the Senate ended their hearings calling for further investigation, and future hearings with the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission.
One thing was clear at the end of the day: This deal is far from a sure thing.
As the House and Senate held hearings to investigate Comcast’s takeover of NBC yesterday, something else became illuminated for the public: This was not the first time these members of Congress had sat down with Comcast.
Members of Congress mentioned meeting after meeting they’ve already had with Comcast and NBC officials and lobbyists, and could have pointed to those in the audience, mostly former policymakers and Capitol Hill staff who now work for Comcast, who have been selling this merger throughout Washington.
Indeed, the night before these hearings, a flurry of articles revealed the dramatic investment Comcast and NBC have made in trying to sway policy makers to support this deal.
Comcast and NBC Universal’s parent company have showered campaign contributions on members of two panels holding hearings Thursday on the cable giant’s proposed purchase of the television network. Comcast and General Electric have already spent $474,000 on contributions to members of the panels, about 70 percent of what they spent over the entire political cycle of 2008.
General Electric Chairman Jeffery Immelt sent Sen. Orrin Hatch a $2,000 campaign contribution the same day his company announced a deal giving Comcast controlling interest in NBC Universal. It was the first time Immelt has donated to the Utah senator, and yet the contribution capped a fundraising barrage during the previous month where top GE vice presidents and the company’s political action committee funneled a total of $23,000 to Hatch’s campaign account. Hatch is expected to play a key role in the congressional review of the controversial merger.
The tale of Comcast’s remarkable rise in Washington tracks the story of how the cable giant built its business. In the same way that it aggressively grew its empire by acquiring one cable system at a time, the company has methodically added one lobbyist after another and steadily spread more money around the nation’s capital as its interests expanded beyond the television screen.
If this deal is in the public’s best interest, then why would Comcast and NBC need to spend this kind of money to grease the wheels in Washington? Comcast is hoping to use their big bank accounts to silence any protests about this merger. But across the country, in local communities, in Web forums, on Twitter and on Facebook, people are fed up with the media giant’s bad actions.
They may have the big bucks, but we have you. Help us raise just one day of Comcast CEO Brian Robert’s salary to fight back against this merger.
If you could ask Comcast CEO Brian Roberts one thing about their takeover of NBC, what would it be?
Are you worried about this deal raising your cable rates, giving you fewer video choices online, or setting off a wave of other mergers across the country? Would you ask about all the potential local jobs that will be lost, or Comcast’s plan to lock down online TV? Maybe you’re just afraid that Comcast will move 30 Rock to their headquarters in Philadelphia?
Now is your chance to find out.
On Thursday, Roberts is going to be in the hot seat in Washington, D.C. at a Congressional double header: hearings in both the House and Senate. Policymakers are taking a hard look at this merger, and they’ll be asking some tough questions.
We want some of those questions to come from you. Check out our new “Dear Comcast” Web site – www.DearComcast.com – where you can grill Brian Roberts yourself. We will forward your questions to key members on both committees and urge them to hold Comcast’s feat to the fire.
If this merger goes through, in some places Comcast will control your access to cable, to the Web and to your local NBC station. Even if you don’t have Comcast in your area, they could make your bills go up by charging more for NBC programming.
What does that mean for you? How’s that going to impact your ability to watch TV online with Hulu and Netflix? Who the heck does Brian Roberts think he is?
As they used to say in grade school – there is no such thing as a bad question!
Ask your question now, and stay tuned on Thursday to see if one of your questions is asked, and how Roberts answers it.
Comcast just filed its merger paperwork with the FCC. As part of its takeover, Comcast wants to get its hands on local NBC and Telemundo stations owned and operated by NBC across the nation. More media consolidation in local news is never a good thing, but this deal is particularly bad for certain communities.
NBC owns local stations in eleven communities that are already have Comcast cable and Internet service. If this merger goes through, in each community one company will control content online, on cable and over the airwaves.
Here are the stations that are in Comcast’s crosshairs:
New York City – NBC New York (WNBC)
Chicago – NBC Chicago (WMAQ) and Telemundo WSNS
Philadelphia – NBC Philadelphia (WCAU)
San Francisco – NBC Bay Area (KNTV) and Telemundo KSTS
Boston – Telemundo WNEU
Washington DC – NBC Washington (WRC)
Houston – Telemundo KTMD
Miami – NBC Miami (WTVJ) and Telemundo WSCV
Denver – Telemundo KDEN and KMAS
Hartford – NBC Connecticut (WVIT)
Fresno – Telemundo KNSO
Even though this merger promises to lead to higher prices, fewer choices and fewer local jobs – Comcast told the FCC today that the deal would be good for local communities. Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver responded to this false assertion, saying, “Comcast’s claims that this merger will benefit consumers are positively Orwellian. The idea that it is magically going to be consumer friendly after it gets bigger doesn’t pass the laugh test. Regulators at FCC and the Department of Justice should cut through the rhetoric and put a spotlight on the real problems with this kind of unprecedented media consolidation.”
Public pressure is building for the government to stop the Comcast takeover of NBC. Since the deal was announced, 24,000 Americans have already said they oppose it. Today we will be delivering those public complaints to the FCC, and Congress is scheduled to hold hearings on the proposed takeover on February 4, 2010.
To help stop the merger, and protect news and information for local communities, go to: www.freepress.net/comcast
The FCC is gearing up to review the rules on how much media any one company can own. In 2003 and 2007, citizens across the country stood up against more media consolidation, but the FCC didn’t listen. Both times, the Senate and the courts had to step in to stop the rules from taking effect.
Will it be any different this time around? Not if industry groups have their way.
This week, the FCC held an initial hearing on the economic issues affecting the media industry, and it looks as though everyone has a bad case of amnesia. Bankers and representatives from investment companies and the broadcast industry repeatedly argued for more media consolidation.
These executives bemoaned their economic woes – mounting debt, declining ad revenue, shifts in technology, etc., while conveniently ignoring the fact that they dug this hole themselves. Their debt is the result of years of spending sprees, with billions of dollars spent buying up media holdings since the media ownership rules were first relaxed more than a decade ago.
Now here they are again, peddling more media consolidation as the solution to their economic troubles. It’s ironic, and incredibly maddening.
The industry is still trying to dupe the FCC into thinking that more consolidation is the answer. The FCC shouldn’t be fooled by the same arguments again.
The Department of Justice announced last week that it will review Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC Universal. When this deal was announced a month ago, we raised a number of public interest concerns. One of the biggest: If right now we rarely see independent, diverse and groundbreaking programming, it will become nearly extinct if this merger is approved.
It is appropriate to start with a primer about how TV shows reach our living rooms. The general idea is that the programmer brings the content and the cable operator brings the subscribers, and these are the key bargaining chips for both sides during negotiations. Big programmers, say, NBC Universal, have a huge number of cable channels, which serve as a big hammer when negotiating for carriage – or a slot on a cable system – with cable companies.
Big programmers leverage this power when negotiating with small cable operators, which don’t have the same market power as big cable operators to strike deals with big programmers. That is, NBC can afford to lose these subscribers much more easily than the small cable guys can afford to lose premium content. The big programmers thus routinely fleece small cable operators.
On the flip side, big cable operators like Comcast have so many subscribers that they have the upper hand in negotiations and can force agreements that favor them. Now, when large cable operators negotiate with large programmers, they typically come to mutually beneficial terms. If there is a standoff, it doesn’t last long because both sides recognize they won’t go far without the other. Small or upstart programmers, however, aren’t so lucky. They consistently get the short end of the stick in their dealings with companies like Comcast.
After the announcement of the Comcast-NBC merger, Comcast submitted a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. For the first time, the filing publicly disclosed the companies Comcast owns a partial stake in, and the news was both unsurprising and worrisome. The media properties listed in Comcast’s filing include:
These are all startup networks: Why and how does Comcast have an ownership stake in them? It’s not hard to understand. These startups did what they had to do to get carriage on Comcast, and that meant relinquishing shares of their companies to the cable giant.
As one industry observer noted, “If it doesn’t have Fox in front of its name or NBC behind it, it’s going to have trouble.” Certainly sounds like market dominance to me.
Comcast’s outsized market power means it can make outrageous demands of content companies that want to air their programming. For instance, the recently created nonprofit Olympic Network (started by the U.S. Olympic Committee) had to offer an estimated “$30-40M [million] in annual advertising” before Comcast would agree to carry the network. These arrangements are rarely leaked to the press, so it is unknown how many other upstarts had to make similar concessions.
What about no-name programmers that can’t afford to offer tens of millions of dollars for a slot on Comcast’s lineup? When true upstarts pitch their networks to the likes of Comcast, they don’t even have a prayer. When the Horror Channel tried to get picked up by Comcast, the company passed, deciding instead to create its own horror network called “FEARnet.” The lesson is that if you don’t have backing from a large programmer or distributor, your best hope is to be buried in the on-demand menu somewhere.
These instances are proof positive that large programmers like NBC and large cable operators like Comcast already have too much market power. Allowing the two to combine will only further tilt the scales in their favor. Comcast can take its less known cable channels and lump them with NBC’s, forcing distributors to air these channels, a practice known as bundling. Just think about this degree of market power – the largest cable operator owning one of the largest stables of cable networks. The problems I’ve described here will only get worse.
Meanwhile, other companies will likely try to match this market power through consolidation. As usual, the biggest losers will be small networks and cable operators, and last but not least, the public. Any increase in costs will surely be passed directly on to you. And this will further cement the reality that you have no chance of viewing truly independent content. The Comcast-NBC merger is a no-win situation for the public and must be stopped.
The new year has started with a renewed focus on Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC Universal, and it’s not good news for the cable giant. Over the past two days, federal investigators, public interest groups, industry associations and a wide array of nonprofits from across the political spectrum have raised red flags about the merger.
This week, the Washington Postand the Wall Street Journalreported that the Department of Justice has already decided to investigate the antitrust implications of the merger — even though Comcast has yet to file its merger paperwork with the agency. This is a strong statement from the Obama administration and a positive sign that they may follow through on Obama’s campaign statements about reinvigorating antitrust regulation and stopping media consolidation.
Christine Varney, the head of the antitrust division at the DOJ, has taken aggressive positions on vertical mergers in the past. In a 1995 speech, she argued that “Vertical acquisitions can be anticompetitive. Vertical mergers can create or raise entry barriers that lead to higher prices or lower quality or innovation for consumers.”
Yesterday, an ad hoc group of industry, labor and public interest organizations from both the left and the right joined together to express grave concern about the proposed takeover in an open letter to President Obama and Congress. Groups that seldom work on the same side of issues came together around the idea that this merger of media giants would only hurt the media landscape and further diminish diverse and independent voices.
The letter states, “A merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace. It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.” Read the full letter.
Momentum is building against this deal, but we need citizens to keep speaking out against the merger. Add your voice.
What do Disney’s debut film, The Princess and the Frog, Mattel’s new Black Barbie line, and the American tour of the historic Ethiopian fossil, “Lucy,” have in common? Their stories present an opportunity for honest and successful discussions about race in the media. But what they really do is point to the media’s failure to engage in these discussions in a way that fairly, accurately or thoughtfully addresses the subject of race.
One of the great conundrums in the media is the prevailing standard of whiteness as the default norm for beauty, intelligence and success. Studies have shown that photos of lighter-skinned folks elicit more media hits, further contributing to this racialized ideology. The National Academy of the Sciences, for example, found in a survey of voters in the 2008 presidential election that most preferred a lighter-skinned over a darker-skinned image of Barack Obama.
The research is not particularly groundbreaking. Renowned psychologist Kenneth Clark and his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark, explored the issue in the black doll tests of the 1940s. When black children were shown four dolls, identical except for skin color, the lighter ones were consistently picked as favorites.
Various researchers who write on issues of racial justice have long acknowledged that Western society’s association of light skin color as a marker of success is deep-seated and, unless specifically targeted by campaigns to address the issue, here to stay.
Media-driven moments that some claim were designed to perpetuate negative images of blackness include the menacingly digitized darkening of O.J. Simpson on the cover of Time magazine during his trial in the 1990s.
But Time’s treatment of Simpson is just one example of the media choosing to misrepresent people of color, including women, diverse religious leaders and immigrants. Media misrepresentation has a profound impact on people of color, and on the nation as a whole.
The media have failed to discuss instances of racial oppression honestly. We need media that help us combat stereotypes, and foster genuine discussions on race, to explore race in all its complexity. But our current media system doesn’t allow for this. Just a handful of corporations own nearly everything we read, watch and listen to, which means diverse viewpoints – and viewpoints that could counteract racial stereotypes – are squeezed out of the media. Additionally, a drastically small percentage of broadcast and radio stations are owned by people of color and women, further limiting media diversity.
Despite an entrenched media system, campaigns to rid the media of racist figures, such as BastaDobbs!, have been successful. Not long after the campaign – protesting CNN anchor Lou Dobbs for his comments on how blacks are criminals, immigrants a burden to the economy, and other shameful, racist remarks – went national, Dobbs “quit” CNN. But being able to locate where racism breeds in media is not always as apparent. Sometimes, the sources aren’t as obvious, and hate speech isn’t something you’ll read in headlines or hear on live broadcasts. Racist media outlets often function by proposing that we live in a “post-racial” society, that race is “in reality” a mere social construction.
However, as renowned cultural theorist Stuart Hall notes, reality is something that’s always channeled through symbolic categories made available by social mechanisms, of which the media is the most powerful. In keeping with Hall’s ideas, the view that ethnocentrism is somehow universal or a given, and not the product of particular decisions to direct hate or to exclude, neglect, or exploit, contributes to the problem. To paraphrase the equally prolific theorist Louis Althusser, ideology largely functions by making us believe that we are outside ideology. Just because a certain set of readers may not believe in, support or understand the history and effects of white privilege doesn’t mean their responses aren’t racialized. This is because media are all about framing: Media frame what is normal, which is how particular cultural values get produced and reinforced. The media disseminate subtle and subliminal messages about race in ways that are designed to evade the average reader/consumer. Without being prompted to read images, for example, we think that racism is always about instances of clear-cut hate. Not so.
Racism is systemic, institutional, and in the media, often a case of what you don’t see.
For example, racially tinged advertising decisions that erase the faces of people of color are not marketing mistakes. They are reminders that our nation’s commitment to diversity is still not a selling point. Race sells, but in most cases, representation is done cheaply and on the assumption that readers and listeners are consumers first, thinkers second.
Those of us working as writers, researchers and activists need to generate new tools for addressing racial frames in media, which in turn means that we need to locate our ethical responsibilities as journalists in the process of viewing, analyzing and evaluating our own work, as well as the work of others. The only dynamic discussions generated in media are those that consider disparities and alternatives, exploring the very frames that limit the issues at hand.
We need creative thinkers able to reveal the injustices at work in the corporate control of our daily news and information to head the movement for media reform. We also need advocates for a media system that allows communities of color to “see” themselves equitably reflected in the media for once, and to have their concerns taken into account. Finally, we need to support a generation of critical writers both to use the media as a means of disseminating messages about justice, as well as to analyze how the media is the message (to cite media prophet Marshall McLuhan).
It’s not about changing the channel or turning off the tube; it’s about channeling new ideas about diversity in ownership, programming and coverage. And this change starts with you.
Visit www.stopbigmedia.com to learn more.
This is a guest blog post from Race-Talk Cultural Editor Adebe D.A., who is a Toronto-born writer currently living in New York as a research intern at the Applied Research Center, home of ColorLines magazine. A recent MA graduate in English/Cultural Studies, she writes on issues related to race, social justice, migration, and the phenomena of culture. She currently holds the honour of Toronto’s Junior Poet Laureate and is the author of a chapbook entitled Sea Change (Burning Effigy Press, 2007). Her debut full-length poetry collection, Ex Nihilo, will be published by Frontenac House in early 2010. Visit her blog at http://www.adebe.wordpress.com.
This is a guest blog post by Chuck Lovey of Voice for New Jersey.
The recent behavior of Fox Television poses the question: Do you have what it takes to run a media empire? Take this quiz to find out.
Imagine that you preside over a broadcast media empire. Now imagine that one of your television stations is in trouble. The station is located in an affluent and densely populated market, but you’ve been running it on the cheap. And people have noticed.
You submit a routine application for renewal of your station license to the Federal Communications Commission. But instead of the usual rubber-stamp approval, you find that you have a fight on your hands. Community residents are saying that you do not provide enough news and public affairs programming, and they’ve petitioned to have your broadcast license revoked.
In an unheard-of move, the FCC schedules a public hearing. The state’s senior senator travels in from Washington D.C., and lets you have it. Scores of others show up to testify about your substandard news coverage. Evidence is presented to show that other stations in your market broadcast an average of five times as much news programming as you do.
Now, here’s the test. Do you: (a) acknowledge the problem and improve your news programming; or (b) cut budgets, lay off staff, slash the already abysmal amount of news coverage you provide by more than half, and then submit filings to the FCC misrepresenting what you’ve done?
If you answered “a,” congratulations! You appear to have at least a modicum of integrity.
If you answered “b,” congratulations! You appear to qualify for an executive post at Fox Television.
Incredibly, this scenario isn’t fiction. In 2007, the media advocacy group Voice for New Jersey (VNJ) filed a petition with the FCC to deny the renewal of WWOR-TV’s station license. At the time, the Secaucus, N.J.-based station offered only eight hours of news and public affairs programming per week. The station provided virtually no local news coverage for some of northern New Jersey’s largest municipalities.
The VNJ petition did, in fact, lead to an unprecedented public hearing by the FCC. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) delivered the keynote address, and was joined by scores of others who urged the FCC to demand more from the station. Subsequent comments from FCC commissioners were encouraging.
And then… nothing happened.
Well, actually, something did happen (a year and a half later). WWOR’s owner, Fox Television Stations, Inc., did a little more slashing and burning. It reduced WWOR’s news broadcasts to a half-hour per day, eliminated weekend news coverage altogether, and cut public affairs programming to a half-hour per week.
Fox laid off a good portion of WWOR’s technical and programming staff. Remaining staff is for the most part “shared” with WWOR’s sister station, WNYW-TV. The station’s Secaucus headquarters now looks like a ghost town; its four studios produce a grand total of three hours of programming per week.
And then, months after all of this happened, Fox submitted filings to the FCC stating that WWOR’s prior levels of programming were still in place. It held a series of meetings with the FCC, acted like nothing had happened, and demanded that its station license be renewed without conditions.
And that, apparently, is what it takes to run a media empire in the United States . Fox behaves in ways that, even in these cynical times, shock the conscience. The proceeding on WWOR-TV’s station license is still open. Write to the FCC today, and tell them to act. For more information, go to the Voice for New Jersey Web site at www.voicenj.com.
The announcement of the Comcast-NBC merger has unleashed the predictable chorus of free market ideologues (like the Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), parroting the claims of the merging parties. Without any detailed analysis of the deal, they claim that new efficiencies will benefit consumers and that there is more than enough competition to prevent abuses.
Thankfully, the era of “don’t worry, be happy” antitrust enforcement in America is over.
Ironically, the very same ideologues, who snap to attention to salute every media and telecommunications merger, accuse public interest groups of knee-jerk opposition to these mergers. In a feeble attempt to prove that public interest groups are overreacting, they have listed a number of recent mergers that, they claim, did not result in the sky falling in on consumers (AT&T-SBC, Verizon-MCI, News Corp.- DirecTV, AOL-Time Warner, XM-Sirius). But they draw the wrong conclusions from the track record of these mergers in three crucial respects.
First, these mergers were prevented from doing their worst because, in every case, antitrust authorities imposed important conditions to prevent the anticompetitive, anti-consumer harms that consolidation would have produced.
Second, the post-merger world is far from the nirvana that the conservatives make it out to be. They all did result in consumer harm, despite the conditions placed on those transactions that mitigated harm to some extent. Particularly, the telecom mergers were consumer disasters. They eliminated the major competitors in the marketplace for wireline broadband service, reversed the outcomes of the pro-competitive breakup of AT&T and the pro-competitive 1996 Telecommunications Act, and handed us a guaranteed wireline duopoly that has resisted meaningful price competition ever since. These mergers also resulted in massive consolidation in the wireless industry (by virtue of granting huge market power to these wireline companies that also had wireless services) – pushing AT&T and Verizon into dominant positions that are quickly giving us the same problem in mobile communications. The quality of TV programming has taken a beating because the TV networks were allowed to buy movie studios, and independent production of TV programming was all but eliminated from prime time.
Third, the failure of these mergers to produce the synergies and efficiencies these companies promised reminds us that the claims of efficiency that were used to justify mergers in the past decade were vastly overblown.
The “efficient market hypothesis” that allowed companies to wave a magic efficiency wand and blind the antitrust authorities to the anticompetitive impact of the mergers was the cornerstone of the “don’t worry, be happy” era. Now, the “efficient market hypothesis” is crumbling. It is buried, if not dead, beneath the rubble of the financial system. Regulation is a punitive price to be paid when markets fail; it’s a vital protection against market failure. This is exactly the role that antitrust review of mergers has played for over a century. It is explicitly intended to prevent damage to competition before the fact.
Perhaps the greatest proponent and practitioner of the “don’t worry, be happy” school of antitrust thought is Alan Greenspan. Yet, a year ago, under cross-examination by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Greenspan admitted that there was a flaw in his theory. Greenspan put it as follows:
“Those of us who looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief… I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”
The public interest movement has always believed that the pursuit of profit is not synonymous with the public good, but Greenspan’s admission goes one step further. The pursuit of profit is not even synonymous with private good. The lesson we must learn from this is that the assumption that the market will take care of everything is simply wrong.
The effort to dismiss concerns about the Comcast-NBC merger ignores the large size, prominent position and powerful incentives Comcast-NBC would have to abuse its power. Comcast is the largest cable operator in the United States., larger than the next three cable operators combined. Its holdings are concentrated in the major media markets. It is also the largest broadband Internet service provider and has a dominant market share in the local markets it serves.
NBC is one of four major national broadcast networks, “a global brand with an iconic legacy (news, sports and Primetime,” and a particularly prominent position in national and local news. Combining the broadcast network with the cable channels, Comcast-NBC would have ownership interests in almost a dozen of the video networks that “deliver mass-market audience with 100 percent reach of U.S. TV households.” There are only a few dozen such networks.
This large size and crucial position provide Comcast with the muscle to pursue its private interest at the expense of the public interest. The potential impact of this merger demands that it be scrutinized carefully by both the antitrust authorities and the Federal Communications Commission. It should not be waived through based on bogus historical analogies or discredited theories of market efficiency.
Comcast-NBC poses a unique threat because it is a dagger aimed at the heart of the Internet, a direct competitor to cable for multichannel video distribution. Allowing the largest cable and broadband service provider to buy one of the top four video programmers would create a huge incentive to lock content behind the new pay walls cable companies want to build.
If Comcast wants to become a programming giant, it should do so the old-fashioned way… It should develop new programming and compete to win audiences.
