Posted August 19th, 2010 by Josh Stearns
As of yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission had received 33,049 comments about the proposed merger of Comcast with NBC-Universal. Nearly 32,000 of those comments were from local citizens from around the country who oppose the merger. That means 94 percent of people weighing in at the FCC believe this merger is bad for competition, consumers and our communities.
But will the FCC listen to the public, or will it be swayed by Comcast’s lobbying machine?
Comcast’s hometown paper, The Philly Inquirer, estimates that Comcast has spent almost $90 million in the last six months to win approval of this terrible merger. Together, NBC and Comcast have hired nearly 100 former government officials to flood Washington with their money and talking points. And TechDailyDose points out that since 2008, 385 members of Congress (that’s three quarters of Congress) have received money from employees of Comcast or its political action committee.
A few weeks ago, Comcast’s army of lawyers and lobbyists submitted more than 600 pages of documents claiming to justify this deal – one of the biggest media mergers in a generation. However, those 600 pages were mostly full of generic talking points, flawed data and inconsistent statements. Today was the FCC deadline to respond to Comcast’s massive filing and Free Press – along with the Media Access Project, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union – filed these comments.
The merger of the largest cable operator and one of the nation’s premier video content producers will fundamentally alter the structure of the video marketplace to the detriment of competition, innovation and diversity. Here are two examples:
Online Video Markets
This merger threatens the emerging market for online video by eliminating competition between Comcast’s and NBCU’s online video platforms. By virtue of their combined control over broadband access, cable platforms and a critical mass of content, Comcast/NBC will be uniquely situated to withhold content from emerging online video competitors like Netflix, Vuze and Boxee. As the nation’s largest broadband Internet service provider, Comcast can also control access
and the quality of its competitors’ services. The combined company will have both the incentive and the ability to influence the growth of online video to its own advantage, and to the detriment of competition and consumers.
Local Media Markets
The merger will hurt local media and create a near monopoly in local advertising by eliminating direct competition between Comcast’s cable operations and NBC’s local broadcast stations. Comcast has been making side deals with stakeholders, but all they really do is preserve the status quo, and do not affirmatively promote public interest goals. In fact, Comcast’s “promise” to improve local programming on NBC stations is dubious and unenforceable, and the company ignores making such a promise for Telemundo stations.
Buying Merger Support
The harms resulting from this merger run so wide and so deep that we are skeptical that they can be remedied. So far, most of Comcast’s support seems to have been bought, not earned. In their comments, Comcast made a big deal out of the generous “cash and in-kind contributions” they have made to various organizations. While we applaud corporate citizenship, giving donations to local nonprofits to entice them to back a bad deal will only hurt the public in the long run.
The FCC doesn’t stand for “Federal Cash-and-In-Kind-Contribution Commission,” and this type of financial support, while commendable, is irrelevant to this merger review. The FCC’s duty is to promote competition, diversity and localism – not fostering more charitable giving.
This fight is far from over and there is still time for you to weigh in. Make sure your lawmakers know that you oppose this deal.
No Comments »
Posted August 11th, 2010 by Megan Tady
Have a great idea for better media? We want to hear it.
Free Press is excited to announce the call for suggestions for the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform. It’s your chance to submit your ideas for sessions, presenters or topics for next year’s big event.
Go here to submit a suggested session, speaker or topic.
The conference is a time for thousands of people to gather and work together to change our media system. We want the conference to reflect the broad sweep of media reform — from policy to journalism to social justice to technology and innovation. We need your input to make this our best conference yet.
Below are the conference details. Don’t forget to mark your calendar!
What: 2011 National Conference for Media Reform. Submit your idea now.
When: April 8-10, 2011
Where: Boston
Info: Sign up for updates or visit http://www.freepress.net/call-for-suggestions for more information.
The conference will be a one-of-a-kind opportunity to strategize, network, share skills, swap information and inspire one another during three days of workshops, panels, caucuses, keynote speeches, meetings and parties in Boston.
This is your chance to help us shape the event from the start. So if you have an idea for an exciting session or have recently seen an inspiring speaker, tell us about it. The call for suggestions will be open through September 10.
And spread the word! Let your everyone know about the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform by forwarding this e-mail and sharing details on Twitter and Facebook.
No Comments »
Posted August 2nd, 2010 by Jim Rhyne
As large media conglomerates grow bigger, individual voices are increasingly left out of any meaningful dialogue — even at a “public” hearing. You might think it’s a great opportunity to speak truth to power, but you’d be mistaken. The same money and power that allow corporations to control the public airwaves is also painfully evident in their ability to control the tone at a public hearing.
Based on the majority of testimony at the July 9 FCC hearing at Northwestern University Law School about the pending Comcast/NBC merger, there is no doubt that Comcast is a generous corporate partner to many Chicago area nonprofits. And that’s fantastic. Who could begrudge these nonprofits for forging strategic partnerships that yield valuable dollars—especially in this economic environment?
However, to be distracted by Comcast’s corporate goodwill is to miss the point about the merger. Interestingly, distraction is the same tactic employed by most of corporate media when it comes to news and information. The more you know about celebrities and worry about crime, the less you’ll care that you know absolutely nothing about who is running for office and what topics are being debated from city hall to state and national government.
So the FCC hearing was a dispiriting distraction about Comcast’s selfless commitment to nonprofits. The sad reality is, that in the end, we all lose—even the nonprofits represented that night that are benefitting in the short term from Comcast’s largesse—except for Comcast and big media.
What was missing from the hearing? This merger is not a referendum on Comcast’s community sponsorship. Being a good corporate citizen doesn’t mean this merger is good for our democracy, which demands a free exchange of ideas.
The strength and health of our democracy is completely dependent on a vibrant, independent press. If big companies are allowed to continue their march toward even bigger media companies, the result can only mean fewer reporters, fewer voices and more news sharing than what we have now which is abysmal. In a constant search for profit, these large media companies will continue to abandon their basic duty to our democracy to hold those in power accountable.
If this merger is approved, we risk losing this invaluable part of our democracy.
Since most of the testimony was irrelevant to the debate and the main point of the hearing virtually lost on all but a handful of those who showed up to oppose the merger, it’s clear that we need a new strategy: better media literacy.
Perhaps some of these nonprofits, who normally would support a more open, democratic media, may not be aware that if we had better media coverage and investigative journalism about poverty, hunger, homelessness, workers’ rights and other issues—we wouldn’t need donations and PSAs from big media companies just to get our stories heard. And then maybe, just maybe, we could all be working to foster the real change we want in our communities.
Ultimately what’s at stake is news becoming even more obsolete (think more celebrity and crime) and thereby reducing our ability to make sense of what’s really happening at city hall, in state capitals and in Washington, DC.
At some point we have to recognize the irreversible erosion of a valuable public asset like the airwaves and vow to stop allowing big companies to grow bigger and more profitable at the expense of the public good and the strength of our democracy. With better media literacy, maybe we can.
Otherwise we will always be overpowered, outmuscled and our voices stifled. That’s not a democracy I want. How about you?
Jim Rhyne is a media reform activist and volunteer with Free Press. In 2006 he spearheaded a local Los Angeles TV news-monitoring project and co-authored its report. Then in 2008, he organized the first and now annual media reform summit in Los Angeles. A graduate of the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism, he now lives in Chicago where he works as a freelance advertising writer.
1 Comment »
Posted July 28th, 2010 by Matt Schafer
In front of a crowd of 2,000 bloggers and citizen activists at Netroots Nation last week, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) delivered an explosive speech about media consolidation, Net Neutrality and corporate influence over policy. “Now, corporations with government permission pose the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights,” he said.
Franken was not only citing the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision, which will allow corporations to inject millions of dollars into the election process, but also the likely ramifications of the proposed Comcast-NBC Universal merger on free speech and the open Internet.
“If no one stops them how long to do you think it would take before four or five corporations effectively control the flow of information in America not only on television, but online?” Franken asked his audience.
Watch the speech.
A prominent opponent of the Comcast-NBC merger, Franken argued that it could open the door to even more mega mergers that would unite on a massive scale content creators and content distributors, while relegating independent content to the dark corners of the Internet and other platforms. A merger like Comcast-NBC, Franken said, is likely to lead to the favoring of corporate content over that of individuals.
Without vital Net Neutrality protections, and tough but fair regulation for corporations like Comcast, Franken sees a dark future where the flow of information in the United States will be controlled by just a few multinational corporations. Without Net Neutrality and other protections, Franken told the Netroots audience that the foundation of their movement – the open Internet – is next in line for a corporate takeover.
In what can only be called a wake up call for the concerned citizens across the United States, Franken repeatedly brought attention to the Comcast/NBCU merger, saying that empty promises from both Comcast and NBCU are not going to be enough. Instead, he said, it is absolutely necessary to proceed with the greatest amount of caution and skepticism.
“If we don’t protect Net Neutrality now, how long do you think it will take before Comcast-NBC Universal, or Verizon-CBS Viacom or AT&T-ABC-DirecTV or BP-Haliburton-Walmart-Fox-Domino’s-Pizza start favoring its content over everyone else’s?” Franken said.
If the government and the people do not voice their opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger, it is all too possible the media landscape will be dotted with even larger mega companies that control every form of our communications systems. Franken argued that the Comcast merger is just the first domino in a line of future mergers that will stifle innovation, investment, and Internet freedom.
“If [Comcast-NBC] falls, the rest will soon follow,” he said. “It’s almost too late to stop this from happening, but not quite.” Take action.
No Comments »
Posted July 22nd, 2010 by Matt Schafer
In a blow to local journalism and quality reporting, the Federal Communications Commission is supporting an old media cross-ownership rule that allows companies to own more media outlets in communities across the country.
Yesterday, the FCC filed a brief with a U.S. appeals court defending the agency’s 2007 decision under former Chairman Kevin Martin to weaken the Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership (NBCO) Rule.
The Martin NBCO Rule, which was adopted as part of the FCC’s 2006 media ownership review, is marred by procedural irregularities, ambiguous provisions and loopholes — all of which run counter to the rule’s purpose: to protect local communities from media monopolies and to increase diversity in the marketplace of ideas. The watered-down rule allows media outlets to merge based on promises that the FCC cannot monitor or enforce.
In 2008, Congress passed a resolution of disapproval of the adoption of the Martin NBCO Rule. Earlier this week a bi-partisan groups of senators reiterated their support for a diverse media system and strong ownership protections. In a letter sent to current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) questioned the wisdom of FCC rule changes in 2003 and 2007 that removed many of the ownership laws that promoted diversity, localism and competition.
Yet, despite congressional disapproval and the FCC’s new leadership, yesterday Chairman Genachowski supported the FCC’s defense of Martin NBCO rules, saying, “While the rules being challenged were adopted before I became Chairman, I support our General Counsel in arguing that the order was within the discretion of the Commission.”
However, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps criticized the FCC’s decision to defend the flawed rule. Copps, a commissioner since 2001, voted against loosening media ownership rules in both 2003 and 2007. He said in a statement:
It is difficult for me to believe that our new FCC, with its new majority, is in court today basically accepting the validity of the pro-consolidation decision of a previous Commission,” Copps said today. “Three decades of hyper-speculation have diminished media diversity, put investigative journalism on the endangered species list and significantly dumbed-down our fact-based civic dialogue.
The FCC has a long history of attempting to erode media ownership rules that protect journalism and the public’s interest. In a 2003 vote along party lines, the FCC attempted to allow the cross-ownership of both a newspaper and a television or radio station.
In 2007, the FCC attempted to deregulate the media industry by again removing rules against cross ownership of a broadcast outlet and a newspaper, a rule change the appeals court had ruled against in the 2003 proceedings. At the time, the New York Times said the rule change “would be a big victory for some executives of media conglomerates.” The appeals court is currently reviewing the changes. Earlier this year, however, the court lifted a stay on the rule change, allowing consolidation to move forward while they continue their review.
In the last fifteen years of media ownership deregulation, the number of television owners has dropped by one third from 450 owners to just over 300. Before the relaxation of ownership rules, there were over 5,000 radio owners, while today there are 3,143 owners – a decline by almost 40%. Currently, there are 175 broadcast duopolies where the same owner operates two stations in markets across the country.
While FCC deregulation in the past has reduced competition, diversity and localism in the market, Sens. Snowe, Dorgan and Cantwell reminded Genachowski that the FCC is “under no obligation to follow the footsteps of its predecessors.” All three senators had also joined the bipartisan resolutions of disapproval of the FCC’s previous attempts at relaxing ownership rules.
Media advocacy groups like Free Press are applauding the senators’ letter to Genachowski and are disappointed by the FCC’s move to support failed media policy that developed under the previous FCC leadership.
“All communities, large and small, deserve diverse, competing and independent local media,” Corie Wright, Free Press’ policy counsel said. “As such, we are disappointed that Chairman Genachowski directed the agency to defend a defective [policy] that has been widely criticized both for its substance and for the manner in which it was adopted.”
1 Comment »
Posted July 13th, 2010 by Megan Tady
Free Press President and CEO Josh Silver testified today before the Federal Communications Commission’s public forum on Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC. Silver didn’t hold back in criticizing the deal, saying it would result in higher prices for consumers and fewer choices in programming and services, and would limit innovation in the emerging online video market.
The forum was held in Chicago, a city that typifies the negative impacts the merger could have on local media landscapes. Comcast is Chicago’s dominant cable and Internet provider, and now the company wants to acquire NBC 5 Chicago and Telemundo Chicago. If this deal goes through, nearly a quarter of Chicago’s commercial cable channels in the most popular cable package will be owned by Comcast.
In excerpts from his prepared testimony, Silver said:
Policymaking at the behest of the largest companies – across industries – is threatening our economy, our oceans, our security and the very viability of our democracy. Just look at the ongoing recession or the Gulf of Mexico for the most recent examples. … Insufficient government oversight has already allowed companies like Comcast to overcharge customers who have no alternative providers when bills are too high or service quality is too low.
The merger would allow a single company to own a huge array of popular content, and to exert excessive control over how it is distributed over the airwaves, cable and Internet. Such dominance over any one of these provides sufficient reason for the FCC to block the transaction. The merged giant’s power over all three platforms requires that regulators stop the deal.
Comcast and NBC bear the burden of proving to the Commission that this transaction not only will not harm consumers and competition, but that it will actually advance public interest goals. Comcast and NBC have not made and cannot make this showing. … Some have suggested that if we place conditions on the deal, everything will be OK. But requiring conditions to neutralize the harms of a bad merger is not the same as ensuring that the merger affirmatively produces real public interest outcomes. Importantly, such conditions would expire in a few years. With this deal, the anticompetitive incentives would be part of the DNA of the merged company, making conditions with a shelf life about as helpful as putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg.
Read his full testimony here.
The merger is so dangerous for local and diverse media in Chicago and across the country that more than 20 public interest groups and private organizations have joined forces to launch the Coalition for Competition in Media (CCM) to oppose Comcast’s acquisition. The coalition includes Free Press, the National Organization for Women, the National Coalition of African American Owned Media (NCAAOM), Parents Television Council; Rural Independent Competitive Alliance; the Sports Fans Coalition; and, Bloomberg.
The coalition placed an ad in several Washington, D.C. media outlets this week chiding Comcast for its big media takeover. Check out the ad.
Last month, Free Press and other public interest groups filed a Petition to Deny with the FCC, and, along with allies, filed nearly 70,000 public signatures opposing the merger.
During his opening remarks at the forum, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps came out strong in protecting the public’s interest. He said the Comcast-NBC merger would be a “scene-setter for the future” of all media. He asked, “Should the FCC bless more media consolidation, or should the FCC begin pushing back the tide?”
Tell him and the entire FCC what you think by taking action here.
No Comments »
Posted July 8th, 2010 by Nick Russo
Next Tuesday, July 13th, the Federal Communications Commission will hold a public hearing at the Northwestern University Law School in Chicago regarding Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC and the impact it will have on the city.
Before the FCC comes to town let’s get some facts on the table. As the agency considers whether to let big media get even bigger, it’s important to understand the state of media consolidation in the city already. Warning: it’s not a pretty picture.
Chicago is the third-largest radio and television market in the country which means it wields significant social, political and economic power. Regardless of its size, much of Chicago’s traditional media is owned by just a handful of companies. Comcast is already a media giant in Chicago, dominating the cable and Internet service in the city – and now it wants to take over NBC 5 Chicago and Telemundo Chicago. Controlling content on three platforms – cable, Internet and broadcast – Comcast would turn Chicago into a media company town. This is not good for competition or consumers.
The bi-partisan Coalition for Competition in Media, which launched today, outlines the threats to Chicago this way:
“Imagine you live in Chicago. If this deal goes forward as proposed, you and your fellow Chicagoland residents will wake up one day to find Comcast is no longer just the dominant high-speed internet and cable company. Now, Comcast also owns WMAQ, your local NBC affiliate. It owns Telemundo WSNS, your local Spanish-language broadcaster. It owns Chicago Sportsnet, home of the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and your Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks. This one company now also owns dozens of cable channels across the dial and websites across the Internet . It also owns the Universal movies you see in your cineplex and the movies you download from the Universal catalogue.”
In Chicago, a city known for its diversity, people of color account for nearly two-thirds of the population in the city of Chicago. Unfortunately, yet not surprisingly, Comcast and NBC both have bad reputations when it comes to diversity in their programming and in their companies. In the past, media consolidation has hurt minority media ownership – this deal would be no different.
Chicago is a city already plagued with media consolidation: just four companies control nearly two-thirds of the local news market with the Tribune company owning some of the most prominent media properties across the city. If Comcast were to swallow up NBC, they would own nearly one quarter of Chicago’s commercial cable channels in the most popular cable package. Nationally Comcast could control one out of every five viewing hours on TV.
These stats just scratch the surface. For more information about the FCC hearing in Chicago click here. For more on media consolidation in Chicago, check out our research here.
1 Comment »
Posted July 1st, 2010 by Nick Russo
If you’re outraged by the proposed Comcast takeover of NBC-Universal and live anywhere near Chicago, you’ll have a chance to personally tell the Federal Communications Commission next week.
On July 13, the FCC will hold a public forum at Northwestern University Law School to discuss the potential implications of the merger on our media landscape. If you’re in the area, be sure to attend and speak out. The meeting is open to the public and will feature two panel discussions and a two-hour block of time dedicated to citizen commentary.
Ultimately, this merger will result in higher prices for consumers, fewer Internet freedoms and a lack of diverse voices in our broadcast media. Additionally, Comcast has hired a battalion of lobbyists to do their bidding in Washington to get this merger approved (while they meet behind closed doors with the FCC in talks to kill Net Neutrality). To make matters worse, many of these lobbyists are themselves former government officials, and some even worked as aides to FCC Commissioners.
In 2007, the FCC held a similar forum in Chicago on the topic of media ownership rules, and over a thousand Chicago citizens showed up – some waiting in line until 2 a.m. to talk face-to-face with the FCC. However, Comcast has a history of underhanded tactics designed to silence the public. In 2008, Comcast hired people off the street to fill up an FCC hearing and keep the public out.
Comcast already dominates much of the media market in Chicago, and swallowing NBC would further limit the scope and viewpoints Comcast promotes. The statistics regarding local and minority ownership across the United States are, to state it plainly, bleak. According to a 2007 report by Free Press, women comprise 51 percent of the entire U.S. population, but own less than 6 percent of all full-power commercial television stations.
In Chicago, 51.5 percent of the population is female, yet there are no full-power commercial television stations in Chicago that are owned by women. According to 2000 census information, 36.8% of people in Chicago are Black and 26% are of Hispanic or Latino origin, but only one commercial TV station is minority owned and operated. Clearly, there is a lack of representation of women and people of color in the media available in Chicago.
Both Comcast and NBC have woeful records when it comes to diversity, and it’s not a far leap to say they will certainly not be fit to serve the public interest if they cannot represent minorities and women in their corporate structure. And NBC lacks significantly in its programming geared toward minorities.
Diversity is something which Chicago’s citizens can boast about, but we should roast Comcast and NBC on their incompetence in representing the diverse communities they are required to serve.
The FCC hearing in 2007 featured prominent speakers from media organizations as well as members of the public who were not afraid to ask the big questions and take a stand against the FCC and demand better media. Let’s make this hearing an even bigger success and let the FCC know we don’t support this merger. They’re giving us this opportunity, so we shouldn’t let it pass us by. You can get more information by going to www.StopBigMedia.com and www.FreePress.net/Comcast.
No Comments »
Posted June 22nd, 2010 by Moira Vahey
Yesterday, Free Press and public interest allies called on the Federal Communications Commission to reject Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC-Universal by filing a “petition to deny” the merger with the agency.
The FCC’s public comment period on the merger ended yesterday.
Since the mega-merger was first announced, we have highlighted the major impact it would have on consumers. If the government approves the merger, Comcast will be able to block competitors, force unwanted program “bundles” on other cable and DBS systems, and discriminate against competing programmers seeking carriage. Thanks to this merger, the public is likely to see higher cable rates, fewer programming choices, less diversity, inhibited online innovation, and possible job losses.
Here is a quick review of what happened yesterday:
- 31,454 comments were filed in the FCC’s Comcast docket – a record for major merger filings, according to Politico.
- Free Press submitted a 152-page “petition to deny,” which is our formal filing to oppose the Comcast-NBC merger.
- Free Press, along with thirteen other companies and public interest groups, submitted a letter calling on the FCC to stop the Comcast merger.
- Nearly 34,000 people signed a Free Press petition calling on the FCC to stop the Comcast-NBC merger.
Now the FCC is charged with analyzing the merger and determining whether or not it is beneficial to the public. In order for a merger to be approved by the FCC, burden of proof is actually on Comcast to show the agency that this transaction will provide clear benefits to the public. So far, Comcast has not offered any merger conditions that deliver much beyond the status quo or adequately address our concerns.
Common sense alone should dictate that this merger is bad for the public – just look at the alarming market power a Comcast-NBC duo would wield, Comcast’s terrible customer service record, and the company’s lies to Congress and federal authorities.
Free Press’ comments also provide a comprehensive look at how the Comcast-NBC merger could threaten the future of online video and leverage its power to withhold popular content and raise costs for competing video providers – and leave consumers paying more for less.
Read Free Press’ comments here.
Stay tuned. There is much more to come on this mega-merger and your participation is crucial as we enter the upcoming stages of review. Next up:
- The House Commerce Committee’s July 8th hearing on the merger in Chicago;
- The FCC’s July 13th hearing in Chicago;
- Comcast will submit reply comments on July 21; and,
- The public deadline to respond will be August 5.
No Comments »
Posted June 21st, 2010 by Josh Stearns
Today is the deadline at the Federal Communications Commission for public comments on Comcast’s proposed takeover of NBC-Universal. Use this simple web form to submit comments directly to the FCC to object to the merger.
What’s at stake with this merger?
Comcast is the largest cable and Internet service provider in the country, and now it wants to buy NBC-Universal, effectively taking over its news and entertainment programming, its cable channels and local broadcast stations, and its movie studios. This means Comcast will not only own the content, but also control access to that content online, on cable and over broadcast. After its takeover of NBC, Comcast would control one in every five television viewing hours.
You can quickly and easily add your voice here, or read on for more information about the merger.
This deal is bad for consumers and citizens:
Comcast was just voted the worst company in America for 2010 by the readers of Consumerist.com. Comcast already raises its rates every year for its cable subscribers, and prices will only increase more after the merger. Rates for all cable customers nationwide could skyrocket because Comcast will have the opportunity and incentive to charge its competitors more for NBC programs and force competitors to pay for less desirable Comcast cable channels in order to get NBC programming — those added costs will mean bigger bills for all cable subscribers.
This deal is bad for independent media makers:
Both Comcast and NBC have a history of sidelining independent producers and media makers. Jean Prewitt, of the Independent Film and Television Alliance, testified that the Comcast merger is about “the very future of creative life, cultural expression and the free exchange of ideas.” She wrote, “This merger places at risk the opportunities for diverse, original and independent programming to reach the public through traditional media and new platforms.”
This deal is bad for labor:
Comcast is notoriously anti-labor and is known for firing workers who try to organize. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, the Communications Workers of America union wrote, “A Comcast-NBC combination will lead to the loss of good jobs. Comcast/NBC debt will increase by approximately $8 billion after this transaction. To pay for the debt, the company has two choices: cut jobs or raise cable prices. Either way, consumers and workers lose.”
This deal is bad for diverse voices and communities:
NBC and Comcast’s track record with diverse communities has been at the center of a number of debates about this merger. Members of Congress have been asking hard questions about this issue (see videos here and here). And the National Coalition of African-American Owned Media (NCAAOM) has called for a boycott of Comcast for their treatment of African American media owners.
This deal is bad for competition:
The Comcast merger puts too much power in the hands of one company. Comcast could withhold programming from competitors, and crush competition from emerging online video outlets by starving them of content. Comcast and NBC compete head to head for advertisers in cities across the country, but this merger would eliminate that competition.
Take action today to stop this merger.
1 Comment »
