The FCC Should Deny Comcast’s Takeover of NBC-Universal

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 »

Deadline Today: Stop The Comcast Takeover of NBC

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 »

Hate Corporate Radio? Well Speak Up–the FCC Is Listening

Conservative radio talk show host Al Roney offered listeners a local perspective on WGY, an AM station in Latham, N.Y. That is, until the Clear Channel-owned station replaced Roney’s morning show with canned programming. In February, he was fired, and Glenn Beck’s nationally syndicated show—far less interested in life in Latham than Roney—took over his slot.

“I like the local focus that (Roney) brought to the radio,” Eric Sutton told the Albany Times Union, “and I really think we’re going to miss that. There’s nobody else talking about the local disgraces that are going on.”

Of course none of this is shocking news. Since Congress lifted the limits on local radio station ownership in 1996, mega corporations like Clear Channel have been swooping in to communities to buy stations, fire local staff and replace the local shows with computer-generated playlists and syndicated (mostly right-wing) talk show hosts broadcasting from miles—and even states—away.

But there could be a sliver of a silver lining: On May 25, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) kicked off its 2010 review of media ownership rules, which dictate how many radio and TV stations someone can own in one community. This quadrennial review is a unique opportunity for citizens to weigh in on the ways media consolidation has impacted their community. But it’s also a chance for Big Media to lobby the FCC for more big giveaways. In the past, the FCC has consistently tried to loosen media ownership rules to let the biggest media companies get even bigger.

Will the FCC finally take this opportunity to stand up for the public and create new rules that protect our airwaves and give us more diverse radio, or will it – once again – bow to industry’s wishes?

Here’s what we do know: In 1996, there were 10,257 commercial radio stations and 5,133 radio owners. Today, there are 11,202 commercial radio stations and 3,143 owners. That’s a 39 percent decrease in the number of owners since 1996.

What these numbers mean in practice is clear: a whole lot of harm to local communities.

Broken corporate promises

When big companies buy up commercial broadcasting stations across the country, they care about one thing: big profit. Local news, music and information is replaced with automated programming specifically designed to keep listeners tuned in for long (and getting longer) commercial breaks. (Watch this disturbing video of how Clear Channel uses “focus groups” to determine which songs their dee-jays are forced to play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crwQJQDfrzE)

It’s almost impossible for independent and local musicians to enter this carefully controlled media environment. In 2007, the FCC fined four of the nation’s largest radio station group owners—Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom—for participating in payola (the illegal practice of exchanging song airtime for payment or other inducements). Additionally, the companies voluntarily agreed to an “indie set-aside,” promising to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional and unsigned artists and independent labels.

But last July, the advocacy organization Future of Music Coalition produced a report called “Same Old Song,” which examined playlist data in New York State from 2005 to 2008. Despite noble corporate promises, there was no considerable difference in broadcasting practices. Local and independent music was still off the air.

Emergency unpreparedness

If live DJs are gone and programming is canned, what happens if there’s a local emergency? The kind where residents need information from their radio stations about evacuation procedures and safety precautions? Well, what might happen is a corporate-made media disaster.

Remember Minot? In 2002, a train derailed in Minot, N.D., releasing noxious anhydrous ammonia into the air. When the federal Emergency Alert System tried to get in touch with radio stations in the town about the spill, the “unmanned” stations didn’t respond. New York University sociologist Eric Klinenberg recounted the radio fail in his 2007 book Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media:

KCJB, and every other radio station in town, were not reporting any news or information about the anhydrous spill. Instead, all six of Minot’s name-brand stations—Z94, 97 Kicks, Mix 99.9, The Fox Classic Rock, 91 Country, and Cars Oldies Radio—continued playing a standard menu of canned music, served up by smooth-talking DJs…while the giant toxic cloud floated into town.

The threat of a legitimate disaster unfolding silently persists. Here’s Ars Technica writer Matthew Lasar worrying about San Francisco last month:

[W]e’re waiting for our next major earthquake. On that fateful day, our Internet won’t be worth much if our local [Internet Service Providers] go down. Our smart phones won’t help if carrier networks overload or their transmitter towers run out of back-up power. Ditto for cable TV, electricity-wise.

So chances are that when the Big One comes, we’ll drop our fancy mobiles, get in our cars, and fire up our AM radios. Here’s hoping that six months later we won’t be following debates about why we heard nothing but Rush Limbaugh and adult contemporary pop.

What’s the FCC to do?

With overall radio ownership down, consider these alarming statistics: Women own just six percent of all full-power commercial broadcast radio stations, even though they comprise 51 percent of the U.S. population. Racial or ethnic minorities own less than eight percent of all full-power commercial broadcast radio stations, though they account for about one-third of the U.S. population.

So, what’s the Federal Communications Commission to do with this information? FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has a few ideas, which he released the same day the ownership rules review was announced:

If a central tenet of our FCC mandate is to promote diversity in the media, which it is, then we need diverse ownership policies to help that happen. We need to pay attention to market realities and all the new media innovations that have developed since our last review, but uppermost in our minds must be crafting rules that serve the goals of democracy-building and democracy-maintenance.

It’s time for the FCC to roll back radio consolidation and better protect the public’s airwaves. The FCC may not be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but it can use the 2010 review to stop any more media consolidation. We don’t want radio produced for the masses. We want radio that reflects the complexity, personalities, talents and struggles of our own communities.

It’s vital that you tell the FCC what’s on your mind as soon as possible—Clear Channel and its corporate ilk certainly won’t stay silent. Be sure to send an email to the commission (at info@fcc.gov) demanding an end to consolidation and a return to locally owned and operated radio stations.

Article first published by InTheseTimes.com.

No Comments »

Sen. Franken Questions Comcast-NBC Merger

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) vigorously questioned Christine Varney, assistant attorney general for antitrust, about the proposed Comcast-NBC merger during a Senate Antitrust Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday.

Franken was openly skeptical about the assurances being made by Comcast and NBC, particularly those about price increases, in-house production and program favoritism.

Varney addressed Franken’s concerns, saying: “Let me assure you, Senator, that we don’t rely on promises. If a transaction is anticompetitive and violates the prohibition on substantially lessening competition, we will block it. We will go to court, and we will block it.”

Here’s a full video of Franken’s questioning of Varney.

No Comments »

A Loophole That’s Hurting Local Journalism

In 2008, a majority of Americans reported that they regularly got their news from local television. Yet the quality and diversity of this “trusted news source” has declined, thanks in part to loopholes in media ownership rules — rules that by themselves already allow massive media consolidation and cross-ownership.

The Federal Communications Commission recently announced a Notice of Inquiry to review all past broadcast media rules, and has an opportunity to change some of its past mistakes. But will it look at one of the most alarming ways media corporations are eroding local journalism?

Current FCC rules limit an individual’s or company’s ownership to two local news stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) so long as one of the stations is not among the top four ranked stations in the market (by ratings), and eight independent TV stations remain in the DMA.

But Big Media has found a way around this rule in the form of “Shared Services Agreements” (SSA). An SSA is an agreement between two media companies that effectively transfers control of one station to another, while not transferring the actual license. More importantly, an SSA appears to result in the consolidation of control of news reporting and production. Where once there were two or more teams covering local news, the SSA reduces that number to one.

What does this mean for the news consumer, the news content and the journalist? It means that consumers are stuck with content that lacks diversity and quality. For the journalist, it means the loss of a job.

What does this look like when it’s played out? Let’s examine the case of one agreement among stations in Youngstown, Ohio, where New Vision Television, a media company based in Los Angeles, owned both the local FOX and CBS affiliates.  Then in 2007, New Vision took control of the local ABC affiliate as well. How did this happen?

First, the FCC approved the transfer of the license for ABC affiliate WYTV from Chelsey Broadcasting to Parkin Broadcasting. Indeed, the FCC wrote in its decision that “We find that grant of the application will further the public interest, convenience and necessity.”

Parkin Broadcasting then turned around and entered into an agreement with New Vision Television, according to which New Vision Television would assume control of the once independent ABC affiliate’s newscast. That was in 2007. Where are they now?

In 2009, New Vision Television filed for bankruptcy. Today, each local New Vision Television controlled affiliate publishes the exact same online content as the other New Vision Television affiliates. The average story on each affiliate’s website comes in at a paltry 162 words in length in our sample, and the sites share the same video spots.  WYTV, the ABC affiliate operated by New Vision Television through the SSA, now only employees 13 people on its news team, seven of whom are also employed by “its competitors.”

As Don Shilling of the local newspaper The Vindicator said after the agreement first took effect, “The local TV market will never be the same.”

It’s clear that these backdoor takeovers of the local broadcast stations in Youngstown are not in the public interest. They inhibit the diversity of viewpoints, sources and content. They impede localism, with decisions being made, in this case, in Los Angeles and not in Youngstown. They impinge on enterprise and local investigative journalism, as the operators of stations with an SSA often opt to lay off journalists and support staff.

The FCC has the chance to close the loophole this year and restore a competitive, vibrant and robust local television news environment through its review. Because local news outlets, as author Phyllis Kaniss put it, “have always played an important role in the way a city and region understand its problems, its opportunities, and its sense of local identity,” it’s important to protect the meaningful pursuit of news and investigative reporting that is promoted by competition among multiple news outlets.

Matt Schafer is a Graduate Intern for Free Press where he researches the effects of cooperative journalism ventures on the public interest.  Matt graduated from the University of Illinois with a Bachelors of Media Studies.  Currently, he is attending Louisiana State University, where he is enrolled in a joint degree program for a Master’s of Mass Communication and a Juris Doctorate.

2 Comments »

Rep. Waters to Comcast: Not This Time

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is not letting Comcast take over NBC Universal without a fight.

The congresswoman came out swinging at the corporation during a House field hearing in L.A. on Monday, lambasting Comcast’s woeful track record on diversity and its attempts at intimidating independent producers from speaking out against the merger.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and Internet service provider, wants to take over NBC, one of the world’s biggest producers of TV shows and motion pictures.

Rep. Waters challenged her fellow  members of Congress to stand up to Comcast and tell them, “Not this time.”

Watch the video: Rep. Waters to Comcast: Not This Time

No Comments »

Hate Speech Inquiry Is About Promoting Dialogue, Not Censorship

Recently, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), a non-profit organization with a long and respected history of civil rights advocacy, submitted a joint filing with 30 other organizations, including Free Press, calling for an FCC inquiry into the prevalence of hate speech in the media.

In the filing, NHMC urges the FCC “to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts.” Further, NHMC clarifies that it “is not asking – and will not ask – the Commission to compose any sort of content regulations pertaining to hate speech in media.”

As a threshold matter, such an inquiry is not novel. Through the course of history, government agencies and government-chartered committees, such as the Kerner Commission, have undertaken reviews of the role that media plays in civil society. The reports generated by these reviews have shed light on this important topic and have brought necessary, though sometimes painful, discussions of race relations to the fore.

Indeed, in 1992, Congress directed the drafting of a report on the role communications technologies play in crimes of hate and violence directed against racial and ethnic minorities. That report was created with the help and input of several government agencies, including the FCC. In its comments, NHMC has requested that this information be updated.

Free Press believes that the intent and purpose of NHMC’s filing are plain. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion regarding where Free Press stands on free speech and the regulation of content online. This is something that Free Press takes very seriously given our mission is to promote an open and democratic media system. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to address a few concerns.

Free Press does not and will never support FCC regulation of content on the Internet. Period. Nor do we believe that the FCC has the authority to engage in such regulation. Indeed, our support of NHMC’s request for inquiry is contingent on the fact that NHMC explicitly rejects the notion of any content regulation as a remedy for hate speech.

Free Press does not support prohibiting anonymous speech online. We respect the rights of all people to voice their opinions freely and without fear of reprisal – even those opinions which are offensive, denigrating, or premised on bigotry. That is the price of a free society.

For those who remain unconvinced, we encourage you to read NHMC’s comments and, particularly, NHMC’s Petition for Inquiry for yourself. You will find some truly disturbing and sickening examples of the media’s use of misinformation, divisive and dehumanizing language, as well as calls for violence, including dismemberment, rape, and the murder of individuals because of race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.

But you will not find any requests by NHMC for censorship or speech regulation of any kind.

Nevertheless, we understand that some parties, because of mistake or willful ignorance, will always insist that any discussion of the impact of media in our society is the front-door, back-door, side-door, and/or garage-door to a free speech violation. That view – well-intentioned or not – distorts the guarantees of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not prohibit inquiry or public discussion of the rise of hate speech in media and the consequences for our communities. Indeed, if we allow people to use the First Amendment as reason not to examine and talk about problems facing our media system and our society, we abandon the very principles the First Amendment seeks to advance.

To conclude, Free Press does not support the government policing or censoring speech. On the contrary, our policy work promotes openness, transparency, and advancing a democratic and participatory media system. This includes supporting the discussion of the role that media plays in people’s lives and the responsibility of media to serve the information needs of communities.

The unfortunate reality is that segments of our society, such as communities of color, are underserved, and in many cases disserved, by the media. We commend and stand-by NHMC for shedding light on the important and troubling issue of hate speech in the media, and look forward to furthering a meaningful and respectful dialogue on the subject.

No Comments »

Comcast has shut the door to African-American ownership

No Comments »

Know Your Media Rules

Last week the Federal Communications Commission officially kicked off its 2010 review of the nation’s five media ownership rules, which exist to protect citizens from media consolidation, and ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest. These rules have been at the center of a long fight, pitting people around the country against big broadcasters and their hired hands.

In 2002 and 2006, the FCC tried to eliminate many of the media ownership laws , sparking widespread public outcry. Millions of people contacted Congress, attended FCC field hearings and wrote letters opposing the continued trend toward media consolidation. In fact as they embark on this latest review, the rule changes the FCC tried to push through in 2002 and 2006 are still being battled out in the courts. It may seem strange to be considering new rules while the old rules are still up in the air, but that’s the way it goes in Washington.

It is crucial that local citizens are a part of the review process, and to play an effective role, they must understand how these rules impact the news and information we receive in our neighborhoods and communities.

These rules are designed to protect our public airwaves, which the broadcasters get to use for free, making hundreds of thousands of dollars on this valuable national resource. To that end, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps urged the public to be an active part of this debate. “I hope that the Commission will ‘go on the road’ in the months ahead to hear directly from consumers and citizens,” he wrote. “I know of no better way for us to educate ourselves about the problems faced by, and the solutions sought by, the American people.”

“Anyone who actually thinks that who owns the media doesn’t significantly affect how our country is being informed is not paying attention,” wrote Copps in announcing the 2010 review. “It is difficult to fully quantify the harmful effects that media consolidation has had on the news, information and entertainment we receive. Fewer and fewer voices do not an informed electorate and robust democracy make.”

The following rules are included in the quadrennial review:

Local Television Ownership Limit. In general, one company is not permitted to own more than one TV station in a viewing area. This rule, however, has some problematic exceptions. Specifically, a single company can own two television stations in a local market so long as one of the stations is not one of the top four most popular stations in the area, and as long as there are at least seven other independently owned-and-operated commercial or noncommercial full-power broadcast television in the area after the consolidation. This “eight voices test” is the FCC’s way of ensuring there is a diversity of viewpoints in the local media. Last time around, in 2006, the FCC reasserted that this rule is vital to promoting competition on the airwaves.

Local Radio Ownership Rule. This rule was gutted when Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and eventually allowed one company, Clear Channel, to own more than 1200 radio stations across the country. Currently, the rule permits one company to control: up to eight commercial radio stations in our nation’s largest cities and as many as five stations in smaller communities. In both 2002 and 2006 the FCC kept their hands off this rule, leaving in place the relaxed guidelines from 1996. Many argue that stricter rules are needed to rein in radio ownership consolidation.

Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule. The newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban was put in place in 1975 to stop one company from owning a broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same community. However, during the 2006 review, the FCC ignored calls from Congress and the public, and substantially relaxed this rule. The agency set up a complex set of guidelines allowing cross-ownership in the 20 largest cities across America. However, the rule is so riddled with loopholes that it effectively makes it possible to implement cross-ownership in even the smallest media markets. Free Press research , using the FCC’s own data, has shown that this rule change will result in less local news and targets minority media owners who are already woefully under-represented in our media system.

Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule. This rule is particularly complex and hinges on all the other rules, so I’ll let the FCC describe it in their own words:: One company may own “up to two television stations (to the extent permitted under the local television ownership rule) and up to six radio stations (to the extent permitted under the local radio ownership rule) in a market where at least 20 independently owned media voices would remain post-merger. In markets where parties may own a combination of two television stations and six radio stations, the rule allows a party alternatively to own one television station and seven radio stations.”

The Dual Network Rule. While one company can own multiple broadcast networks, the FCC prohibits mergers between the top four networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). In general, the FCC is wary of the market power that would result from a merger between any of the top four networks. The FCC has consistently upheld this rule as a key element in ensuring competition and localism.

At the root of these five rules is the same fundamental mission that has been at the heart of the FCC since it was founded in 1934. In launching the 2010 review, the FCC wrote, “our ownership rules must be designed to promote our enduring public interest goals in the marketplace of today and tomorrow… Through our ownership rules we strive to ensure that owners promote programming responsive to local needs, including public safety information and quality children’s programming. All of these types of programming serve the public interest.”

*Descriptions of the five rules are excerpted or adapted from the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry.

No Comments »