FCC Chair Seeks Comcast-NBC Merger Conditions 68
Anarki2004 writes with this excerpt from an Associated Press report:
"The head of the Federal Communications Commission is proposing regulatory conditions to ensure that cable TV giant Comcast Corp. cannot stifle competition in the video market once it takes control of NBC Universal. The conditions laid out Thursday by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski are intended to guarantee that satellite providers and other rival television services can still carry marquee NBC programming and that new Internet video distributors can get the content they need to grow and compete. ... Genachowski wants to ensure that Comcast won't be able to use its control over NBC's vast media empire to withhold content from emerging online competitors such as Netflix Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. — locking consumers into costly monthly cable bills to get access to a wide range of popular programming. Genachowski now needs at least two of the other four FCC commissioners to back his proposal, and he is likely to make modifications to win the support he needs to cap off the yearlong regulatory review."
Great Idea (Score:3)
How about making it a condition that they can't purposely slow down the guide menu just so you see the ads for longer? K thx
Re: (Score:3)
How about making it a condition that they can't purposely slow down the guide menu just so you see the ads for longer? K thx
I'd also like a condition that says they have to increase their network architecture to support their advertised broadband speeds.
Re:Great Idea (Score:4, Funny)
I'd also like a condition that says they have to increase their network architecture to support their advertised broadband speeds.
What would they do that? Only pirates use their Internet connections to the fullest capacity!
Sincerely,
RIAA & MPAA
Re: (Score:2)
We'll get right on the architecture upgrade when that happens!
Sincerely,
Comcast & NBC
Re: (Score:2)
But by MPAA logic, commercial skipping is piracy, so watching streaming video on Hulu without watching the cable-company-provided ads is also piracy.... :-)
Yeah, I know. There's no "+1 Sad, but true" moderation. Such is life.
Re: (Score:1)
And also forbidden to convert NBC and NBC Sports from free broadcast channels to cable only channels.
Re: (Score:2)
conditions? lol (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see them break up both Comcast and NBC into smaller regional outfits. :P
4G (Score:1)
This issue concerns me because I want to ditch cable for one of those hot new 4G cell phones with WiFi tethering. I don't watch much TV anyway, and anything I want to see is already on the internet. If the cable companies buy up all the good content, I'll be stuck paying $120 per month for a bunch of crap that I'll never watch.
My diabolical plan includes buying a digital antenna so I can get my football games. I also need some way to record those games so I can watch them at my leisure and skip the co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moxie? HDHomeRun + DVR software?
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight.
The head of the FCC has just said, "We know this merger could be bad for consumers in several ways. Here are the ways: 'A, B, C'. However, I'd like to let the merger go through, if Comcast just promises not to do those bad things."
Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit. Sounds like a brilliant plan.
Even if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's just the bad things we THINK they would try to get away with.
That doesn't include the bad things they will do very underhandedly, things we probably didn't consider.
They might be sued otherwise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with shareholders in large corporations making money? Odds are YOU are one of those people even if you don't realize it. Own a 401k? Have a pension plan of some other type? Guess what, you are invested in large corporations and depend on their stock price increasing and/or them paying dividends.
> The problem is much broader: our government has forgotten that it is supposed to do what is best for all its citizens
Wrong. The government we were given is supposed to provide for a basic "Rul
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with shareholders in large corporations making money?
At what point did I say large corporations should not be making money? Did I say they should not be profitable? I said the reason we are seeing these enormous, anti-competitive mergers is that large corporations want to become more profitable than they already are, and that the government will allow it without regard for whether or not it best serves the people.
The government we were given is supposed to provide for a basic "Rule of Law" environment and prevent one Citizen (or group) from causing direct harm to other Citizens (or groups) of same.
That is only part of what the government is supposed to do. Take another look at your constitution, you seem to have missed a few things abou
Government by and for the corporations (Score:1)
Government can't mess with corporations; they are the dominant institutions not the peoples' government (what it used to be.)
"Government just needs to leave corporations alone to do the right thing and compete for goodness..."
How could people believe this stupid shit and NOW after all this mess the corporations have caused how can they still have so many supporters??
The officials do not count because their job is to bow to the corporate interests while whitewashing the problems to the public.
Can the FCC block the merger? (Score:2)
But I don't think the FCC has the power to actually block this specific merger, at least on anti-trust grounds. That might require the Dept of Justice. Does anyone know exactly?
Based upon what I've read about his proposals on this merger and the Net Neutrality issue, Genachowski see
Re: (Score:2)
> The head of the FCC has just said, "We know this merger could
> be bad for consumers in several ways.
Uh huh. NBC/Universal owned by Comcast is just so much worse than being owned by GE. How?
The public concerns are just a smokescreen anyway. I'd bet the real dealing is between Apple/Amazon and Comcast to make sure content, doesn't get locked to cable as stated, but to Hulu. Apple/Amazon have a lot of lobbying power and ain't afraid of using it. Then the Progs at the FCC/Administration are wanting
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to Fox printing money as the Republican Party mouthpiece? The "news" institution that went to court to insure their legal right to lie?
Both parties are full of crap, the Republicans happen to be way ahead in the corruption race right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Not only that, but the fines that the FCC would have to levy in order to dissuade Comcast from doing these bad things would be record breaking. They would have to be in the billions of dollars per year of operation. Anything short of that is a win for Comcast. And that's just not going to happen.
Gotta give Comcast credit: they know how to prevent being a commodity provider. It's too bad there's a lot of free-market fundies out there who don't get exactly how bad this would be for actual competition in the I
Re: (Score:3)
Its not "just promises".
It "accepts being legally prohibited from doing them."
Genius. Trust a business to put the interests of the people ahead of their profit.
Its not about "trust". Its about imposing requirements.
en if the promise is backed by punishment if they break it, it's still a terrible idea, and there's no way they can cover every bad thing Comcast could do in the promise.
Their legal mandate is not to cover every bad thing Comcast can do, it is to establish conditions under which the acquisi
Block the Sale (Score:5, Interesting)
If there are such serious concerns for what impact the sale will make, block it on anti-trust issues. I'm not one for government regulation, but we have some laws for situations like this.
These weak concessions, and planning on negotiating them down, makes this appear as little but a panacea for the citizens anger when they start getting shafted.
Get Liz Lemon in here. (Score:2)
Lemon, did you see this? Representative Bookman is claiming that our merger with Kabletown must be subject to federal regulation and oversight. They're concerned about "uncompetitive practices". Utterly absurd. I haven't heard such a charge since Hugh Hefner kicked me out of the mansion.
The marketplace is about competition, Lemon, in its purset form. You do whatever you can, whatever you have to, to get ahead. If you don't compete, you die. Nobody steps in to save you from your enemies. This isn't f
what about forcing CSN Philly and others satellite (Score:2)
what about forcing CSN Philly and others like it to satellite!
Like
CSN NW
CSS
TCN (the comcast network / CSN Philly +)
comcast network 100 / CN100 / comcast network Chicago
comcast network 101 / CN101 / comcast network Chicago (over flow)
other comcast networks in other city's
CSN Huston starts 2011 / 2012
Yeah seek assurance from the companies (Score:2)
Time warner AOL 2.0 (Score:2)
Huge content company plus huge isp. How could it miss?
Content vs Distribution (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be happy if there were laws against the joining of Content and Distribution. This vertical model is bad for the marketplace and for consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you were correct. Apple is just integrating two different sections of the supply chain. Comcast will be integrating NBC/Universal content with their distribution network but only lightly since Comcast has nowhere the footprint required for doing it like they would want to.
Now look at Apple. They have very stongly integrated the hardware and condent distribution. If you have Apple hardware you are pretty locked to their CDN. Yes us nerds know how to put 3rd party content on an i* product but for most
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if there were laws against the joining of Content and Distribution.
The write to your representatives in Congress. The FCC regulates under the laws they have, not the laws you wish they had.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems awfully broad. Are you telling me I can't sell my bands CD's at a gig or post our music to our website?
Consider the (admittedly hypothetical) situation where your gigs and website are the only places anyone could buy *any* band's CD, and by the most amazing coincidence, it's much more difficult and time-consuming to buy any other band's CD than to buy yours.
It is that sort of thing in which we are in danger if content and distribution are controlled by the same entity, or the same few entities.
Vertical Integration (Score:4, Insightful)
Is what this is. Anticompetitive practices is what it is ALL about.
They're not doing this to save money in their accounting offices.
They're doing this so they can make life hard on other cable/internet providers.
And that's exactly what will happen.
If you don't want that to happen, this right here, is the moment in time to do something about it.
Think of the farmers! (Score:2)
Consider the farmer. He owns his land, the equipment he uses to harvest his crops, the truck he uses to drive that product to the farmers’ market where he sells it directly to the consumer. Is that not vertical integration? 1:32 PM. Mark the time, ladies and gentlemen, that congress put a bullet in the head of the American farmer.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't think you understand what vertical integration is.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think _you_ understand what vertical integration is. Anytime you combine steps in the value chain of a single product/service that is vertical integration; combining production and distribution in farming is the very definition vertical integration, and it's literally the same set of steps being combined in an NBC/Comcast merger -- NBC controls production and Comcast controls distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Maybe he just doesn't understand metaphors.
Re: (Score:2)
"Consider the farmer. He owns his land, the equipment he uses to harvest his crops, the truck he uses to drive that product to the farmers' market where he sells it directly to the consumer."
You left out that corporations control the markets where farmers get their money to rent the land(much of it) to farm their crops, buy the equipment from corporations, and transport most of the crop to corporations where some of it eventually ends up on your table. All of the described isn't done without
Re: (Score:2)
Now imagine how much of a problem that would be if there were only 4 farmers in the entire country who would willingly collude to prevent competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so besides Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill, who are the other two?
Extortion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
"Now?"
That is the fundamental basis of political negotiation. It's either that or autocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does every voting official, regardless of position, now demand some type of additional compensation in the form of concessions before they'll vote?
Um, what? Its not like Genachowski is asking for anything that goes to him personally. Its not asking for "additional compensation" to require that a company takes steps to do what the law requires you to assure that they do when approving a request before you will vote to approve the request.
Only one solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Split the content provider and the common carrier apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only one solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Split the content provider and the common carrier apart.
You mean something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc [wikipedia.org].
"United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements."
Why is this country so hell bent on going backwards when it comes to corporate power and monopolies? I can't believe this merger was ever even considered by the feds, let alone treated as a done deal from the beginning as it has been.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this country so hell bent on going backwards when it comes to corporate power and monopolies?
Because they have a lot of money. And periodically threatening corporate interests is a great way for the politicians and lobbyists to milk them. You'd think by now that corporate America would be clamoring for campaign finance reform. But the K Street Klowns have got them by the balls.
Past attempts at finding synergy between content and pipelines have ended in tears. Most companies operate these as separate profit centers anyway, so a mandated breakup wouldn't be that big a deal. But the think tanks have c
As a long suffering Comcast subscriber (Score:1)
They have the worst service and have been allowed to accumulate the Persian King's ransom they needed to buy NBC by overcharging CATV subscribers month after month, year after year. It's gotten so bad that they're trying to rebrand themselves as Xfinity, to try to wipe their slate clean in people's minds.
Don't let them to do that. Make them spin off, or give back the ill gotten gains through dividends.
newscrop should rebuy Directv and pull fox from co (Score:2)
newscrop should rebuy Directv and pull fox / FX / FSN / and others from comcast.
You Can Always Trust Corporations . . . (Score:1)
i'd rather the fcc (Score:2)
block the transaction. concessions or not. comcast buying nbc SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
forcing equal access worked so well for ISPs... (Score:2)
Just like ISP's and independent phone companies were supposed to be supposed to be provided w/equal access on telco-owned last-mile equipment...or ISP's were suppose to have similar to be able to compete against phone companies.
Then along comes another anti-government GOP president, like Reagan, who dismantles all of those pesky 'consumer' protections to save us all [sic], and we enter a new 'golden age' of media control with married couples relegated to separate bed again. (a symptom of large media compan