Comcast and NBC Merge

Soulzz

Founder
Retired Founder
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
19,100
Age
36
Josh Silver: Comcastrophe: Comcast/NBC Merger Approved

>_>

Today, the Federal Communications Commission blessed the merger of Comcast, the nation's largest cable and residential Internet provider, with NBC-Universal. The Justice Department immediately followed suit, removing the last obstacle to the unprecedented consolidation of media and Internet power in the hands of one company. (FCC press release here)

You should be afraid and mad as hell.

The new Comcast will control an obscene number of media outlets, including the NBC broadcast network, numerous cable channels, two dozen local NBC and Telemundo stations, movie studios, online video portals, and the physical network that distributes that media content to millions of Americans through Internet and cable connections.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts called it "a proud and exciting day for Comcast," and showered Obama's FCC and DoJ with praise.

Culmination of the deal, combined with the FCC's recent, loophole-ridden "Net Neutrality" rules, sets the table for Comcast to turn the Internet into cable television, where it has the ability to speed up its content, slow down or block its competitors such as Netflix, and hike the rates for its programming and services. We'll all end up paying more -- whether you're a Comcast subscriber or not.

More Broken Promises

The merger further squeezes what's left of independent, diverse voices from the television dial, laying waste to President Barack Obama's promise to reign in runaway media consolidation. As a candidate in June 2008, he said:

"I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources."
Where's that Barack Obama today? He's on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal announcing an executive order that will "make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation," focusing on rules that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive." Given the president's long list of massive compromises to corporate lobbyists during his first two years, today's gesture to Wall Street is galling.

This is the same Obama who promised to "take a backseat to no one" on Net Neutrality before applauding the FCC's AT&T-approved Internet rule. It's the same Obama who promised to provide the public option on health care and to end the massive bonuses to Wall Street titans...the list of broken promises is far longer than space allows.

And it's the same Obama who, in the same 2008 interview about media consolidation, said,

"There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. ... to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare."
So much for that one, too.

President Obama is being squeezed by a corrupt Washington that is run by industry lobbyists, fake grassroots groups, massive political spending and PR machines that make the most basic public interest protections impossible to advance. But rather than tell that story, dig in, and fight like a true leader would, Obama has chosen to hire corporate-friendly advisors, compromise on the most crucial substance, and attempt to eke out weak, symbolic, half-victories gift-wrapped in flowery oratory and spin. It's a losing strategy that has become brutally transparent.

Opening Pandora's Box

Why should you care about a business deal between a couple of companies?

This merger will touch all corners of the media market, and you won't be immune. Comcast will jack up the prices that other cable and online distributers pay for NBC content, and those prices will be passed to you. That means higher cable and Internet bills, even if you don't subscribe to Comcast.

Comcast and the FCC Chairman argue that there are "conditions" applied to the merger that protect the public, (details about the conditions are not out yet) but they fail to mention that the key provisions are either voluntary (no, that's not a typo), or expire after a few years. Then, all bets are off, as the merger squeezes out what's left of independent, diverse voices from television dials, and forever changes the Internet as we know it.

As television, radio, phone and other services become Internet-based, cable internet service is becoming the only connection that's fast enough to handle streaming video and cutting-edge applications. That means you're stuck with whatever Comcast and their cable buddies dish out. And thanks to Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, it's gonna be some nasty gruel.

While pushing through this deal, the FCC chair completely ignored the lack of competition in the Internet service provider market. As former Obama White House technology adviser Susan Crawford writes, "In 2011, as the telcos continue to sink, we're going to need to confront this natural monopoly problem head-on. How do we ensure a nationwide, affordable, better-than-all-the-competition high-speed Internet service...?"

And it will only be a matter of time before more companies follow Comcast's lead and start pursuing new mergers. The FCC's blessing of Comcast and NBC will embolden companies like AT&T or Verizon, to try to gobble up content providers such as Disney and CBS, creating a new era of media consolidation where even fewer companies control the content you watch and all the ways you want to watch it.

If I sound a little bitter, it's because the Comcast-NBC merger is truly a disaster for anyone who hopes the American public might someday emerge from the propaganda morass that is embodied by cable television, and now threatens to consume the internet.

Our democracy is certain to fail if we cannot figure out a way to foster media that is less sensational and superficial, and more thoughtful and informative. That's a goal that is antithetical to the programming you can expect from a merged Comcast/NBC, where profit pressures and blind corporate ideology will ensure substandard fare.

In the credit-where-it's due category, Democratic FCC Commissioner and public interest stalwart Michael Copps voted against the merger in a demonstration of principle that is all too rare in Washington. My hat is off to you, Commissioner.

But you, Mr. Obama. You said you "strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources," yet your agencies are approving this deal while you watch quietly, and use the merger to demonstrate your corporate street cred.

Does the strength of your beliefs mean nothing? If so, keep doing what you're doing, and watch your administration fall ever farther out of favor with real people across the country, both left and right.

Today, you can chalk up another victory for the K Street lobbyists whose approval you seek, and another crushing defeat for the American people whose interests you are supposed to protect.
 
I will do my part tomorrow and call my state representatives office and tell them this is not what I want in fact I want to see the exact opposite. I want to see Comcast dismantled. I urge you to call and speak your mind if we do not we have failed them. I know it seems like a strong opinion but they have too much power and monopolies are Bad for everyone except them....
 
Anyone remember AOL-Time-Warner...? Apparently we are very slow learners. Welp, bend over, here it comes again!
 
I'm thinking the worst thing that might happen is COX takes over Google and Youtube lol.
Youtube will no longer be COX commercials before vids, it will just be about COX. lol
 
Hey guys, my feelings about the Comcast/NBC merger are not so strong. Having studied economy and business for years the possibility of danger to such seems to pale in comparison to the 1999 Exxon/Mobile merger of which created the largest and most powerful corporation the world has ever known. On the other end of the spectrum one must look at the recent XM/Sirius satellite radio merger. This was a merger of necessity as neither company could stand on their own and both faced inevitable bankruptcy. Regardless, the US Government's interference in that deal was unprecedented. Why is that? Was the XM/Siri merger really a threat to the public at large worse than Exxon/Mobile? Or was it the fact that local radio stations felt it to be a threat to them and in turn reached out to their clients, politicians with the power to affect such a merger, and the fact that those clients rely on their local airwaves to pummel us with campaign ads?

Unquestionably, lobbyists and their clients are problematic to our society but they rely on the cronyism of our politicians. It is this political cronyism that should be at question and held accountable for if we can ever hope for political rhetoric meet reality.

Just my opinion,
 
@ Arturo

GE in recent years has set new standards for political cronyism. It is that cronyism which no doubt made the sale of it's NBC to Comcast relatively easy.

GE's cronyism gets really scary when we consider them the huge player they are in relation to defense contracts and the governments expenditures they sap, as that info will never be public.

As for public info... In the years leading up to the recent financial crisis GE became a major player in the financial markets. Although, this involvement crushed GE's stock value and in turn GE's market cap, they oddly avoided most of the corporate "reform" or political rhetoric aimed at these offending corporations.

That said, with such connections, GE's future success can be assured. Although, as for us :-(
 
Soulz, this is not an article but a political diatribe. The details are out and were not covered. Also, this is not an Obama event but rather a question of government, as in what is the proper role of government in the market? To what degree the government should be involved in business deals goes back to the question of what is the greatest danger to public safety, conglomerates or government? At the founding of this country the answer was government because that was the only entity that could reach across state/national borders and effect the lives of everyone. In the late 19th century the answer (via popular will aka voting) the answer began to shift to corporations posing the greatest threat, meaning the ability to cross borders to protect citizens was necessary, hence government functioning as a friend and protector of citizens as opposed to a direct threat to citizens. This is also the crux of the problem for most people understanding how the Republican party came to be known as the party of business (hands off and let the market be) and the Democratic the party of pro regulatory sentiment(to protect the common man we must reign in corporate excess).

Now both parties shifted to understand regulation was a necessary development and the rest of the 20th century saw an ebb and flow of regulatory sentiment. With Reagan, deregulation became a rallying cry and was very popular and has become front and center since, with the ever present question being what degree of regulation is necessary for the protection of individuals in this country and future stability. The problem I have with this article is it lambastes the president for something without considering two critical points: would a Republican administration stand in the way and what is the role of government in regulation? The answer to the first is hell no; the concept of regulation, especially to the current group of Republicans, means a primary challenger and probable loss. The answer to the second is a deep rooted debate on the nature of modern democracy and the role of government.

The article posted is nothing more than a hack job of insufficient depth that is philosophically opposed to itself. You cannot say an administration is horrible because it interferes too much and too little. This is tantamount to saying we should have regulated deregulation, or lower taxes and large scale public works to create jobs. One is not compatible with the other, and as an Intellectual Historian it pisses me off when people can't understand their own lack of mental power. This is not a political diatribe on my part but rather a personal crusade to say let's think, not babble.
 
Soulz, this is not an article but a political diatribe. The details are out and were not covered. Also, this is not an Obama event but rather a question of government, as in what is the proper role of government in the market? To what degree the government should be involved in business deals goes back to the question of what is the greatest danger to public safety, conglomerates or government? At the founding of this country the answer was government because that was the only entity that could reach across state/national borders and effect the lives of everyone. In the late 19th century the answer (via popular will aka voting) the answer began to shift to corporations posing the greatest threat, meaning the ability to cross borders to protect citizens was necessary, hence government functioning as a friend and protector of citizens as opposed to a direct threat to citizens. This is also the crux of the problem for most people understanding how the Republican party came to be known as the party of business (hands off and let the market be) and the Democratic the party of pro regulatory sentiment(to protect the common man we must reign in corporate excess).

Now both parties shifted to understand regulation was a necessary development and the rest of the 20th century saw an ebb and flow of regulatory sentiment. With Reagan, deregulation became a rallying cry and was very popular and has become front and center since, with the ever present question being what degree of regulation is necessary for the protection of individuals in this country and future stability. The problem I have with this article is it lambastes the president for something without considering two critical points: would a Republican administration stand in the way and what is the role of government in regulation? The answer to the first is hell no; the concept of regulation, especially to the current group of Republicans, means a primary challenger and probable loss. The answer to the second is a deep rooted debate on the nature of modern democracy and the role of government.

The article posted is nothing more than a hack job of insufficient depth that is philosophically opposed to itself. You cannot say an administration is horrible because it interferes too much and too little. This is tantamount to saying we should have regulated deregulation, or lower taxes and large scale public works to create jobs. One is not compatible with the other, and as an Intellectual Historian it pisses me off when people can't understand their own lack of mental power. This is not a political diatribe on my part but rather a personal crusade to say let's think, not babble.

It's simple. Any large-scale corporate merger of this magnitude is not good for our country, especially when they are both media giants. I think the article states the point fairly well. He ranted, but his ranting does make sense.
 
In terms of sheer size, the two companies are not enormous. The concern is that combined they could limit competition in the marketplace. This is not an argument, it is a rant on the author's part. If this were a paper from a student it would bleed my pen color of the day for not presenting a well supported argument. And size does not matter; if you accept the need to regulate some commerce then you must be willing to cede authority to the government to do so, which means funding (taxes) and involvement in business. My point is that complaining about the government and asking that it save us are at odds philosophically, and as such does not represent a viable approach to governing. Besides, what exactly is the FCC supposed to do in this situation, say no? Who would defend this position? Congress can't because the tide of the mid-term elections dictates they cannot. What about it ending up a legal matter. On the heels of the Bush presidency coupled with a predominantly center right Congress during his tenure the judicial is right leaning and thus less inclined to support government interference. So what do you do? Cut a deal and get something out of it. This is called governing; ours is a system built on the need to strike compromise. This is a compromise, and one that in the large picture poses little threat to the safety or stability of the country. If we were in the middle of stronger economic times this could get held up, but the combination of political and economic environment mean you have to pick your battles even more carefully.

@Arturo, I agree, that is the real threat and as such you swallow something bitter and move on. Just another example of us paying for a series of poor decisions spanning the Bush and Clinton presidencies that were collectively short sided and traded immediate gain for long term instability.
 
By the way, there are voluntary conditions (a few) and seven years of strict conditions (non voluntary) attached. Again to my point: the rant is lacking in content and heavy on blabber. Again, a bleeding paper.
 
In terms of sheer size, the two companies are not enormous. The concern is that combined they could limit competition in the marketplace. This is not an argument, it is a rant on the author's part. If this were a paper from a student it would bleed my pen color of the day for not presenting a well supported argument. And size does not matter; if you accept the need to regulate some commerce then you must be willing to cede authority to the government to do so, which means funding (taxes) and involvement in business. My point is that complaining about the government and asking that it save us are at odds philosophically, and as such does not represent a viable approach to governing. Besides, what exactly is the FCC supposed to do in this situation, say no? Who would defend this position? Congress can't because the tide of the mid-term elections dictates they cannot. What about it ending up a legal matter. On the heels of the Bush presidency coupled with a predominantly center right Congress during his tenure the judicial is right leaning and thus less inclined to support government interference. So what do you do? Cut a deal and get something out of it. This is called governing; ours is a system built on the need to strike compromise. This is a compromise, and one that in the large picture poses little threat to the safety or stability of the country. If we were in the middle of stronger economic times this could get held up, but the combination of political and economic environment mean you have to pick your battles even more carefully.

@Arturo, I agree, that is the real threat and as such you swallow something bitter and move on. Just another example of us paying for a series of poor decisions spanning the Bush and Clinton presidencies that were collectively short sided and traded immediate gain for long term instability.

Comcast is pretty big, and NBC is even bigger if I recall correctly. I don't think the merger should have happened in the first place. It just means more of a monopoly for the media, which is never a good thing. It's about control.
 
Network TV is not a threat.

GE going down would be much riskier.
GE IS the problem. This is exactly why Imelt (president of GE) has been in Obama's pocket since the '08 elections as evidenced by nearly every bit of election coverage aired on an NBC entity during the election and since. Imelt is getting everything he wants from Obama, from mega mergers to green energy subsidies. With the new congress in town, you are going to be seeing a lot more of these executive decisions.
 
Remember, GE was a big Obama support system, both through MSNBC and GE coorporate. Then, GE Finanacial was declared a "bank" and got a TARP bailout. Gee, couldn't see that coming.
 
Comcast is way bigger than NBC - ...and Comcast is only going to have 51% of NBC.
NBC is a part of GE, which is many times larger than Comcast. Comcast is the 202nd largest company on earth, GE is the 13th. GE will still own 49% of NBC/Universal. Lets be frank here, both of these companies suck major balls, strike that, all three of these companies are world class douches.
 
Back
Top