So what does this mean, exactly? Will non-NBC network and Netflix fans in Comcast-exclusive areas soon have the screws put to them, web service and speed-wise? Will NBC’s coverage start to be slowly slanted to be pro-Comcast and anti-whatever-Comcast’s-board-doesn’t-like? (These are all fears brought up by those who opposed.)
Well, when I heard the story they mentioned that the FCC demanded several concessions from Comcast to make sure it doesn’t screw with Netflix like services or non-NBC channels. So that’s the good news. The bad news, the concessions only last 7 years IIRC so after that we’re fucked
The current model (in the USA) of affiliates and networks feeding programming to them is going by the wayside.
I don’t see it going away anytime soon. Perhaps it will start in about ten years time. NBC may switch to the first OTA network to cable network.
OTA TV has already suffered under the digital conversion, mainly because of a poorly selected standard and an asinine way of implementing it.
It’ll be intersting to see if the FCC let’s Comcast hold on to NBC / Telemundo O&O (owned and operated) stations in cities like Chicago where NBC owns TV stations and Comcast is the cable company.
Even today you can get a high quality version of a TV show delivered to you in a few minutes download (legal or otherwise), so the delivery of OTA is definately not needed for those who can afford Internet speeds of 3.0+
Now there lies the chief problem. What is high speed Internet. As long as you get fast speeds on the Internet and people can afford them, it’s not a problem. When you get poor people who were getting TV free and now will have to shell out for it, you run into a HUGE debate.
OUr politicians and the regulatory agents they supervise are pretty much owned by big business now. Any merger will be approved, cause big business wants it, and they are the ones who pay the way for our politicians to campaign for office … Citizens United didn’t change anything, just codified it into law. So there is no debate, the needs of poor people don’t matter.
I’m not sure you understand how things work out there in the world. As a competition lawyer, I should probably inform you that there is equally often opposition from “big business” to mergers as there is support. That’s because while it is often a “big business” seeking to merge with another “big business,” there is also multiple other “big businesses” in that market who view the merger between the first “big business” and the second “big business” as being damaging to the position of their own “big business.”
So if “big business” really does control the government, it still doesn’t mean any merger will be approved.
Not to mention that when giant corporations merge, they typically end up with the same market share that the larger partner enjoyed in the first place.
That I’d need a cite for. It’s possible, but I’d like to see how they got to it - whether divestment was included, for example.
Divestment may be why, although the study I got that from implies that it’s a gradual process. It’s just something I remembered from a college class; I’ll see if I can find a cite.
Yeah, whichever is the biggest business somehow always gets their way. Cause they do the most legalized bribing, i.e., lobbying.
Actually, not true. At least not in my experience. I am sure you have more experience in the merger and competition field than I do, though, so I am willing to alter my view.
Can you explain then why mergers aren’t just approved, and the firms have to spend multiple millions on legal fees, and also often sell off parts of their business? Wouldn’t it work better for them to pay a slightly higher bribe and just get approval for whatever they initially wanted?
Well according to this article from the New York Times, the FTC has been described as “defanged” under the Bush administration, and losing decisions in the courts under the Obama Administration.
Sure sounds like Ovation got away with infant murder on that one …
And in response to your previous post, it’s not my job to justify your phoney-baloney lawyering job. That’s YOUR job. 
Doesn’t answer anything I asked.
Every GOP administration reduces the level of oversight. Every Dem one increases it. As for losing cases - there is a reason we have court cases. Because the government isn’t always right.
Why do firms have to divest assets against their will to get mergers approved if they can simply pay the regulators off?
NBC will start sucking even more. Comcast is high on my hate list.
As long as I can still watch Community, it’s hard to really care.
One question I should’ve mentioned in the OP: I’m curious as to what the general libertarian position is on mergers such as this. Do they see any inherent danger in them, or do they believe the market will work things out there too?
I’m confused: is this really the first time a network has merged with a content provider? Doesn’t AOL Time Warner own a few stations?
My first thought when hearing about this was hoping it would mean the network would be run better. NBC has been in fourth place for too long.
Keith Olbermann appears to be the first casualty of the merger. [del]He’s been fired.[/del] He and MSNBC have parted ways, effective immediately.
Since we accept that corporations have one purpose, to maximize profits, what will happen when the new company sees it can increase profits 2 ways by pushing content they own and create at NBC over content made by other companies. They will have to make that decision ever and over. They have no mandate to be fair. But they will claim they will be open and fair. They will not. They will not be able to resist making it difficult for other companies and they will make more money by streamlining their own.
Depends on the libertarian. I don’t think there’s a huge consensus on this.
For myself, I think the real problem that ‘net neutrality’ is trying to solve would be better addressed by increasing competition and/or putting a wall between content providers and ISP’s, rather than instituting new government regulations over the internet. So I’m generally opposed to the merger.
But hey, nothing’s too good for Obama’s new bestest buddy and big toe, Jeffrey Immelt. Crony capitalism is alive and well in Washington.
Well you can take the politician out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of the politician.