FCC Approves Comcast Merger

[ProfessionalLeftist]

Source: Huffington Post

The FCC approved the merger of Comcast and NBC on Tuesday. The vote was 4 to 1, with Democratic commissioner Michael Copps casting the dissenting vote. The New York Times reports that the Justice Department, which also has to approve the deal, is expected to do so later on Tuesday.

The merger will mark the first time that a cable company will own a broadcast network.

In his dissenting statement, Copps said he was worried that the merger "confers too much power in one company's hands" and "opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/fcc-approves-comcastnbc-m_n_810495.html?ref=tw

[alp227]

1. Thank you Commissioner Copps.

www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

Of these five, Copps is a Democrat appointed by GWB, McDowell was appointed by GWB, and the other 3 were Obama appointees. A sad day indeed nearly a year after Citizens United v. FEC.

[w4rma]

86. GWB hired a better commissioner than all of the 3 combined that Obama hired. Bad. (nt)

[cbdo2007]

2. I don't care about this, I don't even have cable.

[theaocp]

3. ...and then they came for those with cable

and I didn't say anything because I didn't have cable. I think you can extrapolate how this ends.

[defendandprotect]

9. Understand how you feel -- unfortunately this stuff effects us all eventually ....

that's why so many of us tried to fight this corporate-press over decades --

[snot]

58. Comcast has been caught censoring political content on the internet --

They edited out criticism of W. by Pearljam during a concert.

Nevermind what hasn't been caught.

[No Elephants]

91. You're joking, right?

[sarcasmo]

109. First Keith and it makes you wonder if Rachel is next?

[Gregorian]

4. There will eventually be disobedience.

Each one of these things that leads to less diversity will result in the obedient deciding that they do not approve of what has happened.

[dixiegrrrrl]

59. Canceled our Satellite service today, no more tv for us.

Hat tip to all the DU folk who post the latest news and the links.....:applause: :applause: :applause:

This merger is the tip of the proverbial and unfortunately not melting iceberg.

[midnight]

5. That's to bad....

[KamaAina]

6. Using this, apparently

:eyes:

[alp227]

7. and now the Justice Dept approves

somebody oughta challenge this in court! rrgh!

[defendandprotect]

8. More corrupt government -- thank you Obama?

And this is who so many are looking to right now to save them from the

deadly and violent rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin?

What a farce --

How long are we going to pretend that we don't have absolutel corruption

of government?

[defendandprotect]

10. Comcast makes $500 million a year from internet porn .... this is fascism...!!

[onenote]

55. oh look, Pat Robertson is here!

There are many reasons to be concerned about the Comcast/NBCU joint venture. The fact that Comcast makes money providing access to adult content is not one of them.

[LiberalLovinLug]

11. "and the other 3 were Obama appointees"

It tells a lot when a GWB appointee is outvoted by every Obama appointee in the march towards total Corporocricy.

In spite of pre-Presidential promises to listen to and include EVERY point of view, Obama's appointments in almost every level have not even been moderates, they have been hard core Wall Street exceptionalists.

I think a lot of us previous Obama cheerleaders, would have been somewhat put at ease if only Obama had at least given a nod towards an inclusiveness of progressive values in his appointments. That is, its not that we were shocked and even didn't expect Obama to veer somewhat right after he moved from the primaries to the oval office, but his perpetual red carpet treatment to the corporate establishment and his continual snub and more, his derision, of anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan is baffling and utterly disappointing.

[derby378]

56. +1,000 (n/t)

[No Elephants]

92. +1

[sabra]

12. Justice Department Approves Comcast Takeover of NBC Universal

Source: CNBC

BREAKING NEWS Justice Department Approves Comcast Takeover of NBC Universal (Story Developing)

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/

[daggahead]

13. Booooo! Hisssssss! n/t

[ananda]

14. More crap ahead.

Every day our corporate government thinks of a way to sell us down the river.

[DonCoquixote]

15. I would love to be wrong

But I think this is where the liberal wing is being given their last rites.

[Botany]

16. Say good bye to Olbermann, Schultz, & Maddow

We are really screwed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Care to put a date on that outlandish prediction?

[Botany]

20. I would say sometime in 2012 way before the general election

n/t

[onenote]

24. bookmarked

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. All three gone by Labor Day 2012?

[SOS]

110. Agree

It's a fairly obvious plan.
Dump the highly-rated lead in. Replace KO with Dismal O'Donnell.
Entire prime time lineup plummets in the ratings.
Comcast then cans the rest as a "business decision".

2012, the latest.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

29. +1,000.

I find the Chicken Little-ism around here tiring.

[Botany]

54. As for me I find little chicks tiring.

but not the Dixie Chicks

[Snellius]

33. For me, Comcast pulled them years ago

Where I am in MA, Comcast, our sole provider, yanked MSNBC from its regular cable service and put it on what they call the "digital" plan, too expensive, of course, for anyone but Repubs to afford. Not CNN. Not FOX. And when did they do it? Just 6 months before the last Presidential election! Personally, this is the last straw for me and the Obama Admin and I hope, having been in and out of this forum for over ten years, they change the name from Democratic Underground to Independent Underground.

[snot]

57. +1

[karynnj]

71. Cablevision did the same in NJ

We are in the exact same situation - CNN and Fox are on the basic schedule and MSNBC is on a higher tier. (This also means that on some cable ready TVs - like one in the kitchen, without another cablebox, I can't get MSNBC (or CSPAN2).

[onenote]

72. are MSNBC and CSPAN2 the only two channels you can't get without a box?

If not, maybe there are factors unrelated to content that explain tier and channel placement, such as the fact that both CNN and Fox are more highly rated than MSNBC and are typically "bundled" with other commonly owned channels, which means the cable company has less leverage when it comes to negotiating tier and channel placement.

[karynnj]

73. It is as you describe and here it was described as an affect of the

move to digital. We used to be able to get all the channels that we paid for on cable ready tvs. (I mentioned CSPAN2 almost as a joke.)

One problem I see is that MSNBC has a major barrier to ever being as highly rated. I don't know if the stations I can get are based just on ratings as I can get many stations that would not seem to be highly rated.

[No Elephants]

94. In Boston, it was done a long time before digital.

"One problem I see is that MSNBC has a major barrier to ever being as highly rated."

Worse, people who are not financially "comfortable" may never hear a Dem point of view. Even in Boston, our local news owners and anchors lean right, some more blatantly than others. And Fox is available here in the cheaper package. Not Fox News, but Fox Network airs local news shows here.

[No Elephants]

95. You framed your question wrong. I used to have a limited number of

channels or stations, plus MSNBC. Then, they took away MSNBC and only MSNBC.

There are hundreds of other stations I never got, even after switching to the much higher-priced package that includes MSNBC, but that is irrelevant to the poster's point.

[No Elephants]

93. Boston, too. Price difference is prohibitive for many. And they are the only broadband

provider here, too, AFAIK.

[LynneSin]

28. If they are getting good ratings then I don't think they'll touch those shows

Sure Fox gets higher ratings but consider this.

MSNBC gets better rating for the 18-54 age bracket which is the prime advertising groups.

Plus look at Glenn Beck and his advertising, he can't get anyone legit to sponser his show and yet MSNBC has plenty of advertisers.

bottom line - it's all about the money.

[w4rma]

85. They almost outright fired Olberman just a couple of months ago. How soon some forget. (nt)

[wordpix]

111. could be---corporates don't like people publicly announcing the bad things they do

[Hissyspit]

17. Oh, yay.

:sarcasm:

That's a good fucking idea.

We are so fucked as a nation.

[aquart]

19. Idiots.

[Earth_First]

21. More of the same...

SSDD

[onenote]

23. For those that want to read a summary of the conditions put on Comcast/NBCU

http://www.fcc.gov/

The full order, which probably will be several hundred pages long, is not yet out. But there is a summary as well as separate and dissenting statements available for those who want more information on what the order allows and doesn't allow.

[Jkid]

74. Comcast/NBCU is going to find ways to pay lip service to those conditions.

Trust me.

[liberal N proud]

25. One day there will only be one

[harun]

30. I think there will be two, then they can say, "see, not a monopoly!"

"You have two choices for all the news on the planet, stop whining!"

[Frisbee]

31. Far Right and Extreme Far Right...

eventually, those will be our choices.

[harun]

53. Exactly, they will claim to tell both sides of the story with that.

It has been what I have observed since about 1980. A constant rightward move.

[No Elephants]

96. Eventually?

[wisteria]

26. I do not view this as good news. Changes are coming to MSNBC. n/t

[Marblehead]

27. but

I signed an online petition against it.
:argh:

[Snellius]

34. Where?

Link please.

[Michigan-Arizona]

35. Here's a link to one of a few that I've signed

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[thecrow]

45. I've had that link on my web site for YEARS.

Yet... I keep signing petitions.
I signed one just recently at CREDO. It was delivered to the FCC. Over 50,000 signatures!
So this is how democracy works?

[Michigan-Arizona]

60. Waste of time I think

I've signed so many & not one has went in the favor of what the public want's. They could care less what we want or think I'm afraid.

[Enthusiast]

68. Yeah, I signed all those petitions.

They ignore those petitions. The only thing that has any influence is corporate money and lots of it.

[madfloridian]

36. U.S. approves Comcast-NBC merger

Source: CNN Money

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice on Tuesday approved -- with several conditions -- a merger of the country's largest cable operator, Comcast, and broadcasting company NBC Universal.

The FCC voted 4-1 in favor of the deal.

"After a thorough review, we have adopted strong and fair merger conditions to ensure this transaction serves the public interest," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/18/technology/fcc_comcast_nbc/

[City Lights]

37. What a shocker!

Not!

:puke:

"After a thorough review, we have adopted strong and fair merger conditions to ensure this transaction serves the public interest."

I'll believe it when I see it.

[ananda]

38. You will never see anything remotely serving any interest but Comcast's...

... and the officials and politicians they own.

[onenote]

39. LInk to a summary of the conditions

http://www.fcc.gov/

[Auggie]

40. Thanks

[strategery blunder]

41. The conditions apparently sunset in seven years.

Not good enough--even with vigorous enforcement :eyes: the eighth year will still be ComPravda Propaganda Central.

[City Lights]

51. Thanks! nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

42. does that make it 4 corporations that own airwaves

??

[ProudDad]

63. Yep...

Heading for just Rupert Murdoch as the last media oligarch standing...

[katnapped]

43. More 'change' we can believe in...WHOOHOO n/t

[Sherman A1]

44. Yup!

Pardon me for a moment.....


:banghead:

[HankyDubs]

46. bribery works!

in case you weren't sure.

[Enthusiast]

69. Now undeniable. nt

[Odin2005]

47. Anti-Trust laws go completely ignored. Disgusting.

What's the fucking point of regulatory agencies if they just become corporate tools anyway?

[Snellius]

48. That's it for me and the Obama Admin. I hope DU changes its name.

There's only so much you can take before your conscience just makes it impossible to support a party that's so out of step with what America stands for and where you believe it should go.

[caseymoz]

49. Time to protest.

If ever there's a time people should take to the streets on consolidation issue, this is it.

[Snellius]

52. The best defense is on the local level

Many local governments hold considerable control over granting cable rights in their community. Where I live in MA there have been a number of public forums. Comcast, of course, never shows up because, as Lily Tomlin as Ernestine used to say of Ma Bell, "We don't care. We don't have to."

[ProudDad]

62. No, they don't...

They are easily bribed/coerced by the giant media companies...

They sure as fuck have been bought here in Tucson!!!

[onenote]

65. Local governments have very limited rights in terms of revoking a franchise

The legal threshold is very high and there are limits on what types of terms and conditions a local government can put on a cable operator. Free speech concerns and all that.
What local (or, in some instances state) governments can do is award competing franchises. In fact, exclusive franchises are illegal and the FCC has adopted rules that essentially require the grant of a competing franchise to a qualified applicant (such as Verizon, or ATT, or some of the smaller "overbuilders" such as Knology, RCN, WOW, etc).

[No Elephants]

97. Local officials are less vulnerable to big bucks?

And I live in Boston, where every word out of Mayor For Life Menino's mouth is prefaced by "public-private pahtnahships."


Translation. If Boston gives a developer land, zoning waivers and a busload of other incentives, s/he will include a couple of low income housing units in the least desirable part of a brazillion unit building.

[Tribalceltic]

50. I thought we had anti-trust laws in this country.

Apparently they are not being enforced.

[No Elephants]

98. We do. They went from outright barring monopolies to merely requiring D of J approval

for mergers and acquisitions over a certain dollar level, regardless of whether the outcome would create a monopoly in one or more industries.

Reagan started raising the dollar level and D of J got more and more cooperative. One result--a few RWers control, directly or indirectly, most all of America's broadcast and print media and news organizations (e.g., AP).

[ProudDad]

61. SHIT!!!

"Change" you can believe in...

Yeah, right...

Fuck the Bush III Admin...

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

75. +1000

[onenote]

64. For those that are certain that they know how this merger will impact the future

I have two (well really three) words: Time Warner/AOL. Another merger that was supposed to end the world as we know it. Except it didn't turn out that way.

Actually, here's another one: News Corporation/DirecTV. Another merger of media giants that didn't turn out that well.

Actually, if you go back far enough, I suppose you could include the merger of Time Inc. and Warner Inc., which created the largest media company in the world at the time. It had cable systems (from both the Time and Warner sides of the merger) as well as a movie studio (Warner), magazines (Time Inc), music label (Warner), and cable networks (principally Warner).

Today, Time Warner is still a huge company, but it no longer has any ownership interest in cable systems (Time Warner Cable, despite its name, is a completely independent company). Moreover, over the years any number of acquisitions by Time Warner have been made and unmade, including the purchase of Atari (which for a time was the most valuable asset the company had), the purchase of the Pittsburgh Pirates, the sale of Warner Music, the sale of the Six Flags theme parks, and the sale of MTV, Nickelodeon, and The Movie Channel.

So, before declaring that the world as we know it has ended, we might want to see what actually transpires. Maybe this deal will stick, maybe it won't. I wouldn't bet the ranch either way.

[ProudDad]

76. You are ignoring the FACT

that the succession of mergers and acquisitions have harmed society...

You are arguing that in a disgustingly polluted media environment it's hard to see how more pollution will cause harm...

In other words, if you're up to your armpits in a vat of shit it's hard to tell how much worse off you will be if the Feds throw in another bucket... :shrug:

[onenote]

84. no I'm merely pointing out that one can't predict with certainty the impact of this merger

Because it has the risk of creating harm, it rightly needs to be subject to significant conditions and oversight. Hopefully, as a result of those conditions, some aspects of the media landscape will be protected or even enhanced by the merger, such as the conditions protecting public access programming and requiring Comcast to add a specific number of unaffiliated networks, or requiring Comcast to make available high speed internet access to service to certain low income households for under ten dollars a month and requiring NBC to maintain at least the same level of news an information programming on its owned and operated stations as is on them today and to enter into cooperative arrangement with locally focused nonprofit news organizations. Absent the merger, its unlikely (to say the least) that any of those things would happen.

It will depend on oversight and enforcement to ensure that these conditions are honored, but it seems premature to declare the conditions a failure and the merger a threat to democracy. Even with the merger, the number of options that people have for getting news and information today dwarfs the number of options they had back in the 1960s and 1970s, when there were three national networks and not a whole lot else.

[ProudDad]

88. One CAN predict with near certainty

from past experience with the past 5 or 6 administrations that the "oversight" will NOT be forthcoming...

And in the 60s and 70s there were 2 or three competing newspapers, 3 or 4 additional local channels and dozens of radio stations that did LOCAL programming in each market and it was ILLEGAL for them to be cross-owned...

And it's elitist to include internet at this time as a viable option to "free" over the air anything...

EVERYTHING that's happened in the media landscape has led to the current sorry state of affairs...there's no reason to believe that this latest mega-merger will not continue the trend...

Just admit it, this is more bad news...

[onenote]

105. the actual state of media competition in the 60s and 70s

You state that in the 1960s there were 2 or three competing newspapers and 3 or 4 additional local stations on top of stations affiliated with the three national networks.

The facts are quite different.

In the mid-1970s there were fewer than 700 commercial television stations (VHF and UHF) operating in the US, and each of the big three networks had around 200 affiliates, meaning that were fewer than 100 other stations nationwide. Of the 210 US television markets, only 8 were served by more than four stations (including the three networks). More than half had three or fewer stations. During the latter half of the decade, the total number of stations grew to around 725 with almost all of the growth coming in the form of UHF stations that generally offered syndicated programming and little true local content. Even after this growth spurt, around a quarter of all television markets were still served by only or two over the air stations. At the same time, cable only had 14 million subscribers, and more than half of the cable systems in the country offered 12 or fewer channels of programming. Simply put, the number of options available for television viewing was quite limited. (I should add that it wasn't until 1975 that the FCC banned cross ownership of newspaper and television in the same market, and it grandfathered a signficant number of existing combinations at that time).

As for newspapers, the decline in competiting newspaper voices is undeniable. However, its hardly a new phenomemon. The number of cities with two or more competing daily papers was nearly 700 around the beginning of the 1900s, had dropped to around 500 in the 1920s and then fell precipitously to under 60 in 1963. Put another way, the idea that in the 1960s and 1970s two-newspaper, 5 station cities were the norm is a myth.

Maybe there was a golden age of media competition. I'm just not sure when it was. There were more newspapers in the 1920s, but no television and no radio. There is a lot more radio concentration today, but there also are a lot more radio stations. For example, in 1970, there were around 4300 AM, 2100 FM, and 400 non commercial educational radio stations. In 2010, the numbers were 4800 AM, 6500 FM and 3200 educational. And that's not counting XM/Sirius and various Internet distributed "radio" services.

I'm not saying regulation and oversight isn't important and that the government should just let companies merge willy-nilly. I am particularly concerned about local ownership concentration of broadcast television and radio stations since stations that don't have to compete with one another tend not to invest in news and local content. But compared to the past, and looking at media outlets overall, its simply not the case that people have fewer options in terms of where they can get information today than in the past.

[No Elephants]

99. Oonly very few entities

gather and report hard news--especially national and international-- and those get fewer all the time.

The rest re-publish, re-hash and/or "analyze" or comment on what those few news-gathering sources publish first.


besides, in the 70's, journalists still had standards.

[No Elephants]

102. Point is, our government is supposed to protect us. The demise of Time Warner

due to market and/or internal issues after government approved the merger is irrelevant to that point.

[delightfulstar]

66. I want to hear what KO & Maddow have to say about this...

I'm sure they'll both raise holy hell. Those are two voices of reason on the airwaves, and I certainly don't want them silenced as a result of this.

[Enthusiast]

67. Another betrayal.

They keep piling up.

[Doctor_J]

70. Raise your hand if you still think you live in a democracy

Pretty soon TV will be just like radio. All fascism, all the time

[RamboLiberal]

77. Now will Comcast move MSNBC back next to CNN and Faux

On their damn cable channels. Before the 2008 election the bastards moved MSNBC from 31 on my Comcast cable to 183!

CNN is 32, HLN is 33, and Faux is 34. 31 is the friggin' golf channel.

I'll be curious to see. IMHO MSNBC would get better ratings if back in the same channel group as CNN & Faux!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

78. FCC approves Comcast's purchase of NBC ...(51% of NBC from GE)

Source: examiner.com

Broadcast history was made today when the Federal Communications Commission approved a merger between Comcast and NBC Universal. The deal, which won approval on a 4-to-1 vote, allows Comcast to buy 51 percent of NBC from GE.

The approval also included conditions to protect competitors, such as making sure all providers have access to NBC programming.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: FCC approves Comcast's purchase of NBC - New York TV | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-new-york/fcc-approves-comcast-s-purchase-of-nbc#ixzz1BV7QXWtT


Read more: http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-new-york/fcc-approves-comcast-s-purchase-of-nbc

---

Fox Channel just lost its adversary

[RandomThoughts]

79. And once again they go backwards.

They are not going to make it through this.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

80. Faux News just lost an advesrary...wonder what will happen to Kieth and Rachel and Ed?

[onenote]

89. because GE was a fabulous left leaning company?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

106. at least they gave us Maddow, Olbermen and Shultz...let's see how long before they get canned

[meegbear]

81. Didn't this, like happen, yesterday and stuff?

[bluestateguy]

82. I'm no fan of GE owning NBC

but that is a far better arrangement than Comcast.

A cable and internet provider owning a broadcast network? Which happens to own a lot of cable channels as well? That is just asking for trouble.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

83. Comcast and Murdoch are like twins

[onenote]

100. except for the part where Comcast's senior execs raise tons of money for Democrats

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x594857

[No Elephants]

101. Looks as though Comcast is getting a damned good return on that investment.

"Comcast's senior execs raise tons of money for Democrats"

Yes, I'm sure Comcast senior execs "raised" it. Probably had white elephant sales went door to door begging and selling stuff they baked. Yeah, door to door. That's the ticket!

But, you don't think Murdoch donates to whomever he feels he has to when he wants something? Sure, he may not do so under his own name or that of Fox, but I bet folks who matter know where the $$ came from.

[Javaman]

104. Queue the death star music.

I guess mega monopolies are all the trend. Damn the people, full speed ahead!

[sarcasmo]

87. Sad, was there ever any doubt corporate america would allow this mega merger?

[endless october]

90. count me against this.

the new corporation is too big and has too much control over content.

[No Elephants]

103. Self delete.

[No Elephants]

107. Kicking for Reply 16, in light of Olbermann's firing.

[slay]

108. Thank you - I was about to do the same thing

n/t