FCC's DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

[Joanne98]

But at the end of the day, the public interest requires more—much more—than itis receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization,access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content productionis now very real.

As for the future of America’s news and journalism, I see nothing in this deal to address the fundamental damage that has been inflicted by years of outrageous consolidation and newsroom cuts. Investigative journalism is not even a shell of its former self. All of this means it’s more difficult for citizens to hold the powerful accountable. It means thousands of stories go unwritten.

It means we never hear about untold instances of business corruption, political graft and other chicanery; it also meanswe don’t hear enough about all the good things taking place in our country every day. The slight tip of the hat that the applicants have made toward some very limited support of local media projects does not even begin to address the core of the problem. Given that this merger will make the joint venture a steward of the public’s airwaves as a broadcast licensee, I asked for a major commitment of its resources to beef up the news operation at NBC. That request was not taken seriously. Increasing the quantity of news by adding hours of programming is no substitute for improving the quality of news by devoting the necessary resources. Make no mistake: what is at stake here is the infrastructure for our national conversation—the very lifeblood of American democracy. We should be moving in precisely the opposite direction of what this Commission approves today.

There are many other facets of the joint venture that trouble me. I worry, for example, about the future of our public broadcast stations. Comcast-NBCU has committed to carry the signals of any of those stations that agree to relinquish the spectrum they are presently using. Will public television no longer be available to over-the-air viewers? And, what happens when the duration of this commitment has run its course? Might the public station be dropped to make room for yet more infotainment programming? In too many communities, the public television station is the last locally owned and operated media outlet left. Public television is miles ahead of everyone else in making productive, public interest use of the digital multi-cast spectrum licensed to it. Why in the world would we gamble with its future?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47101281/Michael-Copps-statement-about-the-Comcast-NBC-transaction

[Earth_First]

1. "Investigative journalism is not even a shell of itsformer self"

This x 100

[otohara]

2. ruining radio wasn't enough

I expected more from Obama FCC. Thank you Michael Copps - you are a good man.

[rurallib]

4. I had hopes he would be the chair when Obama took over

whatever was i thinking......?

[otohara]

7. Hope

we were fed hope and we got more of the previous administration.

[DCKit]

3. This could engender the creation of a whole new Internet...

It'd take years to get to most rural areas, but a radio-based, cloud system would put the infrastructure costs on individuals (the cost of a wireless modem).

Companies like Google, Yahoo, NetFlix and a lot of the small content providers would likely help out. Otherwise, they're going to lose a lot of market share as rates continually increase - think cable TV.

They're already doing it in Africa with cell towers.

[xchrom]

5. of all the signs of the apocalypse --

sameness -- everything becoming the same -- is the one they forgot to tell us about.

[Overseas]

6. Sad K&R. He's telling the truth. We need to de-consolidate.

Not conglomerate more.