Comcast and NBC will officially be merging. CC by 惟①刻¾/Flickr

In a move approved by the FCC, Comcast and NBC will likely be merging. This merger is being lauded by industry advocates. The Comcast/NBC merger is not all good, however. Consumer advocates are saying it may be a disaster.

The Comcast NBC merger information

Comcast made an announcement recently. About 51 percent of NBC will be taken over. Currently, NBC Universal is controlled by General Electric. Comcast is going to buy that stake for about $30 billion. There are a lot of people with a personal interest in Comcast right now. They include 23 million cable subscribers and 17 million internet subscribers. NBC Universal owns NBC, CNBC, Bravo, Oxygen, Universal Studios and 30 percent of Hulu. The Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department anti-trust unit have given approval for the purchase.

The good part of the Comcast/NBC merger

Conditions apply to the FCC approval of the Comcast/NBC merger. Comcast has promised to add 1,000 hours of informational and news programming. Low-income households can get internet through the company for only cost $9.95 a month. Specific regulations have also been put in place to help prevent the Comcast-controlled NBC from using its control to kill competitors in both internet and television programming arenas.

NBC Comcast merger cons

Though Comcast has promised to take action to prevent unfair competition, many consumer advocates are concerned about the merger. One statement by the FCC Commissioner who voted against the deal said, “concentration of media under Comcast’s control would put too much power into one company that controls the access consumers have.” There is also concern that the company will be able to put walls around content. There are more chances for abuse with vertical integration even though costs may be reduced. There isn’t any net neutrality regulation in place yet. That means the merger might be harder for the FCC to control than it believes.

Information from

NPR

Washington Post

Comcast could become your monopoly, regardless of whether you want it or not. (Photo Credit: CC BY-SA/bclinesmith/Flickr)

The merger of Comcast and NBC Universal has drawn criticism from numerous sources, centered on the potential threat that the mega-company could become a monopolistic gatekeeper of televised and online media. In theory, Julius Genachowski and the Federal Communications Commission support open competition, where no one company controls the flow of information. Thus, the FCC is currently in negotiations with Comcast to ensure that Comcast Corp. will not take control once the NBC Universal purchase is complete, reports the Associated Press.

Video competition: The battle for your eyeballs

Comcast is seeking to purchase majority share in NBC Universal from General Electric, a potential $13.8 billion deal that has U.S. broadcasters and consumer groups worried that media and video competition will sink beneath Comcast’s massive bloat. Genachowski and the FCC want to ensure that other broadcast media companies will still have room to compete for viewership. If broadcasting companies are squeezed out of being able to obtain the necessary programming to grow and compete, those companies will fail and further strengthen the front-runner.

The Comcast–NBC Universal merger, by the numbers

If Comcast’s purchase of NBC Universal is completed, Comcast will have control of an astronomical media network. All NBC and Telemundo networks; 26 local TV stations; a host of popular cable networks like CNBC, Bravo and Oxygen; Universal film studio and related amusement parks; and a significant stake in Hulu.com. As Comcast already is in control of cable channels like E! Entertainment, Versus and the Golf Channel – and has controlling interest in various Philadelphia pro sports teams and their corresponding cable networks – the mega-corporation’s already staggering reach would be off the scale. Comcast now has about 23 million On-Demand video subscribers and 17 million broadband Internet subscribers.

Imagine the loopholes

The recent net neutrality ruling by the FCC has left behind what many experts consider to be “too many loopholes” — space for telecommunications companies to throttle bandwidth and play favorites. That ignores the spirit of competition that the FCC claims it seeks to preserve.

Sources

Associated Press

Sen. Al Franken blasts Comcast-NBC merger

Julius Genachowski believes the United States deserves net neutrality. (Photo Credit: Public Domain/FCC/Wikipedia)

From the sound of it, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski may have just signaled that a free and open Internet may be within reach. In a Huffington Post piece culled from his official FCC announcement, Genachowski states that a “milestone” has been reached in the fight for net neutrality. While the process is still at the proposal stage, the potential to see freedom of information on the World Wide Web in our lifetime appears closer than ever.

Net neutrality in a nutshell

Behind Julius Genachowski’s wide-ranging pronouncement lies the concept of net neutrality, which is deceptively simple. The basic idea is that quality broadband Internet connectivity should be available to all Americans at affordable prices. This high-speed connection to the Web should not be unreasonably throttled or otherwise controlled by government or telecommunications companies like Comcast. Furthermore, no sites should be granted bandwidth preference, which makes the path to one big telecom’s content a freshly paved, high-speed expressway while limiting the competition’s path to a bumpy dirt road.

‘Basic rules of the road’

In his statement, Julius Genachowski underscored the important role net neutrality would play in unfettered innovation, investment, job creation, individual expression and corporate competition. If the FCC’s open Internet measures are adopted later this month, here is what Americans can anticipate:

1. Freedom to access lawful content without filters. It is the FCC’s position that no individual, corporate entity or government should be allowed to restrict what Web content you view, so long as said content does not violate U.S. law.
2. Consumers have a right to know about their broadband service. This would include accurate, up-to-date information regarding said service so that potential users can make informed decisions before investing their dollars.
3. A level playing field. Consumers can express themselves and lawfully engage in commerce and innovation without permission or restriction. There will be no gatekeeper or favoritism when it comes to freedom of information.

Price hikes and roadblocks in cyberspace

When William Gibson first coined the term “cyberspace” in his seminal 1984 cyberpunk novel “Neuromancer,” he had no idea that corporate barbarians would soon fight in the real world to monetize the flow of information. Some might say that Julius Genachowski and the FCC are seeking to turn the tide in favor of freedom. Unreasonable prices and information filters cannot stand.

Sources

FCC.gov

Huffington Post

Julius Genachowski’s statement

The FCC has proposed a Third Way for net neutrality that shields broadband companies from full telecommunications regulation but prevents them from charging customers the way cell phone companies do. Flickr photo.

Net neutrality, in a nutshell is fast, open, equal and affordable Internet access to all Americans. Some broadband providers have proposed to start charging more to their customers for higher levels of service, much like cell phone companies. The Federal Communications Commission started an uproar in the net neutrality debate on Thursday when it announced that it will seek public comment on imposing new regulations on Internet service providers to keep them from offering tiered service. Meanwhile, there’s an effort on Capitol Hill to define more clearly the FCC’s authority. But the FCC doesn’t want to wait for Congress to get around to it before it regains control of the net neutrality issue

FCC net neutrality

Consumer groups and free speech advocate groups such as savetheinternet.com are in favor of net neutrality. Internet service providers and free market advocates are against it. Until last week the two proposed versions of net neutrality legislation would prohibit: (1) the “tiering” of broadband through sale of voice- or video-oriented Quality of Service packages; and (2) content- or service-sensitive blocking or censorship on the part of broadband carriers. Last week, the FCC released what is called the “Third Way” plan.

Net neutrality: The Third Way

Net neutrality under the third way, according to the Washington Post, is this: Currently, broadband is defined as an information service, which means it doesn’t face much FCC oversight. The new plan is to shift broadband into the same classification as telephone service, which would trigger more oversight by the agency. The FCC says it would not subject Internet service providers to the full brunt of regulation that would come with the new classification.

Comcast net neutrality case

The FCC’s Third Way is an effort to regain control of the net neutrality issue in response to a Federal Court decision in April that overturned a 2008 FCC ruling in the Comcast net neutrality case. In 2007, Comcast was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network, claiming that downloading huge amounts of data was clogging the network. In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.

Time Warner net neutrality challenge

In a 2009 test of the net neutrality issue,Time Warner Cable announced its intention offer broadband packages in 10GB, 20GB, 40GB and 60GB increments. The plans included overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75. Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets to much public outcry. Later the company announced that it would offer larger packages but public discontent remained. They were eventually forced to abandon the Time Warner net neutrality challenge altogether.

Net neutrality supporters

The FCC voted Thursday to start the controversial process of reclassifying high-speed Internet access to give the agency authority over service providers that would prevent disparate treatment of customers. The Channel Web reports that last week, a group of 13 companies including Amazon, Google  and Sony sent the FCC a letter in support of the Third Way saying that it will ensure that consumers have access to an open Internet, one that would preserve a level playing field for all participants. The net neutrality supporters said the Third Way does so without regulating the Internet but by applying basic rules of the road to the transmission services that provide access to the Internet.

Against net neutrality

Republicans in Congress are adamantly against net neutrality any which way. The Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans offer the familiar argument that the Third Way is more government meddling in a free market that will stunt innovation and investment, echoing their Internet-service provider patrons. Texas Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison speaking out against net neutrality said the agency has created “new burdensome regulations that threaten to stifle the growth of America’s broadband services.”

Google net neutrality letter

But Google cheered the FCC’s decision. “As we have said before, broadband infrastructure is too important to be left outside of any oversight,” the company said on The Official Google Blog. Massachusetts Democratic senator Edward J. Markey applauded the FCC’s move, calling it a “light-touch regulatory proposal” that would ensure “continued innovation, consumer protection and certainty in the broadband marketplace.”

Net Neutrality is the idea that all legal internet traffic should be treated equally. Image from Flickr.

Net Neutrality is the idea that all legal internet traffic should be treated equally. The concept of net neutrality seems simple enough, but a recent ruling by a Federal appeals court puts the FCC’s ability to protect net neutrality in question: Can the Federal government  protect net neutrality, or will internet service providers be able to determine which payday loans online web sites users can visit?

Net neutrality ruling strikes down FCC action

The net neutrality case that the Federal appeals court just ruled on is Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 08-1291. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission sanctioned Comcast Corporation for deliberately slowing internet traffic. Many users, some trying to apply for payday loans no fax, complained to the FCC about the slowdown. The FCC claimed that by slowing internet speeds for high-volume users, Comcast was preventing access. Comcast sued the FCC with the argument that the FCC was stepping over the legal authority given it by congress. The Federal appeals court ruled in Comcast’s favor on April 6.

The legal framework of net neutrality

Currently, net neutrality does not have an enforcement framework in the United States. The Federal Communications Commission does have the legal authority to regulate telecommunications services, which the commission refers to as “Title II” services. However, broadband internet service is currently classified as a “Title I” information service. While President Obama and Congress have discussed creating a new legal framework to protect net neutrality, no specific legislation is currently under consideration.

Arguments against net neutrality

Currently, most large providers are warning the FCC that reclassifying broadband service as Title II would be a “very bad idea.” Threatening years of legal challenges, providers such as Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are speaking out very loudly against net neutrality protections. The basic argument of these service providers is that the government has no business regulating their network management. Each internet service provider is saying that net neutrality actions would illegally violate their right to manage their businesses as they see fit.

How can the FCC protect net neutrality?

The FCC, as well as the Federal government, puts quite a bit of stock in the concept of net neutrality. The National Broadband plan rests heavily on a neutral internet. At this point, the FCC has three options. First, it can classify broadband service as a Title II service. Second, it can ask Congress to present a legal framework for net neutrality. Finally, the FCC can appeal the net neutrality decision handed down today to the Supreme Court.

Sources:

Computer World
Wall Street Journal