Too Big to Block? Why Obama Must Stop the Comcast-NBC Merger

[onehandle]

Please K&R this post.

See this site to act on this: http://freepress.net/comcast

Now that Vivendi and General Electric have struck a deal, cable giant Comcast is expected to to buy a controlling stake in NBC-Universal; marking the biggest proposed media merger in recent memory. Comcast, the largest cable company and the No. 1 residential Internet service provider in the nation, would take over the NBC empire: a television network, Universal Studios, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Telemundo, the Weather Channel, Hulu.com, 27 television stations and a host of other properties.

This train wreck of a deal will hurt all over. It will mean increased costs for cable television service; currently free online NBC content locked behind a pay wall; less opportunity for the distribution of independent media; even fewer choices and less programming diversity. On average, nearly one quarter of all channels offered to cable subscribers will be owned by the bloated Comcast.

News reports about the deal are citing the "conventional wisdom" echoed by industry analysts from Wall Street and Washington: Judicial and agency precedent indicates that the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission will not be able to stop the merger -- even if they know that the cost to the public interest will be grave. This is the same kind of regulatory precedent that permitted the renegade banking industry to run amok, until the system came crashing down. Our lawmakers should have been reining in these out-of-control corporations long ago. But therein lies the problem: Corporate-friendly judges, appointed by corporate-friendly politicians, elected with contributions from their corporate patrons, have created a body of legal precedent that makes even the most common sense antitrust rulings difficult to impossible.

It was just 18 months ago that candidate Barack Obama 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." Five months later, Obama was swept into office promising to bring change to Washington. If President Obama really wants to change the system that green-lighted the bailout of "too big to fail" banks and would allow the looming crisis of too-big-to-block media mergers, he will have to overhaul federal antitrust laws so that they actually protect the greater good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/too-big-to-block-why-obam_b_356826.html

[Jane Austin]

1. Where can we weigh in on this?

Anyone know?

[onehandle]

2. I added a link from the article to the post. nt

[Armstead]

18. Contact your Congresscritters and the WH

We need to let them know that they can't just let this skate through

[Cha]

3. KR

[FrenchieCat]

4. How can Obama stop this deal in the making,

if the FCC can't do anything about it?

Does he have that kind of power, to make laws on the spot?
Isnt that congress' job?
Seriously, I'd like to know.

[NYC Liberal]

9. He doesn't. But don't worry, it's all in the plan:

Step 1. Demand that Obama do something he has no control over.
Step 2. Get outraged when Obama doesn't do what he had no power to do in the first place.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit!!!

[Armstead]

19. There are anti-trust regulations that could be used

Plus consumer protection laws and the FCC should be able to find ways to block such concentration of power.

We are not helpless

[elleng]

5. More like, too big NOT to block.

[jgraz]

6. Never. Gonna. Happen.

Expecting Obama to stand up to Corporate America is like expecting George Bush to speak in coherent sentences.

[boppers]

7. "currently free online NBC content locked behind a pay wall"?

Uhm, the free content is part of their revenue stream, why would they kill that? Pay walls don't work for commodity information.

[NYC Liberal]

8. "Obama ... will have to overhaul federal antitrust laws"

Say what? And how, pray tell, will President Obama singlehandedly do this? Last time I checked we had a Constitution, you know, with checks and balances and all that fun stuff we learned about in elementary school.

Since "the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission will not be able to stop the merger" that means the current laws have to be changed and/or new ones written. This is Congress' job. I fully support overhauling and updating the antitrust laws to deal with this shit, but let's not play fast and loose with reality about how it has to happen.

[optimator]

10. the current law requires the justice dept to investigate

not much anyone can do to force the executive branch to execute the law though.

[MollieBradford]

13. according to you

it looks like the president can't do anything. Great, then he never has to be responsible for anything. Heckava Job Barry

[NYC Liberal]

15. No, that is not true.

But this article is saying "Obama has to overhaul..."

Obama cannot singlehandedly "overhaul" years of antitrust legislation. Or maybe you know of a way for the president to do that?

[me b zola]

26. Barry?

So you managed to compare President Obama to bush* in the same sentence as calling him "Barry". And here I thought that pumas were extinct.

[Armstead]

20. This "leasrned helplessness" by Democrats is why we are in such a mess

You honestly think that the government as an extension of the public interest has nothing to say about the formatiuon and perpetuation of abusive monopolistic corporations?

If so, you are part of what has been the fundamental political, economic and social problem of the last 35 years.

[NYC Liberal]

22. "Obama" does not equal "the government"

Yes of course the government can change things. But Obama cannot singlehandedly do it. In this particular case, a change in the law is needed, and that is up to Congress.

It's people who misunderstand the basic functions of our government that are the problem here.

[Armstead]

27. And what, pray tell, IS the proper function of government?

It is not a stretch -- even applying a very mild philosophy -- to say that a basic role of government is to protect the ecionomy and the public interest from the dangers of massive accumulations of wealth and power. Only a hard nosed conservative would argue against that basic premise.

Anti-trust vregulation certainlt falls within that definition, and has been successfully applied in the past.

However, the "learned helplessness" I refer to is the constant excuse-making on our side of the aisle over the last three decades of why we can't do that. "Those bog bad Robber Barons will beat us up if we try to regulate anything." That's the unbfortunate message that the Democrats have been repeating for too many years, as the economy became increasingly concentrated into too few hands....Some of this disgusting passivity on our side is due to cowardice...And some it is due to the corruption of power, as too many Democratic poobahs spent too much time playing golf with the Oligarchs. As a result they started seeing the world through the eyes of the CEO and Investor Class instead of the common people and the disadvantaged.

And so, after years of accepting the unacceptable, the rest of us go along with the assumption that kit is unrealistic to expect our representative government and elected leaders to actually represent us. We enable the bastards with that passivity.

You are correct. Obama is not the government. But he is damn well the elected leader of it at the moment. And the Congress is controlled by Democrats at the moment -- a party that, at the very least, is supposed to stand for a government that activel;y works to protect the public interest.

But if the rest of us sit by and do nothing but make excuses instead of pushing them to do the right things, then that's what we will continue to get: Nothing.

[PVnRT]

24. The SEC generally approves mergers this big

State laws also usually require a majority of stockholders on both sides to approve the deal.

[onenote]

25. not the SEC. Either FTC or DOJ

[onenote]

11. if it happens, the FCC almost certainly will impose a number of significant conditions

designed to ensure, among other things, net neutrality.

mark my words.

[onehandle]

12. I wouldn't count on that. Then the next Republican would just turn a blind eye. nt

[onenote]

16. I've worked on several major communications transactions before the FCC

so I have first hand knowledge of what I described. Even during the bush years, conditions were imposed on combinations such as AOL/Time Warner, News Corp/DirecTV, Adelphia/Time Warner/Comcast.

As for what will happen in the future if/when a repub occupies the WH (and there is a repub majority on the FCC) -- well, hopefully thats not for another 7 years, which can be a lifetime in terms of communications companies (just ask AOL).

[depakid]

14. Oh, if the administration wanted to it could do something alright

but I've come to expect NOTHING out of this disgrace of a Justice Department- and I've heard nary a peep about new rulemaking from the FCC.

Nope, boys and girls- we've got Clinton II on our hands in matters like these. And Americans will ever that much poorer for it.

[Armstead]

17. I posted this too -- We all need to do something to pressure against this

Sitting back and allowing these mergers in the 70 80s and 90s is what brought us tom the sorry and scary state we are in.

If Obama and the Ddemocrats have ANY backbone they have to stop this.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?...Oh yeah he was a republican. But we need a democratic TR now

[Vidar]

21. Recommended, though I can't see Obama standing up to any corporation,

[ShortnFiery]

23. If it goes through say "Good-bye" to The Ed Show, Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show.

Comcast is NOTHING if it's not right wing and corporate loving THUGS. :shrug: