Sneaky Stuff In The Comcast Merger
Ira Stoll notes that the FCC's press release says this about the Comcast/NBC Universal merger/acquisition:
As part of the merger, Comcast-NBCU will be required to take affirmative steps to foster competition in the video marketplace. In addition, Comcast-NBCU will increase local news coverage to viewers; expand children's programming; enhance the diversity of programming available to Spanish-speaking viewers; offer broadband services to low-income Americans at reduced monthly prices; and provide high-speed broadband to schools, libraries and underserved communities, among other public benefits....Comcast will make available to approximately 2.5 million low income households: (i) high-speed Internet access service for less than $10 per month; (ii) personal computers, netbooks, or other computer equipment at a purchase price below $150" and "we require Comcast-NBCU to increase programming diversity by expanding its over the-air programming to the Spanish language-speaking community, and by making NBCU's Spanish-language broadcast programming available via Comcast's on demand and online platforms.
Stoll observes:
The Obama administration couldn't get an immigration reform through when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, but its FCC is sure ready to require more Spanish-language programming on American television. Nothing against Spanish, which I took in high school and is a fine language, but why not Chinese-language programming? Why not Yiddish?These FCC requirements are a back-door way of passing laws and mandating spending that could never make it through Congress in a million years.
via Walter Olson
Chinese programming? The Chinese kids are not allowed to watch T.V. and the parents are too busy making sure the kids are studying or practicing the violin. That topic was just covered.
Might be helpful for all of us to learn Chinese..maybe they think we need to learn Spanish first.
The Former Banker at January 20, 2011 12:52 AM
Why not give away free TVs and recliners, too?
KateC at January 20, 2011 6:44 AM
Three questions that the media ought to be asking, but won't:
a_random_guy at January 20, 2011 7:33 AM
"Why not give away free TVs and recliners, too?"
...right??
And some free health care and processed food. Don't worry. I'll foot the bill!
Gretchen at January 20, 2011 7:55 AM
Making it easy for Hispanics to continue living in this country without having to learn English ensures their continuing poverty, unemployment, and dependence on the government, that is to say, that they remain Democratic voters.
As for Yiddish programming, that is a bad idea that will only lead to confusion, after all what station do you tune into when the host announces this is WJEW 1500 on the dial, but for you, 1495?
bernie at January 20, 2011 8:05 AM
I'd like to see the other rules and see if ANY of them deal with the potential changes to competition this merger threatens. Is there anything in there that prevents NBC from giving Comcast a sweetheart deal on carrying its channels, while raising the rates for other cable companies? You know, things that actually have to do with business?
Vinnie Bartilucci at January 20, 2011 8:06 AM
If the FCC truly wants diversity in cable offerings, stop treating cable television like a utility and granting it monopolies.
If people have choices in cable providers, they'll find the company that meets their needs ... or start it.
Why do you think so many people are moving to sattelite or DSL providers?
Conan the Grammarian at January 20, 2011 9:19 AM
This could be very good for people who are in the business of producing Spanish-language programming. It will also be good for some computer maker who gets the contract for the subsidized PCs/Netbooks.
Increasingly, the most important single factor in the success or failure of any business is the attitude of the government toward it. This is of course not true capitalism, but corporatism or economic fascism. See the accidental eloquence of mrs Rearden.
David Foster at January 20, 2011 9:20 AM
This is simply the MO of the Obama administration. If you can't get what you want legislatively, do it through regulatory rulemaking instead.
Cap and Trade fails? Use the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Can't get "Net Neutrality", have the FCC make up some shit.
All those little punks who were whining about how Obama betrayed them by not pushing their particular view of "Net Neutrality" should be apoplectic at this point, but I doubt it.
brian at January 20, 2011 9:50 AM
We don't speak Spanish in our house. Strictly English. BUT, can I opt out of all the Spanish programming that comes with my cable package and pay less?? I'm betting NOT.
o.O
Flynne at January 20, 2011 9:53 AM
and how do you keep television relevant when the wave of people moving away from it is happening?
You begin with people who are going to still watch TV. Even when they aren't going to pay for it so much. And you price it by FORCING the cable company to do it, and they turn around and raise their rates. Why do they care when they have a monopoly in many places? Heh when is a tax, not a tax?
SwissArmyD at January 20, 2011 10:30 AM
People actually pay to watch tv? Fascinating!
Sam at January 20, 2011 12:38 PM
Love comcast.
Fresno DUI Attorney at January 20, 2011 1:19 PM
If the FCC wants to require that Comcast/NBCU provide Spanish-language programming, why don't they just require the company to serve Puerto Rico and Mexico? The the company can concentrate on providing English-Language programming in mainland America and Hawaii.
On the other hand, the women on those Spanish-language channels are muy caliente!
mpetrie98 at January 20, 2011 1:20 PM
How much do you wanna bet that Comcast agreed to that because they have plans to buy Telemundo or Univision? They may have even suggested it. It wouldn't surprise me if the FCC got pwned on that one. When the system rewards game-players, you learn to play the game.
Cousin Dave at January 20, 2011 4:49 PM
Stoll showed that he was more interested in spin than factual reporting, as shown in his statement that "These FCC requirements are a back-door way of passing laws and mandating spending..."
To be clear, the FCC does not pass laws, and does not mandate spending. The FCC can create Administrative Rules, to allow an Agency to work out administration of the statute, but the creation of these Rules are limited by their forming statute, and have to be approved by the Legislature. The people in charge of passing laws are also the Legislature - and they are also the persons in charge of determining the budgetary allowance for the FCC.
While Stoll makes a point, I have to wonder at what else he may have been sloppy in his reporting.
Kennedy at January 20, 2011 7:16 PM
Way back when Ameritech/SBC (Now AT&T again) ran an advertisement about how they provided telephone services to small communities and rural areas. They only ran it for a few weeks and then they quietly buried it.
Less than a year later the Federal telephone excise tax was finally killed in 2006.
What most people didn't realize was that the Bell's (and tiny other providers) were required to provide phone service to rural as part of their operating agreement and some of that was funded by the excise tax itself. It also broke the monopoly on telephone companies being the single provider for telephone services.
That is why you now see the cable companies able to bundle the telephone, internet and cable services.
Jim P. at January 20, 2011 8:08 PM
Telemundo was owned by NBC/Universal, so yes, Comcast owns it.
KateC at January 20, 2011 9:59 PM
Great - one more thing for me to subsidize. WHEN did things like this become rights, and not privileges
I'm moving to my own island.
Daghain at January 21, 2011 11:13 AM
"To be clear, the FCC does not pass laws, and does not mandate spending. The FCC can create Administrative Rules, to allow an Agency to work out administration of the statute, but the creation of these Rules are limited by their forming statute, and have to be approved by the Legislature."
In theory. In practice, both Congress itself and the courts recognize almost no limits on the authority of any federal agency. What in the EPA's charter authorizes it to regulate naturally occurring components of the atmosphere? Yet, it's going to happen, despite overwhelming opposition by the citizenry. The default now is that agencies have unlimited authority except as specifically prohibited by legislation. That's the exact opposite of the way it's supposed to work.
Cousin Dave at January 21, 2011 3:56 PM
I don't mind the Spanish language programming...so long as it's purpose is to teach English! :)
Graty Slapchop at January 21, 2011 4:59 PM
Leave a comment