Congresswoman Maxine Waters on Comcast-NBC Merger

January 26, 2011 -

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) issued a statement this week concerning the FCC and the DOJ approving the Comcast NBC Universal merger. While Waters comes out swinging in the first several paragraphs of her statement, in the latter part she heaps praise on the FCC and DOJ for their efforts on the merger and throws a fireball or two at Republican lawmakers for their objections to putting conditions on the deal and for adding language related to net neutrality rules.

The statement is confusing because first she says the provisions crafted by the FCC are impudent and have no real value, adding that they expire in 3 -7 years anyway. Then she praises both agencies for doing their best. You can read the entire statement below and make up your own minds (from Slate):

After thoroughly reviewing the FCC and DOJ orders regarding the approval of the acquisition of NBC by Comcast, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) today released the following statement:

"Although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) last week released their respective orders approving the Comcast-NBCU acquisition, I remain deeply concerned about the implications of such a massive merger on our nation's media landscape and the Commission's diminishing capacity to fulfill its statutory goals. In the year since Comcast announced its plans to merge with NBC Universal, I have repeatedly called on both the Commission and DOJ to conduct a thorough and substantive review – showing due deference to precedent and applicable provisions under Federal antitrust laws and the Communications Act. Despite persistent arguments many Republicans may make against federal oversight of the private sector, I firmly believe it is imperative that we have appropriate regulations in place to ensure that corporate goals are not achieved at the expense of the public welfare and our federal interest in promoting diversity, competition, and localism. The combination of a major content provider with our nation's leading cable service provider warranted every level of public and congressional scrutiny it endured over the past year. To that end, I must express my disappointment with the failure of either agency – particularly the FCC – to craft substantive conditions that are in conformity with established precedent and standards on media diversity and localism.

"However, given the steady erosion of antitrust enforcement and laws under previous Administrations, I commend the DOJ's Antitrust Division for its efforts to craft a consent decree containing provisions that can work to ease some — albeit, not all — of the concerns raised during the course of the review. I am also pleased that the Division incorporated network neutrality conditions into its order. For its part, the FCC was obligated to conduct a more comprehensive public interest analysis under the Communications Act. Unfortunately, despite the amount of public participation and input in the Commission's proceedings, it does not appear that the depth of analysis was reflected in the prescribed final conditions. I strongly suspect that the Commission's slight augmentations to rules and administrative proceedings will not satisfy those who are still waiting for the agency to hear their program carriage or access complaints against Comcast. Accordingly, I do not believe the American public can have much confidence in Comcast-NBCU's commitment to launch 10 new independent channels when current networks have had so many challenges negotiating reasonable carriage terms with the cable giant. And while discount broadband, "limited-time" special offers, and philanthropic endeavors are commendable efforts we strongly encourage the private sector to embrace, they are irrelevant to promoting diversity among broadcast viewpoints and FCC license holders. In the final analysis, the FCC's conditions and the DOJ's consent decree will only last 3 to 7 years, leaving even less protection for the American public once these conditions expire. Since no divestitures, separation of corporate authority, or any other stringent conditions were attached to the acquisition, the FCC's 279-page order approving the Comcast-NBCU merger will be even more meaningless than it is today.

"Contrary to my Republican colleagues' claims that the FCC's order is an overreach of regulatory authority, there is nothing in the Commission's order that Comcast-NBC did not agree to or previously offer as their "public interest commitments" early in the review proceedings. In fact, the memoranda of understanding were only slight variations of the same commitments Comcast-NBC submitted to Congress and the FCC in July 2010. Similarly, the network neutrality conditions were taken from the rule the Commission adopted last month – a narrowly tailored compromise with the telecommunications industry that excludes mobile wireless companies.

"I understand that there are many independent networks, writers, directors, actors, and programmers who cynically predicted that the government would succumb to pressure, and fail to truly serve the public interest. It was in this vein that I acted early in the Comcast-NBC merger review process – introducing legislation to encourage the FCC to extend the public comment period so they would have the appropriate amount of time to hear from the creative community, especially those who have felt excluded. I strongly believed that broad public engagement and participation would ensure accountability, even if the outcome was pre-determined. During the course of this review, I have had the opportunity to meet many professionals working within the media and telecommunications industry who all expressed a great deal of uncertainty about their future in a post-Comcast-NBCU merger marketplace. While we can only move forward from this point, I am committed to hosting discussions with the media industry, the FCC, and the public interest community so that we can develop ideas and policies that will truly promote and encourage media diversity, localism, and competition. As a Member on the House Judiciary Committee's new Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, I look forward to working with my colleagues in our ongoing efforts to ensure that our federal policies balance sensible regulation with the realities of a vibrant and ever-evolving industry."

Source: LA Times


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician