Copps

A Statement from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: The Lone Dissenter in Today’s 4-1 Decision Approving the Merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal:

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

For any transaction that comes before this Commission, our statutory obligation is to weigh the promised benefits against the potential harms so as to determine whether the public interest is being served. There are many potential harms attending this transaction—even the majority recognizes them. But all the majority’s efforts—diligent though they were—to ameliorate these harms cannot mask the truth that this Comcast-NBCU joint venture grievously fails the public interest. I searched in vain for the benefits. I could find little more than such touted gains as “the elimination of double marginalization.” Pardon me, but a deal of this size should be expected to yield more than the limited benefits cited. I understand that economies and efficiencies could accrue to the combined Comcast-NBCU venture, but look a little further into the decision and you will find that any such savings will not necessarily be passed on to consumers. When they tell you that at the outset, don’t look for lower cable or Internet access bills. As companies combine and consolidate, consumers have seen their cable bills out-strip the Consumer Price Index by orders of magnitude.

Many of the new commitments that have been added aim no higher than maintaining the status quo. The status quo is not serving the public interest.

It is also claimed that the duration of the commitments made by Comcast-NBCU are longer than any that have been attached to previously-approved mergers. That may be true—but it is also true that power is patient and that big businesses can bide their time when they have to in order to reap the fullest harvest.

While approval of this transaction was from its announcement the steepest of climbs for me, given my long-standing opposition to the outrageous media consolidation this country has experienced over the past few decades, I did meet with stakeholders on all sides to make sure I understood their perspectives on the matter. And I worked to develop ideas to minimize the harms and to advance at least some positive public interest benefits. I know my colleagues worked assiduously on this proceeding, too.

Commissioner Clyburn, for example, worked successfully to achieve commitments from Comcast-NBCU to improve diversity, expand broadband deployment in unserved areas and increase broadband adoption by low-income households. The Chairman and his team, led by John Flynn, and many, many other members of the FCC team put more effort into this transaction than I have seen put into any transaction during my nearly ten years here at the Commission. I also salute the unprecedented cooperation between the agency and the Department of Justice.

Comcast's Online Toll Plaza

But at the end of the day, the public interest requires more—much more—than it is 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 production is 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 means we 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?

While the item before the Commission improves measurably on the program access, program carriage and online video provisions originally offered by the applicants, I believe loopholes remain that will allow Comcast-NBCU to unduly pressure both distributors, especially small cable companies, and content producers who sit across the table from the newly-consolidated company during high-stakes business negotiations for programming and carriage. Even when negotiations are successful between the companies, consumers can still expect to see high prices get passed along to them, as Comcast-NBCU remains free to bundle less popular programming with must-have marquee programming. Given the market power that Comcast-NBCU will have at the close of this deal over both programming content and the means of distribution, consumers should be rightfully worried.

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens. I have respect for the business acumen of the applicants, and have no doubts that they will strive to make Comcast-NBCU a financial success. But simply blessing business deals is not the FCC’s statutorily-mandated job.  Our job is to determine whether the record here demonstrates that this new media giant will serve the public interest. While I welcome the improvements made to the original terms, at the end of the day this transaction is a huge boost for media industry (and digital industry) consolidation. It puts new media on a road traditional media should never have taken. It further erodes diversity, localism and competition—the three essential pillars of the public interest standard mandated by law. I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal.

Does today's decision assure the birth of Comzilla, ready to destroy anything or anyone in its path, or is it the next colossal big media deal flop worthy of AOL-Time Warner?

The wedding of Comcast and NBC-Universal was given the blessings of two federal agencies today that all but seals the multi-billion dollar deal.

In a 4-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger.  It’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, claimed it would ultimately be good for consumers as the company promised to add at least 1,000 hours of news and information programming and a new ultra-budget “lifeline” broadband tier priced at $9.95 per month for low-income families.

The lone dissenter, Democratic commissioner Michael Copps, rejected notions that a combined company the size of Comcast, which controls more than a quarter of all cable subscribers, and NBC-Universal, a major media company, would deliver anything to consumers.

“It’s too big. It’s too powerful. It’s too lacking in benefits for American consumers,” Copps said after the FCC vote to approve the merger. “And it continues us down a road of consolidation we’ve been on for a couple of decades now.  And the most threatening part about it is that this is not just traditional media, but it’s new media, too. It touches just about every aspect of our media environment.”

National Public Radio’s ‘All Things Considered’ gave measured coverage to today’s Comcast-NBC merger developments, and how it will impact consumers. (3 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Indeed the combined Comcast-NBC will own or control one of every seven television channels and networks seen by Americans.  Copps worries that kind of media concentration is sure to reduce diversity in programming and on-air voices.

Even worse, some analysts predict the merger could trigger a new wave of media consolidation as other players try to maintain their positions in the media marketplace.  Second-place Time Warner Cable could begin looking for merger opportunities with smaller cable companies, such as Cox, for example.

Just about an hour after the FCC gave approval, the Justice Department and five states’ Attorney General announced a tentative settlement that could resolve concerns that the transaction was anti-competitive.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York Comcast FCC Approval 1-18-11.flv[/flv]

WNYW-TV in New York reported on today’s merger decision and explained how Comcast customers, and online video fans, could be impacted.  (3 minutes)

The Terms & Conditions

Two different federal agencies insisted on Comcast’s agreement to several terms and conditions before agreeing to the deal.  Many of them presented no problem for Comcast, who had voluntarily agreed to several of them early on in negotiations.  But the Justice Department delivered one of the strongest conditions, and a first for online video protection — it insisted the new combined entity of Comcast-NBC bow out of its voting rights in Hulu, the online video service.

√ No Playing Favorites: Comcast has to agree that if it carries its own news and business channels, it has to include competitors on the same tier.

Since Comcast-NBC has ownership interests in so many news, sports, and weather channels, making space for the competition was considered crucial by federal regulators.  The cable company can’t bury its competitors in Channel Siberia, or stick them on “digital tiers” that are priced higher than standard cable service.  Who wins?  Bloomberg News, rarely found even by cable viewers who go looking, and the very low-rated Fox Business Channel, which can’t attract 30,000 viewers on a good day.  Both will find prominent positions on Comcast Cable going forward, even if nobody watches.

√ Cheap Internet Access for Qualified Families: Comcast has agreed to provide a “lifeline” broadband service, but only for families pre-qualified by federal eligibility for free school lunches.

No word on what speeds these customers will receive, and Comcast estimates the program will barely make a dent in its bottom line.  It is expected to reach only around 400,000 homes nationwide, and only as long as those subscribers remain eligible under federal guidelines.  No free lunch for broadband.

√ Standalone Internet Service Must Be Provided: Comcast must sell at least a 6Mbps broadband plan without cable or telephone service for $49.99 a month for three years.

Since Comcast already routinely sells standalone broadband service to customers at around this price, this was hardly a concession.  Comcast can still pile on extra fees, such as their overpriced cable modem rental, and any other charges that could be mandated by federal, state, or local government in the future.  They can also keep their usage caps.

√ Comcast must agree to the FCC’s Homeopathic Net Neutrality Rules:  Comcast has to agree to the FCC’s heavily-watered down definition of Net Neutrality… the ones Comcast itself suggested.

Since the FCC largely caved-in to Big Telecom’s lobbying against Net Neutrality, Comcast’s agreement to adhere to what the FCC calls Net Neutrality won’t present any problems, because those terms were similar to what Comcast had asked for all along.  Their “digital phone” service is exempted, which means Comcast can “manage” competing Voice Over IP services at its pleasure.

√ Evidence That PBS Has A Lobbyist, Too — Special Favors for Public Broadcasting: Public television stations win carriage protection from Comcast “for several years.”

In an effort to free spectrum, PBS stations could be pressured to give back some channels or reduce their transmitter power to free up UHF frequencies for more wireless broadband.  Should this happen, Comcast has agreed to keep those stations on their cable systems as if nothing changed at all.  It assures stations that even if their broadcast coverage areas are reduced, their cable carriage will stay the same.

√ Binding Arbitration Comes to Buyers of Comcast-owned Networks:  If a cable system or other provider runs into trouble getting an agreement with Comcast, the FCC offers help.

To protect other cable systems, telco-TV, and satellite companies from uncompetitive pricing or access blockades to Comcast-controlled networks, the cable company agrees to come to the table and submit to binding arbitration over carriage disputes.  Unfortunately for Comcast subscribers, the cable giant can’t force broadcasters or other cable networks to the same table to settle their own carriage wars.

√ Online Access to Programming Comes to Existing Players, Unless Something Big Changes: Everyone loves the status-quo, and this agreement assures it.

The Department of Justice provisions protecting access to online video programming were carefully crafted by lawyers with one eye on Washington and the other on Wall Street.  It effectively provides “stability” in the marketplace and avoids the kinds of competitive surprises Wall Street hates.  Effectively, the agreement grants access to Comcast-owned programming to ventures that existed prior to the agreement reached today.  Existing players have the government’s assurance carriage contracts are secure.  Those with a pre-existing relationship to Comcast can also purchase the entire bouquet of Comcast-controlled programming (no a-la-carte) at prices similar to those charged to other cable and satellite customers.

But brand new players that threaten to turn existing business models on their heads?  Forget it.  The agreement says nothing that would require access to Comcast programming for upstart services like ivi, or even Google TV for that matter.  The only potential, real-world competitive scenario comes if an existing player (say Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, or AT&T U-verse) decided to start a national virtual online cable company open to any American, anywhere.  What are the chances of that happening?  How many of you can choose Time Warner -or- Comcast? Verizon FiOS -or- AT&T U-verse?  Would AT&T risk its U-verse revenue selling Time Warner Cable customers the same channel lineup, knowing it can’t also easily bundle broadband and phone packages with it?

√ No Voting Rights for Hulu: Comcast agrees to limit its role in one of the biggest potential reasons some consumers are prepared to cut cable’s cord.

The Justice Department’s requirement that Comcast effectively butt-out of the day to day decisions affecting Hulu may protect consumers, but Hulu’s partners don’t want to devalue their programming by giving it away for free forever, either.  Nothing prohibits the birds-of-a-feather-partners in Hulu to put the service under a full ad load or behind a pay wall, reducing its value and interest to consumers.  Or, the whole project could be terminated at the behest of News Corp. and Disney.

Phillip Dampier: The real answer to this question is "both."

Whatever consumer protections the FCC and Justice have included, they won’t last forever.  Virtually all expire within three to seven years, at which point Comcast might be humbled by the culmination of a bad business decision the likes of AOL-Time Warner, or become Comzilla, ready to trample its competition (and consumers) into the dirt.

Was This a Commission Cave-In or a Foregone Conclusion?

Although Commissioner Copps calls today’s decision a “dangerous” deal, some ex-regulators suggest the package presented to federal regulators was effectively a foregone conclusion.

Bruce Gottlieb was formerly Chief Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and offered his take on today’s developments for The Atlantic:

How mergers at the FCC will play out is notoriously hard to predict, but the ultimate result is not. The historical truth is that, in virtually every instance, the commission will approve any major proposed transaction. The only time in recent memory that the commission declined to do so was the proposed merger of the two leading satellite-TV providers (Echostar and DirecTV) — and that marriage was running into problems with other agencies long before the FCC put the final nail in the coffin.

(Yes, then-Chairman Reed Hundt also famously ended rumors of an AT&T and Southwestern Bell merger in 1997 by preemptively declaring it “unthinkable.” But those companies simply had to wait until 2005, when a different FCC chairman let it go through.)

The real action at the FCC involves what “conditions” the agency will put on a merger. These are supposed to be narrowly tailored to address specific harms raised by the merger at issue. But, regardless of who is in charge at the agency, it’s all relative.

Often, the conditions applied to a particular merger have more to do with what the chairman and commissioners at the time want to achieve on an industrywide basis. It’s just easier to get these things done when you have the extraordinary leverage of controlling the timing of a multibillion-dollar transaction that the parties are desperate to consummate.

[…]  The FCC’s rules, as described in the press release announcing the merger, appear to be aimed at ensuring that “over the top” providers have fair access to programming (which the NBCU part of Comcast-NBCU will provide), as well as to consumers (which the Comcast part of Comcast-NBCU will provide).

This is, by far, the strongest statement yet from the commission about the importance of over the top video competition. But the business and regulatory stakes in this fight are only going to increase over time. Indeed, the two Republican commissioners (Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker) issued separate statements saying they have concerns over whether the FCC should be writing rules to encourage over the top video. So this is likely to be the first skirmish in what will surely be a long and bloody war.

In the weeks ahead, the lawyers will be able to parse the specific provisions to see where the loopholes are and how it will all play out in practice. The details surely matter. But years from now, the specifics of what was decided in this merger may mean a lot less than the fact that the FCC is now deeply involved in the multifront war to decide who will win online video.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/PBS Newshour Comcast Merger Announced 12-3-09.mp4[/flv]

More than a year ago, PBS’ ‘The Newshour’ explored the reasons why Comcast and NBC-Universal would want to join forces.  Now, after millions of dollars of Comcast subscribers’ money has been spent lobbying for approval, will consumers ultimately pay an even higher price later on?  (12/3/2009 — 11 minutes)

Filipinos looking for reasons why broadband providers want to limit their Internet usage can find all the explanations needed in the financial reports of companies enthusiastically supporting Internet Overcharging proposals.

As ABS/CBN News noted, “To say that 2010 was a difficult year for the Philippine telecommunications industry is an understatement.”

“Consumers are demanding an unlimited telecommunications experience,” says Renato Razón, an investor and telecom industry watcher for more than 30 years. “The wireless sector and the growth of the Internet, and the companies that compete to provide both, have turned telecommunications in this country on its head.”

Razón tells Stop the Cap! the privatization of telecommunications initially showed a lot of promise for investment and development to get the country on the Asian economic fast track.  But increasingly in recent years, companies have grown fat and lazy, trying to compete with existing networks in need of upgrades — in search of quick profits and no costly capital expenses.

“They learned what they think are important lessons from the huge amounts of money that were spent to build and upgrade wireless networks in the Philippines,” Razón tells us. “They were convinced it was worth countless billions to build wireless infrastructure and wait for the enormous profits that would come later, but then everyone wanted to get into the business and the big profits they thought they’d get never materialized.”

Razón says wireless competition that exploded across major cities in the Philippines was initially a boon to consumers, who today benefit from heavily marketed unlimited calling and texting plans at declining prices.  But now that profits are taking a hit, investors and company executives learned what they feel is a bitter lesson.

As wireless becomes a mature market in the Philippines — with more than 80 percent of consumers already using wireless devices, almost all of the marketing from existing providers targets customers of their competitors.  Customers threatening to switch force providers to offer steeply discounted retention deals that are often infinitely renewable.

Such fire sale pricing enrages investors, who are calling for greater industry consolidation among the three largest operators.  With a fourth provider possibly on the horizon, the chorus demanding that some of the players get out of the market through mergers and acquisitions for the “good of all” could soon grow too loud to ignore.

“Heavy competition is your worst nightmare — it results in price wars and everyone, except consumers of course, are hurt in the end,” he admits.  “I admit I have to divorce myself from the fact my family and I are also consumers — and we love the lower prices — but as an investor, I understand the loud demands to improve shareholder value.”

Razón says executive compensation, often tied to financial performance, delivers the ultimate incentive that executives answer first to shareholders, not customers.

“If a handful of customers get angry at you, that doesn’t cost you the company-paid vacation on the French Riviera and a healthy bonus — an angry compensation committee answering to a dispirited Board of Directors could,” Razón says.

Razón says it’s the same story wherever private companies control telecommunications with few regulations governing their operations.  He believes private market solutions without regulatory oversight helps him more than it helps you.

“I understand what the Philippine government wants — regulations to promote better broadband, but they are only hearing from industry people on how to accomplish that,” Razón believes.  “They answer to shareholders who think about short term results and the health of their investment, not the overall health of the broadband marketplace.”

With financial results for 2010 showing the impact of price competition and predictions of another year of anemic profits, providers are looking for new revenue streams.  Broadband offers one of the few major growth opportunities available to telecom companies in the short term, Razón says.

“At least half this country doesn’t have meaningful broadband, so if you can deliver service over existing infrastructure, keeping capital costs low, you couldn’t count the money coming in fast enough,” Razón says.  “DSL from the phone companies delivers it all — existing phone wires delivering a value-added service to existing phone customers.  It’s not fast, but it’s cheap.”

Rafael Aguado, the chief operations officer of Bayan Telecommunications, agrees the real revenue is in broadband:

“2010 was a challenging year for the telcos, as competition intensified and the Internet/social media and new technologies influenced the shift on consumer behavior on how to communicate, putting pressure on traditional revenue sources like voice calls and international long distance calls. Data and internet subscribers continued to increase and is expected to accelerate to the next level of sustained growth.  It was a difficult year for Bayan but performance was consistent with the industry trend. Total revenue decreased due to lower voice revenues but residential internet and corporate data services posted revenue growth. With sound operating expense management, we expect the year to end in double digit growth in EBITDA. Our growth drivers next year would continue to be data and internet services for both consumer and corporate sectors.”

Philippines Long Distance Telephone Co.

Razón believes usage caps are just another mechanism to protect companies from performing costly upgrades.

“If you can limit usage, you don’t have to spend as much capital upgrading,” Razón says.  “Investors don’t mind if you spend to expand DSL into new territories, because the costs are relatively low.  They will get upset if your support and ongoing costs increase, however.”

That could explain the growing burdens of wireless traffic on the country’s cellular networks.  Some providers have been accused of deliberately overselling access to their networks while refusing to upgrade them to meet growing demands, because the return on “unlimited use” doesn’t deliver:

“The telco industry had a good year but its profitability was greatly reduced due to the highly competitive ‘unlimited plans’ that each provider offered its subscribers. This trend would continue this coming year,” said Ivan Uy, chairman, Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT). “What needs to be looked into is the deteriorating service availability or accessibility due to network congestion brought about by the unlimited plans. Customer dissatisfaction has been rising because of higher frequency of dropped calls, delayed SMS, and line unavailability.”

When given a choice how to solve this problem, most companies prefer to advocate for usage limits, not mass scale upgrades.

Even long distance companies, which played through a price war more than a decade ago, see the flow of investment heading into broadband.  Unfortunately, in their eyes, usage demands are coming along as well:

“Competition intensified in the cellular business. Broadband grew strongly. Margins came under pressure even as demand for more network resources increased. For PLDT, 2010 has been a year when it maintained its market leadership in the face of these challenges. Our focus has been managing this transition where traditional revenue sources such as fixed toll revenues like IDD and NDD were on the decline while new revenue sources such as broadband were on the rise. We preserved margins by strengthening cost management given the modest top-line growth.

“We expect the challenges of 2010 to carry into next year. Demand for bucket and unlimited offers in the cellular space will continue. We expect that broadband will keep growing given the growing popularity of social networking and new access devices such as tablets and smartphones. PLDT will continue to invest in its network in order to fortify its market leadership.” — Napoleon Nazareno, president and CEO, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.

For a long term investor like Razón who has seen this all before, there is a better answer: invest in your networks and grow them faster than your competitors.

“You have to spend money to earn money I have always found and there is a ton of money to be spent and made on broadband in this country,” Razón says. “The low hanging fruit has already been picked — now we must spend to get broadband into towns and villages and we should also be investing in content and products we can sell to broadband customers.”

Razón thinks Internet Overcharging schemes are a foolish mistake.

“You can’t create value-added services on an artificially limited network and expect consumers to buy,” Razón said.  “If you limit usage, you discourage people from using the services that get them addicted to using it in the first place.  Get them hooked, keep them happy and you have a customer for life.”

CenturyTel Inc. agreed Thursday to buy Qwest Communications International, Inc. in an all-stock deal that values the last legacy “Baby Bell” at nearly $10.6 billion, in one of the nation’s largest telecommunications deals.

The merger would dwarf Frontier Communications’ purchase of Verizon landline service and create the nation’s largest independent phone company with operations in 40 states.

Qwest has been off and on the sales block for years, considered the weakest player among the split-up remnants of the old Bell System.  Qwest has fallen well behind AT&T and Verizon in adopting next generation technology to keep landline service relevant in a changing marketplace.  CenturyTel’s business model, like that of Windstream and Frontier, depends on serving rural areas with basic broadband and phone services, without incurring the costs larger providers have in deploying fiber to the home or fiber to the curb networks needed to compete with cable television providers.

Critics contend the consolidation of independent phone companies has left them preoccupied with their stock value and dividend payouts, unwilling to make substantial investments many believe are essential to keep such companies relevant in the long term.  Cell phones continue to eat away at landline service, and the kind of slow speed DSL service available from most of these players cannot compete effectively against cable and fiber broadband service, except in rural communities where customers have just one choice.

We will have additional coverage on this important development shortly.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sen Al Franken Grills Comcast-NBC Merger Advocates 2-4-10.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! has received several requests for Sen. Al Franken’s (D-Minnesota) comments during the Senate hearing in early February reviewing the proposed merger.  So here, for your viewing pleasure, is the portion of the hearing where Franken comes out swinging in opposition to the ongoing consolidation of media companies in America. (February 4th – 14 minutes)