"Cable-ization of the open Internet": Comcast/NBCU deal approved

The Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have blessed the mega-merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal. The combined company has agreed to a huge list of conditions, most of which will be made public later, that eroded much of the resistance among four FCC Commissioners. But the lone holdout, Commissioner Michael Copps, lived up to his unofficial title as the Grumpy Old Man of the FCC (and we mean that in the most complimentary way).

Copps' statement after the vote is stuffed with some truly inspired ranting. One bit in particular stands out:

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.

The size of the deal leaves mere mortals reaching for thesauri. The new company will control Comcast's US-leading cable network, 234 NBC affiliate stations, the Telemundo Spanish-language network, the NBC television network, TV production studios, the Universal movie studio, the Universal theme parks in LA and Florida, channels like MSNBC and CNBC, and a stake in Hulu. Comcast already controls its own empire of content, including TV channels like E! and G4, and it runs the Philadelphia Flyers NHL franchise and the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers.

As part of the deal, Comcast avoided requirements to open its network to other ISPs and cable operators at wholesale rates. It did, however, agree to a host of conditions that it would not use its programming or network as an anticompetitive bludgeon. In addition, Comcast/NBCU must provide its TV programming to online distributors who want it and cannot "exercise corporate control over or unreasonably withhold programming from Hulu."

Comcast is also prohibited from "unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an online video distributor's lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer." In addition, the company must continue to offer at least 12Mbps broadband service in areas where it has upgraded its network. Comcast is also required "to give other firms’ content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing."

The sheer number of specific conditions attached to the deal led the two Republican FCC Commissioners to issue a joint statement attacking the merger proceedings as an old-fashioned stick-up.

"The Commission’s approach to merger reviews has become excessively coercive and lengthy," they wrote. "This transaction is only the most recent example of several problematic FCC merger proceedings that have set a trend toward more lengthy and highly regulatory review processes that may discourage future transactions and job-creating investment."

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts called this "a proud and exciting day for Comcast,” and he expressed enthusiasm for the consumer benefits that will rain down upon a thirsty land.

“Our original vision for the combination remains intact so that consumers will benefit, and our competitors will be treated fairly," he said—the interests of "competitors" and "consumers" being the two chief things that massive cable networks have always been well-known for prioritizing.

Google and YouTube Ban Alex Jones

At the height of the hysteria surrounding the latest WikiLeaks release, Google begins its clampdown, marking the end of the internet. What's next?

Obama Administration Appears Desperate

Cass Sunstein's despicable ideas on regulating the internet

Ed Lasky

American Thinker
In the past, we have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to chill any sort of scrutiny or criticism of him. Many of his records - whether they are transcripts from Occidental or Columbia - have not been released. He lost his senior thesis (on Soviet nuclear disarmament) from Columbia University (how likely was that to happen, given that he felt his own life was important enough to write an autobiography in his young 20s), and his records from his time in the Illinois state senate were "lost".

Having records "disappeared" (as well as ditching embarrassing people from his past under the bus) was just one aspect of attempts to avoid scrutiny. Another manifestation of this dynamic, was the constant use during the campaign of the "race card" to brand any critics as racists or smear artists (even Sean Wilent of the liberal The New Republic noticed this strategy).

One more manifestation of this phenomenon was his campaign's use of supporters to bombard radio hosts with calls to jam lines when critics of Barack Obama appeared on radio call in shows. The "authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics" were on full display. Of course, the specter of the Fairness Doctrine being passed by Congress is also another card in the deck meant to chill criticism of Barack Obama and his fellow travelers.

Now comes a more insidious form of thought control a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and probable new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein (who recently married another long-time confidant of Barack Obama's, foreign policy guru Samantha Power). Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about one aspect of Sunstein's ideology:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."

Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.

Often bloggers raise issues to encourage others (perhaps with more resources) to further investigate issues. Skepticism about candidates often begin on the web or talk radio-these steps (so vital to a democracy) would be chilled should Sunstein's ideas be put into practice. One should not dismiss that prospect: this is the most ideologically driven administration in many years. A Democratic Congress willing to do Barack Obama's bidding will not serve as a check on Sunstein (or Obama). Democrats know that criticism over their conduct often emerges from the web and talk radio since traditional media is so reliably in their corner. Sunstein did not join the administration for a title or to be close to his wife. He joined, as have other ideologues throughout history, to put his ideas into practice.

We should note that another step is being taken by Congress that might chill free speech on the internet. Representative Linda Sanchez from California is behind the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act, an effort to impose regulations on the internet. Eugene Volokh, the brilliant law professor who founded Volokh Conspiracy (one of the leading, and most stimulating, blogs) noted the overly broad language of the bill. and how it can be used by a politician to stifle criticism.

Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?

That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

He questions the motives of the lawmakers supporting such a constitutionally vague bill which would make just about any criticism made by blogs subject to fines or imprisonment.

As we should question the motives not just of them but of Barack Obama and his close friend, Cass Sunstein.