The Comcast/Time Warner merger proposal should be looked at for what it truly is. It is nothing more than a bold greedy play to grab control of technology and political power for the enrichment of the few. The enrichment of the few can only come at the detriment of the many. This is a bold step forward for the ability of the 1% to consolidate their power. The mere insinuation that this proposed merger would somehow benefit the general public is laughable.
The largest two cable companies in the United States propose to create a new company that will control 35% of all cable-television households. In addition the combination would control approximately 50% of all high-speed broadband Internet access available in the United States. The attempt by the federal government to create the diversionary tactic of this as an antitrust issue is part of the joke.
Cable television as an independent industry is declining in its significance with the public and its profitability and its continued existence threatened by broadband. The true intention of Comcast as it pursues its policy is to have control and censorship over the Internet. The control of broadband and thereby their only true competitor for the next two decades will ensure their place as a competitor and a leader of the media marketplace. The further entrenchment of their position as gatekeeper of all information and programming will be solidified. Simple logic would indicate that where something is no longer neutral it has taken a position. That position is meant to benefit the person who owns it, thereby fees for use. The same people who turned your TV in a vast wasteland now want to censor your Internet.
Cable television companies and their huge trade organization, The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) have been major financial contributors to federal and local elected officials over the last 35 years. During this time they have been able to buy favorable legislation for their protection and to the detriment of the general public. Local governments, including the City of Los Angeles, which have spent tens of millions of dollars in order to protect monopolies the cable television companies were granted in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
In 1986 United States Supreme Court, in the case of Preferred Communications vs The City of Los Angeles ruled that granting monopoly access to public right of ways for cable television was a violation of the United States Constitution. The determination by the US Supreme Court would never be enforced, as cities would continue to provide protection for their large political contributors, the cable television industry. This refusal could only continue with the assistance and complicity of US District Court, which refused to enforce the Supreme Court decision. At the time of this ruling there was no broadband Internet access or concern about it.
Decades later as the Internet became a valuable tool in the democratization of media, cable television would be well positioned to once again become the dominant force as media gatekeeper. Broadband had not become an issue for a number of years after the creation of the Internet because the programming that utilizes broadband would not be developed for a number of years.
The real joke is the FCC pretense of regulation. Net neutrality issue is the real issue. The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, was the president of the NCTA, when they supervised one of the greatest feats of political corruption in the history of this nation. When he leaves the FCC will probably go to work for Comcast, or some other media conglomerate, as his predecessors have. In my book "Anatomy of a Hustle: Cable Comes to South Central LA" I detail exactly how the cable television industry came into existence in one of the largest cities in the United States. It is the story of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Preferred Communication vs the City of Los Angeles.
Not only does cable control the means of distribution, but they also own many of the channels that they require you to pay for even though you do not want them. This is called bundling. It is like the gas station forcing you to buy antifreeze in order to buy gasoline, even though you don't want it. The ability of independent programmers to access distribution media has been and will continue to be greatly compromised with the consolidation of that distribution media. Independent programming is the reason there is a First Amendment.
(Visit anatomyofahustle.com for more)
