Why the Massive Cable Merger Might Be Good for Net Neutrality

Allowing Comcast to buy Time Warner could mean less online discrimination.

National Journal
Feb. 13, 2014, 9:02 a.m.

Con­sumer ad­vocacy groups are already mount­ing their cam­paign to try to kill Com­cast’s $45 bil­lion bid to buy Time Warner Cable. But the deal might ac­tu­ally be good for one of con­sumer ad­voc­ates’ top causes: net neut­ral­ity.

The D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals struck down the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion’s net-neut­ral­ity rules last month. The rules, form­ally called the Open In­ter­net Or­der, re­quired In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders to treat all web­sites equally. Lib­er­als and con­sumer ad­voc­ates fear that with the rules gone, In­ter­net pro­viders could start slow­ing down ac­cess to sites like Google and Net­flix un­less the sites pay for spe­cial In­ter­net “fast lanes.” The pro­viders could even block ac­cess to par­tic­u­lar sites al­to­geth­er.

But even with the rules thrown out, there is one ma­jor broad­band pro­vider that won’t be able to dis­crim­in­ate against In­ter­net traffic any­time soon: Com­cast. To re­ceive ap­prov­al from the FCC three years ago to buy NBC-Uni­ver­sal, Com­cast agreed to a slew of con­di­tions, in­clud­ing prom­ising to abide by the agency’s net-neut­ral­ity rules un­til at least 2018 no mat­ter what happened in the courts.

Com­cast said Thursday that it will ex­tend that com­mit­ment to all Time Warner Cable sub­scribers if the mer­ger is ap­proved.

So while the fed­er­al courts have said the FCC over­stepped its leg­al au­thor­ity with the net-neut­ral­ity rules, about 30 mil­lion U.S. house­holds would still be pro­tec­ted from on­line dis­crim­in­a­tion if Com­cast and Time Warner are al­lowed to merge.

“Those In­ter­net con­di­tions would ap­ply Day One,” Com­cast CEO Bri­an Roberts said on a con­fer­ence call with re­port­ers. “I think it’s un­ar­gu­able that’s bet­ter than where the court just va­cated that rule for every oth­er” In­ter­net ser­vice pro­vider.

The deal would also be an op­por­tun­ity for the FCC to force the com­pan­ies to ac­cept new agree­ments, such as ex­tend­ing the net-neut­ral­ity com­mit­ment well bey­ond 2018.

Dav­id L. Co­hen, Com­cast’s ex­ec­ut­ive vice pres­id­ent, sug­ges­ted that the com­pany is open to ne­go­ti­at­ing ad­di­tion­al con­di­tions, in­clud­ing the length of the net-neut­ral­ity com­mit­ment. He ad­ded that Com­cast sup­ports the net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions and plans to work with the FCC to re­write the rules in a way that can sur­vive court chal­lenges.

“Well be­fore 2018, I think the FCC is go­ing to have a new re­gime in place to provide the same level of con­sumer pro­tec­tion and con­sumer be­ne­fit that the ori­gin­al Open In­ter­net Or­der provided,” he said.

But con­sumer ad­voc­ates ar­gued that net-neut­ral­ity con­di­tions won’t be enough to out­weigh the com­pet­it­ive harm of the deal.

“I think net-neut­ral­ity rules are im­port­ant, which is why they should be in­dustry-wide and shouldn’t ex­pire after a few years,” said John Bergmay­er, a seni­or staff at­tor­ney for Pub­lic Know­ledge. “I think even say­ing that these con­di­tions would be ‘bet­ter than noth­ing’ sig­ni­fic­antly over­sells the case.”

Matt Wood, policy dir­ect­or for Free Press, said the FCC should en­act tough net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions, not try to ne­go­ti­ate for a tem­por­ary com­mit­ment from one com­pany.

“We don’t need a few more years of ap­ply­ing the old rules to a big com­pany or two — es­pe­cially not in re­turn for a near-na­tion­wide cable TV and ISP mono­poly,” he said.

What We're Following See More »
AMONG INVESTIGATION'S LAST KNOWN INTERVIEWS
Mueller Has Interviewed Press Sec. Sarah Sanders
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, she told CNN on Friday...The interview is one of the final known interviews by Mueller's team. It was conducted late last year, around the same time as the special counsel interviewed then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, well after a number of other senior officials, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former press secretary Sean Spicer, were brought in for questioning."

Source:
AG BECERRA CALLS TRUMP'S PLAN A 'FOOLISH PROPOSAL'
Gov. Newsom Says California Will Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday that California was planning to sue the Trump administration over its declaration of a national emergency on the southern border with Mexico, delivering on a promise state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra made last week 'to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground.'...'No other state is going to be impacted by this declaration of emergency more than the state of California,' the governor said. Becerra said attorneys were reviewing the declaration and would develop the legal argument to take to court in the near future."

Source:
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
JUDGE SIDES WITH MUELLER
Stone Under Gag Order
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A federal judge on Friday ordered Roger Stone, his attorneys and the special counsel’s office to halt all public commentary about the case involving charges that the longtime Donald Trump associate lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation. In a four-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller that Stone and his attorneys 'must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.'"

Source:
HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED SINCE 1950
Supreme Court Will Rule on Census Citizenship Question
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Supreme Court added a politically explosive case to its low-profile docket Friday, agreeing to decide by the end of June whether the Trump administration can add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census form sent to every American household. The census hasn’t asked the question of each household since 1950, and a federal judge last month stopped the Commerce Department from adding it to the upcoming count. He questioned the motives of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and said the secretary broke a 'veritable smorgasbord' of federal rules by overriding the advice of career officials."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login