The proposed joint venture between Comcast Corporation and NBC Universal is a significant transaction in a significant market. The transaction will create a large media and distribution company, including the programming assets of both NBC, a leading national programmer, and Comcast, which owns several cable networks and some regional sports networks, and the distribution assets of NBC (namely, its owned-and-operated broadcast television stations). This new company will be majority-owned by Comcast, which in its own right is the nation�s largest distributor of multi-channel video programming, and Comcast could be in the position, within the next few years, to own 100% of the new joint venture. The size of the transaction is made more important by the markets in which the companies operate: the companies are more than just producers and distributors of entertainment and sports programming, which are of course important in their own rights, the companies also produce and distribute news and political programming. The mass media has long been considered a market important enough not only to draw scrutiny from antitrust authorities but also to justify the attention of a specialized regulator, using sector-specific regulation designed to achieve specific outcomes.
All Publications
NBC/Comcast Should be Judged only on Antitrust Concerns
Antitrust analysis of the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC Universal should focus only on its effect on competition in relevant markets and resulting harm to consumers, states James Speta in “Screening and Simplifying the Competition Arguments in the NBC/Comcast Transaction” released today by the Technology Policy Institute.
Regulating the Internet
So much for data-driven policy: The Third Way
Google’s Acquisition of AdMob
A decision by the FTC on whether to allow Google’s acquisition of…
Welcome to the TPI Blog
With Technology Policy Institute now in its 3rd year and growing in…
Google-AdMob: A Bad Precedent
TPI President Thomas Lenard published a piece on Forbes.com discussing the expected involvement of federal regulators in Google’s acquisition of AdMob. In the piece, Lenard warns of possible shortcomings of traditional merger analysis if applied to the fast-moving mobile advertising market and urges regulators to carefully consider the long-term effects of antitrust action on innovation in this space. The entire piece can be found at Forbes.com.
Aspen Forum Preview Agenda Released
A preview agenda of the Aspen Forum, to be held August 22nd – 24th, is now available on the TPI website. The event will include top leaders in the technology and policy sectors, including Mark McLaughlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of VeriSign, Thomas Tauke, Executive Vice President of Public Affairs, Policy and Communications at Verizon, and Hal Varian, Chief Economist of Google. Edward Mueller, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Qwest Communications, will offer opening remarks at the premier policy event.
2009 IGF Workshop on Net Neutrality
The workshop discussed the accuracy of a very term of Network Neutrality in opposition to a term of Open Internet. It further discussed economics and engineering aspects of networks and how network management regulation might affect those investments. It also discussed the end-user perspective, need for transparency and a freedom of choice. As a cross-cutting issue, the implications to the digital divide and development were examined. Needs for policy and regulatory approaches towards network management were questioned and discussed, including analysing several experiences on national levels.
Journal Article: In Defense of Data: Information and the Cost of Privacy
The commercial use of information on the Internet has produced substantial benefits for consumers, explain TPI President Thomas Lenard and Senior Fellow Paul Rubin in “In Defense of Data: Information and the Cost of Privacy,” published today by the Policy & Internet Journal. In the article, the authors argue that firms have incentives to satisfy customers’ privacy preferences and that restrictions in the legitimate use of information may not lead to further privacy benefits.