| Vert. Integ. w/o cond'ts is dangerous I've posted previously on how the 30% ownership cap (horizontal integration) was dumb in this specific market, and how (with conditions/rules) Comcast getting bigger, could actually bring more competition to the market.
But this is very different and very dangerous for competition in the market. Video distributors that own content (vertical integration) could withhold programming of content to competitors, particularly "must have" content like sports. Without such content, competitors would be at significant market disadvantage.
The FCC realized this and required video distributors to make available content on reasonable terms (similar to their terms/condition). The need for this hasn't change, if anything, it's needed more than ever. And the "terrestrial loophole" should be closed. I would hope the D.C. Court of Appeals sees this for what it is, a power grab to lock out competitors. |
|
| And by "conditions/rules" you mean regulation? This is what is needed today with or without mergers. |
|
| said by Michael C:And by "conditions/rules" you mean regulation? This is what is needed today with or without mergers. I never meant to imply otherwise.
I'm simply pointing out that Comcast getting bigger is not necessarily bad for the market. Regulation in general, and specific merger conditions can ensure that.
But allowing them, or any other video distributor, to withhold content from competitors is very bad for the market. Less competition would be the certain outcome. |
|
