Washington Post Editorial Board Deploys A Bunch Of Bad Arguments In Its Defense Of The Comcast Merger

from the fewer-companies-somehow-equals-better-competition dept

Searching beyond Comcast itself, it's hard to find too many people who have no objections to this massive cable company acquiring another massive cable company. Inside the Beltway, where it possibly matters most, you can find a few defenders, many of whom have pocketed Comcast's money during their legislative careers. But once you step outside of the insiders, you have a multitude of people who realize that, thanks to years of abusive behavior by incumbent service providers, making these companies bigger certainly won't make them better.

I'm not sure where the Washington Post's editorial board falls in terms of insider/outsider status, but it just issued an editorial supporting the merger. And, oh man, it's just a terrible set of opinions bolstered by some equally terrible assertions. The gist of it is that a massive cable company is no problem because regulators have done such a great job at ensuring a competitive playing field to this point.

The government’s smartest move is not to block the merger, but to make clear that regulators will respond if big industry players begin to violate basic principles of market fairness.

There's no question of "if." The violations are not only happening, they're ongoing. Incumbents have squeezed out upstart competitors by using their entrenched positions, pushing for favorable legislation and protecting it all with an army of lawyers that makes it almost impossible for new players to enter the market.

WaPo's board tries to deflect the arguments raised by merger opponents by deploying a combination of Comcast talking points and assertions that have no basis in fact.

[T]raditional cable television and wired broadband providers are in increasingly dire competition with online video services, wireless Internet providers and a cash-flush Google expanding its installation of high-speed fiber-optic cable across the country. Consolidation is the only way to ensure these companies have enough capital to invest in new and better technology that will keep their customers happy — or, at least, satisfied enough not to cancel their subscriptions.

Of everything that's wrong with this paragraph, the presentation of Google's fiber service as a serious competitor is perhaps the worst. Google's limited market entry only presents a direct threat to incumbents in the few areas it's selected to offer its service. At some point in the future, Google may expand the number of markets, but it's a stretch to call a handful of deployments a true competitor to the cable giants. Even the incumbents seem to realize they won't be going head-to-head with Google any time soon -- if at all -- judging from the number of "fiber to the press release" statements being issued.

And it's not as if the cable companies are lacking in capital. The biggest names in the business are also flush with money and they're certainly not spending it on "new and better technology." The supposed "wireless competitors" are giants themselves -- old school incumbents like AT&T that are divesting themselves of their landlines just as quickly as regulators will let them. These companies prefer wireless because it's more profitable, not because they have any desire to keep their customers happy. The maintenance costs are lower and the opportunity to deploy caps on calls and data keeps margins high. One needs only look at Verizon's post-Hurricane Sandy efforts in New York, which saw the provider tell customers it was inferior wireless packages or nothing and the service they once had wasn't going to be repaired.

More bad-to-inaccurate assertions follow.

Some criticism of the merger is misleading or speculative. Cable subscribers will not lose flexibility to get their television service from another company. The market is split geographically: Comcast and Time Warner Cable do not compete for customers.

The first part is only true because many cable subscribers already have little to no flexibility. There's very little for them to actually "lose." For many customers, the only "true" choice is Cable Giant A or DSL Giant A -- at best. That's not competition. That's an illusion of choice. In most markets, the number of competitors rarely rises above a very small number of interchangeable companies that work together to ensure their existing market share never dwindles. They act in concert to keep upstarts out and customers locked in.

That these two companies rarely compete directly for customers makes no difference. Turning two companies into one doesn't magically increase the number of options available to cable customers. Instead of simply aligning behind the scenes to preserve a duopoly, the unity of vision will now be out in the open. If anything, this will result in a more transparent screwing of customers, but that's hardly the sort of thing regulators should be giving their thumbs up to, or be encouraged by a responsible journalistic outlet.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, merger
Companies: comcast, time warner cable, washington post

Comcast Apparently Hopes No One Actually Looks At Its Ridiculously Misleading Claims Of Broadband Competition

from the where-are-those-29-competitors dept

Comcast is ratcheting up its charm offensive (or perhaps that's just offensive charm) in trying to get its attempted merger with Time Warner Cable approved. It's released its "public interest statement" and a blog post about how wonderful the merger will be. There are plenty of ridiculous claims in both, but let's focus on the key one -- Comcast's decision to completely fabricate "competitors" in various markets to argue that Comcast competes "in a dynamic, expanding and highly competitive marketplace." Of course, for anyone who actually knows what broadband options they have at home are, this statement is clearly bullshit. But Comcast is going to pretend otherwise, because it's Comcast. This chart really takes the cake: You see that? People in New York City have a wealth of competition according to, well, pure bullshit. Those "29 competitors" involve finding any company in the tri-state area that sorta, kinda offers something that if you squint and sneeze, you might sorta, kinda think maybe could be qualified as broadband if you were the last person on earth and really, really needed a barely working connection to the internet.

In the past, we've reasonably mocked the FCC's website listing broadband competitors, BroadbandMap.gov, because the results it gives are hilariously wrong and/or misleading. But Comcast's competitive claims take this to a new level entirely. Even if we rely on the National Broadband Map, I challenge anyone to find any spot in New York City where someone has anywhere close to 29 choices for actual broadband. Just for fun, I put in an address in the heart of midtown Manhattan, and it coughed up a (laughably misleading) claim of seven competitors. Except three of them (AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint) are just 3G/4G service over your phones with very low caps and limited speed. Those accounts are explicit that they're not to be used for regular home broadband. So they don't count. You have, of course, the traditional competitors: Time Warner Cable (who Comcast is trying to take over) and Verizon.

And who else? There's just Lightower Fiber Networks and Platinum Equity LLC. Platinum Equity is the private equity firm that bought out MegaPath, a DSL company that has been around (in various forms) for many years, but is only focused on business broadband. Ditto for Lightower Fiber, which only serves businesses. So, oh look, if you want true residential broadband, guess what: your choice is Time Warner Cable or Verizon. And, remember, Verizon is actively trying to get out of the wired broadband market, handing its users over to... their main cable competitors. So, it might not be left until your only real "choice" in the heart of midtown Manhattan is... Time Warner... I mean, Comcast.

So, um, what's that about 29 competitors?

Filed Under: broadband, competition, merger, misleading
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

A Little Honesty: Comcast Doesn't Give A F**k What You Think Of Its Merger

from the reasonable-and-knowledgeable dept

We recently covered how Comcast's top exec in charge of getting its merger with Time Warner Cable approved has insisted that only ignorant and unreasonable people oppose the merger. And yet... somehow, the public (ignorant and unreasonable as they are...) still don't seem to think too positively of the merger itself. And, for some reason, the terrible, terrible deal that American cable providers (mainly: Comcast and Time Warner Cable) continue to offer Americans as basically their only real broadband possibility still seems to inspire creative derision.

Almost exactly a year ago, we posted a hilarious fake commercial of what your cable company (likely: Comcast or Time Warner Cable) would say in a TV commercial if it were honest. The mildly NSFW video includes the important fine print:

You'll have the option of choosing from several of our completely unwarranted ripoffs, including internet speeds almost 200 times slower than Korea... at twice the price. TV packages with over 500 channels, 90% of which you can't view and we guarantee a plethora of hidden fees. Then our barely trained technicians will come to install your service somewhere between the hours 8am and 10 pm, knock once while you're in the shower, and promptly leave.... Why you ask? We're part of what is called an "oligopoly." It's like a monopoly... only legal!

Watch it again: Soon after that, we posted another video from some guys pretending to be Time Warner Cable customer service employees asking people around NY what they could do to make service even worse. Go ahead, watch that again too: And, now, with the attempted merger underway, we've got a third video to add to the bunch. This one comes from Funny or Die, and directly addresses the issue of the merger, and is titled: Comcast Doesn't Give a F*CK. Like the first video above, it's made to look like a traditional cable company commercial, with the direct message being that, well, you know what the message is. Here, watch it: Key excerpt:

We've read your comments and complaints, and know that a lot of you are very nervous about our merger with Time Warner Cable. So I wanted to talk to you today and let you know, that no matter what happens, we don't give a fuck about you. Whether you're calling in for an appointment about your cable box, or wondering why your favorite channel disappeared, we don't give a fuck. That's what makes us an industry leader in terrible customer service. We don't give a fuck because we don't have to. What? Are you going to go to another cable service provider? [Laughs] Chances are we own whatever movie or network you're watching, so that's still money in our pocket.

You could watch Netflix or Hulu. In fact, you should. We own Hulu. We also make Netflix pay us extra for streaming content, meaning they'll probably pass those costs on to you. Bottom line: Fuck You.

I'm sure all these kinds of videos keep popping up, because the American public doesn't understand how good the service we get from our "local" (and by "local" I mean, Comcast) cable provider is. Or maybe Homer Simpson was on to something. Nah, must just be all those unreasonable and ignorant folks.

Filed Under: customer service, merger, oligopoly
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Comcast: Throwing Money At Congress To Approve Our Merger Is Ok Because Congress Represents The People!

from the public-relations-gobbledygook dept

Comcast is using a variety of sophisticated lobbying tricks to get the company's proposed $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable approved, including using minority groups and an endless roster of think tankers to parrot merger support. They're also taking a few cues from AT&T's blocked T-Mobile deal and avoiding making any promises the company knows it can't deliver (like claiming a merger that will likely kill jobs will somehow create jobs). But one thing Comcast is doing that's decidedly unsophisticated is its practice of throwing money at absolutely everybody (in truly bi-partisan fashion) in the hope it's really just as simple as buying merger support:

"...money from Comcast's political action committee has flowed to all but three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Checks have landed in the campaign coffers of Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), who oversee the chamber's antitrust panel. Meanwhile, the cable giant has donated in some way to 32 of the 39 members of the House Judiciary Committee, which is planning a hearing of its own."

Another recent report noted that House members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology received $853,525 from Comcast between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2012. Members of the 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th Congresses also received $6,678,446 from Comcast between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2012. Amusingly, Comcast tries strangely to downplay throwing cash at lawmakers by somehow insisting that because those same lawmakers are supposed to also represent Comcast employees (who'll likely see layoffs) and Comcast customers (who'll certainly see higher prices and anti-competitive behavior), that somehow this is all ok:

Comcast stresses its donations are a function of its business. "Comcast NBCUniversal operates in 39 states and has 130,000 employees across the country," said spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice. "It is important for our customers, our employees and our shareholders that we participate in the political process. The majority of our PAC contributions are to the senators and members who represent our employees and customers."

So if I follow Sena's logic to its dizzying conclusion: dumping money into the laps of lawmakers so they'll approve a merger that benefits only Comcast is justified because if those lawmakers weren't busy having Comcast cash dumped in their laps -- they might actually represent the people that voted for them? I've seen a lot of spin, and that one is pretty fantastic. We're not lobbying solely for the company's financial gain, you little people benefit too because lawmakers are technically supposed to be representing you. That is, if we weren't paying them to do otherwise. Isn't engaging in the political process fun!? Don't you feel engaged? Why aren't you laughing?

Filed Under: congress, lobbying, merger
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Learning From AT&T's Blistering Hubris On T-Mobile Deal, Comcast Tries A Dash Of Subtlety

from the BS-can-only-take-you-so-far dept

While the assumption was that AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile was shuttered simply because it eliminated a needed competitor from the market, one of the biggest, under-stated reasons was simply AT&T's immense, blistering hubris, forged by decades of being pampered by the government. AT&T didn't just push for the T-Mobile merger, they lied aggressively and at every possible opportunity about the deal's benefits, believing themselves to be impervious to repercussions. They lied in claiming the deal would create 100,000 jobs. They lied about needing to acquire T-Mobile or their network would implode from lack of spectrum. They lied in claiming that eliminating a competitor would somehow magically improve competition.

And they didn't just lie -- AT&T was loud about it. Via lobbyist, consultant, think tanker, and anyone else on the payroll, AT&T lied using every manner of lobbying trick in the book, from paying an army of third party groups to parrot merger support, to running an onslaught of constant full page advertisements repeating the same, easily-disproven lies ad nauseam. At the end of 2011, Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post penned what was essentially an obituary for the AT&T T-Mobile deal, with an overlooked paragraph that explained precisely why the deal became too much for regulators to swallow:

"The letters from third-party groups raised eyebrows at government agencies and on the Hill, where people began wondering why groups with no obvious ties to broadband were writing in. News reports emerged showing that many of the groups had financial ties to AT&T. Then there were the ads that staff members at the FCC said they couldn't avoid when they opened a newspaper, fired up their iPads or watched TV — all touting the merger's ability to put thousands of Americans to work. But who had ever heard of a big company merger creating rather than destroying jobs?"

The Post noted that instead of all this noise and fury helping to get approval, it actually caused regulators to take a closer look at claims where otherwise they wouldn't have. The sheer volume of nonsense coming from AT&T actually worked to amplify media and political pressure where it might not have existed otherwise. The end result was regulators actually doing their jobs and digging into the promises more deeply, only to find AT&T's arguments lacking:

"AT&T's blitzkrieg of ads, which claimed that the promised expansion of broadband would create 100,000 jobs, wasn't helping either. A deal's impact on jobs is not typically part of an evaluation by antitrust officials, but this time regulators thought AT&T's campaign had forced them to take a closer look. They found holes. For one, the company refused to divulge how many jobs it would eliminate in the merger."

Enter Comcast, who is busy trying to get regulators to approve their $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Renata Hesse, who was the lead FCC antitrust official during the AT&T T-Mobile deal, will be overseeing the Comcast review at the DOJ. While Comcast is using many of the very same strategies AT&T employed (like paying minority groups to parrot merger support, and throwing money at everyone and everything) they seem to have learned a few lessons from the AT&T T-Mobile deal, and have dialed back the volume on their nonsense just enough so that it vaguely-resembles subtlety:

"Industry lobbyists familiar with both deals say they observe Comcast approaching this merger in a much quieter, more subtle way than AT&T did. Many of Comcas's lobbyists are staying silent about the deal altogether, and not just around reporters. Even at social gatherings and business functions where it might seem obvious to mention the deal to lawmakers or administration officials as a way of smoothing the way forward, Comcast's lobbyists have, in many instances, made nary a peep about it, according to sources. "The way Comcast is approaching this is very interesting,” said a veteran telecom lobbyist. "Everybody's writing the easy story about how many lobbyists Comcast has, but the way they're lobbying this, they're being very inside baseball, very surgical."

That's not to say Comcast isn't paying a ton of other people to make stupid, loud arguments for them, but they're pretty clearly trying to tone down the rhetoric the public sees as having come from Comcast itself. Comcast's steering clear of unsubstantiated job claims, and seems intent on keeping any promises they do make vague (like arguing the deal is simply "pro consumer"). Will a tiny bit of subtlety let Comcast fly under the regulatory M&A skepticism meter? Maybe. Comcast has proven pretty good at getting regulators to push for meaningless merger conditions (though AT&T was pretty good at that too). I'm going to bet you see deal approval; not because the deal is necessarily good, but primarily because AT&T taught Comcast an important lesson on the limits of bullshit.

Filed Under: antitrust, fcc, lobbying, merger
Companies: at&t, comcast, t-mobile

Comcast Applauds Itself For Barely Adhering To NBC Merger Conditions, Most Of Which Comcast Created

from the regulatory-theatrics dept

As Comcast pushes for regulatory approval of its next major merger (the acquisition of Time Warner Cable), the company is pointing to its last major merger (the acquisition of NBC Universal) as an example of how tough regulators and meaningful merger conditions will keep the company honest as it grows ever larger. In an FCC filing (pdf) the cable giant pats itself on the back for over-delivering when it comes to meeting conditions placed upon the company after acquiring NBC. According to Comcast, it's "simply indisputable that we have honored – in fact, over-delivered – on our commitments."

The catch? Comcast created most of the NBC merger conditions itself, knowing full well it would meet them during the ordinary course of doing business. Still, in many cases even those conditions proved to be too much for the company.

Most of the NBC conditions involved promising modest broadband coverage goals by certain dates, goals the company was already on the cusp of completing (or in some cases had already completed) anyway. Other merger conditions, like offering $10, 1.5 Mbps broadband to families that qualify for the National School Lunch Program (you can't owe Comcast money -- which the poor usually do, and can't have existing Comcast broadband service), was something Comcast planned to offer much earlier but withheld to get the FCC to sign off on the deal. Comcast's "over delivery" on that condition resulted in protests on the streets of its home town of Philadelphia by people who claimed the option had too many restrictions and was intentionally designed to be difficult to sign up for (the company has since bumped the speed to 5 Mbps and extended the length of the offer indefinitely to help ease the Time Warner Cable deal).

Another vague condition prohibited Comcast from discriminating against channels that compete with its own content. Comcast struggled do that as well -- the FCC had to scold Comcast for holding Bloomberg news away from core news channels so it wouldn't hurt Comcast's CNBC (when singled out the company tried, unsuccessfully, to claim its First Amendment rights were being attacked). Another core "tough" condition Comcast cites as example of its over achievement was the promise to offer a 6 Mbps standalone broadband tier for $50 for a few years. From the filing:

"Requirement to provide BIAS on a standalone basis and to offer a new 6 Mbps down service at no more than $49.95 per month: Comcast continues to offer, on a standalone basis and at reasonable prices, any tiers of BIAS that it offers on a bundled or multi-product basis. Comcast also offers its “Performance Starter” tier, a 6 Mbps down standalone BIAS service, priced at $49.95 per month. Pursuant to the Broadband Consent Decree entered into with the Commission on June 27, 2012, Comcast will continue to offer Performance Starter at least through February 21, 2015."

Offering 6 Mbps for $50 is already pretty unimpressive on its face, but becomes even less impressive when you learn that the FCC had to fine Comcast $800 million (while extending the condition) because Comcast hid the option for consumers. Think about that: offering a paltry speed at a high price was too difficult to achieve, yet Comcast would like you to know it's an over achiever. After extending the condition, the FCC patted itself on the back for being so damn good at protecting consumers:

"The unprecedented merger condition extension, significant voluntary contribution, and robust compliance plan send a clear message to the American public and the communications industry that the FCC will vigorously enforce its merger conditions, to the ultimate benefit of consumers."

The message that FCC warning actually sent was that the government is historically only engaged in theater when it comes to most merger conditions. All too often, the "tough" conditions are either volunteered by the target company (because they're easy to meet or even already met), they're specifically designed to be meaningless (as we saw with AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth in 2006), they're conditions prohibiting the company from doing something it would never in a million years do (like block websites outright), or they are very selectively enforced. Like the FCC's dedication to broadband competition, the majority of merger conditions are simply a stage play put on for consumers and consumer advocates.

What does it say when you can't even meet merger conditions intended to be largely theatrical in nature? What does it say when you have trouble meeting merger conditions you yourself proposed? Clearly it says you're a fantastic, immensely-trustworthy overachiever.

This obviously raises the question of what conditions Comcast will urge regulators to impose on its acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen appears to be pushing the promise that Comcast will spin off about three million of the acquired subscribers to form a new cable company. Comcast already expected to have to divest around three million of the acquired customers to another company like Charter (while keeping around 8 million), but spinning those three million users off into a new company would be more tax efficient. That new company wouldn't compete with Comcast, but you can expect that condition to be presented as Comcast being "forced" to improve market competition.

I'd expect the FCC to approve this merger, given deals have to be a unique, skull-rattling type of obviously awful and see unprecedented public outcry (read: AT&T T-Mobile) to prompt the FCC to action. Comcast doesn't directly compete with Time Warner Cable, and both the FCC and Comcast will paint legitimate worries about vertical integration, monopsony power, scale and content leverage as theoretical in nature. Such nuanced concerns are simply easier to take the bullshit bulldozer to in the media. As such, it's not clear what new, meaningless conditions Comcast and the FCC are currently cooking up to pretend to protect consumers from a larger, more powerful Comcast. Perhaps the company should be required to water the office plants? Strict oxygen inhalation and exhalation requirements? The options are limitless.

Filed Under: fcc, merger, regulation
Companies: comcast, nbc

Comcast Paying Minority Rights Groups To Parrot Merger Support

from the repeat-after-me-if-you'd-like-to-keep-your-funding dept

I've already talked a little bit about the media sound wall Comcast will construct to try and convince the press, public and regulators that their planned $42 billion merger with Time Warner Cable is a wonderful idea for everyone involved. Like any company with a healthy lobbyist budget, Comcast pays think tanks, consultants, PR reps, editorial writers, various front groups and a myriad of other policy tendrils to all repeat the same mantra: whatever it is we want will be great and you have nothing to worry about. As we saw with AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile, anybody and everybody who wants their Comcast money to keep flowing will come out in support of the deal, whether it's rural Texas school associations, the U.S. Cattlemen's Associations or even "balloonists."

One specifically important cornerstone of these lobbying efforts involves paying minority advocacy groups to parrot your positions, given lobbyists appear to believe that these groups in particular provide an important additional layer of artificial, grass roots legitimacy to your entirely-artificial support base. AT&T's T-Mobile deal, for example, received ample praise from groups like the The Hispanic Institute, the Latino Coalition, and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, all of which took funding from AT&T while insisting that less competition would bring great things to American consumers.

Comcast's lobbying approach for the Time Warner Cable merger isn't all that different. The New York Times notes that the company is paying groups like The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to sing the praises of Comcast's latest effort to get more powerful:

"...what the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce did not mention in its statement praising the transaction was that it had collected at least $320,000 over the last five years from Comcast's charitable foundation, which is run in part by David L. Cohen, the Comcast executive who oversees the corporation's government affairs operations...And (top Comcast lobbyist David) Cohen adamantly rejected any suggestion that the corporation's history of supporting nonprofit groups and charities, particularly groups that serve African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, was motivated by a desire to build political allies."

The usual defense from companies is that this is just us being altruistic, even though the company involved usually sends these organizations an e-mail with a list of talking points they'd like to see parroted. Losing funding if you don't play along is usually strongly implied:

"But even one of Comcast's own lobbyists said in an interview that the relationship with some groups had a transactional flavor. "If you have a company like Comcast that has been with them for a long time and continues to support them, they will go to bat for them," the contract lobbyist for Comcast said, asking that he not be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, "even if it means they have become pawns."

The sad part is that these organizations obviously wind up rooting against their constituents' own best self-interests in the quest for continued funding. An AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile, for example, would have killed off T-Mobile and driven prices up, neither of which would have helped minorities (or anybody else). While the Comcast deal is different because Time Warner Cable and Comcast don't compete, the deal could still result in greater vertical integration, a tougher time for small and minority-owned media businesses, and the imposition of data caps and broadband overages across a broader overall market area (aka: higher prices).

Combine this sound wall of artificial support with the oodles of money Comcast is throwing at Congress, The President, and the FCC, and it starts to get easier and easier to buy approval for bad ideas. That's before you even point out that former FCC boss Michael Powell now runs the NCTA, the cable industry's biggest lobbying organization, Former FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker now lobbies for Comcast, or DOJ Antitrust Division director William J. Baer represented NBCUniversal during Comcast's acquisition. Did I mention Comcast's David Cohen is a big Obama fundraiser?

While this greasy wheeling might make the deal get approved, it doesn't change the truth that your argument or idea isn't very good if you have to pay people to support it.

Filed Under: advocacy, cable, lobbying, merger, television
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Artists Want The Ability To Buy Back Their Copyrights If Universal Is Allowed To Buy EMI

from the interesting-idea... dept

As Universal Music Group (UMG) continues dealing with antitrust questions as it tries to close its purchase of EMI, there's a lot of focus on "divestment," or which parts of the combined entity that would have to be sold off. There's even talk of having to sell off the famed Parlophone Records label (home of Coldplay and Radiohead). That would be a big deal, of course, but an even more interesting proposal has been brought up by the Featured Artists Coalition, a UK-based coalition of musicians, who are saying that if the company has to divest, why not let the artists themselves have the opportunity to buy back their copyrights at "fair market value."

Divestments in the wake of mergers should first offer copyrights, at market rates, to the artists who created them. To sell them to other corporations, whether large or small, is just a perpetuation of an old business model, which has seen the recorded music business halve in value over 10 years. During that time, the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It would be good to have music business people rather than financiers owning and running music companies again. It would be even better to have artists owning their work and entering into partner relationships with service-providing major and independent record companies with all the finance and expertise an artist needs to develop their own business.

That letter is signed by Ed O'Brien of Radiohead and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd. Of course, I imagine that the labels and the artists might disagree about what "market rates" are. Also, given how focused the labels are on fighting copyright termination in the US (allowing artists to take back their copyrights after 35 years), you have to imagine that they'd fight any such plan equally hard. It's no surprise why, though: if the artists who could afford to buy back their rights did so, that would take away many of the "big name" acts, which are pretty much the remaining money makers under the old system. There's no way the labels would agree to this, even if it certainly puts the artists' interests first. Yet another example of how labels' and artists' interests are not aligned at all.

Filed Under: artists, copyright, ed o'brien, merger, music, nick mason, ownership
Companies: emi, umg, universal music

God Wants Homeless People To Lobby The FCC To Help The Outcast & Downtrodden AT&T?

from the say-what-now? dept

For years we've talked about how various lobbyist organizations in DC have "special interest" front groups. These are groups who get attention from politicians but really have no interest in the policy matters at hand. However, because large companies have donated to those front groups, the lobbyists get to write up letters pretending to be from those groups, so they can pressure politicians who don't want to "upset" a certain special interest group.

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Sometimes they don't even bother getting permission, such as the time that a Burger King franchise wrote a letter complaining about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Except, when a reporter called the franchise execs, they had no idea what the CFTC was. There was some actual backlash earlier this year when AT&T got the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to come out in favor of its merger with T-Mobile, upsetting much of the membership, and leading a bunch of board members (including an AT&T lobbyist) to resign.

However, one small setback in such practices is no big deal when you have that big list of groups to go through. After "the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers" apparently there are the religious homeless shelters. The Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission, proud recipients of a $50,000 donation from AT&T, has come out in favor of the merger with impeccably inscrutable logic:

The faith-based service provider offered what it acknowledged was “an out-of-place endorsement” of the AT&T merger with T-Mobile, with Rev. R. Henry Martin explaining that “People often call on God to help the outcasts and downtrodden that walk among us, [but] [s]ometimes, however, it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands. Please support this merger.”

I'm still trying to figure out what that means. First, it seems to be suggesting that homeless people need to step up their game to support the "outcasts and downtrodden" AT&T and T-Mobile that "walk among us." Because, um, otherwise, what does that refer to? The homeless people may be outcasts and downtrodden, but the shelter isn't asking for any help for them.. but rather for AT&T and T-Mobile. I guess it also implies that God supports the merger but apparently God alone can't convince the FCC, so apparently, if homeless folks could lobby and support one of the largest corporations around, that will be helpful.

Filed Under: fcc, god, homeless, lobbying, merger
Companies: at&t, t-mobile