Comcast may not be (that) evil

Last Friday, the highly scrutinized merger of Comcast and NBC Universal (now rebranded to NBCUniversal, because why not?) became a reality. The finalization of the largest media deal in recent memory gives Comcast, already the nation’s largest cable operator and home Internet provider, a 51 percent controlling stake in an international media and entertainment company that owns everything from television stations to film production studios to theme parks.

This unprecedented vertical integration of media production and distribution has many waxing apocalyptic, with fears running rampant about the robber baron-esque hijacking of our beloved open Internet and the potential throttling of any sign of industry competition. These fears may not be unfounded, as it is easy to envision a scenario where a company that owns the media pipes and a large portion of what goes through them would be likely to favor its own content over that of its competitors.

And with the broad reach of Comcast’s power and its intentions already called into question, it is unsettling to know that its history of playing nice is dubious at best. In 2008, the cable and Internet giant came under the eye of federal regulators due to claims that Comcast regularly disrupted the connections of peer-to-peer file-sharing services to stop users from placing large burdens on bandwidth.

As recently as November, Comcast began charging a distribution fee to Netflix’s streaming video partner, Level 3 Communications, in a move decried by net neutrality supporters as anti-competitive and, in more extreme rhetoric, as evidence of Comcast’s global domination ambitions.

But with all the shrill hollering about monopolies and historically unmatched corporate power, people seem to have overlooked the potential for the Comcast-NBCU deal to create unprecedented awesomeness for lovers of television and film. If Comcast plays its cards right, it could simultaneously become the world’s largest media conglomerate and the greatest innovator of the way we consume media.

Let’s examine just a few of the limitless possibilities by which Comcast could shake up television for the better—to XFinity, and beyond!

Make NBC not suck

Even before the acquisition of NBCU, Comcast was a content producer, owning channels such as the E! Network, Style and Versus, while also having a hand in the film production companies of MGM. Having a parent company that knows a thing or two about the television industry could be a sign of better days for NBCU, whose former parent, General Electric, is known primarily for producing microwaves and underwriting subprime mortgage loans.

But this is about more than just efficient management. Comcast is now a cable operator and an owner of a large broadcast network—two industries that are becoming increasingly at odds. As such, Comcast is positioned to pull some extraordinarily dastardly maneuvers that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of broadcast television and potentially glorious results for the consumer.

Consider this: In recent years, NBC has become an unwieldy and unprofitable endeavor with poor programming and an old-fashioned business model. It owns several television stations in major markets and distributes elsewhere through nearly 200 affiliate stations. Comcast knows that almost 60 percent of Americans have cable anyway, so why not cut the barely profitable local stations and affiliates and turn NBC into your flagship cable network? Though this is not a casual suggestion, as it would signal momentous change for broadcast television, it is now a very real possibility.

This would be a major slap in the face to the Federal Communications Commission, who would no longer have regulatory powers over the content, and the consumer could now see edgier, cable-style content with a network budget. In addition to the limitless potential for great content, the network might then be able to sell the extraneous airwave licenses for its owned and operated stations for exorbitant sums (the rules are murky), which it could then reinvest to...

Create an actual competitor to ESPN

It’s no secret that Comcast has been eager to get into the sports game. (Remember Comcast’s $66 billion attempt to buy Walt Disney and gain control of ESPN?)Well, they now have access to a broad array of sports programming, combining their already successful broadcasting of NHL games and Tour de France coverage with the NFL, golf and Olympic programming of NBC Sports. This could loosen ESPN’s stranglehold on cable providers (it’s the one channel that no one will buy a cable package without), and the competition could actually lead to reduced prices for certain packages.

Deliver unparalleled VOD service

Cable is getting anxious about Netflix’s head start in the streaming content game, but as it stands now Netflix’s model is unsustainable. Sooner or later they’ll have to charge more for streaming video, and they simply don’t have the delivery infrastructure or the content ownership that someone like Comcast has. In other words, you can’t stream Netflix without paying for Internet first, and Netflix won’t be able to keep giving you other people’s content at low prices forever. Comcast, on the other hand, can now create a vast library of on-demand content cheaply delivered right through your cable box and computer.

I’m not blind to the dangers of monopoly, and I know the arguments against unbounded corporate integration—I’m simply suggesting we take a look at the potential for much-needed innovation in the television industry before casting anyone as the corporate villain. And even if they are evil, where would the railroads be without robber barons?

Derek Speranza is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Tuesday.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Comcast may not be (that) evil” on social media.