It’s official. In the wake of probing by the Department of Justice and a deluge of citizen backlash, Comcast, the country’s largest Internet and cable provider, will not move forward with its plan to acquire Time Warner, the country’s second largest Internet and cable provider. Unless you’re Satan, this is great news. Taken with the recent decision on the part of the Federal Communications Commission to uphold net neutrality, there appears to be a glimmer of hope that the rules of our media landscape aren’t yet written completely by the telecommunications behemoths.
There are so many conflicts of interest implicit in the issue that it’s refreshing to see the government actively intervening on behalf of consumers, especially when politicians tend to have a more than cozy relationship with the telecommunications industry. If Comcast were to absorb Time Warner into its glut of media holdings, among which are NBC and a myriad of cable channels, it would have that much more leverage over rivals such as Netflix, whose services basically hinge on reliably expedient streaming rates.
It’s no secret that streaming has become an increasingly preferable alternative to traditional cable subscriptions, which is why it’s so important that companies like Comcast be prevented from relegating sites like Netflix to higher pay tiers, lest those sites experience diminished streaming rates. In the absence of the FCC enforcing net neutrality and the Department of Justice blowing the whistle over its designs to acquire Time Warner, Comcast would have a terrifying amount of power to control how Internet sites work. Plus, the incorporation of Time Warner’s vast cable holdings, encompassing such channels as TBS, TNT, HBO, CNN and Cartoon Network, would provide even greater impetus for the freshly merged conglomerate to quell the dominance of online competitors.
And, as always, there’s the question of content. One of the themes I’ve seen re-emerge most during my time as a Communication Arts major is the fear that when a select few companies own the overwhelming majority of media, content will inevitably suffer as a result. Dystopian visions abound among communications professors when this subject comes up, but I’m far less pessimistic about it. I’m not saying concentrated ownership doesn’t pose the risk of political conformity and a less diverse array of content, but just because Comcast owns a multitude of TV channels doesn’t mean you’ll find its shareholders in the writers room telling Jimmy Fallon what to say.
As conglomerated as the media industries are, there will always be space for writers, directors, and producers to innovate, push boundaries, and redefine cultural norms. So long as we’ve got channels like Comedy Central and FX that are actively seeking out irreverent, edgy content, apocalyptic warnings of neutered programming will feel ill-founded. Considering that shows like “All in the Family” and “The Dick Cavett Show” were able to confront serious issues and shine a spotlight on controversial political views in the 1970s when ABC, NBC and CBS were the only commercial networks around, it’s far from unfathomable that the same could happen now.
I still think we should be vigilant for corporate interests whitewashing opposing political or social views, but given the unprecedented variety of content out there, I’d say conglomeration has yet to lay waste to our media landscape. There’s no telling what content will be like and where regulators will stand on all of this in the years to come, but for now we at least have hope that the more egregious threats to Internet freedom and programming diversity have yet to materialize.
Elijah is a sophomore writer for The Daily Cardinal majoring in communication arts. Do you agree with his assessment on the FCC’s decision? What is your view on the state of the telecommunications industry? Please send your feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com
