Comcast-NBC merger is about money, politics

[Commentary] The proposed Comcast-NBC merger could be a case study in well-run lobbying.

Right out of the gate, Comcast identified what its weaknesses were and started fighting off ­ or buying off ­ anyone who might validate those weaknesses. Comcast spent nearly $90 million in the first two quarters of 2010 on efforts to support the deal; promised $20 million in venture funding for minority entrepreneurs; pledged $6 million to support independent productions; agreed to place a Latino member on its corporate board of directors; made deals with NBC's affiliates; and hired (with NBCU) more than 100 former government employees to shepherd the deal through ­ including several former chiefs of staff to key legislators and policy-makers. As a result, opposition to the merger has been successfully isolated by Comcast. Programmers, by and large, aren't talking ­ they know they'll need to deal with Comcast in the future, and they fear retaliation. The other big cable systems ­ Time Warner, Cox and Cablevision ­ don't compete with Comcast, because the industry has divided up the country among its members, and they are staying quiet. With two exceptions ­ Sens. Al Franken (D-MN) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) ­ legislators also see that there's little to be gained through opposing the merger, because the cable companies will be the key distributors for their political ads.

But the most important reason to pay attention to this merger is that we're reaching the point where all previously separate communications methods ­ telephone, TV, Internet ­ will be carried by a single big, fast pipe into peoples' homes. That big pipe is a natural monopoly.