Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND
FAMILY SUPPORT, CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
](}j(f 010l 330 Bl
JIM McDERMOTT
7TH DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
(lCongre~~of tue mtniteb~tate~
1!)omit of !\tprestntatibts
'QImusbington, jJB(tC 20515
December 21, 2010
CO-CHAIR
CONGRESSIONAL TASK FORCE ON
INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS
CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS ON
INDIA AND INDIAN AMERICANS
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
I am writing to you to voice concerns about the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. The merger of
the nation's largest cable distributor and Internet Service Provider with one of the world's largest media and
entertainment development companies would result in a combined company with tremendous influence on the
content marketplace. If a merger is approved, the Federal Communications Commission should require the new
company to not restrict the ability of its competitors, be they cable, satellite, broadcast or internet companies,
to deliver content to the listening and viewing public.
In an age where technology offers viewers an array of methods to access content, no company or group of
companies should be allowed to leverage its dominance to stifle competition by controlling or restricting access
to content. In the absence of protective regulations, the proposed Comcast/NBC entity would severely limit
competition. It is alleged that Comcast's contracts with many of its content providers prevent or intimidate their
content providers from risk-free partnering with other cable, satellite, broadcast and internet carriers. If true,
and these enforceable contract provisions were to remain in place, NBC Universal's proprietary content could be
exclusively carried on Comcast's cable television, broadband Internet, and telephone services, at the expense of
competition and subscribers who want unbundled access to content, telephone, and Internet services.
These concerns are not abstract ones, Comcast's contracts with its content partners have already hurt
competition. One example is an online cable company in my district, ivi, Inc. It has stated its inability to secure
distribution rights from certain television channels because Comcast's distribution contracts allow Comcast to
unilaterally take those content provider channels off the air or drop them into less desirable carriage tiers if
those channels separately agree to distribute their programming over the Internet. Comcast has said it will not
enforce these provisions, but that handshake agreement has not been enough for many of Comcast's content
partners to commit to distributing their content through other carriers beyond Comcast.
Access to distribute content needs to be equal for all forms of carriage. The Commission must ensure that
Com cast can in no way enforce any exclusive rights over content for any alternative delivery partnering a
content provider may want to do, no matter what the technical form of delivery is--cable, satellite, broadcast or
internet.
In considering these concerns, I am confident that the Commission will fulfill its mandate to offer consumers
reliable, meaningful choice in accessing affordable content.
Jf
~e::,~c:~r
im McDermott
United States Congress
1035 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4707
(202) 225-3106
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott
PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER(i)
1809 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 1212
SEATTLE, WA 98101-1399
(206) 553-7170