JEFF MERKLEY
OREGON
llnitcd tSmtcs tScnate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
January 6, 2011
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
COMMITTEES
ENVIAONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS
HE:ALTH, t:DUCA liON,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
BANKING. HOUSING,
AND URBAN AFFAIRS
BUDGET
As you deliberate on the proposed merger between Comcast Corporation and NBC Universal,
there are several issues raised by Oregon constituents that I believe merit thorough analysis and
careful consideration.
First, small eable providers in rural Oregon are concerned that Comcast and other large content
providers eharge higher prices to providers and their customers in rural markets as compared to
urban markets. They argue that since it costs the same to provide content to rural cable
companies as it does to larger urban companies, the price differential in rural communities seems
to reflect the market leverage held by Comcast. Is there a way to address this issue in the
merger, or would the merger make this situation worse by decreasing competition?
Second, Oregon customers have experienced high price growth in eable and internet prices over
the past decade and are concerned that this growth will be even higher with market
consolidation. The Oregonian recently ran an article detailing how Comeast has almost doubled
the price ofits standard plan over the past ten years, a period in which the consumer price index
fell slightly for the Portland metro area. Some ofthis price growth may be explained by
additional channels and faster internet speeds, but consumers wonder why they shouldn't have
the option ofkeeping their basic services without a price hike, rather than being left with little
choice but to pay for larger morc-expensive basic packages. Is there a way to address this issue
in the merger, or would the merger make this situation worse by decreasing competition?
Third, Oregon customers are concerned about the ability to watch the Portland Trailblazers,
which for years has been Oregon's only major league sports franchise. Currently, very few cable
providers other than Comcast carry the Trailblazers games due to disputes over the price
Comcast charges to carry its regional sports network. This raises, in a charged manner, the
natural tensions between providing content and operating a content delivery system. This
problem merits further investigation, since ifComcast owned an entire broadcast network in
addition to its regional sports channels, the issues related to customer access to beloved programs
will grow.
107 RUSSELL 5r:NATf OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
12021 224-3753
FAX 12021 22&-3997
121 S.W. SALMON $TRI:E"T
PORTLAND, OR 97204
15031 326-3386
FAX (503) 326-2900
Fourth, Oregonians are concerned about protecting network neutrality principles. As both a
content provider and internet service provider, Comcast is playing the role oftraffic cop while
having a vested interest in which cars slow down and which race ahead. This dual role creates a
structural incentive for Comeast to provide a fast lane for its own content while assigning a slow
lane to competitors-a violation ofnet neutrality. lbis conflict ofintcrest could logically grow
through a merger in which Comcast becomes a larger content provider. How will the FCC
protect net neutrality for Comcast customers?
For over a century, antitrust law has reflected a healthy skepticism ofthe distorting efTects of
great concentrations ofmarket share. There are potential benefits to customers, but also potential
costs. Thus, please provide thorough and fair consideration ofthese concerns expressed by
Oregonians.
'!bank you for your prompt attention to these issues. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,