Sounds like BS to me! But is it? We’re not told. The anti-Comcast side doesn’t get to make a case here, other than to carp about Comcast’s heavy-handed lobbying push.
Again, it’s great to zoom in on the process-oriented stories—they definitely matter—but they ought to have some substance to beef them up.
How could it possibly be a good thing to let the country’s biggest cable company merge with one of its biggest content providers? What good could this possibly do to promote competition? What are Comcast’s lobbyists actually saying behind closed doors? More broadly, why has the Obama administration caved on its promises of vigorous antitrust enforcement?
That’s what I’d like to know.
It seems from the WaPo article above that based on its past stances, the Comcast/NBC deal is a fait accompli—maybe with a few tweaks. Here’s that good story:
Likewise, the antitrust division has shown itself more likely to use a scalpel than a blunt instrument when a merger has crossed its desk. When faced with mergers it worries will hurt competition, the Justice Department has forced companies to make some changes, such as spinning off a business line. But with one exception involving dairy processors, it has not gone to court to block deals, including the controversial marriage of Ticketmaster and Live Nation, the recent United-Continental airline merger and the union of the two biggest makers of voting machines in the nation.
So much for that tough line on antitrust.