The Conflict between Netflix and Comcast - Essay Example

Justin Silverman Mester Media Criticism 13th May Contents Introduction 3 Preamble of the Case 4 Independent News Source – the BBC World Service 5 CNN: Consumer Oriented View 7 CBS News: Pro-Commercial View 9 Conclusion 11 Works Cited 13 Introduction This paper examines the coverage of the conflict between Netflix and Comcast which has made some very impressive headline news in economics and other general news bulletins. The paper will examine the progression of the presentation of the various conflicts and the way it is delivered in the news media. To this end, the various presentations by independent news media houses and other less independent or biased reportages will be examined and reviewed. The fundamental issue in question relates to a ban that was placed on Comcast to prevent them from taking money from other entities in order to provide preferential streaming services as Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Therefore, in illustrating the point, a professor brought in as a resource personnel told the USA Now program how it works. In explaining the process, the professor identified a ban on neutrality as a US federal law that was meant to prevent anti-trust activities and provide equal opportunities for entities around the United States (Roger para 3). However, after a reversal of the ban, Netflix can pay Comcast in order to get Comcast to grant them a larger bandwidth so that their consumers can get faster downloads. This is naturally because of the fact that Netflix customers download DVDs and other large files that can be painfully slow. Therefore, it might be a necessity for Netflix to pay for faster downloads. The downside of this is that it clearly affects competition for other entities that might need to use Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Also, the fact that entities can pay for these services will increase competition which might be financially motivated. This might lead to higher prices that will be transferred to consumers. Clearly, there is a conflict between the two ideologies and concepts. There is a tension about different classes of stakeholders, like Netflix consumers who might justify this as a necessity against the general set of service providers who need faster internet services from ISPs and consumers who do not want to be forced to pay more for Internet because of this competition. The media has taken sides from different angles in order to present their views. This has caused different media houses to tilt towards the two different schools of thought. This essay examines Independent news media networks are balanced media houses that provide a balanced reportage on the subject (Haus 28; Freedom House 302). Other biased entities or alternative news sources try to take a stand on the subject (Haus 29). This paper examines these two sets of news media outlets and how they presented the story from the different perspectives. Preamble of the Case Generally, a topic of this nature is mainly supposed to evaluate the facts of the case and its related circumstances. This is because the process and the situation is such that there is the need to view the situation from the angle of two stakeholders. It is generally difficult for some kind of neutrality in its general sense. This is because the case has two different circumstances and pointers that could be viewed from separate pointers and separate views. Hence, an ideal reportage must be one that will cover a comprehensive scope. The scope of the coverage of this case must be one that will provide a general and a comprehensive reportage that will be done through the presentation of the background and the circumstances of the case. This will involve the presentation of the facts that relates to the circumstances. This will provide the basis for the presentation of the data to an “informed consumer” who will take an independent decision about the situation and circumstances. For each of the situations and circumstances, a good journalistic practice will involve the presentation of a thorough introduction that will be followed by the present circumstances. The case went through a number of phases and situations. The first stage involved the presentation of the circumstances that related to the demands presented by Netflix for changes to be made by Comcast that favored them. Different media houses presented their views on this. The ideal situation was to prompt debate in this situation because taking a stand for Netflix/Netflix consumers or the wider anti-trust school of thought and defend it will present a biased outlook for a media house. However, an ideal situation was to involve debate through the presentation of views from the two different sides of the debate. The second phase involved various exchange of abuse and arguments by Netflix and Comcast. Whilst Netflix accused Comcast of purchasing a rival of Netflix to stifle competition and to gain an unfair advantage, Comcast stated that Netflix was responsible for its slow interconnectedness. This was also an opportunity for a media house to take a stand against another. The third phase of the situation involved the point where it was held that Netflix could pay Comcast to broadcast its services over the Internet. This clearly created a debate that had different implications for the two main opposing views. Thus, an ideally independent media house was meant to take a neutral stand that would present different pointers and different views in order to come up with a balanced view. A biased media reportage was one that will present a view that was in favor of one of the two opinions and views of the case at hand. Independent News Source – the BBC World Service The BBC, formerly the British Broadcasting Corporation is the British national news service provider that commenced operations in the 1930s (Briggs xix). Its fundamental scope involves the coverage of news in the British Empire as it then was and the main view was to present information in an independent manner and form. The BBC’s outlook is mainly independent in this situation because they are fundamentally British in orientation and hence, do not have a direct interest in anything that happens in the United States as other rival entities like CNN, Fox News and CBS, some of which are even aligned to Comcast. Hence, the BBC had an inherent tilt towards neutrality and objectivity. The BBC also maintains some very strict standards of neutrality and objectivity in their reports (Aitken 3). The BBC handled this case through a series of three interrelated articles that were presented on their website. In the first article published in October 2013, a BBC journalist based in Washington, DC presented a series of situations that will potentially influence the prices of Broadband Internet services around the world (Georghegan para 2). In the article, the BBC presents a thesis based on the question of why broadband Internet in the United States was more expensive than other parts of the world. They do this by presenting the graph below as the basis for the discussions: Figure 1: Internet Price Comparisons presented by the BBC This shows different views and expectations that forms the basis for the fundamental discussions. In this article, a brief reference is made to powerful entities like Comcast as being the main drivers of the prices in the US. However, no explicit mention of Netflix is made. In the next article, presented in February 2014, the BBC presents an expansion of Comcast and its implications to competition in the industry (BBC News). This discusses Comcast’s acquisition and due to the fact that the BBC is neutral, not much is said in condemnation or support of the acquisition. Rather, the implications are discussed in the broader sense. The article states the benefits the purchase accrues to Comcast, but also quotes some significant portions of criticisms in the United States. It includes a quote that states that the purchase gives "unprecedented gatekeeper power in several important markets… An enlarged Comcast would be the bully in the schoolyard," (BBC News para 13). The final article discusses the direct conflicts between Netflix and Comcast and an agreement that the two parties agreed upon (BBC News). This article presents the two different perspectives of the conflict in a relatively more balanced process. Reconciliatory statements and justifications are presented. This also includes the implications for the market at large. CNN: Consumer Oriented View CNN takes a position that is somewhat patriotic in this debate. Clearly, from their articles, CNN is privy to more information about US competition rules and the implications for the wider society and the wider community. Therefore, unlike BBC which is an entity that operates from outside the United States, CNN presents a lot of information about the relationship between the new arrangement between Netflix and Comcast and the American consumer. In an article by Brandon Griggs, a comprehensive analysis of the situation and its impact on the consumers of the United States is critically presented (Griggs). In the article, Griggs presents the negative views presented by Netflix and other pro-consumer groups that seek to condemn Comcast for acquiring Time Warner Inc as a means of controlling a larger system of the Internet and broadband market. The article presents some very skeptical views about the acquisition of Comcast and how it is going to force prices of broadband services to go up without much limitation since it will be controlled almost wholly by a few entities like Comcast. Thus, by extension, Griggs is simply critiquing the negative letter sent by Netflix to Congress that presents a case against Comcast for expanding its system to a position where it will be almost impossible to control them. Griggs quotes a US senator as follows: “Comcasts takeover of Time Warner Cable would give the merged cable behemoth the leverage to extract higher fees from content providers, costs that would ultimately be passed on to consumers.” (Griggs para 2). This implies that they present a case and a position that is somewhat against the merger and for consumers. Although they present the defenses of Netflix including the fact that Comcast accused Neflix of distorting facts and contributing to their own challenges and issues. However, the position of the CNN writer of the article is clear and fairly representative of the interest and needs of consumers and the public. They present Franken’s view that shows that clearly, Comcast is already on track to becoming a dominant entity that controls the markets unreasonably: “The danger in allowing Comcast to accrue even more power is not purely hypothetical. The company is already using its dominant position to dictate terms to content providers seeking to reach its 20 million customers,” (Griggs para 11). This shows clearly that the view taken about the fact that Comcast is controlling the markets is one that is taken seriously and presented strongly by CNN. Griggs concludes his statement with the following: “A combined Comcast-Time Warner Cable would bring cable or Internet service to about 30% of American subscribers and serve 19 of the countrys 20 largest metropolitan regions. That would bolster Comcasts current status as the nations largest TV, Internet and home phone provider.”. This shows that there is a strong view or conviction in the CNN article that there is the need to contain a risk relating to the acquisition of Time Warner by Comcast and hence, someone has to do something about the situation. CBS News: Pro-Commercial View CBS News on the other hand is representative of the conglomerate that Comcast belongs to. Hence, it is natural for them to tilt towards a fellow subsidiary entity within a large organizational framework. Hence, CBS News tend to present views that justifies the expansion of Comcast as a means of promoting the commercial prospects and possible benefits the position of Comcast will add to members of the wider society and community. The title of CBS’s article under review is Netflix, Comcast Reach Deal for Faster Service. Clearly this indicates that their position on the subject is one that is optimistic and shows a positive view about the transaction and expansion of Comcast. In the first line of the article, it says: “In a first-of-its-kind deal, Netflix has agreed to pay one of the largest broadband providers in the U.S., Comcast, for faster Internet speeds, to try to ensure smoother delivery of its customers streaming movies and TV shows.” (CBS News para 1). This shows that the article and the transaction is seen as a peaceful and a win-win situation in which the transaction is a commercial one that will help a class of consumers who really need enhanced Internet services from Comcast to view their video streaming. In the second paragraph, CBS News presents the deal as one that will open up the door for other firms in the industry to pay for better broadband services and this, in the view of the article, will create a happier consumer base. About the need for net neutrality to protect consumer interests and needs, they present the concept in a very light tone as follows: “The arrangement comes as federal regulators are wrestling with an issue known as "Net neutrality" concerning broadband providers and whether they can slow down traffic to particular websites, potentially forcing content companies to pay for faster Web service. The Federal Communications Commission said last week it plans to rewrite the rules after a federal court struck down the commissions previous version.” (CBS News para 4 & 5). To a non-sensitive reader, this presents the concept of Net Neutrality as one that is a major dilemma to the Federal Authorities and this is being debated vigorously in order to come up with an opinion of how it must be implemented. This shows that there is a possibility that the rules could be easily changed in the not-so-distant future to ensure that the class of consumers who will benefit from this arrangement can get their best interest protected. As part of the drive to present their case, CBS News presents information about the numbers of consumers that will be protected by the arrangement. The tens of millions of consumers who will benefit from the arrangement are presented statistically to show some kind of justification for the presentation of paid-high-quality internet services. In the last two paragraphs, the CBS article writer presents the purchase of Time Warner by Comcast, but this is done in a very ambiguous and plain language that does not draw the reader to critically think about the risks CBS’s expansion will pose to consumers. No mention of the actual implications of the purchase of Time Warner is presented in these two paragraphs and indeed the whole article. Rather, the impact of the acquisition on anti-trust laws is presented in ambiguous language and this is not done in relation to consumer but to businesses and similar entities. Conclusion This article paper shows that the media is not always balanced and objective. There are competing interests in the reportage of media houses, particularly those presented over the Internet and through various media houses. The study of this research identifies that different media houses have different interests and views. Whereas neutrality is steeped in the presentation of different angles of a given situation, usually by a press house that has no interest, the view or the focus taken by a given media house shapes the level of bias or the tilt towards which side of a given conflict situation to support. This is because most entities and organizations have objectives and these objectives cause them to naturally take sides in matters and often in an unconscious manner, they tend to take sides. This is demonstrated in the case of the BBC which presented a fairly balanced reportage with coverage of both sides of the Comcast-Netflix conflict with no clear signs of desiring to support either side. This is mainly because the BBC has little interests in America. On the other hand, CNN, which has a populist view of presenting information to educate the public and shape visions and policies sought to present the impact of Comcast’s position in the conflict on the wider society as a whole. This was presented through a consumer-friendly article and critiques of the matter which focused on the impact of Comcast’s uncontained expansion. However, CBS which is part of the Comcast group presented the facts in a mild manner and focused on the benefits to be accrued by causing firms like Netflix to pay for better-quality Internet services from a firm like Comcast. This was clearly biased and an opposite of the view presented by CNN which is more of a populist entity seeking to promote the fundamental principles of the United States, a Capitalist country that encourages consumers and individual consumer liberties. Works Cited Aitken, Robin. Can We Still Trust the BBC? Indianapolis: Bloombury, 2013. BBC News. BBC News Business. 26 February 2014. 13 May 2014 . —. BBC Technology. 28 February 2014. 13 May 2014 . Briggs, Asa. The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. CBS News. Netflix, Comcast Reach Deal for Faster Service. 24 February 2014. 13 May 2014 . Freedom House. Nations in Transit 2013 Democratization from Central Europe to Eurasia. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014. Georghegan, Tom. Why is Broadband More Expensive in the US. 28 October 2013. 13 May 2014 . Griggs, Brandon. Netflix to Al Franken: Comcast Takeover will Harm Consumers. 24 April 2014. 13 May 2014 . Haus, Charles. Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2013. Roger, Yu. USA Today. 26 February 2014. 13 May 2014 . Read More