The NCAAOM can forget about the FCC imposing some type of set-aside rule against Comcast, especially given the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of the agency’s punitive action against the cable network operator (another issue whiffed on by BW 2.0 commentators). And there’s the matter of a conspicuous lack of Af-Am-owned TV networks because of the economics involved. Who would the NCAAOM be fighting on behalf of, anyway?

A sound alternative strategy might be for the NCAAOM to oppose the merger on anti-trust grounds. The existing regulations on market penetration and content ownership can serve as the basis for Comcast-NBCU’s divestiture of channels as a condition for approving the merger. A provision could be included whereby a financial incentive is provided to the buyers of divested channels whose groups include Af-Am individuals or Af-Am controlled investment firms with voting stock.

A 2nd,, more expedient strategy would involve the NCAAOM pushing for an expansion of ‘must-carry’ rules to include both local LPTV and radio stations. With the costs of creating, then distributing a TV network by way of cable/DBS being so prohibitive, a terrestrial network of low-power stations is more within the financial means of aspiring Af-Am broadcasters & investors. The ’must-carry’ rules would then exempt such networks from carriage fees charged by cable network operators such as Comcast, while providing the network with an equivalent reach — in terms of homes passed.

As an addendum, the recent Supreme Court decision also doesn’t bode well for video aggregator portals, like YouTube and Vimeo. A network operator, like Comcast, can directly influence which web sites its broadband subscribers visit — which is partially the reason why Comcast created Xfinity. Those of us who are genuinely concerned about Af-Am ownership of television, radio, and telecom networks should focus on how control of physical infrastructure dictates every thing else.

Thanks for the comment.

@Juju- I like the point about niche programming. Which niche's come to mind for you?

@James Harris — Thanks for the in depth comments. Controlling the YouTube's and vimeo's is an interesting perspective. How can we benefit from controlling the podcast business on itunes and other sites? And good point about the Comcast merger being about Hulu. What if Hulu starts to charge and the site fades away? What then?

Finally, after 40 years of wanting to have a voice in media, we find our selves in the era of YouTube and we decide to pick a fight over cable channel access? Don't they see that Comcast bought NBC not for the broadcast channel but for Hulu? Comcast's growth is in broadband (Internet access) not cable TV. NCAAOM is simply falling for the “O-ke-doke.”

Check this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/comcas…

And remember that we are traditionally 20 year late to the party when media ownership is concerned. We need to stand up and lead. What percentage of YouTube content is produced by people of color? Lets guess at LOTS. What percentage to the content is consumed by people of color? You know the answer to this as well.

Also remember that Comcast is simply an American business doing what it can to stay profit in troubling time. YouTube is worldwide and backed by Google, which does not seem to have an issue generating tons of cash.

I say we (Black media companies) focus on controlling 10% of YouTub, Vimeo, etc., traffic globally. Let take over iTunes podcast business. Can we produce the most video centered iPhone apps? Lets also support sites like Dimewars and other Black controlled sites that have the potential to become the next Comcast – Is there any Black teen that does not know what WSHH is? Do any of those teens pay a Comcast bill?