Federal rules could prompt NBC TV rentals in iTunes

Michael - your interpretation of the Constition flies in the face of 200 years of court cases. Especially the last 100 years where Congress and the public recognized the anti-consumer nature of trusts and monopolies. I don't think you can seriously argue the the original framers had any concept of national broadcasters using radio waves and cables to transmit "product" across state lines. If they were capable of understanding it, I imagine they would think of it as commerce between states.

As it regards broadcasters, the public allows them to use it's airways and can therefore require certain behavior from broadcasters. Note the content difference between cable and broadcast. But cable is also regulated by the Telecommunications Act because cable tends to be a monopoly as well - which is anti-consumer. So that's why the government can regulate those guys.

The Constitutionality of these acts and policies is really well-established and accepted. Certainly as it applies to mergers of corporations that are regulated by the federal government or present anti-trust concerns.

Your argument that the free market always benefits the consumer is also wrong. The free market works when there is competition, but when someone "wins" by removing or merging with their competition they can extract monopolistic prices from consumers who have no alternatives. That is one reason for regulation. The market is a powerful tool for the consumer and innovation when it is at it's most efficient. But it is also subject to wide fluctuations and shocks which are not consumer friendly (look at the financial crisis to see what lack of regulation can do in a relative diverse and competitive industry - hint, it wasn't good and the market couldn't fix itself, revisionist theories notwithstanding).

$0.50 or $0.25 is what I'm willing to pay per episode to watch something one time. $0.99 is too much considering how many episodes are in a season.

But the real problem is iTunes needs a monthly unlimited service of like $10, $20 or even $30 a month. I'd gladly pay that.

Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government this power?

Maybe Apple will institute a policy that forces content providers to provide tv shows at $1 or not at all. Wonder what Comcast would do then...

"the merged giant must agree to sell its content on online video services."

They already sell their content in iTunes. They even have new seasons available with Season Passes. According to the above quote it says sell, not rent. Is there more guidance?

"That opens the way for NBC content, such as The Office and 30 Rock, to be distributed on Apple TV and other similar devices."

Although their content is not directly accessible for rental through the ATV2, you can purchase it through iTunes and watch it on the ATV2. You can still purchase their seasons to include Season Passes on the 1st Gen ATV.

"Comcast cannot throttle Internet service to block streaming video service and must sell standalone Internet service with relatively fast speeds (6 Megabit per second downloads) without tying it to a cable TV package."

Good.

In addition, Comcast will now have to honor the law regarding selling it's ComcastSpotrsNet Philly to satellite TV providers like DirecTv. A loophole that kept them from distributing this channel closed last year but Comcast was appealing it. The terms of the merger clearly state they must offer the broadcast rights but they are saying "we interpret the language differently". So don't be surprised if they try to fight this online sales rule as well. Everything about Comcast is shady, including their billing practices but they have so much money (read:power and influence) that they can just skirt any rule they want. They are the perfect example of why monopolies are wrong and how big business considers itself beyond the laws and regulations.

If they're worried about their content being devalued, then maybe they should consider getting some quality content! $0.99 is a ripoff for half the crap they show on NBC (and the other networks, for that matter)!!!

My TV watching habits (when it's not already on my DVR) usually consist of this logic:
Q. Is it available on Netflix Watch Instantly?
Yes -> Netflix
No -> BitTorrent

If you provide the shows in a way where you get paid, such as Netflix (Netflix pays for it), or iTunes, people might pay you, especially the more places you make your content available. Netflix is my favorite, others, like AppleTV users, prefer iTunes. Otherwise, they will watch them for free. That's the deal. I don't care in the slightest whether NBC, of all networks, is happy with this arrangement. It's reality, and they can adapt or die, just like the record labels.

NBC is a dying network, but I wish they would hurry up and die faster. They used to be the most prestigious, but now they are a laughingstock, and owned by one of the most hated companies in America. It's a long way to fall.

How can you "devalue" something that anyone with access to Google can download within minutes for free already, be it illegally.

99 cents or a dollar something for us in Australia is still a price to consider before making a purchase for things like TV shows which are often a one time watch.

Given the alternative way to acquire them requires little to no effort nor does it cost anything.

TV executives need to pull their heads out of their asses and figure out how to get shows on TV around the world as they air in the US that way we would actually bother watching TV instead of downloading them illegally.

NBC thinks $0.99 will devalue their content yet they have previous seasons available for FREE on Netflix Instant Watch?