The intrepid Genachowski FCC brings yet another industry stooge on board

by Ken

As Howie and I have had all too frequent occasion to report, not many Obama appointments have been as disapointing as FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, who came to the job with what most observers familiar with the turf thought were pretty good credentials, but who has established himself almost without exception as a trusty servant of Big Media and the telecom industries.

While we've all been preoccupied with the fiscal-cliff follies and our normal holiday preoccupations, the other day Karl Bode of the blog Broadband Reports passed along news of another fine development at Genachowski's FCC (links onsite):

FCC Hires New Cap Loving Chief Economist - New Employee Steven Wildman Paid by Industry to Defend Caps
Steven Wildman Previously Used by ISPs to Justify Caps
by Karl Bode

The FCC has hired a new chief economist with a history of cheerleading broadband usage caps for the cable industry. According to the FCC, they've hired Steven Wildman, an economist and professor at Michigan State University, as the agency's new chief economist. In a statement, FCC boss Julius Genachowski insists that Wildman will help the agency by applying "his deep economic expertise and problem solving abilities daily to our most challenging initiatives."

Except Wildman just got done penning a National Cable & Telecommunications Association paper supporting the industry's use of punitive caps and costly per-byte overages. "...The effects of well-designed [usage-based pricing] plans on consumers are likely to be beneficial, as are the effects of UBP on investments in the broadband infrastructure," insisted Wildman in the cable industry sponsored paper (pdf).

That claim runs contrary to the facts on the ground. Wildman only has to ask Canadian broadband customers in our forums, who suffer from the most egregious caps and overages in the world, just how much the pricing model has "benefited" them.

Like with most of these industry-funded studies, Wildman ignores the fact that the lack of competition drives the creation of punitive caps and overages in the first place, and that few if any of these plans are "well designed." Most of what we've seen implemented by carriers so far isn't really usage-based pricing, it's flat rate pricing with caps and per-byte penalties layered on top, resulting in higher prices for everybody.

Without real competition, there's nothing preventing caps from squeezing tighter or overage penalties from soaring, but industry-paid economists avoid that problem by simply not mentioning it. In fact, Wildman's paper only even uses the word "competition" once, and not in any meaningful context. Wildman and other academics paid to use their academic credibility as a blunt weapon against consumers have been trotted out by the cable industry at several industry round tables recently to justify what the cap and overage model really is: price gouging.

Wildman's hiring is troubling for an agency that has already utterly refused to seriously address the anti-competitive impact of usage caps and high overage pricing. Genachowski's positions on caps have waffled depending on what lobbyists or industry leaders he's talking to, and that's just part of a larger FCC problem with failing to address competition. Worse perhaps, is the agency's refusal to seriously address the growing problem of usage meters simply not being inaccurate, a result of carriers wanting to bill like utilities, but refusing to be regulated like them.

So, as the U.S. slips farther and farther behind the rest of the developed world in ease and affordability of high-speed broadband access, the FCC is . . . well, gearing up to move us farther backward.

#

There's a silver lining to the FCC's plan to rewrite the law to accommodate Rupert M (and Rupert M wannabes)

Rupert M under glass: Who besides a few left-wing malcontents thinks that Rupert M himself (aka "Mr. Democracy") and Rupert M wannabes should be forced to do stuff they don't, you know, wanna do?


"People think a billion dollars buys you a President, but they're wrong. It barely gets you a lemon like Mitt Romney."

-- billionaire Sheldon Adelson, as quoted in the Borowitz Report "Billionaires Warn Higher Taxes Could Prevent Them from Buying Politicians"

by Ken

I know there's a lot of consternation on our crazy wide-eyed socialist side of the political spectrum over the FCC's impending giveaway to the Rupert Murdochs of the world. (Don't ask me how many Rupert Murdochs there are in the world. Isn't one enough? But if there really is a shortage of Rupert-like personages, what better step could we take than to change the law to encourage Rupert wannabes.)

In case you haven't been following the story, here's Craid Aaron's summation in a recent post, "Why Is the Obama FCC Plotting a Massive Giveaway to Rupert Murdoch?" (links onsite):

What if I told you the Obama administration's first major post-election policy move was a big, fat gift for Rupert Murdoch?

You might ask: The same Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News?

The same Rupert Murdoch who scandalized England with phone-hacking, influence peddling and bribery?

The same Rupert Murdoch who stays up late Saturday nights pondering things on Twitter like what to do about "the Jewish-owned press"?

Crikey.

Murdoch already owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News Channel, Fox movie studios, 27 local TV stations and much, much more.

Word is that Murdoch now covets the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune  — the bankrupt-but-still-dominant newspapers (and websites) in the second- and third-largest media markets, where Murdoch already owns TV stations.

Under current media ownership limits, he can't buy them. It's illegal ... unless the Federal Communications Commission changes the rules.

But according to numerous reports, that's exactly what FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to do. He's circulating an order at the FCC to lift the longstanding ban on one company owning both daily newspapers and TV stations in any of the 20 largest media markets.

And he wants to wrap up this massive giveaway just in time for the holidays. . . .

In case you're missing the message, Josh Stearns more recently listed "Five Things You Should Know About the FCC's Big Media Giveaway." You can read Josh's explanations onsite, but here are the Five Things You Should Know.

1) It will give Rupert Murdoch more power.

2) It will make our media less diverse.

3) It will create local media monopolies.

4) It will mean less news for local communities.

5) It goes against the will of the people.

Okay, yeah, media less diverse, local media monopolies, will of the people, blah blah blah. My question: Is this really so different from the situation we have now? How many things are there, really, that Rupert M would like to do which he's prevented from doing by some silly government rules, or laws, or whatever?

Actually, that's why I want to suggest that there's a silver lining here for us left-wing cranks: At last someone in a position of authority is suggesting that maybe Rupert M should actually follow some of those rules, or laws, or whatever. I call that progress.

Let's take this media cross-ownership business. I live in New York City, which I think figures in nearly all tallies as one of the country's top 20 media markets, meaning that nobody can own both a newspaper and a TV channel or more than one TV channel. So you wouldn't think one person could own a newspaper and two TV channels, even if that newspaper is the New York Post, which prints mostly propaganda with just a smattering of news. I remember many years ago, when the problem was just News Corp owning a newspaper and one TV channel, some talk of News Corp asking for a temporary waiver, but I don't recall hearing anything more about the matter. In fact, the next thing we heard was that the company was acquiring that second TV channel. Not to mention News Corp's panoply of cable channels, which we won't mention -- even considering how cable-dependent many NYC residents are just to be able to have TV reception -- because there aren't any rules about the cable channels.

Still, it's not as if the company doesn't make every imaginable use of its control of each of these outlets to perform precisely the kinds of media-monopoly naughtiness that those laws are designed to prevent. Still, isn't it progress of a sort that our government is talking about taking seriously the heretical notion that Rupert M and (and wannabes) be pressed to conform their business practices to the law? Isn't it mere fussiness to point out that the strategy for doing so is to give them kinds of laws they can live with?

The message seems to be: It's not entirely unreasonable to ask 1%-ers to follow some rules, heretofore treated as mere advisory opinions, as long as we're careful to make sure those rules aren't unreasonable -- in the eyes of the 1%-ers, of course. After all, who else's opinion would be worthy of consideration? Surely not those infernal takers-not-makers.

You know, the people who do the actual work around the U.S. of A.


SPEAKING OF FAIRNESS FOR 1%-ERS, THE BOROWITZ
REPORT WORRIES ABOUT THE COST OF BUYING POLS

December 9, 2012

Billionaires Warn Higher Taxes Could Prevent Them from Buying Politicians

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Introducing a new wrinkle into the already fraught fiscal cliff showdown, a consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians.

The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.

While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, "those costs don't compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof."

The casino billionaire points to his group's study, which puts the cost of purchasing an average House member at two million dollars and an average senator at several times that.

"And let's say you buy a Senator like [South Carolina Senator] Jim DeMint and he decides to quit," Mr. Adelson says. "Good luck trying to get your money back."

The Vegas magnate complains that the media has ignored billionaires' essential role in giving jobs to politicians who would otherwise have difficulty finding "honest work of any kind."

"Billionaires are providing employment for a group of seriously incompetent and marginal people," Mr. Adelson says. "You raise taxes on us, and who's going to create those jobs? I really don't think people have thought this through."
Adding insult to injury for America's billionaires, he says, "the simple dream of someday owning a President is slipping out of reach."

"People think a billion dollars buys you a President, but they're wrong," he says. "It barely gets you a lemon like Mitt Romney."

#

The FCC Does Not Regulate Major Media Corporations-- They Regulate The FCC

While I was still in Marrakech over December, thankfully televisionless, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski proposed approving Comcast’s takeover of NBC. That didn't sound like a very wise thing to me, and the next day I got an e-mail from Bernie Sanders' office:

The FCC released some very bad news for the future of American media and, in my view, for the future of American democracy. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has circulated an order that would allow Comcast, the country’s largest cable and Internet provider, to merge with NBC Universal, one of the country’s largest media conglomerates.

If approved, this new media giant will be the largest cable provider, the largest Internet provider, and one of the largest producers of content in the United States. At a time when a small number of giant media corporations already control what the American people see, hear, and read, we do not need another media conglomerate with control over the production and distribution of media content. What we need is less concentration of ownership, more diversity, more local ownership-- and more viewpoints.

By law, the FCC may only sign off on the merger if it determines that it serves ‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity.’ Far from meeting the public interest standard, Comcast’s takeover of NBCU would create a monolithic media superpower and cause irreparable damage to the U.S. media landscape and society as a whole. In addition, the merger of these two media giants would likely precipitate other media mergers and make an already bad situation of media consolidation far worse. Despite the public interest standard, Chairman Genachowski appears to be charging ahead, pressuring his fellow commissioners to approve this deal.

Some take solace in the fact that Chairman Genachowski’s order would approve the merger only subject to certain conditions and regulations. This in no way changes my opinion about the scope of the damage. If this merger is approved, I have little doubt that Comcast-NBCU will retain hundreds of attorneys and lobbyists to exploit gaps and loopholes in any conditions and regulations. Once we allow companies to become this powerful, the FCC does not regulate them. They regulate the FCC.

Time is running out to stop this deal. I hope the American people will take notice and stand with me to demand that the FCC change course, vote down the order, and reverse the disturbing trend of media consolidation.

TechDirt doesn't agree with Sanders and other progressive reformers that the merger would be a real danger to the republic. They feel it's just a bad business decision-- "it'll just be a modern updating of the AOL/Time Warner catastrophe, as management won't really know what to do and will just make things worse off"-- but this week they released some interesting figures worth looking at:

84 of the 97 Congressional Reps, who signed a letter urging that the FCC approve the merger without conditions, received campaign contributions from Comcast.

Now, this is not to say that those 84 are corrupt. But, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, whether or not there is actual corruption here obscures the point that it certainly looks corrupt, and certainly decreases citizens' willingness to trust that their government is acting in the interests of the people they're supposed to represent.

If anything, this brings more support to the idea that if our elected officials are going to accept large donations from companies and then legislate in their interests, it would make sense to require those elected officials to wear patches indicating who's funding them, a la Nascar uniforms.

To me this is absolutely bogus, and I disagree strongly-- every single Member, Democrat and Republican, who took money from Comcast while signing that letter to the FCC is guilty of taking a bribe and should resign from Congress and be prosecuted. First signature, appropriately, is one of the most corrupt bribe-takers in the history of Congress, Joe Barton, best known as the Republican bagman from Big Oil. Comcast handed him $12,000 last year. (He's taken $1,495,780 from Big Oil in his greasy career, including $147,870 in 2010.)

There are 18 Comcast entities actively bribing members of Congress. Here's just the list from this past year alone from one entity. Nor do these figures include the $8,757,000 Comcast spent on lobbying Congress in 2010. This is just the direct, reported, legalized bribes. Below is a list of House Members-- from both parties-- who took over $10,000 each from Comcast and who signed the letter to the FCC. Keep in mind that neither senators nor party leaders sign these kinds of letters, even though they tend to get the biggest bribes. Conservative Democratic senators, both notorious corporate whores and both electoral losers, who got the most dough from Comcast in 2010 were Arlen Specter ($66,630) and Blanche Lincoln ($59,850). The biggest bribery recipient in the House, Eric Cantor ($33,950) is the new Majority Leader, and he didn't sign the letter, nor did the new Speaker, John Boehner ($10,000) or the Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer ($15,500). But all of these crooks did:

Charlie Dent (R-PA)- $18,500
Michael Doyle (D-PA)- $5,000
Joe Barton (R-TX)- $12,000
Fred Upton (R-MI)- $10,000
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)- $5,000
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)- $21,750
Morgan Griffith (R-VA)- $1,000
Robert Latta (R-OH)- $2,000
John Sullivan (R-OK)- $9,000
Adam Smith (D-WA)- $4,000
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)- $1,000
Corrine Brown (D-FL)- $1,000
Albio Sires (D-NJ)- $3,500
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)- $3,000
Laura Richardson (D-CA)- $2,000
Tim Murphy (R-PA)- $10,000
Bill Shuster (R-PA)- $8,000
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- $11,000
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)- $20,000
Patrick Meehan (R-PA)- $12,750
Robert Brady (D-PA)- $25,100
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)- $3,500
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)- $13,750
Jim Gerlach (R-PA)- $18,650
Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- $12,000
Leonard Lance (R-NJ)- $5,000
Mark Critz (D-PA)- $6,500
Glenn Thompson (R-PA)- $6,000
Michael Burgess (R-TX)- $2,000
Phil Gingrey (R-GA)- $8,000
Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $7,000
Sue Myrick (R-NC)- $3,000
Gregg Harper (R-MS)- $7,500
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)- $10,000
Mike Rogers (R-MI)- $8,000
John Shimkus (R-IL)- $10,000
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- $6,000
Ralph Hall (R-TX)- 2,000
Pete Olson (R-TX)- $2,500
Ed Whitfield (R-KY)- $6,000
Greg Walden (R-OR)- $7,000
Charles Bass (R-NH)- $7,150
Lee Terry (R-NE)- $7,500
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)- $10,000
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)- $1,000
Gerald Connolly (D-VA)- $8,834
Jim Himes (D-CT)- $5,000
Steve Cohen (D-TN)- $4,000
Chris Murphy (D-CT)- $8,500
Ed Perlmutter (D-CO)- $7,500
Robert Andrews (D-NJ)- $4,000
John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)- $10,000
G. K. Butterfield (D-NC)- $5,000
Chris Smith (R-NJ)- $3,000
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $3,000
Adam Schiff (Blue Dog-CA)- $2,000
Sanford Bishop, Jr. (Blue Dog-GA)- $1,000
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)- $8,500
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)- $6,500
John Lewis (D-GA)- $2,500
Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA)- $4,000
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)- $7,250
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $4,000
Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)- $1,500
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)- $1,000
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)- $6,500
Michael Capuano (D-MA)- $5,500
John Larson (D-CT)- $7,500
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)- $7,250
David Rivera (R-FL)- $1,000
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- $2,000
Richard Neal (D-MA)- $3,500
Joe Courtney (D-CT)- $4,750
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- $1,000
Rosa Delauro (D-CT)- $4,500
Ted Deutch (D-FL)- $2,000
Loretta Sanchez (Blue Dog-CA)- $6,500
Sam Graves (R-MO)- $7,500
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)- $1,000
Howard Berman (D-CA)- $4,500
Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $5,000
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)- $4,000
Sam Johnson (R-TX)- $3,000

Is our democracy for sale? Are you kidding?