Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Executives Appear To Share Cozy Relationships With Regulators

v3rgEz (125380) writes A month before Comcast's announcement of a $45B takeover of rival Time-Warner, Comcast's top lobbyist invited the US government's top antitrust regulators to share the company's VIP box at the Sochi Olympics. A Freedom of Information Act request from Muckrock reveals that the regulators reluctantly declined, saying "it sounds like so much fun" but the pesky "rules folks" would frown on it, instead suggesting a more private dinner later.

19 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Not a VIP box at the Olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They invited them to a party Comcast was throwing at the Newseum in D.C., which is a far cry from "the company's VIP box at the Sochi Olympics."

    1. Re:Not a VIP box at the Olympics by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wish I had mod points, since AC has it right. If you check the document attached with the article, page 26 has the actual invitation itself, and it clearly says the event is in D.C., rather than in Sochi, and there's no mention at all of a VIP box or anything of the sort. This story went from "Comcast cordially invited them to an opening ceremony event at the Newseum" in the actual invitation to "Comcast invited them to an event for the Sochi opening ceremony" in the article to "Comcast invited them to a VIP box at Sochi" in the \. summary.

      It's a non-story. Just regular schmoozing. Though the fact that regular schmoozing is a non-story might be a story in and of itself...

    2. Re:Not a VIP box at the Olympics by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 2

      It's a non-story. Just regular schmoozing. Though the fact that regular schmoozing is a non-story might be a story in and of itself...

      The takeaway here is that Comcast is in bed with industry regulators. While we all knew this already, we shouldn't allow that fact to cloud our judgement about the obviously unacceptable state of current affairs.

      This email clearly shows a cordial relationship between the correspondents. It should be illegal for corporations to make this kind of offer to a regulator, and it should be illegal for a regulator to have any kind of social contact with industry lobbyists. Hell, a meeting between regulators and lobbyists can't even rightly be framed as a business meeting, because private corporations don't have any business negotiating terms when it comes to legislative oversight. If private industry has something to say to the legislature, or if the legislature needs guidance from private industry, the exchange should occur in an open forum without need of gifts or galavanting.

      If this doesn't count as a conflict of interest for the regulators in question, what does? Those "rules folks" ought to have a damn similar opinion about that dinner...

    3. Re:Not a VIP box at the Olympics by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2

      Then invalidated the mod point by posting in the same discussion..

  2. I'm not sure what the uproar is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate Comcast/Time Warner as much as the next guy but... I work in sourcing and this is the exact type of email I would send back to a vendor that is overstepping reasonable G&E (gift and entertainment) bounds. What else should they have said? Just not responded? Jeez.

    1. Re:I'm not sure what the uproar is... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had that same thought. This is SOP for any professional relationship. The language in the e-mail is very informal but polite, also SOP. Where's the smoking gun here?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:I'm not sure what the uproar is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just to be clear, I take the response that they made to actually be better than not responding or saying "no thanks" - by bringing up the "rule folks" it clearly indicated that the request was improper to begin with and is a polite way of telling the lobbyist to stop sending such invitations.

  3. Say it ain't so. . . by Idou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose I could go into a rant and write a long post lamenting the influence of the wealthy on our government. However, I think I will just shut-up and do something about it instead by going here and doubling my pledge. . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Say it ain't so. . . by Idou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see, so because the poster (who could be supporting the agenda of either side) exaggerated, Comcast's invitation is now completely kosher (how many regulator have you schmoozed lately, regardless of the venue?), and the U.S. no longer has a regulatory capture problem that needs to be addressed. . .

      You know, for awhile I thought it was the overwhelming power of the wealthy that prevented change, but now I get the sense that it is the underwhelming intellectual capability of people like yourself that are dragging us down. Happy 4th. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  4. Re:Blatant corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is blatant corruption. But it's the US, so nobody will give a shit, and the crony capitalism will continue until it ruins the entire country.

    I dislike crony capitalism and worse, the insider oligarchy running this country, but blatant corruption would be him accepting the gift, not declining it.

  5. Public Choice Theory by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Regulatory Capture results in regulators being captured.

  6. Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While Slashdot's modus operandi is soak us in hyperbole and half truths while daring us to make fools of ourselves in this case there is not even a morsel of parity between headline and TFA and as such goes too far.

    Headline might as well have read.. "Comcast executives appear to have sexual encounters with unicorns" while casually quoting a document which provides no evidence of the same.

  7. Re: Headline by HairyNevus · · Score: 2

    Uhm, no fucking shit. Obligatory

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
  8. Re:That's nothing by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

    The circles of power are incestuous! News at 11!

    Christ, is this really what passes for news on slashdot these days? "Appears"? Pull the other one!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  9. Obama's Ethics Website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

    -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
    November 10, 2007

    http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

    Yes, this is still up on the Internet, even today.

  10. Make that illegal by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    That should simply be illegal. It's good to have meetings with related businesses to express concerns etc., but it should be in a plain government meeting room with no perks: no food, no dancers, no music, etc.

  11. Re:That's nothing by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Informative

    And that's hardly anything new, either. Andrea Mitchell of NBC married Alan Greenspan in 1997; he was Chairman of the Fed at the time, and continued in that role until 2006. Nice little bit of "extraordinary access" NBC had there during Clinton's and W's presidencies.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  12. Re:Cronyism at its finest. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    It's been at that all-time high for several decades now at least. Yes, no one cares much about it or at least not enough people to make it stop.

  13. Ya' think? by medusa-v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my former hometown of Philly, there's a saying "you can vote for whatever you want, but you can't against Comcast." For all practical purposes they have a monopoly on wired Internet access in the city.