Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Ghost-Writes Politician's Letters To Support Time Warner Mega-Merger

WheezyJoe writes: As the FCC considers the merger between Comcast/Universal and Time-Warner Cable, which would create the largest cable company in the U.S. and is entering the final stages of federal review, politicians are pressuring the FCC with pro-merger letters actually written by Comcast. According to documents obtained through public records requests, politicians are passing letters nearly word-for-word written by Comcast as their own. "Not only do records show that a Comcast official sent the councilman the exact wording of the letter he would submit to the FCC, but also that finishing touches were put on the letter by a former FCC official named Rosemary Harold, who is now a partner at one of the nation's foremost telecom law firms in Washington, DC. Comcast has enlisted Harold to help persuade her former agency to approve the proposed merger."

Ars Technica had already reported that politicians have closely mimicked Comcast talking points and re-used Comcast's own statements without attribution. The documents revealed today show just how deeply Comcast is involved with certain politicians, and how they were able to get them on board.

181 comments

  1. Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When companies can "effectively" just "buy laws" (and/or Politicians) corruption knows no bounds for price gouging.

    1. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

      Publicly funded elections would be awesome (with complex rules ensuring multiple party elections, but that make sure participants to have x numbers of signatures or x percentage of polling). Don't need the Goat Herders of Little Russia North getting too much money for no reason :-)

    2. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's indeed disgusting. We are largely a plutocracy and few citizens seem to give a fudge. We chastise China, Cuba, N. Korea etc. for not having democracies, but neither do we, making us hypocrites.

      (I know, technically we were a "republic", not a "democracy", but they functioned as mostly the same thing for most of our history.)

    3. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Pffft! DC is a giant Pavlov experiment. The behavior you see is highly rewarded. Just stop voting for the crooked politicians who bring back all that pork and the problem will clear up. 95% reelection rates really are an embarrassment, and with out any independents at all. Hardly a good reflection on the people who vote.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, most choices are A. corruption or B. corrupt.

      If the politicians are using the words of that corporation, what do you think the chance of the merger passing are?

    5. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Then write in C: Mickey Mouse.

      VOTE! Can you imagine how both parties would freak if a cartoon character beat them at the polls?

      Then again, it happened down in SoCal land... "I'll be back!"

    6. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Informative

      When companies can "effectively" just "buy laws" (and/or Politicians) corruption knows no bounds for price gouging.

      Not just companies. The political network overseen by the Koch brothers is getting ready to spend $900 Million on the 2016 elections.

      Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state Capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When companies can "effectively" just "buy laws" (and/or Politicians) corruption knows no bounds for price gouging.

      What laws were bought?

      It's hard to get upset over three politicians who wanted to support the merger and asked Comcast for help writing a letter to the FCC. I'm more upset that the politicians are writing letters AT ALL, since that's an open attempt at speaking over the voices of their constituents who are capable of writing their own letters. I.e., a city councilor or mayor who writes a letter on behalf of his city is stealing the speech from all the people who don't agree with his opinion.

    8. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Publicly funded elections would be awesome (with complex rules ensuring multiple party elections, but that make sure participants to have x numbers of signatures or x percentage of polling). Don't need the Goat Herders of Little Russia North getting too much money for no reason :-)

      In other words, only the popular opinions get to be heard and the unpopular ones have no chance at all.

    9. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to only getting to hear the ones paid for by the elite ruling class?

    10. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, only the popular opinions get to be heard and the unpopular ones have no chance at all.

      Yes. And the candidate with the least need for funding is the incumbent. It takes more spending to get into office, than to stay in office. Public funding is a job protection racket for incumbents.

    11. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      We tried that in Canada along with limits on campaign contributions and spending during elections. Worked OK until the Conservatives got in and they canceled the public campaign financing to save tax payers money, neutered Elections Canada so not only they can't hardly investigate anything but can't even talk about it and now the government spends more money on telling us how great the Conservatives are then used to get spent on election financing and the party itself has continuous ads telling us how horrible the other choices are.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but repeating it doesn't make you look intelligent, it makes you look stupid.

      Since you seem to care about perception, that tone makes you look like an Aspergers neck-beard. Simply correct the writer with your side of the story and move on.

    13. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy doesn't mean we get the government we want, just the government we voted for. The people in congress were elected in free and fair elections.

      Technically, perhaps. Effectively, no. Contrast our typical ballot:

      [__] Bribed Politician A.
      [__] Bribed Politician B.
      [__] No-name who has no chance of winning such that you are throwing away your vote.

      with a typical dictatorship ballot for representatives:

      [__] Dictator-selected Candidate A.
      [__] Dictator-selected Candidate B.
      [__] Dictator-selected Candidate C.

      This difference is relatively minor. The plutocrats are pretty much fulfilling the same role as the dictator(s).

    14. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ya... No
      The funding would be presumably equal so the incumbent can't out spend the opponent by shaking down donors.
      so wheres the protection racket?

    15. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Brother, remove the log that is in your own eye so that you may see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye. In a democracy, the people vote on laws, budgets, wars and everything else. In a republic, the people elect representatives who vote on laws, budgets, wars, and everything else. That's what people generally understand, and how they use the terms. You can quibble over more precise terms like "direct democracy" vs. "democratic republic" etc. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. But I can't think of any way you could independently verify what I said. I wish there was some independent reference materials you could consult. Can someone help me out here?

      --
      Join the IParty!
    16. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Then write in C: Mickey Mouse.

      Precisely. But people would rather play helpless to absolve themselves of responsibility.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

      Having 3 or more candidate elections would ensure more voices are heard, I would think in the US it would probably be 4-6 candidates per election (never will every opinion be heard). The great thing is candidates wouldn't have to tow the party line because they would no longer need two parties to raise funds... Elections would be tighter and there would be more participation (because it's more interesting).

    18. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Having 3 or more candidate elections would ensure more voices are heard,

      Yeah, three voices all spouting the same popular opinions. Who said that having multiple copies of the same opinion was a good thing?

      (never will every opinion be heard)

      There is a significant difference between an unpopular candidate not finding funding for his speech to be heard and the government legislatively taking his ability to speak away. In the former, an unpopular candidate may have sufficient money of his own to pay for his own speech; in the latter he is legally prohibited from spending his own money to speak.

      A more textbook example of a violation of the first amendment, and the reason why the first amendment is necessary in the first place, would be hard to find.

      The great thing is candidates wouldn't have to tow the party line because they would no longer need two parties to raise funds...

      Those who didn't toe the party line wouldn't be party candidates, and it would be the parties who do the work to get the signatures to get the money.

      Elections would be tighter and there would be more participation (because it's more interesting).

      I don't know why a "tighter" (closer?) election is necessarily a good thing, and you really need a citation for the ridiculous claim that limiting the number of voices in an election to the popular opinions would make it any more interesting, or that "more participation" is defacto a good thing.

    19. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to invite you to the real world.

      Where we have had presidents lose the popular vote and still win office.

      Or elections where anyone worth voting for isn't even mentioned in the media and the 2 they all huddle around spend over 1.5 BILLION dollars for a presidential job that pays 1 MILLION per year.

      And places in it like North Carolina, where I live, where with a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans, the 13 Seats we have gets split between 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Where the Democrats would need about 80% of the vote just to get 50% of the seats if they were lucky.

    20. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...wheres the protection racket?

      With the administrators of the fund. Appointees, or elected to the job? Distribution will be politically 'guided'. We don't need this shit. We have an internet now. A lot more people can be heard than before, and we can do a lot better background checks. The damn voters just have to listen and learn to filter out the spam. There is no rule that requires voting for the guy who spends the most. We do not need to censor anybody's speech in any fashion. That includes the money spent. If bullshit is such a hot commodity that gets results, who is anybody to say boo?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      We tried that in Canada along with limits on campaign contributions and spending during elections. Worked OK until the Conservatives got in and they canceled the public campaign financing to save tax payers money...

      Well if the Conservatives 'got in'(was there a miscount?), it can only mean the rules didn't work too well.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      NO! You throw away your vote when you vote for the bribed politician. And you bury it deep when you reelect him/her over and over. The chance of winning is strictly dependent on your vote, not the money, not anything else. When you vote for the bribed politician, it is YOU who is selling your vote to the highest bidder.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you figure that one. No party affiliation on the ballot would eliminate rote party voting. It would also probably give rise to many local parties, although I doubt nationally there would be more than 4 or 5.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    24. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Multiple parties allow the tyranny of the minority. Last election with more cheating then ever they managed to get 38% of the people who managed to vote with many ridings very close.
      At one point we had 6 parties in Parliament, now 4 including the Greens one seat and the couple that the Bloc has with the right having merged their two parties. While for a few governments we had minorities, meaning one party didn't have an effective dictatorship (party discipline is very powerful in Westminster type parliamentary systems) and things were good, the Conservatives did get a majority last election so they can pass 800 page omnibus budget bills that no-one has time to read and invoke closure whenever the opposition has questions. It's also a good way to overwhelm the Supreme Court so not too many laws can get declared unconstitutional like there upcoming law allowing preventative arrests, catch criminals before they do anything and make us safe.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Except this does not happen under the Oligarchy we currently have. Obama won because people are/were fed up with the corruption. Obama's whole platform was "hope and change", with lines like "I'm going to hold bankers accountable" and "I will be transparent and honest". As soon as he's voted in he does everything GWB did, or close enough where voters can't really tell the difference. His second term was more of the same rhetoric, and an opponent who was completely dysfunctional (when looking at the ticket). It was not a choice to anyone. I don't think McCain is as idiotic as they made him seem, nor Palin for that matter (possibly on both however). That said, he was sabre rattling and openly vowing to resume everything Bush did with 0 changes benefiting the majority.

      The D&R show is nothing but drama to keep the masses feeling like they can make a difference. The same people that own the media own the candidates thanks to Citizens United (which was intentionally misnamed to confuse the masses), and that should tell you everything you need to know. Yeah yeah, I know plenty of people that think the WWE is really wrasslin too..

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    26. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Sadly that's an accurate summary of the problem caused by First-Past-the-Post voting.

      One solution is run-off voting or the Alternative vote.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    27. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

      A more textbook example of a violation of the first amendment, and the reason why the first amendment is necessary in the first place, would be hard to find.

      If the person has money they still can buy billboard, commercials, etc if they have an opinion, so they still have their freedom of speech right. I don't remember the amendment where the right to spend money on your own election is...

    28. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Unless a sufficient number of people vote for the 3rd party candidates, you are diminishing your selection power. At least voting for the top 2 gives a reasonable chance of making a small difference. (I think such stalemate is called the Nash equilibrium.)

      And just because you are a third-party candidate does not mean you cannot be bribed.

    29. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [__] Bribed Politician A.
      [__] Bribed Politician B.
      [__] No-name who has no chance of winning such that you are throwing away your vote.

      Unless, of course, the sheep - excuse me, the people - actually think about this for more than 5 seconds and decide to vote for the third candidate in force.

      Suddenly, that non-name won and change was effected.

      Making that happen, though...

    30. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      One solution is run-off voting

      That is the way it works in Louisiana. It is generally considered to be the most corrupt and worst governed state in America.

      Plenty of other countries also use run-off voting. There is no evidence that it leads to either better government, or a more satisfied electorate.

      http://xkcd.com/661/

    31. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada did the $1 per vote in the previous election, per year.
      Tally up the votes, next year $1 from every tax-payer goes proportionately to the parties voted on (min 3 or 4% national required; Greens took like 2 election cycles to reach that threshhold by fielding a candidate in every riding)

      So one could say that for ~20*4=80 million, the election is run.

      Though Harper did put a wrench in this by actually forcing elections to happen every 4 years, rather than arbitarily with 3 months notice.
      So now, it's becoming like teh US where for the last year, year-and-a-half leading to the election, policitans stop working and start campaining :\

      I miss the "election in three months!" *everyone campains* *vote* *back to work for 08 - 84 months (5-7 years used to be common)

    32. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I do not care what other people do. I will not vote for a republican or democrat. Godwin time: I wouldn't vote for Mussolini just to keep Hitler out of office just because he may have killed fewer people and offers a better dental plan.

      As for third partiers taking bribes, so what? Vote them out when they do. Repeat until you get a good one. Whatever happens, good or bad, it is the voters who must be held responsible. In a way they kind of are, in that they also suffer the effects, but what they vote for is to pass the suffering to the 'other guy'. It's what can be called, "Fuck your neighbor".

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    33. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      It's what can be called, "Fuck your neighbor".

      I tried that, but she wasn't interested.

    34. Re: Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all receipts for every single billboard and ad has been added up and accounted for, the sum can't exceed a certain sum or the candidate is discarded. Simple.

    35. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I weep for humanity if you honestly believe that.

    36. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Chuckle.

      At this point they're not really buying the laws, they're effectively WRITING them.
      They're just buying the congress-critters signature to put at the bottom :D

    37. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      """
      Technically, perhaps. Effectively, no. Contrast our typical ballot:

      [__] Bribed Politician A.
      [__] Bribed Politician B.
      [__] No-name who has no chance of winning such that you are throwing away your vote.

        """

      The underlying, unsaid statement behind this sentiment has always been that the majority of people are really stupid. The bribed politician succeeds only at the behest of voters.. In other words, people actually believe the ads.

    38. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      We chastise China, Cuba, N. Korea etc. for not having democracies, but neither do we

      Yes we do. Democracy doesn't mean we get the government we want, just the government we voted for. The people in congress were elected in free and fair elections.

      I know, technically we were a "republic", not a "democracy"

      I don't know where this idiotic meme, that a "republic is not a democracy" started, but repeating it doesn't make you look intelligent, it makes you look stupid. Please stop doing it.

      I think part of the US's political problems is that there is absolutely no mechanism for long-term planning. Places like China (through its ironhanded 1-party system) and Saudi Arabia (through a monarchy) can make long-term plans and stick to them unless the situation changes. 5-year and 10-year programs are a lot more common in non-democracies. The US doesn't have any mechanism for this, so our governing is just reacting to problems and kicking the can down the road. Even if both parties agree to a plan which lasts longer than a year, they are free to (and almost always) change it just as soon as it is convenient or beneficial for their career to do so.

      I think the US would benefit a lot if we had an additional branch of government which set broad long-term goals for the benefit of the country, and had sufficient power to make it happen. Checks and balances would need to be added. Companies which only look to the next quarter struggle in the long run, and Countries are no different.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    39. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Your viewpoint is too idealistic in my opinion to result in a practical difference. You are fighting a personal war that nobody else is attending, tilting at windmills.

      My two semi solutions are to put a ceiling on campaign contributions (which the current Supreme Court is against), and to have federal-level issue votes, not just representative votes.

    40. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I am at war with nobody. I am just not interested in bullshit. If I stand alone, so be it. I won't be obligated to 'play along'.

      My two semi solutions are to put a ceiling on campaign contributions

      That is censorship. I'm against it too. You are free to tune out and make all that money worthless and put the people you want on the ballot.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    41. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You can't really say this isn't democracy, when the democracy is actually functioning more or less as designed.

      Granted, there are different forms of democracy, but good luck finding one where someone isn't in power who doesn't represent the people exactly.

      Democracy is useful only for legitimacy of government, not for coming up with right answers. If you want a *better* government, democracy may be some small part of it, but there is nothing about true democracy that prevents it from supporting an elected oligarchy. And that elected oligarchy, if the actual cheating and forced votes are kept to a minimum, is as much a democratic system as one that elects a great leadership team.

      There is no system in existence that prevents the intelligent, the rich or the ambitious from obtaining power. There is only, perhaps, a system that is able to direct that influence to ends that are less bad than others.

    42. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That is the crux of the issue. You can spend 1 trillion dollars on a campaign and that doesn't mean I'll vote for that candidate.

      The real problem is that it *does* work for larger blocs of voters. But the money is only the means of taking advantage of that flaw, not actually a corruption of democracy or free speech.

      Citizens United has zero impact on who I will vote for. In fact, it has zero impact on anyone who has a well formed political position that they have researched. However, we know that money means that people who get to vote, but who get their "facts" from TV ads, will be affected. This is unfortunate, but not the fault of free speech. It is a flaw of our democracy (and possibly every realistic democracy based in the current era).

    43. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If the person has money they still can buy billboard, commercials, etc if they have an opinion, so they still have their freedom of speech right.

      Not if campaign finance becomes limited to public funding based on polling percentages, as was the desire of the person I first replied to.

      I don't remember the amendment where the right to spend money on your own election is...

      There is no amendment specifically for campaign spending, and campaign finance laws quite often violate the letter, if not just the intent, of the existing First Amendment. Converting the current "system" into one that is funded by public money alone and the "up north" groups don't get any to spend is a clear violation of the existing constitution.

    44. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      In a democracy, the people vote on laws, budgets, wars and everything else. In a republic, the people elect representatives who vote on laws, budgets, wars, and everything else. That's what people generally understand, and how they use the terms.

      Not really, because there are very few examples of direct democracy, especially in our contemporary world. Nobody but pedants and classical historians think of the population voting on everything when they think of democracy. Both in definition and in popular conception, "democracy" just means that the people have some say in the governing. Republic is a subset of democracy.

      I wish there was some independent reference materials you could consult. Can someone help me out here?

      Luckily enough, there is!

      democracy (noun)
      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    45. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As opposed to only getting to hear the ones paid for by the elite ruling class?

      You have it 100% backwards. Under the current system if you've got enough money to pay for an ad, you can do that. (With the exception of certain ads that applies to all.) If you can get people together to pay for your ads, you can do that. Citizen's United kept that possible. (CU wasn't a new thing, it reiterated an existing concept called "free speech" even for people who are members of a group.)

      Under a public campaign financing system where ads are paid for by the public and money is limited to those who have met some popularity contest, all you'll get to hear are ads from those who the "elite ruling class" have decided pass the test. Independent voices will go away because they won't get the money authorized to buy ads. Unpopular opinions are not wanted and must be silenced.

      I'm sorry if all you listen to today are the ads paid for by the "elite ruling class", but my radio and TV carry all kinds of ads from people who haven't passed the popularity contests during campaign season. Yes, I'd love it if there was a prohibition on this seemingly endless stream of nonsense from people I know are lying (feel free to apply that to whichever party you think it applies to), but I realize that it only lasts a couple of weeks and that any "solution" to the problem would be worse than the problem it's trying to solve. Perhaps that's because I understand that the First Amendment isn't there to protect speech that is popular, it's there for unpopular speech.

    46. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand how people pushing and passing 800 page omnibus bills are called conservative. That's anything but. If only things could be called what they are again.

    47. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yes it is a form of "soft" censorship. So be it. We have to sacrifice some ideals to avoid living in a corporate waste-land. Tradeoffs tradeoffs.

      You are free to tune out and make all that money worthless and put the people you want on the ballot.

      What "works" for you or me doesn't necessarily scale to the rest of voters.

    48. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We have to sacrifice some ideals...

      You go ahead. I'll stick to mine. I don't play the appeasement game to curry favor. No tradeoffs are necessary.

      Instead of covering peoples' eyes, ears, and mouth, teach them how to resist. Censorship is the devil's work.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    49. Re:Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 1
      Yes, the most natural thing for a direct democracy is to vote to become a republic. Nobody wants to vote on every banking regulation, fishing quota, and patent term adjustment procedure. But there are greater opportunities for direct democracy now, especially where the issues are of popular concern. Legislators, for example, are too beholden to entrenched interests to legalize marijuana; it is typically citizen initiatives that force their hands. So I don't think the idea of direct democracy is dead. It can live side by side with representative democracy.

      .

      And I agree that a republic can be a subset of a democracy, but it is not exclusively a subset of democracy, which is what Tablizer pointed out. Leaders in a republic can be chosen by an aristocracy, for example. A republic can be a plutocracy, where only the rich people or landed class get to choose the law makers. A plutocracy is not what most people would consider a democracy. Ordinary folks don't get to vote on laws or leaders in a plutocracy. Many well informed people have suggested we are effectively a plutocracy in the US, including Tablizer. So ShanghaiBill should not have suggested that making the distinction between a democracy and a republic made Tablizer look "stupid". The distinction is not an "idiotic meme". They are not mutually exclusive, as you point out, but they are not the same, either.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    50. Re: Money *needs* to be removed from Politics ... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Well if the Conservatives 'got in'(was there a miscount?), it can only mean the rules didn't work too well.

      Wow. So the point of the initial election reforms in Canada was to block out the Conservatives, and having failed in their attempt to silence their opponents, the new Minority party (liberals? I don't follow Canadian politics.) is upset that they now find themselves being suppressed.

      There are a couple ways to respond:

      "You started it"

      "Turnaround is fair play"

      "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"

      "Serves you right"

      --
      Ken
  2. Angry, lost my template at this story by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is blown way out of proportion. Companies are made of citizens who get to persuade officials like anyone else.

    I (insert Senator's name here) stake my reputation on it!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Angry, lost my template at this story by Harodotus · · Score: 0

      I was going to strongly disagree, but I didn't want to hear the Whoooosh of the Parent Post's Sarcasm passing over my head...

      At least I hope it is sarcasm, I wouldn't put anything past Comcast
      <forced meta-insert by Comcast net> but they are the most customer focused and patriotic company who only deserves further deregulation  </meta-insert>

      --
      Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
  3. circle jerk by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Informative

    glad to see we have the best government money can buy!

    1. Re:circle jerk by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Companies like Comcast can rest assured that when their politicians are bought they stay bought!

    2. Re:circle jerk by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Companies like Comcast can rest assured that when their politicians are bought they stay bought!

      Can they? "Staying bought" assumes some level of integrity, which leads one to a contradiction. It seems to me that if politicians can be bought at all, in all probability they can be bought multiple times.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:circle jerk by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't assume loyalty. It works on the fact that Comcast has pays more.

    4. Re:circle jerk by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Argh that came out all mangled. Should be:

      No, it doesn't assume integrity. It works on the fact that Comcast pays more.

    5. Re:circle jerk by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Argh that came out all mangled. Should be:

      No, it doesn't assume integrity. It works on the fact that Comcast pays more.

      Seems to me that this only works if Comcast pays something now with the promise of more after the vote. -- which may be the case.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:circle jerk by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      They can also promise a nice, cushy lobbyist position after the Congressman retires from public office. So you act like a good little politician and parrot just what your corporate masters tell you to say so that when you decide to step down you will be paid a good wage to sit around doing nothing with the occasional passing corporate "requests" on to your old colleagues.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:circle jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > glad to see we have the best government money can buy!

      Not only that, it is a great bargain.

      The Oregon secretary of state got only $10K from Comcast since 2008. That's less than $5/day or barely enough to feed 4 starving africans. That deal ought to be posted on fatwallet.com!

  4. There should be a law by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

    There should be a law that letters and proposed laws/amendments should require a list of all contributors (bring the companies, lobbyists into the light).

    1. Re:There should be a law by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The best proposal I heard was to require members of Congress to wear the emblems of their major sponsors, the way Nascar Drivers do. At least then we can easily see who's paying for them.

    2. Re:There should be a law by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

      The emblems would be sooooo small because there are so many you wouldn't be able to read them :-)

    3. Re:There should be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have the emblem size be proportional to the percentage of total contributions

    4. Re:There should be a law by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The emblems would be sooooo small because there are so many you wouldn't be able to read them :-)

      Only the top ten or so even get space.

      Here's another way to handle it. Whenever they appear on television, block out x% of their face and words based on their campaign contributions. Whoever gets least comes through at 100%, whoever gets most is just a wall of ads, and everyone else falls somewhere in-between

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. To whom is may concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast is great. Comcast is all. Comcast is mother. Comcast is father. Comcast loves you. All hail Comcast.

    1. Re:To whom is may concern by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I almost read the C word as communism from Soviet Russia or Chairman Mao.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:To whom is may concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greatest trick that the Devil ever played was to convince us that the Other Guy was the evil one.

  6. Lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA Inc will handle your police too. And all of you will be either employed there or in prison. I actually feel a bit sorry for you.

  7. Us Too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where's the forum letter I can sign and send to the FCC against the merger as well as one to my state reps (OH) telling them not to do this shit? If someone does the work of making good arguments against them I'll add my name to it, but I'm not motivated enough to write a well researched letter on my own and figure out where to send it.

    1. Re:Us Too? by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      John Oliver makes this kinda shit. In fact, they crashed the site after he called them out for "cable company fuckery"

      Read about it here: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

      In addition, watch the whole segment here, it's wonderful:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. I'm Senator Rob Lowe by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I support Cable!

    --
    Gently reply
  9. On behalf of the rest of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...get your fucking shit together...create a new political party that actually represents the people...use social media to spread the word and fucking challenge both your shitty corporate owned parties.
    What the FUCK are you waiting for???

    1. Re: On behalf of the rest of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone to do it for them.

    2. Re:On behalf of the rest of the world... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The public at large is too engrossed in shows like American Idol to be concerned with what's going on in the country.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    3. Re:On behalf of the rest of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that would require
      1. Knowledge of stuff
      2. Voting
      3. Effort

    4. Re: On behalf of the rest of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All yous who constantly drivel your "vote" BS can go fuck yourselves. The only way to force the likes of comcast or tw to change is to simply cancel and use ota and torrents. I for one will NEVER (again) have a bill in my name from a 'cable' provider.
      And yes, most people are too stupid and lazy to figure that out. The situation is beyond pathetic wherein the masses can't seem to exist without a monthly tv bill. I really don't gaf what they do for the simple reason they will NEVER see a penny from me. Sure I watch tv, difference is I'm not addicted like most usa zombies are.

    5. Re:On behalf of the rest of the world... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for someone to notice. www.i-party.us

      --
      Join the IParty!
  10. I have a simple legitimate solution to the problem by F34nor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If every household in America bought $150 in Comcast stock each month instead of paying their cable bill it would take ~3 years to buy them out. If everyone canceled their account and bought stock it would take less time. Kickstarter's limit is too small for this idea btw. Then we vote out the current board and replace them with Lessig, Nader et al. and BAM gigabit bidirectional IPV6 with al a carte channels.

    Too communist for you? Go fuck your self.

  11. Any particular party? by debrain · · Score: 1

    Just curious, are the politicians predominantly from one party?

    1. Re:Any particular party? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      the GREEN party

  12. One-sided PR by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    I see their pro-merger ads on TV and the web. Why are there no anti-merger ads? The public is only hearing one side.

    It would be nice to crowd-fund some ads that describe how we need more competition and more competitors rather than huge bribe-heavy oligopolies. I'd donate $10 or so to such.

    1. Re:One-sided PR by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      It's easy. Comcast is a multi-billion dollar company. They can pay for the public to hear only one side.

    2. Re:One-sided PR by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't NetFlix or smaller competitors chime in for the opposition? I suspect it's because they hope to merge one day also. Merging into oligopolies is a Get-Out-Of-Competition-For-Free card.

      It's why Detroit became fat, dumb, and happy in the 1970's.

    3. Re:One-sided PR by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't NetFlix or smaller competitors chime in for the opposition?

      They have.

    4. Re:One-sided PR by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I see Comcast/TW's ads repeatedly, not NetFlix's counter-merger ads. Although granted, it's not a scientific sample.

  13. They come that cheap? by Morris+Thorpe · · Score: 2

    Of course everything is fucked, etc....but does anyone else find it surprising how cheaply these guys will bend over?
    10 grand to whore yourself?

    Seems almost like you could troll for fun at those prices: "Hey, whore, here's the money. Now sign this petition to outlaw ostriches."

    1. Re:They come that cheap? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      does anyone else find it surprising how cheaply these guys will bend over?

      No. The petty cost of trading influence is well known. William Greider detailed this phenomena 23 years ago in "Who Will Tell the People." A nice fur coat or use of a private plane is often sufficient.

      Seems almost like you could troll for fun at those prices

      That won't work. They don't simply spin about on a whim. The sellouts are predisposed to the buyers for many reasons and the tokens you're dwelling on are really just obligatory offerings and partly symbolic; tossing a liberal some exclusive theater tickets usually won't buy a pro-gun vote.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:They come that cheap? by Livius · · Score: 1

      But the 10 000 isn't for a specific purpose, and probably there will be no conclusive proof of corruption.

      It's simply that people who agree with the donors are the ones who receive money, and only people receiving money have any realistic chance to participate.

      In fact, almost all politicians are some combination of sincerely convinced of what they claim, too ignorant to understand what they claim, or simply mentally ill.

      Which means a tiny bit more money isn't going to change their mind.

    3. Re:They come that cheap? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also not just the one time deal. It's about an established relationship. The money you make in politics/government is never made IN office, it's mostly made AFTER. Sure, there are the book deals, but those pale next to the speaking fees, the seats on corporate boards, or the amount of money that will simply be thrown at you because you know people, and people know you. If you're part of the elite and the in-crowd, you reap those rewards later. It often doesn't even need to be stated, it's simply a given. Maybe you find a plum lobbying job, or become the head of an industry association, or sit on the board of Comcast, or get invited to head a powerful interest group. It's the revolving door, and the higher up you are, the bigger the payout gets... if you have friends after you get out. They remember, and if you were on their side, they'll take care of you.

    4. Re:They come that cheap? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      I think you found the nail, but nothing actually needs to be bought or sold. You find a politician who is already ideologically predisposed to support your position, and you just go to them to shore up that support. That may mean campaign help, or simply being friendly.

      Bribes can be expensive, but they are always risky. Finding someone who already agrees with you is safe, easy and cheap. The GOP is traditionally pro-business, so send them all a form letter to pass on to the FCC and say it's to fight burdensome regulations. Just like when any PAC provides a form letter with a good argument for its position for citizens to then sign and send in to their representatives.

    5. Re:They come that cheap? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      At those bargain basement prices, maybe we can do a kickstarter to buy our own politician!!

  14. I'm Elizabeth Warren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I support Deadpool!
    So do I!

  15. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this a surprise when most laws which benefit corporations are actually written by lobbyists for those corporations?

  16. Re:Frist Psot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never will again if the merger happens. Dice doesn't have the money or fame to buy a fast lane on Comcast's network. Your speed to Slashdot will drop.

  17. Just like other organizations do? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Form letters have been a part of every advocacy campaign. This is news?

  18. Dingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, all a bunch of Dingoes.

    1. Re:Dingo by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      They eat the children.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  19. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    If every household in America bought $150 in Comcast stock each month instead of paying their cable bill it would take ~3 years to buy them out. If everyone canceled their account and bought stock it would take less time.

    Only because the stock price would plummet and the company would be worth only the value of the plant. At that point Time-Warner buys it from bankruptcy for a pittance and the merger happens anyway.

    What significant difference is there between nobody paying their cable bill and everyone cancelling service? A couple of months into the former and service would be cancelled automatically AND the company would have a large amount of write-off for the bad debts.

    Then we vote out the current board and replace them with Lessig, Nader et al. and BAM gigabit bidirectional IPV6 with al a carte channels.

    What color is the sky on your world, Cliff? Why not ask for unicorns while you're at it? Who PAYS for all this infrastructure upgrade if there are no subscribers?

  20. That may not help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I heard Mickey Mouse is a corporate stooge.

    1. Re:That may not help by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I heard Mickey Mouse is a corporate stooge.

      Absolutely not.

  21. You say tomato ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The documents revealed today show just how deeply Comcast is involved with certain politicians, and how they were able to get them on board.

    "on board" ... "in bed" - whatever. Wear a condom Congress-critters and feel lucky. Most of "we the people" have to wear two when taking it from - I mean "dealing with" - Comcast.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  22. To paraphrase James Carville by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through Congress, you never know what you'll find."

    (Original here)

  23. The system is corrupt ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like it or not, the corporations have more or less rigged the game.

    There is no chance in hell we get what we want, because the politicians have all quite literally been bought and paid for, and are little more than corporate shills.

    This is precisely why all of those people who bray about deregulation and the free market are either deluded, or in on the scam -- because these systems will always become horribly corrupt, and be sold to the highest bidder. And it's a lie to believe that system is self correcting -- because the system is rigged.

    American politics (and, indeed, much of the world) is a cesspool of cronyism, and rich assholes cutting through the laws which prevent other rich assholes from raping the system.

    Corporate lawyers and lobbyists have far more clout than "the people".

    Welcome to the dystopian future where the corporations and the surveillance state work hand in hand, but the state is on the corporate payroll -- at least, the ones who hold any real power.

    This is the reason why the bankers who ripped us all off in the housing meltdown never saw any charges -- because they all advise the fucking presidents on economic policy.

    It really is time to eat the rich, because they're not in the least concerned about us in this equation.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      This is precisely why all of those people who bray about deregulation and the free market are either deluded, or in on the scam

      In many cases, the free market approach works in theory, but not in practice because theory little things like buying influence, gobbling up companies to make local monopolies, dividing territory to make local monopolies, etc don't exist. The folks who keep saying "the market will fix everything" look at the theory and ignore that the theory also includes a public with access to enough data to make an informed decision (no hiding charges below the fold - i.e. advertising $50 a month and then adding in $30 in "fees and taxes") and with enough choices to be able to vote with their wallets.

      I would love for the free market approach to work with Comcast. Really, I would. Sadly, Comcast has taken the free market, bent it over, and is currently doing some unspeakable things to it while saying they need to buy out Time Warner Cable so they can "serve the customer better." (I think "serve the customer" is cable-speak and I don't think I want what they really plan on "serving" us!)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist

    3. Re:The system is corrupt ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would love for the free market approach to work with Comcast. Really, I would. Sadly, Comcast has taken the free market, bent it over, and is currently doing some unspeakable things to it

      I would love for the free market approach to work if it weren't a lie. Really, I would. Sadly, everybody always has taken the free market, bent it over, and have always been doing some unspeakable things to it.

      Just like always.

      All of those nice simplifying assumptions about people being honest, playing by the rules, not willing to swindle to get ahead, not willing to collude to cheat everybody else, and not outright paying bribes ...

      See, all of that stuff is precisely why, exactly like communism , any economic theory which assumes the honesty of humans to adhere to your perfect system and achieve perfect outcomes ... is a complete fucking lie.

      The assumptions of laissez-faire Capitalism are impossible to have hold true. So everything ascribed to what 'the market' should accomplish is a fairy tale, because humans don't play according to your ideology.

      There is no free market. Never has been. Never will be.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:The system is corrupt ... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Free market does not require people to play by the rules or anything like that because there cannot be government rules.

      The problem of-course is government power, not the fact that in a free market (or any market) people want to get ahead. The real problem is just normal people who want to get ahead having political power, the real problem is power that politicians hold. Power to use violence, guns and jails against individuals.

      Threat of violence by system is what gives politicians the power to destroy the free market, nothing else. It is not about people not being honest or not playing by the rules. It is about rules that are set up by the governments to allow very specific people to get ahead while holding everybody else back.

      The real problem is you, because you believe that what you are advocating (government power over the individuals, over the free market) is justified for your weird ideology of theft and murder.

    5. Re: The system is corrupt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sodomy is a 'unspeakable' thing? You really oughta live a little.

    6. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the free market approach works in theory, but not in practice ...

      Free market means only that the government does not play favourites. That is, the level playing field. Nowhere does it say that free means unregulated, self-regulated or honest! This is an extension of the 'invisible hand' dishonesty. The original argument is that honest competition for products creates an efficient supply chain that benefits the consumer. But every second multinational argues that the invisible hand instantly appears so self-regulation or or no regulation will maximize the power of people to buy and sell (ie. the market). This denies the necessity of honest competition or the power imbalance between the multinational and the individual.

      The level playing field is almost impossible to create. The first problem, there are barriers to entry, or product differentiation creates a de facto monopoly. The second problem, some things just don't get done with a level playing field: natural monopolies thus receive government protection. The third problem is ideology: Avoiding a single-buyer market, or socialist cost distribution, simply ensures the first problem multiplies. It's also frequently dishonest: For instance no-one complains that only the US government buys B2 war planes, or that the entire airport security industry was socialized.

    7. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Free market does not require people to play by the rules or anything like that because there cannot be government rules.

      Even most conservatives don't believe that free markets can work unless there is government restraint on monopolies, which tend to form in any free market due to economies of scale. Ironic that I have to point this out in the middle of a discussion about a cable company merger.

    8. Re:The system is corrupt ... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't care what most people believe or do not believe, they are wrong. Dangerous monopolies are created by governments, not by the free market, in a free market no monopoly has more power than the market is willing to give it and if the market is willing to give a company monopoly power it is always temporary and it is there as long as that company provides the market with the highest quality, cheapest product.

      Cable companies or any companies should be able to merge all they want, governments interfering with any mergers is the problem, not any type of a solution, especially given that governments created monopolies in telecommunications in the first place.

    9. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I won't argue that governments created the cable monopolies, but network effects tend to create many others. What government action prevented anybody from buying an alternative OS pre-installed on their home PC without paying a fee to Microsoft in the process?

      If you want to believe that monopolies are harmless you can do so. It really doesn't matter - corruption like the one in this article will ensure we never get rid of the government-sponsored monopolies let alone get rid of the ones I'd want to see go away.

    10. Re:The system is corrupt ... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Free market monopolies are not a problem whatsoever, they only exist as the market allows them to exist. It is government monopolies that are a real threat to all people and those are created because governments usurp power to oppress individual rights.

    11. Re:The system is corrupt ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash! People cheat the system, no matter what the system is. Free markets don't assume honesty or that players won't collude; anyone who actually understands the idea of the free market will agree that checks need to be put in place to avoid collusion and monopolies, especially in situations (like cable) where there are enormous startup costs.

      You're also really cynical, and you go too far. There have been free markets - or at least, reasonable approximations of them - it's just that they work in the background and get little press, because they work.

  24. Is the list of politicians doing this somewhere? by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

    I think we should find and post the list of politicians who are in the pockets of Comcast. I'm thinking a list of names, and each name is a link to the instance(s) where they pulled a stunt like this. Anyone who would spout talking points verbatim by a company (any company, but ESPECIALLY Comcast) without disclosing that the company wrote them would never get my vote. Let's get that knowledge out there.

  25. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

    If every household in America bought $150 in Comcast stock each month instead of paying their cable bill it would take ~3 years to buy them out.

    That only works assuming that every single share of Comcast stock is available to purchase. That is not necessarily true. Do you even know how the stock market works?

  26. say it ain't so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all know it's not ethical, but as it slowly has become norm for the last 200 years, who is to say people won't say, hey wait a minute, sooner or later.... yo, head meet wall....

  27. Re:Is the list of politicians doing this somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFA, my fine friend.

  28. Re:Is the list of politicians doing this somewhere by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you should get Anonymous to do this for you.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  29. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Livius · · Score: 1

    If everyone stops paying their bill, the stockholders will be eager to sell.

  30. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone canceled their service for 30 days it would have a more dramatic effect

  31. Re:Is the list of politicians doing this somewhere by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 1

    Did. Articles ain't lists though. Just thinking something a little more curated and easily referenced (instead of four separate articles).

  32. One wonders the statistic by borknado · · Score: 1

    How many hookers Comcast has provided to various people with influence on this issue. 100? 1000? If congressional aide sees the same hooker twice, we count that as two. Similarly if one hooker sees two different state lawmakers, we count that as twice as well.

  33. far less than Wall Street, Comcast 4Hilary Clinton by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not that I'm disagreeing with your point, but it should be noted that the Koch companies are somewhere around #15 on the list of top donors. The top 10 are names like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch who give millions to Hillary Clinton. The cable industry also spends more on Clinton than the Koch brothers spend opposing her.

  34. Time Warner largest H Clinton donor behind Wall St by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Time Warner is the largest contributor to Hilary Clinton other than Wall Street firms, which make up her top six.

    Cablevision is #10 on the list of top Clinton owners^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contributors.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

  35. yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The money in politics is a problem, obviously.

    Also, I think I should be able to write about why I think this merger is bad and distribute flyers. Copying those flyers costs money. Therefore, in order to make my voice heard, I have to spend money to influence politics. If we're not allowed to spend money on politics, that means I can't print a flyer, I can mention politics on my blog that costs $5/month for hosting. A MAJORITY of Slashdot users think it should be illegal to make a video criticizing the current goons. Citizen's United did so, and most Slashdot users think that should be illegal. Fine for Michael Moore to do it, though.

    Many people have said the solution is that COMPANIES shouldn't be allowed to spend money commenting on political issues. So for example Tesla shouldn't be allowed to talk about franchise laws? SpaceX can't make a YouTube video criticising the administration's handling of space contracts? Uber and Lyft spend money on their web sites, so it should be illegal for their sites to mention the taxi cartels' relationship to incumbent politicians?

    If you decide that Tesla, Uber, and SpaceX should be allowed to have their voice heard, but it should be illegal for Citizens United to have their voice heard, I guess the rule is "it's illegal to disagree with me"?

    It's a hard problem, with no obvious solution.

    1. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, money is the problem. Obviously.

      Sure, you personally can print and distribute flyers yourself or with volunteers spending your own personal money to do so. But no, you can not employee thousands of people and pay them to do it as a company. You are not a company, you are an individual, they are not an individual, they are company. But individuals in it can choose to do as they wish outside of the job.

      And again, yes, Tesla, SpaceX and all should not be allowed to spend money on political issues, the guys running them should be able to out of their own budget and not the company budget and only up to legal amounts low enough others could reasonably match it. Same with the guys speaking out against them, but neither of them should be allowed to pay others to do it on their behalf.

      It is surely legal to disagree with you, but it should be illegal for your business connections or wealth of cash be able to force your issue on others with the "Might Makes Right" approach of drowning them out and astroturfing them,

    2. Re: yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between companies making their own videos or flyers vs giving money to politicians as "campaign contributions." When people say get money out of politics, they are usually referring to lobbyists and campaign contributions, not PR expenditures. So no, SpaceX and Tesla shouldn't be allowed to bribe politicians (even under the name "campaign contribution") but they should be allowed to make a their own video. Same thing should apply to the wall street and oil companies.

    3. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the central point: it is not that those companies should not be able to lobby the govenment, it is the corruptive invaluable of large volumes of money that are involved. Everyone is for free speech, but with the Citizens United ruling companies got nearly unrestricted campaign money, and the amount of money that a candidate needs to raise, especially in the for-all-purposes anonymous and unregulated "dark money" has gone up so much that they have to spend nearly all of their time appeasing big donors. Even if they are just and honorable people going in, those qualities can not survive in that environment.

      In the recent midterm election that dark money amounted to $300 million. For some perspective that was more money than in all of the midterm elections since 1990 combined!

      There is a nice summary here: http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-citizens-united-v-fec/

    4. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Tesla shouldn't be allowed to talk about franchise laws ...

      I've got no problem with Tesla, or Comcast in this case, saying what they want. No-one complains when Monsanto or Pfizer say their products are wonderful and perfect; so shut-up and throw money at them. The problem is, Comcast isn't saying what they want. They're paying politicians to say the electorate wants exactly the same thing Comcast wants. As previously mentioned on Slashdot, when a company does that in another country, it's bribery; when they do it in the USA, it's free speech.

    5. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      No, the real problem is not money in politics, the real problem is use of violence by governments to take away individual rights.

      The real problem is that such a large number of people actually support government threatening violence to steal from people. At that point money enters politics to buy favours. Money in politics is an indicator of a sick system, it's not the cause of it.

      The cause of a sick system is people who want to have a sick system, a system based on jealousy, envy, use of violence against others (mostly those, who have more than the average voter, regardless of anything else, for example regardless of whether the money made by a person is earned or stolen).

      If you want a just system that is not corrupted and where money cannot buy power, you cannot have a system that allows governments to steal from individuals, steal their rights (as in right to private property, defence and speech that are necessary to protect private property) and steal the outcome of their work by taxing people's incomes or wealth.

    6. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need an admenment that carefully forbids corporations/unions/etc from advocating for or against particular candidate or candidates. (Issue advocacy would be fair game.) Corporations and similar entities are not true people. They, or rather there leaders, should not get to influece the votes of true people using resources of that artificial entity.

      This would also likely forbid fox news from operating as it normally does, and msnbc as well, but I'm fine with that.

    7. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously so stupid you complain about taxation?

      Fuck you.

    8. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Tesla inc. can't run a political ad, but if Elon Musk wants to get out there literally in front of the camera and say what Elon Musk thinks about the situation and what should be done I wouldn't have a problem with that (He is an actual person and not a collection of stockholders after all). If "Comcast" wants this merger so bad, then instead of the financing department of Comcast being directed to extract money from their coffers to give direct or indirectly to congressmen and board members of the FCC, how about the super rich CEO of that company or any of his super rich stockholders spend their own personal money (not the companies money but out of their individual bank accounts) on advertising and place themselves in it and actually give a "speech" to argue their cause for the company they work for and profit from. They easily have enough personal fortunes to run enough ads so that their speech would be heard by everyone (since reaching a wide audience is the only justifiable need to actually spend money to transmit information). And if they don't want to spend their personal fortunes to get a public dialog going about what they want legislated and just which to reach these politicians personally (much like they are now only without cash in hand) then they can call, write, visit their offices much like any of us non multi-multi-millionaires are reduced to.

      I always picture the Idea of free speech as someone opening their mouth and saying what they think. What its turned into to in politics (or always has been?) is rich people paying others to shut up.

      It's not worded properly above but I think this should be the law: Money as speech can ONLY be spent directly on transmissions to raise public awareness and cannot be considered speech if instead is given to any individual or organization directly. In that case it is a donation which falls under other categories of regulation. Also any organization whose members seek to influence a political outcome cannot use the resources of that organization in any way to influence that outcome either through money as speech as defined above OR making donations (including favors such as providing services of the organization in exchange for results). Those individuals must spend their own personal money and whatever form their message takes they must personally be present or at the very least attach their names to the message, and any donation must also be from their personal accounts and not the organizations.

      I mention donations being allowed because I believe they can and should be capped to a certain amount within a certain time period so that large groups of people have more of an ability to donate than one individual with more money than all those people combined. If money is speech in terms of influence (lets be real here) then a larger number of people should be capable of speaking louder than one rich guy.

      Not holding my breath for the constitutional amendment but I think this is literally the solution and I want it out there instead of people saying theirs no real way ti fix it.

    9. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that it's the direction of the money flow that needs fixing. Going straight to a politician or their campaign is exactly what is happening when our senators turn into comcast's broken records.

      What if that same money was spent getting the populous to speak up on something in the form of petitions?

      Change.org is a reasonable step in that direction, even if many of the petitions are misguided and barking up the wrong tree. If we were able to actively get people involved in making the decisions more often than once every 2-4 years, without waiting for hours for a ballot, we might actually get somewhere. The biggest problem we face is that our politicians no longer represent the people, they represent those with the most money. Sure, the populous can sometimes vote with their wallet, but I don't know many people that would go without internet access just because they don't like comcast.

    10. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The cause of a sick system is people who want to have a sick system, a system based on jealousy, envy
      For a minute I thought you were going to disappear in a puff of logic.
      I agree with the first part of your statement, but you stopped too soon listing the sick things people want in the system, then demonstrated your own sick bias.
      Pride, greed, and prejudice against envy, jealousy, and sloth (perceived). With real need on one side and a sick desire to hoard on the other...

    11. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the only person who should disappear in a puff of logic is you, somebody who equates working to save to voting to steal.

    12. Re:yes. 1st amendment, though. Tesla, SpaceX by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Those individuals must spend their own personal money and whatever form their message takes they must personally be present or at the very least attach their names to the message, and any donation must also be from their personal accounts and not the organizations.

      Pretty trivial workaround: TWC and Comcast would just take the money that they save by not lobbying and pay it to their CxOs. Of course there won't be any express expectation that they use the money for political speech.

  36. If you can not beat them join them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought stock and it has done pretty well since they kicked AOL the block.
    At least paid off a few years of cable bills.

  37. Yunita Rahma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pengakuan tulus dari Saya Yunita TKW bekerja di malaysia. Saya mau mengucapkan terima ksih yang tidak terhingga, serta penghargaan dan rasa kagum yg setinggi-tingginya kepada MBAH DIMAS KANJENG, saya sudah bekerja sebagai TKW selama 7 tahun di malaysia,dengan gaji kurang lebih 1.5jt/bln,tidak cukup untuk memenuhi kebutuhan sehari-hari,apalagi setiap bulan harus mengirimkan ke orang tua di jawa, sudah lama saya mengetahui roomnya om ini, juga sudah lama mendengar nama besar MBAH,tapi saya termasuk orang yg tidak terlalu percaya dengan hal ghoib, jadi saya pikir ini pasti kerjaan orang iseng yg mau menipu. tetapi kemarin waktu pengeluaran 7609 , saya benar-benar tidak percaya dan hampir pingsang,angka yang diberi MBAH DIMAS KANJENG 7609 ternyata tembus, awalnya saya coba-coba menelpon, saya bilang saya terlantar di malaysia, tidak ada ongkos pulang,terus beliau bantu kasih angka 7609. mulanya saya tidak percaya,mana mungkin angka ini keluar, tapi dengan penuh pengharapan saya pasangin kali 100 lembar, sisa gaji bulan Januari, ternyata meledakæ.!!! dapat BLT 250jt, sekali lagi terima kasih banyak MBAH DIMAS, saya sudah kapok kerja jadi TKW, rencana minggu depan mau pulang aja ke Jawa Timur.buat MBAH, saya tidak akan lupa bantuan dan budi baik MBAH. yang ingin merubah nasib seperti saya silahkan hub MBAH DIMAS KANJENG di nomor. 082 277 277 370 {.Demikian kisah nyata dari saya tanpa rekayasa.}

    MBAH DIMAS KANJENG
    NO TELPON/HP : 082277277370

  38. wag the dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all your fault you liberal, commie, convict-hiring fuck. We're stranded miles from nowhere, no idea where we are, so what are we gonna do now you so-sure, twinkle-toed, Hollywood shit-head? Huh? What now?

  39. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cheaper to hire contracts out on the corrupt politicians.

  40. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If everyone stops paying their bill, the stockholders will be eager to sell.

    That's not true either. Certainly earnings would be off, but you would have a large amount of accounts receivable piling up. That's a chance at future payment, and there are people who will value the possibility of future payment high enough that a purchase today might be better than a purchase with no disruption in payment. You see, if you buy it today, you stand to possibly gain this month's payment and (at least a portion of) last month's payment, while a company that has no payment problems might only collect this month's payment.

    Certainly not everyone will be willing to take such a risk, but there are investors of every kind.

  41. Re:Time Warner largest H Clinton donor behind Wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a winner, but she's aiming higher to step into Kissinger's place. More money, more power. The president will follow her orders.

  42. Makes sense in theory, and is the law. Anti-Obama= by raymorris · · Score: 2

    That makes logical sense, and the law reflects that distinction. However, if during the 2014 election season you had encouraged people to vote for the guy speaking out against H1-B fraud, that's almost the same thing as contributing directly to his campaign. Any many places, police and firefighter unions run ads for local candidates saying "candidate X will keep you safe". That's virtually indistinguishable from from handing the money to the campaign to spend on making ads.

    Similarly, if in 2012 you talked publicly about bad things Obama has done, that has virtually the same effect as contributing to his opponents campaign.

    So it's largely a distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any proposals that really make that much difference without making it illegal to talk about politics - loudly. Are you going to make it illegal for Comedy Central to bash Boehner, because they spend millions of dollars doing so. If you allow that, it matters little whether they actually send money to to his opponent or not - they've done his opponent's bidding.

  43. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by F34nor · · Score: 1

    Time Warner wouldn't be able to buy them if we did the same thing to them.

    That was a typo. I meant pay your bill and buy stock.

    The infrastructure is paid for by retained earnings and not paid out to executive compensation and dividends. Also the existing infrastructure in many places has been totally deprecated. we have had cable since 1984 at my house. They have paid for their capital costs MANY times over. If google can provide gigabit fiber from scratch a a lower price than cable even with content and ad revenue then Comcast could too. Their business model is based on artificial scarcity both in terms of bandwidth & dividing voice, data, TV.

    Once we own the company as a customer owned utility it functions exactly like my electrical utility which provides excellent customer service at some of the lowest power prices in the nation. You have to pay your bill but it is lower and the company on the other end works for you. I can see how my typo made this unclear.

  44. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by F34nor · · Score: 1

    I have been investing since I was 12. I called the last two major collapses to within 3 months. the 2000's bubble by asking why Rambus was able to lock intel into a exclusive deal and the housing collapse by looking at the number of people getting an associates degree in real estate (learned that by reading that that was an indicator for the tech bubble) "When economic profit is available more people will enter the market and drive the profit to zero." As to your direct criticism why would any institutional investor keep a stock that was being driven into the ground in a hostile customer driven takeover?

  45. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by F34nor · · Score: 1

    Rent seeking behavior; it is cheaper to buy a congressman than to build a better business.

  46. Re:Frist Psot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never will again if the merger happens. Dice doesn't have the money or fame to buy a fast lane on Comcast's network. Your speed to Slashdot will drop.

    No Yippppeeesss for slow Internet!!!!!!

  47. Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until we vote all of the politicians out this is what we will see for the indrfinitate future

  48. Who got donations from Comcast by myid · · Score: 1

    This article doesn't tell who signed letters which were sent to them by Comcast. But it does tell who sent letters to the FCC backing the merger, which of these people got contributions from Comcast, and how much they got.

    More information here. Click on the "Center for Responsive Politics data on lobbying contributions here." link on this page, to get to the data page.

  49. Ah, the Invisible Hand at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why all-out capitalism can't work. It works -- except when it doesn't.

    Now the liberal types might argue that when we take the state out of the equation there wouldn't be anything to bribe. But the outcome of that might just be a nepotistic, China-style capitalism, with a (privately sponsored) police force holding people still while they're raped by the single corporation which gobbled up all the rest.

    Is there a planet where we might ship those liberal types to play their games and leave the rest of us alone?

  50. Simpsons by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Smithers: [over intercom] Principal Skinner, this is your secretary. There is one last student here to see you.
    Skinner: That's odd. I don't have a secretary...or an intercom. But send him in.
                [Burns enters dressed like Jimbo]
    Burns: Ahoy, there, Dean. I understand you're taking suggestions from students, eh?
                [sits on desk; groans as his knee bends painfully]
                Well, me and my fourth form chums think it would be quite corking if you'd sign over your oil well to the local energy concern.
    Skinner: [clears throat] Mr. Burns?
    Burns: Buh!
    Skinner: It was naive of you to think I would mistake this town's most prominent 104-year-old man for one of my elementary school students.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  51. Lazy politicians... by kenh · · Score: 2

    Why is Comcast cast as the villan? This is SOP for any major letter writing campaign I've ever heard of - outside group offers supporters 'sample' letters to send to those making the decision, supporters simply copy-and-paste the 'sample' letter, and everyone pretends it means something.

    The anger should directed at the compliant and lazy politicians that never learned how to copy someone else's work and avoid detection.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Lazy politicians... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why is Comcast cast as the villan?

      Typecasting. They play the villain role so frequently, it's impossible to see them any other way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. The new 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have mind control not by government, but by the money behind the scenes. Get ready for more of this.

  53. Are you making the EFF, ACLU, SCLC illegal? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I'm not 100% clear on what you're suggesting. As I read it, you said one thing, then said the opposite. Maybe you can clear this up for me.

    Consider the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who describes themselves thusly:
    About EFF

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. We work to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our use of technology grows.

    Let's apply this sentence to the EFF and an example so I can understand you:

    > Also any organization whose members seek to influence a political outcome cannot use the
    > resources of that organization in any way to influence that outcome [list of possible ways to seek change]

    The EFF is of course an organization "whose members seek to influence a political outcome". You propose that the people "must not use the resources of that organization in any way to influence that outcome". So you're proposing it should be illegal for the EFF seek to get rid of NSA dragnet spying, correct?

    Dr. Martin Luther King's group was called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The purpose of the SCLC was to organize black churches to effect political change. That would be illegal under your proposal, because I might donate a car to SCLC, that car may not be used to drive MLK to a rally - that would be "to influence a political outcome" and therefore illegal. Do I understand you correctly?

    1. Re:Are you making the EFF, ACLU, SCLC illegal? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Your projecting the compromises made today onto a system that would not need these compromises. If corporations could not abuse their position, non-profit entities would not be necessary to amplify voices. If the rich treated workers fair in the 1900's, there would have been no need for unions.

  54. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies have been writing laws for politicians for at least 30 years, that I know of, probably more.

  55. Comcast writing letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is just putting lipstick on a pig.

    There is nothing they can say than makes this deal smell right.

  56. Re:far less than Wall Street, Comcast 4Hilary Clin by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Let's have a citation. Thanks in advance.

  57. wolf PAC by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    Get money out of Politics! wolf-PAC.com

    help us support a constitutional amendment, via an article V convention that routes AROUND Congress. Money is not speach. Corporations are not people. Our democracy should not be for sale, yet it IS.

  58. Too big to fail 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fascism has no bounds, as government partners with more corporations and the big buy up the smaller that already have too much influence; now they will be even more powerful and have more control over your data, your communications, your legislation. President Zerg is ready to pounce on anybody he does not like.

    This also means they enter a realm of "too big to fail".

  59. Re:far less than Wall Street, Comcast 4Hilary Clin by raymorris · · Score: 1

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...

    That happens to be the first Google result for "Hillary Clinton donors". I see there are many sources with the same information.

  60. if unicorns flew out of my butt by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If unicorns flew out of my butt, well that would hurt. Bad. :)

    The fact is people DO disagree, and GROUPS of people disagree. Groups of people do have power, so power does need to be balanced.

    In local elections, the police union or firefighters union can often swing an election by just saying "Smith for mayor will keep you safe" - without spending any money. If you DON'T think that your local elected officials should be indebted to the police department, you need a group to send a different message. That's just real life.

  61. Welcome to the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United States of America: A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of $CORPORATION

  62. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    That was a typo. I meant pay your bill and buy stock.

    "Instead of" is a typo for what? And then you said more stock could be bought if everyone cancelled their service!

    Also the existing infrastructure in many places has been totally deprecated.

    I'm sure it has, and I'm sure it has been fully depreciated too. But if the company has no money because nobody is paying their bills or everyone has cancelled service (the second option you gave) then what money will they use to upgrade?

    If google can provide gigabit fiber from scratch a a lower price than cable even with content and ad revenue then Comcast could too.

    The reasons that Google can do it at a lower price are two-fold. First, they don't have existing plant to maintain while they're over-building the existing stuff. Existing cable companies cannot just ignore the existing customer problems while they string new fibers all over; Google has no existing customers to deal with. Cable has a staff that is sufficient to maintain what they have, they have to hire or subcontract for the install of fiber; Google has one staff busy doing installs. Labor costs are a major part of your fixed costs.

    And second, Google is focusing on a very limited number of cherry-picked markets and can dump loads of money into the system until it begins to turn a profit. It's the same way that Walmart can come into a city and cut prices until the competition goes out of business because Walmart has thousands of other stores operating at a profit that can subsidize that. And it's the same reason why municipal cable systems are an unfair competition to the market: a city can dip into the general fund (taxpayer dollars) to cover shortfalls from operating costs, a private company cannot. We have laws about dumping and fair trade for just such activities.

    Once we own the company as a customer owned utility it functions exactly like my electrical utility which provides excellent customer service at some of the lowest power prices in the nation.

    The problem is that getting to the point where you own it will destroy it. A cable system without customers cannot afford to maintain what they have, much less suddenly build out a complete new fiber system, and it will have zero say in negotiating contracts for content. You want a full set of ala carte channels? ESPN won't care and won't make that deal, and the customer-less Comcast will have no money to make it happen. You said it would take 3 years. That's a long time in a technology-driven industry. Three years of stagnation because there is no cash flow. Long before you reach the goal of ownership, your plan will drive the company into bankruptcy.

    The same bargain-basement stock prices that you count on to gain control of the company in the first place will not go unnoticed by everyone else (like TW, or Google, or Microsoft) and they'll be busy buying stock for their own takeover.

    It's a pipe dream filled with unicorns and pixies who magically maintain a company that has zero customers. And the only way you can suggest that TW wouldn't step in and complete the merger by buying the stock before you do is if you do the same thing to TW at the same time.

    And THEN you say you'd want to put Lessig and Nader in charge. Neither one of them have run a company before and are political fringe thinkers who alienate people who do run companies. That's pixie dust in a nutshell.

    I can see how my typo made this unclear.

    What made it unclear is saying "instead of" and then continuing with a call for cancelling service so even more stock could be purchased. No, I think the only unclear thing here is how bankrupting a company is going to force it to build a full fiber system and give you cheap high-speed broadband.

  63. Re:far less than Wall Street, Comcast 4Hilary Clin by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    That link lacks the "millions" you, it seems far less the the above stated $900 million. I guess there is technically "millions", $2 milion of you total the 3 banks. You'll note that this website you use as a reference indicates it doesn't track Koch PACS because that money is not hidden, https://www.opensecrets.org/or....

    Here's a good estimate of the Koch PAC spending, http://www.republicreport.org/...

  64. however you spin it, Clinton==Time Warner & Wa by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You can spin the numbers any way you want. We could go back and forth all day. One thing that's undeniable is that Clinton is financed by Time Warner and Wall Street.

  65. Where is the "protest link?" by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    It would be nice if there was a link to let our Congress people know we know what's going on here. Maybe it would be the first time they heard the people's actual thoughts. You know the people (not wall street) they are supposed to work for? DAMN Comcast and big media. The news is worthless these days, notice? Put up a stink people.

  66. Re:however you spin it, Clinton==Time Warner & by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Your right eye is blind, your only seeing out the left one.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
    -hint... There are way more donations to Republicans by these banks.
    and these hedge funds, http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...
    -although the hedge funds have way more independent group spending, probably because the hav less shareholders to answer to...

    Time Warner does seem to lean Democratic, but those donations are lifetime and I don't see any for Clinton in the recent election cycles.

  67. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by F34nor · · Score: 1

    The assets of the company do not vanish instantly as the stock price drops.Once we have 51% of the vote we can vote in a new consumer friendly board of directors to fire the current executives. Comcast is one of the worst run companies in America. It has the worst customer service and only maintains it function by being a monopoly. I have a friend who works with technology provider and Comcast has blown 3 deals with them strictly out of incompetence and laziness.

    1st question. You don't upgrade during the transition you upgrade after. Just the roughly 2 billion they paid in dividends could be put to use.

    2nd Tv is already dead is is all out IP bandwidth. The last mile doesn't have to be fiber coax is just fine. Also I don't want them to magically maintain a company with no customers, I want the executives fired and the middle management fired and rebuild a customer centric customer own utility. It not a pipe dream it a well worn business model.

    3rd Lessig Nader is a joke. You could have one of on the board anyway it doesn't really matter as the economic collapse showed us many boards are just a nepotistic rubber stamp. My Dad still goes through every proxy vote to vote against people he thinks have responsibility for the collapse.

    4th it doesn't have to go completely bankrupt, all we need is 51%.

  68. Re:I have a simple legitimate solution to the prob by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    The assets of the company do not vanish instantly as the stock price drops.

    The value of the company drops as the stock price drops, and the stock price drops as soon as it becomes obvious that customers are all cancelling their service.

    Once we have 51% of the vote we can vote in a new consumer friendly board of directors to fire the current executives.

    And as you're getting all the little people to buy this 51% over a three year period, large companies who would love to take over the areas served by Comcast are buying stock at the same bargain-basement rates you are. They can afford it. The people you want to buy stock are having to cancel service so they have enough money to buy stock. You'll never make 51%.

    I can safely predict, if you cut the price of a share of Comcast today by 50% TW would be tendering a takeover offer before COB. They'd be fools not to, and you just don't have the money to compete with them.

    It has the worst customer service and only maintains it function by being a monopoly.

    So why hasn't another company come in and taken all the customers away from them? Because as much as you hate them and think their service is bad, too many other people just don't care. They get service, they pay their bill, they watch their programs. That points out that you are likely to get less than 0.1% of the customers to follow you in your cancel service/buy stock plan, which would turn a three year plan into a 3000 year plan.

    1st question. You don't upgrade during the transition you upgrade after. Just the roughly 2 billion they paid in dividends could be put to use.

    If they have no customers they have no dividends, and they have no cash flow to upgrade after the transition. Maybe you don't understand how the stock market works, but when you buy 51% of a company's stock the money doesn't go to the company, it goes to the people who owned the stock. Where do you get the money for all this upgraded hardware when nobody is paying for the service? You expect the stockholders to dump more money into the company when they've had to cancel their service to be able to afford what they've already bought?

    2nd Tv is already dead is is all out IP bandwidth.

    TV is hardly dead, and I have no idea what you mean by anything after that.

    The last mile doesn't have to be fiber coax is just fine.

    You don't have to buy out Comcast to get that. We've got that here. Fiber backbone, coax to the house. Nobody had to cancel service or buy stock.

    Also I don't want them to magically maintain a company with no customers, I want the executives fired and the middle management fired and rebuild a customer centric customer own utility.

    And your method of getting to the firing of the executives was for people to cancel their service and buy stock. Three years of no subs will definitely require some magic if the company doesn't go under in that time.

    It not a pipe dream it a well worn business model.

    Sure it is, but not by your means of getting there. You get there by getting the investors together and buying the working company. You don't try to drive the company into the ground, buy the remnants, and then claim success.

    It would take a fortune to rebuild Comcast as a "customer owned utility" once you kill it off over a three year period. And now there's a question that needs another answer: how much stock must someone own before they can get service from their customer-owned utility? It sounds like getting service from this new company would be a very expensive proposition. Or you don't mean "customer owned", you mean "owned by people you think care enough to run things the way you want them to."

    3rd Lessig Nader is a joke.

    Those are the names you promoted as being the ne

  69. We all hate Comcast... and they hate us! by iq145 · · Score: 1
  70. ibu nana by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saya atas nama ibu nana ingin memberitaukan bawah Sekian lama saya bermain togel saya tidak perna merasakan namanya kemenagang dan di lilit hutang dan Selalu Kalah Dalam Bermain Togel Barang Berharga saya Udah Habis juga Buat Judi dan berapa kali saya coba coba minta bantuan parah aki dan sampai sekarang tidak ada hasilnya teryata tidak ada yng bisa di percaya.dan saya tidak akan putus AsaæKarna Semua Masalah Itu Pasti Ada Jalan Keluarnya dan pada suatu hari saya coba telpon sodara saya ingin pinjam uang tapi sodara saya memberikan nomor MBAH BASIR agar saya minta bantuan sama MBAH BASIR tapi saya masih ragu ragu karna duluh suami saya perna minta bantuan sama aki lain tidak ada hasilnya malahan dia di bohogi sama aki itu tapi tidak ada salanya saya coba coba hubungi MBAH BASIR dan alhamdulillah saya di kasih angka 4D lansung tembus anda yang mau di bantu seperti saya silahkan hubungi MBAH BASIR di nomor ini-->0853 9939 7867 TERIMA KASIH