SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
February, 19 2010, 03:33pm EDT
Contact:
Liz Rose, Communications Director, 202-265-1490 x 32
Industry and Consumer Groups Call on Comcast to Withdraw from Program Access Litigation Against FCC
Comcast's Continued Fight with FCC Calls into Question Promises the Company Made to Congress
WASHINGTON
Today consumer and industry groups concerned with the proposed
Comcast-NBC Universal merger called on Comcast Corp. to back up its new
promises of good behavior before Congress by withdrawing from its court
attack against the Federal Communications Commission on critical
pro-competition rules for the pay-TV distribution market.
"Under pressure from merger critics, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts
belatedly promised Congress that his company would abide by FCC program
access rules even if the courts declared them invalid," said Corie Wright,
policy counsel for Free Press. "Why would Comcast continue to spend
shareholder dollars trying to overturn an FCC regulation that its CEO
promises to follow regardless of the case's outcome? The fact that
Comcast didn't withdraw from the litigation raises concerns about
whether Comcast can be trusted to follow through on its commitment."
"Comcast seems to be promising federal regulators that it will abide
by the same rules that it now, in federal court, is seeking to have
thrown out," added Larry Cohen, president of the
Communications Workers of America. "What does it say about Comcast's
overall 'public interest commitments' when it so clearly is working to
undercut public policy for program access."
In the 1992 Cable Act, Congress adopted program access requirements
to ensure that competing multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs) had guaranteed access to satellite-delivered cable programming
owned or controlled by large incumbent cable operators like Comcast.
Twice renewed by the FCC, these pro-competition rules ensure that
programming distributors -- especially smaller, rural providers -- are
not cut off from video programming vital to their competitive success
in the marketplace.
On Dec. 3, 2009, Comcast and NBC Universal announced their $30
billion merger and agreed to an assortment of commitments that are
insufficient to address the serious public interest harms that will be
caused by this combining of media giants.
One of Comcast-NBCU's commitments dealt with applying FCC program
access rules to retransmission consent negotiations with NBC
owned-and-operated TV stations. The commitment would last, Comcast and
NBCU advised the public, "for as long as the FCC's current program
access rules remain in place."
Conspicuously absent from Comcast-NBCU's list of promises was any
acknowledgment that Comcast is at the same time asking the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to toss out the most meaningful feature
of the program access rules: The ban on exclusive contracts between
cable operators and affiliated cable networks delivered via satellite.
"What Comcast conveniently failed to tell regulators is that it has
no intention of letting the FCC rules remain in place," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman,
president and CEO of Media Access Project. "If Comcast is successful in
eliminating the ban, the FCC's current program access rules would no
longer exist, and Comcast's commitment will have vanished before the
merger review is even concluded."
It remains to be seen whether Comcast will also challenge the FCC's
newly adopted regulations closing the so-called terrestrial loophole in
the program access rules. Until recently, the program access rules
covered programming delivered only by satellite. But these new rules
extend the program access regime to programming transmitted
terrestrially -- a change critical to ensuring that Comcast can't lock
up regional sports programming. Comcast opposed the adoption of the
rules during the FCC rulemaking proceeding.
"If Comcast challenges the application of these new rules in court
or at the FCC, it would further undermine the company's promise of good
behavior," said Jill Canfield, senior regulatory
counsel for the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association.
"Comcast has said that that program access rules are enough to protect
competition if the merger is approved -- but that's not very reassuring
so long as the company continues to chip away at these very same
protections."
Read the full letter here: www.freepress.net/file/Comcast_Program_Access_Litigation_Letter.pdf
The signatories to the letter are:
The American Cable Association
Communications Workers of America
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
Free Press
Media Access Project
The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association
The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies
Public Knowledge
The Rural Independent Competitive Alliance
The Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association
The Sports Fan Coalition
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
New Text Makes Clear 'House Republicans Are Proposing More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy'
"Despite their rhetoric," Republicans are "failing to deliver for millions of working-class families," said one tax expert.
May 10, 2025
Since Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday evening released tax-related legislative language and announced a markup for President Donald Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," economic justice advocates have sounded the alarm.
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) scheduled a Tuesday afternoon hearing, shared 28 pages of legislative proposals for the reconciliation package, and positively framed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed in 2017. The tax reform push comes just months away from parts of that law—which critics call the "GOP tax scam"—expiring.
"So far this costly bill appears to double down on trickle down, with huge tax cuts that will further enrich the rich and not much for the rest of us," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in a Saturday statement. "What's more, many of the modest improvements for lower- and middle-income families are proposed to be temporary, whereas the benefits for the wealthiest are proposed to be permanent."
Hanauer's group specifically noted that "the 2017 changes to personal income tax rates and brackets would be made permanent," as would the deduction that individuals receive from "pass-through" businesses, which would also increase from 20% to 22%. Republicans also want to hike the estate tax exemption from $13.99 million per spouse to $15 million and have it continue to rise with inflation.
"The very generous version of a tax break for offshore profits (the GILTI deduction) would be made permanent, effectively taxing the foreign profits of American corporations half as much (at most) as their domestic profits are taxed," the think tank highlighted.
ITEP also flagged that "the 2017 change to the standard deduction would be made permanent, and a temporary four-year boost would bump it up to $16,000 for individuals, $24,000 for taxpayers filing as head of household, and $32,000 for married couples."
"The child tax credit would temporarily increase to $2,500 per child from $2,000 per child for four years, but 4.5 million citizen kids would lose access to the... CTC due to a requirement that both their parents have Social Security numbers," the group warned.
Chuck Marr, vice president of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, similarly said in a series of Friday social media posts that the emerging "bill appears highly skewed to the wealthy, [with] several regressive expansions of 2017 tax cuts and full of costly timing gimmicks, while, despite their rhetoric, failing to deliver for millions of working-class families."
Like ITEP, Marr blasted House Republicans for their "glaring failure" on the CTC as well as for continuing to push the pass-through deduction and estate tax exemption, the latter of which he called "the most skewed provision of the 2017 law."
"On Tuesday, House Republicans in one committee will be taking away people's health insurance and in another taking away food assistance, while in a third they will be permanently increasing the amount the wealthiest heirs in the country can inherit tax-free," he said, stressing that the GOP aims to pay for its tax giveaways to the rich by gutting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"It also looks like House Republicans are repeating a brazen pattern from 2017: Make the provisions for rich people permanent (recall the 2017 massive corporate rate cut) while making the broader provisions temporary—backwards priorities," Marr declared.
"So tonight we've learned—despite all the Trump bluster—House Republicans are proposing more tax cuts for the wealthy, increasing its already bloated costs, while harshly failing to deliver for millions of families he promised to help," he concluded.
Smith's legislative text notably does not include letting the top tax rate revert from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income greater than $5 million for married couples and $2.5 million—an idea that Trump floated this week but, as NBC Newsput it, "is running into a buzz saw of opposition in the Republican Party."
Trump said on his Truth Social Platform early Friday: "The problem with even a 'TINY' tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!"
While Trump's comments this week have generated headlines about the president proposing "to raise income taxes on wealthy Americans," ITEP's Steve Wamhoff and Carl Davis argued in a blog post that "nobody should be deceived: The wealthiest taxpayers got enormous tax breaks from Trump's 2017 law and are getting additional large tax breaks in what Trump and Republicans are proposing now."
"We need legislation that requires rich people to pay more taxes, not less," they added. "The Republican legislation will do the opposite, regardless of whether or not Congress includes this latest suggestion from Donald Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
India, Pakistan Accuse Each Other of Violating New Cease-Fire
Leaders around the world have urged de-escalation between the nuclear-armed nations since the massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
May 10, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
India and Pakistan accused each other of violating a cease-fire that had been announced Saturday by officials from both countries and U.S. President Donald Trump amid global fears of escalating tit-for-tat strikes between the nuclear-armed neighbors in the wake of last month's Pahalgam massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
"Within hours, blasts were reported from the main cities of Indian Kashmir, the center of four days of fighting," Reutersreported, citing authorities, residents, and witnesses. "Blasts were heard in Srinagar and Jammu, and projectiles and flashes were seen in the night sky over Jammu, similar to the events of the previous evening."
Drop Site News noted that Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri accused Pakistan of "repeated violations" of the deal.
However, Pakistan's information minister, Ataullah Tarar, toldGeo News, that "violation of cease-fire agreement from our side is out of question."
The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs later released a statement saying that it "remains committed to faithful implementation" of the deal, accusing India of committing violations, and stressing that troops on the ground "should also exercise restraint."
Earlier Saturday, the Indian minister, Misri, had confirmed the cease-fire agreement, saying that "it was agreed that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land and in the air and sea."
Indian officials have not publicly credited the United States for the deal, while Pakistani leaders have. Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar "specifically acknowledged the role played by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the process," according toGeo News.
Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, said on social media that "we thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region."
The U.S. president had said on his Truth Social platform: "After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Leaders around the world, including United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, have urged diplomacy and restraint since militants attacked Hindu tourists and killed 26 people in Kashmir last month.
After Saturday's cease-fire announcement, Farhan Haq, deputy spokesperson for the U.N. chief, toldPTI that "we are monitoring but we welcome all efforts to de-escalate the conflict."
Sources from India and Pakistan's governments toldReuters that the Indus Waters Treaty was not part of the deal. India withdrew from the decades-old water-sharing pact after the April attack in Kashmir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Halts Trump and Musk's Illegal Overhaul of US Government
The second Trump administration "has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition behind the lawsuit said, welcoming the temporary restraining order.
May 10, 2025
A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked what at coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits argued was "the unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by the president of the United States on a scale unprecedented in this country’s history and in clear excess of his authority."
Since returning to office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump—aided by his so-callled Department of Government Efficiency and its de facto leader, billionaire Elon Musk—has worked to quickly overhaul the bureaucracy, even though "the president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action," as the coalition's complaint notes.
District Judge Susan Illston agreed with the groups and governments, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Alliance for Retired Americans, Main Street Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, the city and county of San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and more.
"The president has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," wrote Illston in a 42-page decision. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the president from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office."
"Indeed, the court holds the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," said the judge, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton.
Illston added that "a temporary restraining order is, by definition, temporary. The court will not consider defendants' request for a stay of execution of the temporary restraining order, as doing so would render the exercise pointless. The court must promptly proceed to consideration of a preliminary injunction."
Welcoming the development in a late Friday statement, the plaintiff coalition said that "the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation."
"Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government—laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that," the coalition added. "We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds."
The "largest and most significant challenge to Trump's authority to remake the government without congressional approval," as the coalition called it, was filed April 28 by the organizations' legal team: Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project, and State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Illston's decision came just hours after an emergency hearing, during which coalition attorney Danielle Leonard "said the Trump administration's vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict," according toThe New York Times.
As the newspaper detailed:
"There's a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government's actions that I think they need to re-earn," she said.
Ms. Leonard said the Trump administration has never been able to point to any specific authority through which the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said that the government has consistently offered competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.
"It's an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail," she said.
Signaling a desire to keep moving through the process swiftly, Illston gave the plaintiff coalition until next Wednesday to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the federal defendants—Trump along with various federal agencies and their leaders—until the following Monday to respond, with a limit of 25 pages for both.
Even if the coalition's lawsuit ultimately succeeds, Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress, meaning Trump could potentially work with lawmakers to pursue a similar gutting of the federal government before the midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular