Skip to main content

View Diary: Comcast To Buy Time Warner Cable... What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Updated x2 (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No way this would have been announced (14+ / 0-)

    without tacit public and direct behind the scenes FCC & WH approval.

    NO WAY.

    If there's any better proof that Obama is and always has been a supporter of the money and power elite who believes that the economy primarily exists for the benefit of the very rich who occasionally throws crumbs to those annoying hoi polloi neoliberal, I don't know of it. Although, letting the banks and BP off the hook with a slap on the wrist came pretty close.

    I see this as having a much bigger long-term impact on internet access than cable tv, because in 5-10 years we're all going to get our "cable tv" via the internet (wired and wireless) and what we now know of as cable tv will be retired so its bandwidth can be fully dedicated to internet transmission. And Comcast will own the overwhelming majority of internet access and will be its nearly sole provider, charging whatever rates it likes that the market will bear (after, of course, going through the charade known as the FCC rate approval process). Hello monopoly, goodbye net neutrality.

    I also see this as an indirect hint that Keystone will be approved and that Obama decided that years ago. Never mind his pretty words. He's a massive supporter of our current corporate and financial system.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:54:58 AM PST

    •  Like AT&T / T-Mobile? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, kefauver, Odysseus

      They have to announce it because to even try to merge, there are all manner of filing requirements and as publicly traded companies, securities law implications, especially for the selling firm.

      You could be right either is approved - this probably will be with conditions - but not for the reasons you cite, deductions from the mere fact it's announced.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 05:50:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They've surely learned from that disaster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NoMoreLies

        and got all the necessary informal approvals before going ahead. I'm guessing that Goldman's the lead banker on this deal, making it all the more likely that it'll be approved. So, in theory you may be right, but in reality I doubt it.

        All the essential due diligence has likely already been done, and what's to come will likely be a long series of necessary formalities.

        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

        by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:02:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I looked it up, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, kefauver

          no Goldman to be found.

          I'm not saying it won't be approved, but you've shed no light on the issue.  Due diligence is the job of the acquiring firm, so I hope they've done it!  That's a matter of knowing what the regulatory issues are, not certainty as to how an agency will rule on them.  It's the same FCC that just went to court to defend net neutrality, fwiw.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:14:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, theoretically speaking (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert, sloopydrew

            in terms of how it's supposed to work, you're right. But the present system is deeply, deeply corrupt, from Obama on down (and if you don't think he's a kept president then it's pointless to engage you further), so the theoretical simply doesn't apply, and is just an illusion for the masses. I've little doubt that whatever the formal approval process entails, the REAL approval process has pretty much been concluded. Demanding that I back this up with evidence is just silly given all that we've seen these past few decades and what we know about how this actually works, like asking me to PROVE that Christie's a crook.

            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 06:22:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you throw out claims without (0+ / 0-)

              pretending to back them up, it's not my thought process that's askew.  Yes, we should have to prove Christie's a crook.  We have enough to say he's a thug, already.  There are reasons to approve or block the merger without any suggestion of personal corruption, and of course a merger of this size doesn't use mom and pop underwriters.  I'm not inside your hermetic bubble, so, no you have nothing to say to me that I find elucidating. You have the method of a Fox News pundit - first, find something wrong with Obama, next, find facts not inconsistent with that, or if lacking, speculate about future facts not inconsistent.  Forget about any facts not consistent, and other, more relevant factors like years of pro-merger case law.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:03:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's complete and utter horseshit (0+ / 0-)

                You sound like a lawyer right there with the nonsense about the need for hard and overwhelming evidence. OBVIOUSLY that has to happen in the actual process. But I'm talking here, on the sidelines, where we're all speculating on what's going on, and only a fool could actually believe that:

                Christie isn't a crook who should be in jail
                OJ didn't murder his wife and her friend
                Financial and corporate regulation is a joke these days

                Anyone claiming otherwise--that the system actually works, and that formally necessary doubt means plausible doubt--is either a fool, or a shill. Period.

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:23:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  if i sound like a lawyer, (0+ / 0-)

                  there's a reason.

                  However, for this purpose "any" would suffice.  I fail to see the connection with Christie.  The third point is however different from the other two, and "regulation is a joke these days" is simply not a basis on which a regulatory agency can or should base it's decision.  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:48:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Seriously? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NoMoreLies, sloopydrew

                    That's the best you can to, to claim that because this is how things are supposed to work, it's how things are supposed to work, and thus do work? Such a syllogism sounds disappointing coming from a lawyer.

                    I'd love for things to work the way they're supposed to work, but these days they just don't, at least not nearly often enough. Or else Keystone would have been rejected long ago, the banks would have been temporarily nationalized to clean them up and their execs jailed, BP would have been liquidated, and we'd have real competition in the telcom arena because it's a public asset.

                    Come on, you're better than this. I'm all for letting the system work, but right now it simply doesn't work because it's gamed by the rich, powerful and connected and you KNOW this.

                    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                    by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:54:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it's the best i'm going to do, (0+ / 0-)

                      due to limited interest.  What i'm suggesting is that regulatory agencies have to be able to make their decisions on the basis of evidence, or at least have such evidence supporting them.  I think there's a valid case to be made for each of the things you say, indictments, etc., but to draw the inferences about "THE SYSTEM" you do, they have to be 100% iron-clad.  Proof is more, not less, important to your position: none of the defenses (lack of scienter, e.g.) can have any possibility of being right, or else you're out over your skis.  I don't know they're anything more than decisions I'm not sure I would have agreed with if in their position, but you're arguing, no, assuming bad faith.  On what basis?  The revolving door?  It proves too much, and how do you explain when government doesn't do something.    

                      Against that backdrop, I'm not going to make claims about the motives of others, especially the hundreds of career civil servants doing the grunt work of trying to find out the facts at issue.  Similarly, if you take the position that it's 100% obvious there's no basis to approve the merger, in fact or law, that's both not true and also uninteresting to this discussion.

                      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                      by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:03:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you're going to continue to make the case (0+ / 0-)

                        that things work the way they're supposed to work...because that's how they're supposed to work, then it's pointless to discuss this further with you as it's clearly going to be a silly discussion. You're certainly smart and experienced enough to know that this isn't the case. Why you're pretending otherwise, only you know.

                        As an aside, the more I get to know lawyers, the more I'm struck by how they're ALWAYS in lawyer mode, meaning they're always arguing a given position even if they don't personally believe in it, because that's what they're paid to do--even when they're not paid to do it. Whether this is an effect of the job or an innate quality that draws people with it to the law, I don't know. Probably both. But it's not an attractive or commendable quality.

                        Personally, I think it's a sign of insecurity, the dishonesty hiding behind formal procedure outside the formal legal process, a quality I believe most lawyers have, which is part of why they became lawyers.

                        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                        by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:30:53 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  that's not the case i'm making (0+ / 0-)

                          i mean, they work mostly like they're supposed to work, but possibly not at the margins.  not so much you can assume the opposite.  

                          i'm in lawyer mode discussing a legal issue, i.e., regulatory approval of a business transaction.

                          if you don't like lawyers, all i can say is i hope you never have to need one.  

                          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                          by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:43:47 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Do I have to like auto mechanics to use one? (0+ / 0-)

                            Now that's a silly point. My experience with lawyers is that they'll usually work as hard as you're able and willing to pay them, and otherwise give a rat's ass whether you win or lose or go bankrupt in the process. Most are not good people IMO, but exploiting their power to make money.

                            In any case, this is not a legal venue and we're not discussing the legal aspects of how this will go down, but the political and economic aspects, which while obviously having to be mindful of the legal aspects, at least formally, are what will actually determine what happens. You know that, and I don't know why you continue to claim otherwise unless you have a stake in this matter.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:49:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            on what basis other than the FCC, Sherman, and Clayton Acts are the FCC and DOJ supposed to review the merger?  It's simply not possible to throw out years of precedent that inform their decision and would be relied on by the merging entities if it went to court.  

                            You made a certain claim about what approval would "mean," in political terms, and I'm challenging your basis for that.  I don't share your view on the conclusions you draw from facts you don't yet know, and claiming I have a "stake" in the matter because I don't agree with your approach is exactly why  you have a toxic approach.  Your only move seems to be the ad hominem, and i count three so far.  (Simplest answer for responding: you keep  not disengaging.  More complex answer: nothing you've said has made me change my mind.)  

                            What approval would mean, to me, is that regulatory agencies looked at this from the basis that very few consumers would have choice of cable provider effected and therefore would not see retail price increases and questions about consumer access may prove to be too speculative to sustain a preliminary injunction, which is the vehicle to block the merger.  As i said, i think the merger would be approved, with conditions, including possibility a consent decree implementing net neutrality.  If that happens, it'd be reasonable, but I don't work for either of these companies, because as I said, I am a plaintiffs lawyer.   If i were a comcast shareholder, i'd probably prefer a dividend to buying a company with a reputation for even worse service.  

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:14:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  btw, i'm actually a *plaintiffs* lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                      if proof were so easy to come by, anyone could do what i do.  conversely, if we never settled anything, my clients might never recover any money.

                      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                      by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:10:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In the formal legal process, absolutely (0+ / 0-)

                        In the world beyond it, where people are supposed to operate on a looser "bullshit detector" standard, nuh uh. I know of very few examples where what appeared to be what was going on turned out not to be the case.

                        E.g. everyone knew Nixon was a crook before it was actually proven. After knocking around enough in life, most people develop the ability to sniff out such things, even if, of course, it still has to be solidly proven in court.

                        You're intentionally trying to commingle the two arenas.

                        "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                        by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:33:48 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  well, there are degrees of proof (0+ / 0-)

                          there's enough to justify having an opinion you don't hold with certainty up to knowledge you rely on every day as a foundation for other things.  The notion that THE SYSTEM is irredeemably corrupt such there's no point examining the pros and cons takes the form of the latter, when the proof is really a bunch of tendencies thrown together.   to that end, I'm not sure your take on "what was going on" is really all that reliable (the examples you cite above all involve a lot of complex facts), and claiming "bullshit detector" supports the view that there's a grand conspiracy everyone at large agencies and the White House is in on, is quite the assumption.   If it's simply they're not reflexively anti-corporate or anti-merger and that's sufficient to explain what you mean by corruption, then I agree, just not that "corruption" stretches so far.  

                          Your claim is the merger approval is baked in.  If the merger is approved, you'll say that was vindication, even if the actual process of approval looks nothing like that.  That's what's "bullshit:" the appearance of evidence, when it's entirely circular.  We get to argue motive when we exclude the possibility there's any legal or economic basis to approve the merger, and we won't get there. It's not a matter so much that it's incorrect that people don't have bad motives, but it doesn't tell us anything about the merger's pros and cons, and why one outweighs the other.

                          what's more, my argument isn't so much the process works, as much as the process, such that it is, will be followed and drive the decision: you're not even arguing the process doesn't work but that it doesn't exist.  I'm suggesting it could use improvement, or that a good process might lead to an imperfect outcome without anyone acting in bad faith.  you can either get there by bootstrapping from the conclusion.  That's the point.

                          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                          by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:58:47 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm arguing that the process no long works (0+ / 0-)

                            anywhere near as well as it should for the people it's supposed to serve, the majority. Mine is not a binary argument, but that things have gone way too far in one direction. The process still does work, sometimes. I mean, the ACA is definitely an improvement on what preceded it. But it was nowhere near as much an improvement as it should and I believe could have been had the various players in and out of government been true to their implied roles as good citizens (or do you not believe in such a thing?).

                            My point is and always has been that the game is rigged, not totally, but far more so than it used to and should or could be, so talk of how things are "supposed" to work is just plain silly, something to hide behind while denying how things actually are working. Or do you genuinely believe that the banks committed no provable crimes, as opposed to the DoJ deliberately taking it easy on them? Seriously? I'm asking the human, not lawyer part of you.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:07:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  if it's not binary, (0+ / 0-)

                            it contradicts your own argument.  The next step is conceding that the process can work without the outcome reflecting your particular preferred outcome.

                            the human part of me says the DOJ shouldn't indict unless it believes it can convict., and that errors of judgment are not necessarily crimes.   Do i believe they could have been indicited? There's a good chance, but I don't know who knew what when, however, so i'm loath to make too many conclusions of a political nature from prosecutions that didn't happen and I don't know about (which of course ignores those that did).  What I don't know is why it's assumed a failure of will rather than a problem obtaining consensus among career and political reps in the face of complexity of the issues.  "provable" is an interesting word -- crimes perhaps could have been proven, but were they?  A provable crime is maybe one with a 10% chance of getting conviction -- it's possible, but nobody should be indicted on that basis.  The fact that people weren't indicted over cases that boiled down to inadequate disclosures or matters in which they themselves lost money, doesn't surprise me because there's not a lot of precedent for that.  I think there should be more action on the mortgage originator front, but the originate-to-distribute model had the big banks removed from originating and servicing.  It also turns out a lot of really shady practices had the blessing of bank regulators up front, whose job was to see to the health of the banks (really, their depositors) rather than borrowers.   I find it disappointing, but I don't find it inconceivable or evidence of bad faith.  And I care more about regulatory reforms to catch these sorts of problems sooner rather than expecting criminal law to clean up the messes afterwards.  

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:29:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  These were crimes (0+ / 0-)

                            The rest is just bullshit. These people knew that they were breaking the law and didn't give a shit. How is it not a crime to threaten a ratings agency with loss of business if they didn't rate the way you wanted them to rate? How is it not a crime to lie to a prospective borrower about the terms of a mortgage? How is it not a crime to sell shit debt as A+ debt?

                            Stop being a lawyer and just be a person. That's "ad hom" I can live with.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:37:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i can't answer those questions (0+ / 0-)

                            without wearing my lawyer hat, and if i do, they're not the answers you've already convinced yourself of.  But in discussing the application of criminal law, why should i take that off.  Just diagnose that patient as a person, not a doctor.  Come on.  "Crimes" as in "very bad things"," yes, they are.  "Crimes" as in violations of specific statutes beyond a reasonable doubt, it's a tougher call.  (Quickly: in each of these scenarios, there usually came along with disclaimers that would undercut the notion people were lied to, and many of these folks managed to convince themselves home prices were always going to go up, or would at least stay up longer than they did.  If they were really masterminds, we needn't have bailed them out.  Though as I said, example 2 is the closest, though also the most removed from the bulge brackets (and also the most prosecuted).)  

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've worked for several financial firms (0+ / 0-)

                            that committed major financial crimes when I worked for them (that I had nothing to do with, having worked in IT, not the front office). There was absolutely no question that crimes were committed in them.

                            In one case no one went to jail but huge fines were imposed, the offending parties were fired in disgrace, and the firm effectively went under within a few years. In the other case people did go to jail.

                            If similarly major crimes weren't committed in the 2008 collapse, with far more serious consequences, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Literally. While I realize that lawyers, being lawyers, like to argue a case because it's in their blood, and that they're very good at proving that a crime actually wasn't a crime when it was so obviously a crime (e.g. OJ), that doesn't make these non-crimes.

                            You're just being a lawyer, not liking to lose an argument. In your heart you know that crimes were committed. Which of course means and should mean nothing in the legal system. But only the truly delusional believe that no serious crimes were committed, and I'm not going to engage in a point by point technical debate on this just because it's how you win arguments.

                            This is part of why our country is in such trouble, people who should know better gaming the system, just because they can, and it's in their interest.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:18:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Great. (0+ / 0-)

                            i don't see why what anyone believes but can't prove should be interesting to anyone else.  I would think in your position, you'd pick one -- just one -- and argue it all the way through.  Otherwise how am i supposed to believe how easy it is?  Of course, my position isn't that no crimes were committed -- clearly not, because the shibboleth that nobody was ever prosecuted is just not true -- but criminal intent for, say, bulge bracket CEOs doesn't automatically or necessarily follow from any of the things you mentioned without some additional facts also being true.  I've also seen real cases of financial crime, but it's rarely in over the counter sales of bespoke debt to other sophisticated parties.  I know bad and immoral and stupid acts were committed, I don't know they don't have adequate defenses or reasonable doubt.  Proving civil liability is hard enough, i'm not going to go ahead and presume criminal liability with such a high confidence interval i get to impugn the character and motives of people closer to the facts than I.  

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:33:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, Jamie Dimon's a really swell guy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            k9disc

                            Dick Fuld, Lloyd Blankfein, Ace Greenberg--all model citizens who while perhaps a tad too greedy, never did anything criminally wrong here.

                            I respect the efforts of any lawyers involved in defending any of these and others in the actual legal system, as even the scum of the earth deserve proper legal representation. I do not respect the efforts of people defending them in the court of public opinion against accusations of criminality. Crimes were committed. I have absolutely zero doubt of that based on what I've read and heard because the things that happened that crashed the economy don't just happen on their own without active human agency committing criminal acts. That I can't "prove" it is irrelevant to what we know. You're just being a lawyer. As, I'm finding out, most lawyers are. It's in their DNA.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:45:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i never made any claim (0+ / 0-)

                            about them as people - as i said it wouldn't be interesting to anyone.  I think Fuld's accounting case was pretty bad, but i'm not sure it was a slam dunk.  And for what it's worth, I don't think they are pure evil, I think they're schmucks who can't possibly understand the breadth of what their organizations are up to, which is not inconsistent with also being criminals, just not master criminals.  I've dealt with folks at the MD level, and they just seem strikingly dull.

                            Your second paragraph is fine as far as it goes, but it's kind of stifling argument.  Of course,if you read carefully, where I'm reluctant to pass judgment is on monday morning quarterbacking the attorneys responsible for enforcing the statutes at issue.  The banks are what they are, and should be regulated to protect everyone from their stupidity, overleverage, short-term thinking, and greed, as well as possible criminality, come to that.  That you have a hang-up about lawyers is fairly clear, and that you can convince yourself of the correctness of your own assumptions is also clear.  

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:19:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have a problem with lawyers (0+ / 0-)

                            because I've worked with them and seen how they operate, overbilling and dragging things out to jack up their fees, and pretending to give a shit about your problems. And not just in everyday civil matters, but ones involving the welfare of children and families. Most IMO simply do not care, except for the billables. They profit off off human suffering, and don't seem to care.

                            Anyway, I don't think these bankers are Hitler. I do though think that they're human scum, devoting their considerable talents not to making the world a better place for all (while take a deservedly nice paycheck for it), but to profiting themselves and their buddies. That's a kind of lesser evil that deserves condemnation. Sure, most of these are probably not breaking the law, even if what they're doing is immoral and unethical IMO (e.g. what Romney did for a living, raiding solvent companies and destroying them). But some are, and I've worked for some myself, several levels down.

                            The first firm tried to corner the treasuries market through fake shell bidders, clearly a crime at the time, and the other manipulated the dotcom investment banking sector to churn maximal fees (do the initials FQ & CSFB ring a bell?). And I know enough about what happened leading to the crash of '08 to understand that there's no way that major crimes weren't committed, of the sort that I mentioned above. Not merely stupid acts of blind greed (although there was that too, e.g. placing crazy bets on MBO's of the sort that AIG did), but actual crimes, like deliberate misrepresentation of an underlying security's risk, or lying to borrowers about a loan's terms, which I believe are crimes.

                            Btw I've also worked for honest bankers, like one briefly who ended up writing Warren Buffet's biography a few years ago. She headed her bank's research division on certain kinds of insurance products, putting out analysis reports (which I helped put together) for the bank's clients' benefit so they could make informed decisions. I didn't detect any attempt at willful misrepresentation on her part. So I have nothing against bankers, per se, just the crooks and jerks.

                            I hope they have good lawyers. I hope the government has better ones.

                            "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                            by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 03:49:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  fair enough (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rashaverak

                            i'm sorry you had bad experiences with lawyers.  Mr. Quattrone aside, I think where it gets tricky is the characterization of the deals: i'm not so sure it's obvious  levels of risk were so readily ascertainable up front for such illiquid products and when home prices were rising (especially as banks so often kept the riskiest tiers for themselves), and we did discuss the borrower-facing ones above, which did get prosecuted and was at some remove from the largest banks.  More common I'm sure was misleading marketing, but it's surprising how little disclosure is required for such an important transaction.  I'd want just more information to see whose lawyers were in fact better, because the question isn't whether the actus reus existed for a crime or crimes, but the degree of confidence one has in proving which ones, if the purpose of the exercise is to support a political conclusion about the agency heads' willingness to serve the public interest.    

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 04:12:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Plus, this has nothing to do with case law (0+ / 0-)

                If the FCC approves this, it's a done deal. Sure, parties who feel themselves wronged or otherwise against this will claim standing and sue, and they might even win. But that's not going to come from either the FCC or DoJ.

                Not this FCC or DoJ, at least, which are deeply neoliberal ones (and I believe effectively corrupt ones, in that legalized form of corruption in which former government officials who OBVIOUSLY and KNOWINGLY did industry's bidding while in government then go on to work for these industries at huge salaries).

                You can present all the pretty formalistic arguments you like, but it's obvious how this works, and you know it.

                "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:28:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It does have to do with it, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LieparDestin

                  because it limits the FCC's options.  It can't block the merger because it feels like it, to please political constituencies, or to make a point about corporations in society at large.  You want to talk about corruption  . . .

                  And if it doesn't approve, it might well get sued anyway.  I don't start from the assumption that the merger should be approved,  as a matter of politics, and I don't start from the assumption that it shouldn't as a matter of policy.  I think there are very interesting legal arguments for or against, and I think it only makes sense to evaluate how those are handled on the basis available to an agency engaged in formal, on the record review.  If it's "formal," a lot work goes into it, and any decision will ultimately have to have some grounding in the formal record, even if somewhere, sure, a political tendency comes in at the very highest levels.  (and here's it's not a matter of pleasing corporations writ large but deciding which ones to please and which ones to offend.)

                  what happened to not engaging me?  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:55:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not going to engage your sillier "arguments" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NoMoreLies

                    That rely upon formal standards which don't apply here.

                    As for this, well, obviously the FCC can't approve or disapprove because it just feels like it, and has to be mindful of case law and the legal consequences of approving or disapproving without regard to it (as well as, of course, statutory law, including its own mandate).

                    But, one, that still leaves it with some room to decide one way or another--provided that it does so smartly, from a legal pov, which I'm certain it will. (But even then, I find it hard to believe that this could be approved, legally, from an anti-competitive pov, but given how conservative and pro-corporate the courts have been in effectively rewriting statutory law, it may not really matter what the statutes say if the courts say otherwise, effectively.)

                    And, two, the idea that there isn't some ethically corrupt negotiation going on behind the scene, with a combination of incentives and threats are being used to pressure the FCC commissioners--and for all I know judged--to approve, is simply laughable. This is how our world actually works, compared to how it's supposed to and should work. That I can't "prove" it is meaningless, because we've seen this happen countless times in other matters.

                    Either way, the FCC is going to get slammed by someone however it decides. Ideally, it would be for doing the right thing here. More likely, though, it will be for doing the opposite. I'd love to be wrong on this. I don't think I will.

                    My cynicism is born from experience and observation of how the world actually works, not what I was taught in grade school.

                    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                    by kovie on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:45:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  What you suggest would be a felony. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      If any member of the Obama administration made such an approval prior to the announcement, they would be guilty of felony corruption and any officer of Time Warner and Comcast who participated would also be guilty of a felony.

      Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

      by Walt starr on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:01:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well technically (7+ / 0-)

        its supposed to be illegal to spy on US Citizens or to cause a major economic meltdown due to fraud, theft and other mass criminality but.....

        "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

        by LieparDestin on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:32:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chris Christie is being investigated over this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC

          sort of corruption.

          Bob McDonnell will probably go to prison over this sort of corruption.

          Ray Nagin IS going to prison over this sort of corruption.

          Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

          by Walt starr on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:15:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Distractions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoMoreLies, k9disc

            to the real corruption. 'Just enough' major players (technically politicians are expendable to the deeply entrenched who really run things) get investigated to keep the peasants happy, but in the end there will be less jail time/fines than say a minority convicted of selling pot. Actually a few republicans getting busted for corruption actually favors their cause more than it hurts it. Fosters the whole unreliability of government atmosphere these very people like to create.

            "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

            by LieparDestin on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:33:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's going a direction I will not follow (0+ / 0-)

              I am no conspiracy theorist talking about "The Illuminati" or any other fictitious "Powers that be" .

              Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

              by Walt starr on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:41:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not illuminati talk... (0+ / 0-)

                just that politicians for the most part come and go in Washington, however there are some positions (courts or positions at the DOJ for example) that are deeply entrenched and do not get changed out from administration to administration. It doesn't hurt them if politicians get busted for some corruption here and there, however they will fight tooth and nail to help their corporate partners.

                "These are established professionals that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause, such is the mentality of most business professionals" -BoA/HBGary/CoC

                by LieparDestin on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:46:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yea, nobody has any power greater than Nagin (0+ / 0-)

                and McDonnell, and that is the natural scale of government 'corruption'.

                Sorry, it's pretty straightforward that McDonnell & Nagin were really small time influence peddlers, and the political sponsors they got serviced from were kind of non-entities.

                What Liepar is talking about, I think , is that these 6 figure, local and regional, corruption charges are a joke compared to the wholesale sponsorship of a Boeing, GE or GS.

                This is akin to some banker in Tucson, AZ getting arrested for fraud and it being peddled as reigning in bankers.

                It is simply not allowed to discuss our system of corporate sponsored public policy. This system of sponsoring politicians to legislate profits is never allowed to be visible. Instead we are thrown the 'corruption' bone - personal foibles and weak humans are the cause of our political ills.

                No Illuminati required. It's just business. This is how PR works.

                Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                by k9disc on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:27:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site