We have received several inquiries about where Stop the Cap! stands on the “Stop Online Piracy Act” — legislation currently in Congress designed to combat online piracy.  We’ve remained silent on this legislation for only one reason: we just haven’t have the time to cover it.  But I wanted to take a moment to answer the ongoing inquiries from readers about where we stand on this legislation.

In short, we oppose it.

As with virtually all legislation bought and paid for by large corporate interests, this attempt to thwart online piracy is yet another example of special interest overreach with a bountiful basket of unintentional consequences corporate lobbyists are not paid to consider when pushing the agenda of giant media and entertainment conglomerates.

As of yesterday, the Obama Administration seems to have recognized the growing opposition to the legislation from just about everyone apart from the corporate interests spending millions to promote and lobby it.  Some media reports seem to indicate SOPA is on the verge of being shelved, at least temporarily.  But you can be certain that like all monied legislation, it will be back.

Instead of a lengthy explanation about SOPA, we’d prefer to point you to some excellent pieces explaining why the proposed bill is a really, really bad idea.  Free Press has an organized campaign to stop the legislation in its current form, one that you should consider supporting, even if the bill is now languishing in Washington.  Also check out the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s web form to contact your legislators to oppose SOPA.

Stop the Cap! will participate in the Stop SOPA censorship campaign scheduled for tomorrow.  Visitors will first land on an information page explaining why this site “has been blocked.”  But that page includes a link to continue your journey back here, where regular coverage will continue.

Be sure to watch these two videos:

[flv width=”596″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC Chris Hayes SOPA and Antipiracy Debated 1-15-12.flv[/flv]

Chris Hayes’ courageous in-depth debate about SOPA appeared on MSNBC, a network owned by Comcast-NBC, which ardently supports the legislation to the point of distributing pro-SOPA coffee mugs to employees. (18 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/SOPA Marvin Ammori.flv[/flv]

Marvin Ammori’s assessment of the legislation appeared on Al-Jazeera English, one of the few news networks willing to discuss the proposed legislation on-air.  (4 minutes)

Hulu has received an unsolicited, and still private offer to buy the company lock, stock, and barrel — disengaging some of America’s largest television networks from the online streaming business Hulu represents.

With an offer in hand, Hulu’s owners News Corp., Walt Disney, and Comcast/NBC have decided to hire investment bankers to solicit any competing offers for the service.  Yahoo! may be one of the companies interested.

Hulu has always represented an irritation for program buyers — notably cable networks and television stations — that purchase programming to rerun on cable networks and television stations.  Because Hulu gives away most of its content for free, these buyers argue it devalues the programming they are buying.

In short, if everyone has already been able to watch 30 Rock several times online, for free, why pay top dollar to buy the series to show on a local television station?

The problem is even worse from the perspective of cable, phone, and satellite companies in the business of selling video packages to customers.  As soon as viewers discover they can watch all of their favorite shows online, again for free, why buy the cable TV or satellite package?

The Los Angeles Times reports Hulu may have some bad news in store for cord cutters: it may implement its own “authentication” system that would only allow instant access to those with a verified subscription to a pay television package.  All others would need to wait just over a week before they can watch popular shows during a limited viewing window.

For many analysts, that will slash the service’s net worth to a would-be buyer.  So would the inability of the new owners to win long-term contracts for the rights to keep popular series and shows on Hulu for the indefinite future.  In the case of Comcast/NBC, it’s a classic case of being torn between bringing your programming to more viewers and eroding away your company’s own cable subscriber base.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Olson Says Yahoo Google Amazon Potential Hulu Buyers 6-22-11.mp4[/flv]

Bloomberg News reports on rumors Yahoo!, Google, and Amazon may be interested in acquiring Hulu.  (5 minutes)

Meredith Attwell-Baker sure is.

The exit of Meredith Attwell Baker from her role as a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to take a position as a top lobbyist at Comcast is raising eyebrows in Washington and anger in the rest of the country.

Comcast confirmed late today Baker will serve as their new senior vice president of government affairs, a title that can be considerably shortened to “lobbyist.”

The short span between March, when Baker was browbeating regulators over “taking too long” to review the Comcast-NBC merger she supported, and today’s announcement has surprised even some Washington insiders.

Often, those looking for a better paycheck in the private sector will start by working for a D.C. lobbying firm before directly accepting employment with a company whose multi-billion dollar merger deal they affirmed months earlier in their role as a regulator.

Tim Karr at Free Press called today’s announcement more food for the cynics:

With behavior like this it’s little wonder that American people are so nauseated by business as usual in Washington. Inside the Beltway the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows. Outside of Washington, people of every political stripe have expressed near unanimous contempt for a system of government that favors powerful corporations at the expense of the many.

An opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times noted Baker’s move raises uncomfortable questions about how legislators and regulators make their decisions. “Are they acting in their constituents’ best interests, or are they burnishing their prospects for a high-paying job on K Street after they leave government?”

The New York Times expanded on Baker’s strong sentiment for the merger:

“The NBC/Comcast merger took too long, in my view,” Ms. Baker said on March 2 in a speech to a communications industry group. Noting that that time was similar to the length of other major merger reviews at the commission, she asked whether those reviews were preventing companies from trying to grow through acquisition.

“My concern is that you might walk away,” she told the communications executives, “and how many other consumer-enhancing and job-creating deals are not getting done today.”

Politico reported that Comcast’s gain was probably a loss for consumers:

“Sometimes the revolving door between government and private industry spins quickly and sometimes it’s on a rocket sled,” Dave Levinthal, communication’s director for the Center for Responsive Politics, told POLITICO. “This transition is as quick as it can possibly get.”

While Baker is not allowed to be an official lobbyist, Levinthal noted that she has many ways to be influential and lobby for her new company in a broader sense.

“It’s a big boon for Comcast,” he said. “They are getting somebody who has unbelievable government experience and know-how” in the communications space. Consumers, he noted, can’t afford to hire someone of a similar stature to advocate for them.

Comcast denied it approached Baker for a job until after their merger deal was approved.  That defense only strengthens suspicions Baker’s vote made her an even more attractive candidate for the cable company, but most pundits guess she would have supported Comcast even without a job offer. Judging from the comment sections of most major media stories covering today’s events, consumers are unhappy. Some called Baker an opportunist, while others used the occasion to bash Republicans for their reflexive support of big cable and phone companies paying off with jobs at the companies they strongly supported while in government positions.

Considering a few former Democratic commissioners have also made a living working for the interests of big cable and phone companies, calling today’s events an exclusively Republican travesty would be wrong.

Baker will report to Kyle McSlarrow, who recently left the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the cable industry’s top lobbying group, for his own new career at Comcast.

Baker

The Wall Street Journal is reporting this afternoon that Republican FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker, nominated to the FCC in mid-2009, is preparing to leave her duties to take a job with Comcast Corporation, just four months after voting for the controversial merger between NBC-Universal and the nation’s largest cable company — her new employer.

The newspaper reports Baker is expected to announce her departure as soon as this week for an unknown position at the Philadelphia-based cable giant. Comcast declined to comment, a company spokeswoman told the Journal.

This is the latest example of the revolving door that rotates people to and from the industries they regulate as government employees.  Baker was expected to be renominated for another term at the FCC.

Baker’s performance on the Commission was decidedly business-friendly, although at several points she seemed confused about the issues involved.  At a Tech Policy Summit held in January 2010, Baker suggested consumers paying for roaming while using mobile broadband would be an effective solution to ease congestion on wireless data networks.

Copps

A Statement from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: The Lone Dissenter in Today’s 4-1 Decision Approving the Merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal:

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

For any transaction that comes before this Commission, our statutory obligation is to weigh the promised benefits against the potential harms so as to determine whether the public interest is being served. There are many potential harms attending this transaction—even the majority recognizes them. But all the majority’s efforts—diligent though they were—to ameliorate these harms cannot mask the truth that this Comcast-NBCU joint venture grievously fails the public interest. I searched in vain for the benefits. I could find little more than such touted gains as “the elimination of double marginalization.” Pardon me, but a deal of this size should be expected to yield more than the limited benefits cited. I understand that economies and efficiencies could accrue to the combined Comcast-NBCU venture, but look a little further into the decision and you will find that any such savings will not necessarily be passed on to consumers. When they tell you that at the outset, don’t look for lower cable or Internet access bills. As companies combine and consolidate, consumers have seen their cable bills out-strip the Consumer Price Index by orders of magnitude.

Many of the new commitments that have been added aim no higher than maintaining the status quo. The status quo is not serving the public interest.

It is also claimed that the duration of the commitments made by Comcast-NBCU are longer than any that have been attached to previously-approved mergers. That may be true—but it is also true that power is patient and that big businesses can bide their time when they have to in order to reap the fullest harvest.

While approval of this transaction was from its announcement the steepest of climbs for me, given my long-standing opposition to the outrageous media consolidation this country has experienced over the past few decades, I did meet with stakeholders on all sides to make sure I understood their perspectives on the matter. And I worked to develop ideas to minimize the harms and to advance at least some positive public interest benefits. I know my colleagues worked assiduously on this proceeding, too.

Commissioner Clyburn, for example, worked successfully to achieve commitments from Comcast-NBCU to improve diversity, expand broadband deployment in unserved areas and increase broadband adoption by low-income households. The Chairman and his team, led by John Flynn, and many, many other members of the FCC team put more effort into this transaction than I have seen put into any transaction during my nearly ten years here at the Commission. I also salute the unprecedented cooperation between the agency and the Department of Justice.

Comcast's Online Toll Plaza

But at the end of the day, the public interest requires more—much more—than it is receiving. The Comcast-NBCU joint venture opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet. The potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, access fees to reach end users, and a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real.

As for the future of America’s news and journalism, I see nothing in this deal to address the fundamental damage that has been inflicted by years of outrageous consolidation and newsroom cuts. Investigative journalism is not even a shell of its former self. All of this means it’s more difficult for citizens to hold the powerful accountable. It means thousands of stories go unwritten. It means we never hear about untold instances of business corruption, political graft and other chicanery; it also means we don’t hear enough about all the good things taking place in our country every day.

The slight tip of the hat that the applicants have made toward some very limited support of local media projects does not even begin to address the core of the problem. Given that this merger will make the joint venture a steward of the public’s airwaves as a broadcast licensee, I asked for a major commitment of its resources to beef up the news operation at NBC. That request was not taken seriously. Increasing the quantity of news by adding hours of programming is no substitute for improving the quality of news by devoting the necessary resources. Make no mistake: what is at stake here is the infrastructure for our national conversation—the very lifeblood of American democracy.

We should be moving in precisely the opposite direction of what this Commission approves today.

There are many other facets of the joint venture that trouble me. I worry, for example, about the future of our public broadcast stations. Comcast-NBCU has committed to carry the signals of any of those stations that agree to relinquish the spectrum they are presently using. Will public television no longer be available to over-the-air viewers? And, what happens when the duration of this commitment has run its course? Might the public station be dropped to make room for yet more infotainment programming? In too many communities, the public television station is the last locally owned and operated media outlet left. Public television is miles ahead of everyone else in making productive, public interest use of the digital multi-cast spectrum licensed to it.

Why in the world would we gamble with its future?

While the item before the Commission improves measurably on the program access, program carriage and online video provisions originally offered by the applicants, I believe loopholes remain that will allow Comcast-NBCU to unduly pressure both distributors, especially small cable companies, and content producers who sit across the table from the newly-consolidated company during high-stakes business negotiations for programming and carriage. Even when negotiations are successful between the companies, consumers can still expect to see high prices get passed along to them, as Comcast-NBCU remains free to bundle less popular programming with must-have marquee programming. Given the market power that Comcast-NBCU will have at the close of this deal over both programming content and the means of distribution, consumers should be rightfully worried.

In sum, this is simply too much, too big, too powerful, too lacking in benefits for American consumers and citizens. I have respect for the business acumen of the applicants, and have no doubts that they will strive to make Comcast-NBCU a financial success. But simply blessing business deals is not the FCC’s statutorily-mandated job.  Our job is to determine whether the record here demonstrates that this new media giant will serve the public interest. While I welcome the improvements made to the original terms, at the end of the day this transaction is a huge boost for media industry (and digital industry) consolidation. It puts new media on a road traditional media should never have taken. It further erodes diversity, localism and competition—the three essential pillars of the public interest standard mandated by law. I would be true to neither the statute nor to everything I have fought for here at the Commission over the past decade if I did not dissent from what I consider to be a damaging and potentially dangerous deal.