Congresswoman Suggests That Comcast Tried To Bribe Her To Support Merger
from the bad-day-at-the-office dept
With plenty of scrutiny still facing the proposed merger between NBC and Comcast, Representative Maxine Waters strongly suggested that someone from the company tried to bribe her to get her to support the merger:
During a House Judiciary Committee that took place in L.A. on Monday, Representative Maxine Waters stated that she had received a call from “somebody at Comcast asking, ‘What do you want?'”
Waters, who has been grilling the cable giant on issues of ethnic diversity, claims she replied by explaining the need for greater diversity in media. However, Waters says the Comcast caller responded by saying, “I’m talking about what do you want?”
Comcast, not surprisingly, denies any suggested wrongdoing:
Any implication that anyone ever inquired about what Congresswoman Waters would want personally is completely untrue. We meet and discuss the proposed joint venture with many members of Congress and other leaders. We have repeatedly tried to understand Congresswoman Waters’ concerns so that we can address them.
Honestly, I still don’t see why there’s so much concern about this merger, which strikes me as likely to be another AOL/Time Warner-type disaster for everyone involved. Still, buying off a politician seems a bit extreme, though, I would imagine that many assume this is pretty much standard operating procedures in DC. The only thing “different” is that Waters actually called Comcast on it publicly.
Filed Under: bribery, maxine waters
Companies: comcast, nbc universal
Comments on “Congresswoman Suggests That Comcast Tried To Bribe Her To Support Merger”
I threw comcrap to the curb years ago, Why don’t they just die! They NEVER cared about their customers!
Vertical integration?
Anti competitive practices?
Hopefully it is doomed to failure.
obviously, she asked for more than what they were willing to pay. and not in ethnic diversity.
“The only thing ‘different’ is that Waters actually called Comcast on it publicly.”
…and she didnt take the bribe…which is pretty amazing to me but I think noesbueno said it best, they werent willing to give her what she asked so now she’s making it public.
I hve a friend...
He worked for Adelphia before it got bought out by Comcast. he misses the old days with Adelphia because it was easier to service the customer. Now they are rewarded for just being diplomats. Telling the user that they will fix it but it never does. when the customer calls back angry they try and offer her services that are free to them but normally charge their customers to “appease” them.
Re: I hve a friend...
He could always get a different job instead of supporting unethical business practices. But who cares if you’re financially damaging people? You gotta do what you gotta do(TM).
Re: Re: You're an ignorant prick
Congratulations if you’re one of the few people that has the freedom to choose his or her own work and still make a decent living. Don’t assume everyone has that same freedom to turn down a job without the security of having another one.
Re: Re: Re: You're an ignorant prick
Geeze, temper… I think it was just a flip comment not to be taken seriously…
Re: Re: Re:2 You're an ignorant prick
while i understand it was an off the cuff remark, you cant make those kind of comments in this kind of economy and not expect people to have that exact reaction.
Study your history
Honestly, I still don’t see why there’s so much concern about this merger
If you don’t see why there’s concern over a content producer being controlled by a distributor you need to study the history of the Hollywood studio system and the 1948 antitrust case that put an end to it. Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.
Re: Study your history
“Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.”
Content delivered over satellite has remained relatively flat over the past ten years. In comparison, cable services have increased substantially since deregulation in 1995. So the customers in a way have been subsidizing this merger through the higher rates.
Should we expect cable rates to decrease, and service to improve after this merger? I don’t think so.
Re: Study your history
“Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.”
Content delivered over satellite has remained relatively flat over the past ten years. In comparison, cable services have increased substantially since deregulation in 1995. So the customers in a way have been subsidizing this merger through the higher rates.
Should we expect cable rates to decrease, and service to improve after this merger? I don’t think so.
Re: Study your history
“Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.”
Content delivered over satellite has remained relatively flat over the past ten years. In comparison, cable services have increased substantially since deregulation in 1995. So the customers in a way have been subsidizing this merger through the higher rates.
Should we expect rates to decrease, and service to improve after this merger? I don’t think so. But perhaps there will probably be some promotional offers that last 6 months.
Re: Study your history
“Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.”
Content delivered over satellite has remained relatively flat over the past ten years. In comparison, cable services have increased substantially since the Cable deregulation in 1995. So the customers in a way have been subsidizing this merger through the higher rates.
Should we expect rates to decrease, and service to improve after this merger? I don’t think so. But perhaps there will probably be some good 6 month promotional offers! 😛
Re: Study your history
“Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.”
Content delivered over satellite has remained relatively flat over the past ten years. In comparison, cable services have increased substantially since the Cable deregulation in 1995. So the customers in a way have been subsidizing this merger through the higher rates.
Should we expect rates to decrease, and service to improve after this merger? I don’t think so. But perhaps there will probably be some good 6 month promotional offers! 😛
Re: Study your history
This merger will be great for the customer type that enjoys the business model that requires people to call-and-threaten-to-cancel-every-6-months.
What’s wrong with providing a competitively priced product that comes with good service?
Re: Study your history
If you don’t see why there’s concern over a content producer being controlled by a distributor you need to study the history of the Hollywood studio system and the 1948 antitrust case that put an end to it. Comcast is clearly trying to create a walled-garden for cable content so that NBC content (NBC, MSNBC, Bravo, Syfy, Weather Channel, A&E, etc) is only (or preferentially) available on Comcast and not on other cable/satellite/internet providers.
The world is a very different place than 60 years ago. If NBC/comcast tries to wall off that content, they’ll find that people route around them.
Elections?
It’s election time. Amazing how honest they get at election time.
Doomed
I’ve said it before… the worst cable provider buyiing the worst content provider. A death knell.
"buying off a politician" -- is ROUTINE.
You are still living in the fairy-tale world of civics class where at worst mistakes might be made, but are eventually corrected by well-intentioned hard-working public servants, instead of the real world where so much money is sloshing around the system that *everyone* is bought, even though they’re all so corruptly intent on a police state that they hardly need to be.
So now you’ve got “politician refuses bribe” as the equivalent of the old “man bites dog”.
I do not know why she did not have the conversation recorded for proof. As a politician that is usually a good idea for situations the law in DC is one party consent for recording since she was a party of the conversation and would have been recording it there is no issue there.
What Bribe?
She kept ranting about some airy “diversity” thingy and they kept asking “what do you want” and not getting any real answer.
Where’s the bribe?
Not that I like either party involved.
Re: What Bribe?
OK, OK, ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.
How’s that?
I also am not a fan of either.
Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
A promise to provide more “Ethnic Diversity” is a great way to discuss how merger getting approved. If “Ethnic Diversity” was truly a driving force and a part of their DNA and company culture, I imagine Comcast would have invested in creating a few “Ethnic Channels” before they created and acquired regional sports networks.
The whole thing smells like a PR stunt. It’s almost as good as a promise for more programming for children, because we should do everything for the Children.
Mike: “Honestly, I still don’t see why there’s so much concern about this merger, which strikes me as likely to be another AOL/Time Warner-type disaster for everyone involved.”
When you own origination as well as distribution, many companies will be affected. It changes the dynamics of the industry, and there will be casualties.
Re: Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
When you own origination as well as distribution, many companies will be affected. It changes the dynamics of the industry, and there will be casualties.
Yeah, AOL/Time Warner was quite a casualty.
What, specifically, are you concerned about?
Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
A promise to provide more “Ethnic Diversity” is a great way to discuss how merger getting approved. If “Ethnic Diversity” was truly a driving force and a part of their DNA and company culture, I imagine Comcast would have invested in creating a few “Ethnic Channels” before they created and acquired regional sports networks.
The whole thing smells like a PR stunt. It’s almost as good as a promise for more programming for children, because we should do everything for the Children.
Mike: “Honestly, I still don’t see why there’s so much concern about this merger, which strikes me as likely to be another AOL/Time Warner-type disaster for everyone involved.”
You’re not a TV guy, nor do you seem to understand contractual implications. But when you own origination as well as distribution, many companies will be affected. It changes the dynamics of the industry.
Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
A promise to provide more “Ethnic Diversity” is a great way to discuss how merger getting approved. If “Ethnic Diversity” was truly a driving force and a part of their DNA and company culture, I imagine Comcast would have invested in creating a few “Ethnic Channels” before they created and acquired regional sports networks.
The whole thing smells like a PR stunt. It’s almost as good as a promise for more programming for children, because we should do everything for the Children.
Mike: “Honestly, I still don’t see why there’s so much concern about this merger, which strikes me as likely to be another AOL/Time Warner-type disaster for everyone involved.”
You’re not a TV guy, nor do you seem to understand contractual implications. But when you own origination as well as distribution, many companies will be affected. It changes the dynamics of the industry.
Re: Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
“You’re not a TV guy, nor do you seem to understand contractual implications.”
And you’re clearly not a computer guy, nor do you seem to understand how to make a comment without reposting it up to five times. Hit the “Submit” button ONCE, genius.
Re: Re: Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
You see, there’s this thing called “Moderating” and it’s not done well at Techdirt. I’ve brought it up a few times.
Apparently they decided to not moderate all five of my comments.
Re: Re: Re: Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
So you’re blaming Techdirt’s lack of moderation for your innablity to properly use their comments. How about you take responsibility for your own issues? 99% of us seem to have figured out how to post comments just fine.
Re: Re: Re:2 Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
Yep.
Re: Re: Re:2 Is "For Ethinic Diversity" the new "For The Children" PR line?
It seems to be working again. It’s nice to see things get resolved, isn’t it?
i dont even see an attempted bribe. what i see is a comcast person asking what she wants them to do to make the merger work. what has to be sold, what has to be moved, what has to be changed. that she took it as an offer of a bride only suggests that she is use to being offered bribes.
Asked her the wrong question
Its not ‘want do you want?’. The right question is ‘how much is the other side paying you?’.
Wonder how many times this happens and isn’t ‘mentioned’…
Comcast is up to something Someone should slow them down.
Did you see the recent round of letters that are coming out to reclassify internet and network neutrality? One wassigned by 71 House Democrats addressed to FCC Chairman Genachowski, and the other was a letter from 37 Senate Republicans.
Also, Magic Johnson has been promised a diversity TV network if the merger is approved.
It makes me wonder if Comcast has been investing in buying politicians, especially when I read about this.
Why does all this matter?
If you look into Next Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) which is a technology blueprint devised by Comcast, you’ll find that the new cable networks plan to use IP networks fairly extensively, and to classify it as an “information service” means it would be completely outside of regulation.
But the added merger with NBC, seems weird. How come no one is looking at all this stuff together instead of in parts?
Did you see the recent round of letters that are coming out to reclassify internet and network neutrality? One wassigned by 71 House Democrats addressed to FCC Chairman Genachowski, and the other was a letter from 37 Senate Republicans.
Also, Magic Johnson has been promised a diversity TV network if the merger is approved.
It makes me wonder if Comcast has been investing in buying politicians, especially when I read about this.
Why does all this matter?
If you look into Next Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) which is a technology blueprint devised by Comcast, you’ll find that the new cable networks plan to use IP networks fairly extensively, and to classify it as an “information service” means it would be completely outside of regulation.
But the added merger with NBC, seems weird. How come no one is looking at all this stuff together instead of in parts?
Did you see the recent round of letters that are coming out to reclassify internet and network neutrality? One wassigned by 71 House Democrats addressed to FCC Chairman Genachowski, and the other was a letter from 37 Senate Republicans.
Also, Magic Johnson has been promised a diversity TV network if the merger is approved.
It makes me wonder if Comcast has been investing in buying politicians, especially when I read about this.
Why does all this matter?
If you look into Next Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) which is a technology blueprint devised by Comcast in the past 6 months, you’ll find that the new cable technology plan is to use IP networks fairly extensively. To classify it as an “information service” means it would be completely outside of regulation.
But the added merger with NBC, seems weird. How come no one is looking at all this stuff together instead of in parts?
New technology path
Did you see the recent round of letters that are coming out to reclassify internet and network neutrality? One wassigned by 71 House Democrats addressed to FCC Chairman Genachowski, and the other was a letter from 37 Senate Republicans.
Also, Magic Johnson has been promised a diversity TV network if the merger is approved.
It makes me wonder if Comcast has been investing in buying politicians, especially when I read about this.
Why does all this matter?
If you look into Next Generation Network Architecture (NGNA) which is a technology blueprint devised by Comcast in the past 6 months, you’ll find that the new cable technology plan is to use IP networks fairly extensively. To classify it as an “information service” means it would be completely outside of regulation.
But the added merger with NBC, seems weird. How come no one is looking at all this stuff together instead of in parts?
Re: New technology path
What’s with all the multi-posts?
How does this not become antitrust?
Next Generation Network Archetecture huh?
Well, if Comcast wants to be a technological standards body, own content, as well as all distribution channels for a well known brand, and delivery channels, I guess that’s not an antitrust issue if you can bribe the congress.
Good For Brian. Must have an ego the size of Pennsylvania.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/441185-The_Life_of_Brian.php
sorry all, but its maxine waters. to be completely honest, there is no way of knowing who is lying.
maxine waters is the very definition of a carrier politician and has done little else since 1976.
she has made the CREW list multiple times
called the 1992 riots an acceptable rebellion
has tons of nepotism surrounding her
requested the FCC to not renew KTLAs license stating that they had an ‘undue influence over public opinion’ which created harm to the community… the harm? reporting on the nepotism surrounding her.
she has been very confrontational several times in public and she is pretty much the absolute worst politics has to offer.
as far as comcast goes, we all know who and what they are & how they operate…
you tell me who the more trustworthy person here is?
Re: harbingerofdoom
Maxine Waters isn’t my favorite politician — none are — but what I see of her strikes me more favorably than most. You’re SO over the top that I’ll defend her.
“she has made the CREW list multiple times”
What’s that? Sounds like lightweight left-right paradigm.
“called the 1992 riots an acceptable rebellion”
Was that the one over the thugs who beat Rodney King getting acquitted after a lame prosecution? If so, it’s acceptable to me too.
“has tons of nepotism surrounding her”
Is there a politician who doesn’t?
“requested the FCC to not renew KTLAs license”
This is the “absolute worst”? Evidently invading Iraq based on a pack of lies, killing hundreds of thousands of people, shredding the Constitution here and abroad, and instituting an Orwellian “Homeland Security” doesn’t count with you.
“confrontational”
I assume you mean contrary to your views, but that for an accusation of wrong-doing is… feeble.
Merger
Why are cable company’s aloud to have monopolies,no competition means outrageous prices.And why are merger’s aloud to go through,people lose their gobs,and even less competition.Like when they busted up AT&T for a monopoly,then they allow them years later to buy one another up again.It’s the crooks in office that allow this to go on,throw them all out of office.They are making millions off of us and we get NOTHING in return.
Merger
Why are cable company’s aloud to have monopolies,no competition means outrageous prices.And why are merger’s aloud to go through,people lose their gobs,and even less competition.Like when they busted up AT&T for a monopoly,then they allow them years later to buy one another up again.It’s the crooks in office that allow this to go on,throw them all out of office.They are making millions off of us and we get NOTHING in return.
Re: Merger
“Why are cable company’s aloud to have monopolies”
I DO NOT KNOW WHY CABLE COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE MONOPOLIES
I DO NOT KNOW WHY CABLE COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE MONOPOLIES