Shocking News! Rich People Cheat!

Via Suburban Guerilla Suzie, to whom I was sent by a dog-barking surrogate Atrios, this little newsbite:

This will be a lot of fun, I think:

Hundreds of super-rich American tax cheats have, in effect, turned themselves in to the IRS after a bank computer technician in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein came forward with the names of US citizens who had set up secret accounts there, according to Washington lawyers investigating the scheme.

A good apetizer for the magnum opus essay I’m working on as a sequel to Harold’s recent Gods of the Marketplace story. Filthy-rich tax cheats with secret accounts in Liechtenstein, a brave young Licthensteinian data entry clerk convicted Licthensteinian fraud selling purloined bank records to German & British & American tax investigators, now in hiding with a new secret identity. . . trust me, it’s great stuff. Check it out.

For the Clueless Among Us: Why Comcast Paying Folks to Attend FCC Hearing Is Wrong.

I can’t believe I actually need to explain this.

Suppose Comcast made the following offer: If you vote “yes” on a ballot initiative we like (and agree to take a pocket recording device into the voting booth with you so we can have proof), we will pay you $50.

Most of us would not only say that this is wrong, we would have no problem understanding why that’s a crime. We would not be persuaded by Comcast defending itself by saying “well, Free Press and other organizations have campaigned in support of the bill and are calling people to ask them to go out and vote — they even provide free rides to people likely to vote for the initiative. That’s just like paying people directly to vote the way we want.” In general, we recognize a difference between organizing ad trying to persuade people to vote the way you want and actually paying people for their vote (and wanting a receipt).

Which brings us to Comcast’s exercise in seat packing at Monday’s FCC Hearing in Boston.

More below . . . .

Continue reading

Follow Up On MI PEG Lawsuit

So the judge heard the motion for a restraining order by Dearborn and Meridian to keep Comcast from migrating PEG channels to digital. The court issued the restraining order, finding that the towns were more likely than not to prevail on several of their issues, that Comcast would suffer no harm from the delay, but that the cities would potentially suffer irreparable harm if Comcast migrated the PEG channels to where most citizens couldn’t see them. (You can find the opinion, the pleadings, and other useful information here.)

On the question of the definition of “basic tier” I raised in yesterday’s post, the court found:

1) Nothing requires a cable operator to offer the basic package as all digital or all analog, so it is more likely than not that Comcast can migrate PEG to digital while keeping broadcast channels analog.

2) However, cable operators must offer the basic tier on equal terms. Requiring rental of additional equipment to get part of the basic tier therefore is more likely than not a violation of law.

A preliminary restraining order is not a final judgment. The court must make a determination on what arguments are “likely to prevail.” But the court may rule otherwise once the questions are fully briefed and argued. Hence, the “more likely than not” language.

But the courts findings produce some oddball results. By implication, at least so far, the court accepts that the obligation to offer a “basic tier” persists even after the FCC finds “effective competition.” But despite what I would think is fairly straightforward legislative language and strong legislative language, the court thinks it more likely than not that cable operators can treat the elements of the basic package in a different way from each other.

I expect fights over the basic package and the meaning of Section 623(b)(8) to become much more common, as cable operators try to migrate more popular programming to digital and look to stop carrying analog after the digital transition. For me, the real question is: “Will the FCC weigh in?” If so, when, and how? Under NCTA v. Brand X (yes, that Brand X), the FCC can weigh in at any time, since a decision by a court deciding the issue does not alter the deference due to the agency. So there’s no rush for the FCC to assert jurisdiction on its own. Cable operators are rather unlikely to rush in and ask the FCC to start a rulemaking to preempt the states on this issue. So will someone else go to the FCC and ask them to resolve the issue? PEG supporters or local governments would be a logical choice, but they don’t exactly have warm fuzzy feelings about this FCC Chairman given his willingness to preempt local franchise authorities to the detriment of PEG and local consumer protection. Especially given the outcome in Michigan (which buys time) and the possibility of Congressional help, I expect the PEG folks to wait and see what the new FCC looks like before going to the FCC.

Broadcasters might also look to get the FCC involved early, rather than wait for a situation to develop. But that seems unlikely. Still, if folks at PBS or folks representing the independent affiliates get spooked, or if problems develop in the field, we may see the broadcasters come in.

Finally, the FCC itself could wake up and notice the issue. But that also strikes me as unlikely.

Stay tuned . . . .

To the Thief Who Has Stolen My Sign

[Next week’s election includes an amendment to the Wisconsin state consitiution. The amendment excludes homosexuals from whatever protection they might otherwise have, in that it prohibits the legislature from granting any civil union or other benefits except for couples defined on the basis of gender. Specifically, each couple is prescribed to be one man and one woman.

A friend asked me to put up a small sign that reads “A fair Wisconsin votes No …on the civil union ban.” Two days later, the sign had been stolen from my lawn on a non-through street.

I’ve replaced the sign, and attached the following letter.

I welcome comments and improvements, as I think I might share this letter with others, the local papers, etc.]

Continue reading

Path to 9/11: KMRFSIA

In re: “The Path to 9/11”, the right-wing mockumentary loosely based on some actual events but with plenty of made-up shit to fill in “the space between the comercials”, I would like to say to ABC, Disney, and to all the political goons of any stripe attempting to capitalize on the upcoming anniversary of the horrible deaths of so many of our fellow citizens– although it must be said that the Disney/ABC goons in this instance are Republican goons — anyway, in the spirit of the Finno-Scots-Irish people I would like to say that ABC/Disney can kiss my royal Finno-Scots-Irish ass.

With a tip o’ the cap to Mike Moran, whose drunken eloquence at the Concert for New York City, which I watched on TV, was so wonderfully cathartic.

Tales of the Sausage Factory: ALERT! NEBRASKA PROPOSES TOTAL BAN ON MUNI SYSTEMS

The incumbents go for speed over finese in this latest round. LB 157, just introduced in the NE legislature, proposes a flat out ban on municipal systems. Critically, this has been designated “emergency legislation” so that it can move through the legislature swiftly and with minimal debate. Apparently, the idea that citizens might have a say in their own governance is an “emergency” in Nebraska — at least if you are a legislator who is also a wholly owned subsidiary of the Telco and Cable lobby.

Here’s hoping the people of Nebraska find out what’s going on soon enough to act!

stay tuned . . . .

access to media, privacy, conspiracies, nerds fighting back, and information architecture

The Government Information Awareness project is intended to bring transparency to politically and socially relevent information. A major idea is to allow users to post and contest unchecked information while retaining anonymity. It involves some really hard information architecture issues.

The inspiration came from a plot to collect and relate info on US citizens, by a man convicted of attempting to run a shadow government. That man is Admiral John Poindexter, and his Total Information Awareness plot has actually been implemented as the the more marketable Terrorism Information Awareness program.

I haven’t heard about GIA since its launch. I’m not sure if this is an interesting experiment that didn’t pan out, or if the idea could have legs.