Los Angeles Times Faux Journalism

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 the Los Angeles Times ran an article in its business section titled "Comcast's Growing Reach". On both Friday and Saturday preceding the running of this article the Times advertised this piece as an insight into the issues surrounding the proposed merger of Time Warner and Comcast. What a grand disappointment. The article seems to be written by Comcast’s PR department.

The article mentions that after their Time Warner takeover, Comcast would control most of the major urban markets in the United States for both cable television and Internet, as if this was a good thing. The only true competition to cable television is the Internet, but the article failed to mention that fact. The important issues of net neutrality and media consolidation were simply glossed over with a few words. How can the issue of one person, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, controlling 50% of the Internet in the United States not be a major issue? Faux journalism.

After the proposed merger Comcast will control 1.5 million homes in the Los Angeles area for both cable television and Internet. Does the City of Los Angeles have a position regarding this merger or has it just kept quiet in order to maximize its political contributions? The growing reach, which is spoken of, is the growing control of the lives and media of all the citizens in Los Angeles and most other major urban markets.

The article discusses Comcast as an evolving player in the tech industry. While they may be evolving they are not evolving into a major player, they are already the major player. As evidence of Comcast's evolving participation in the technology field the article points out that Comcast has more software engineers than any other cable television company. That would only seem to make sense since they are the largest cable television company in the country by far. That is not news but simply faux journalism.

The article wastes time telling us about the cafeteria for Comcast employees as well as the new large office building they plan to build in Philadelphia. Do we really care about this? No! The issues that are important to us are net neutrality and the consolidation of media.

Comcast claims they will not compete with any system that is owned by Time Warner.  This goes without saying since cable television systems in major metropolitan areas were illegally awarded as government-protected monopolies.

Local governments were able to create monopolies that private enterprise could not. They were created by politicians who received large political contributions in order to protect the monopolies that were issued in violation of the United States Constitution. The monopoly cable companies were able to pay pennies on the dollar (through political contributions and other gratuities) for the economic benefits that it received.   You and I pay the price. The taxpayers are the ones now paying the price for these grand monopolies created by cities such as Los Angeles. Los Angeles alone spent more than $10 million to protect illegal monopolies for cable television companies. The US Supreme Court in the case of Preferred Communications vs City of Los Angeles established the protection for competition but was ignored by the City.

As Comcast has taken over the Internet it is now seeking to end the concept of “net neutrality” by having the FCC institute laws and regulations that will effectively give them control of the Internet. In the brief discussion of opposing viewpoints the important issue was hidden in deep into the article. It stated, "Comcast is cornering a market…the Internet and the flow of information".  Cable television, as it exists today, was created by the corruption of local governments, being led by the City of Los Angeles.

 Allowing one company to purchase government as is being done by Comcast on the federal level is a major danger and a disgrace to free enterprise and our Constitution. This corruption is now being extended to the federal government and the FCC in order to take even more control. The current chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, was the chief lobbyist for cable television and the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, is now the chief lobbyist for the cable television industry.  

The proposed changes of the net neutrality laws are designed to provide additional revenue to the cable television industry whose revenues from cable television are declining annually. That increased revenue must come from us. The free market be damned, buying politicians is the new economy.

The Underbelly of L.A. City Hall

In the underbelly right is wrong; winning is losing and the rules apply to everyone except the ones in charge.  This is where the government is really run.  This is where cable television was created.

In 1978 my brother and I approached the City of Los Angeles in an attempt to obtain a license to build a cable television system in the South Central area. At that time there was no cable television system and no one was interested in building one, except us. What happens over the next 14 years is a demonstration of the corrupting influence that the cable industry has had over government in general and specifically the City of Los Angeles.

From 1978 through 1982 we pursued a license to build a cable television system in the most impoverished area of Los Angeles, South Central.  We pursued this license as a joint venture with the largest cable operator in the Los Angeles. Despite meeting all the licensing requirements, in 1980 Mayor Tom Bradley told us that unless we gave control of our company to his friends we could not obtain a license. We refused.  

By 1983 we realized that there was no chance we would ever get a license from the City of Los Angeles without making payoffs. We then sought the protection of the US District Court in order to obtain our First Amendment rights that would be exercised through cable television. Cable television was little more than electronic newspaper that used the public right-of-way, utility poles, just as newspapers use corners, another public right-of-way.

However, shortly after filing our case, Preferred Communications vs City of Los Angeles, we were thrown out of court by U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall, a friend of Mayor Tom Bradley. From 1983 through 1986 we would go through the federal appellate process. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor that cable television was a medium subject to First Amendment protection;  Los Angeles could not limit cable television to a single monopoly provider as it had done.  If you thought, like we did, a Supreme Court ruling would stop the cable corruption you would be wrong.

In 1984 the City awarded a South Central cable license to the NYSE real estate company owned by Eli Broad, one of the richest men in America and another friend of Tom Bradley.  The company had no other interests in cable and never built South Central.  In 1987 they sold the monopoly at a great profit.

In 1986 the case was remanded back to the US District Court of Judge Marshall. The Supreme Court had rejected the city’s position that cable television was a “natural monopoly”. Still, there was no cable in South Central.  For the next 6 years the judge would allow continuing delaying tactics and refuse to allow a trial on the facts in this case. There was little doubt there was room on the poles but that did not dissuade the City from continuing to violate the rights that had been guaranteed by the Supreme Court. This is how cable television became a powerful monopoly, through manipulation by the courts and politically appointed judges.

Despite the constitutional protection for a second cable television company, Los Angeles would refuse to allow any competitive construction within the city. The judge would do nothing except delay this case.  City Attorney and future mayor James Hahn, in collusion with Tom Bradley, was responsible for this ongoing violation of our civil rights.

The cable television industry could not have taken the positions taken by the government; that they were entitled to use public right of ways and all other people would be prohibited. Only the protection provided by a compromised government, which received large contributions from the cable television industry, could support such a ludicrous theory.

In 1992 Judge Marshall confirmed that the city had been violating our rights for more than 10 years. As a penalty for this behavior the city was ordered to pay damages in the amount of one dollar. What laws can you violate for one dollar? This is how the federal courts protected the citizens from the unbridled power of the unregulated monopoly, cable television.

Now cable is seeking to do the same thing with broadband communications that it did with cable television. They are seeking to have the government do their dirty work while they steal your resources. Net neutrality cannot be compromised otherwise freedom will be compromised.  Yes, it is that simple.

(The full story behind the story can be found at anatomyofahustle.com

The NAACP Sterling Fiasco

So the NAACP sells Lifetime Achievement Awards to racists and all of a sudden everyone is surprised. Are you surprised?  My only surprise is that everyone is  surprised. The NAACP sellout has been going on much longer than just the Donald Sterling affair. For the last 30 years I have watched the NAACP deteriorate to little more than a shell of what it once was.

Leon Jenkins, former president of the Los Angeles NAACP, has been appearing in newspaper ads with Donald Sterling for more than the last 5 years. How could a person such as Leon Jenkins be the leader of an important branch of a major national civil rights organization when his integrity and ethics are so questionable? Leon Jenkins, a disbarred attorney and former judge in Detroit , comes to Los Angeles and is now the voice of what is supposed to be a major civil rights organization. It is clear this is not a major civil rights organization.

The NAACP has done very little in the last 3 decades to provide improvement in the black community and their voice has little respect within that community. While they give out many awards to movie stars and great singers, these award shows are nothing more than a profit generating personal gratification tool to mask the complete and utter failure of this organization.

To what extent does the national organization oversee the activities of its local branches? I suspect that as long as local branches provide financial support for the national organization nobody really cares what they do. The NAACP is little more than the Jack-in-the-Box of civil rights organizations. They will sell you anything that will provide a profit for them- including absolution for racists.

This once proud civil rights organization has abdicated its leadership by refusing to assist in the acquisition and protection of the civil rights of its constituent community. This failure is national, and I can personally attest, has been going on since, at least,  the early 1980s.

The mainstream news media and the Democratic Party continue to pretend that the NAACP is the voice of black America.  The truth is that black America has no voice any more.  Black America must depend upon the media conglomerates, which are being deceived by that imitation civil rights organization. While the current organization may have the same name as the 1960s civil rights organization it certainly does not have the same support from the black community that it once commanded. The city of Los Angeles is a leader in the denial of free speech for minorities. What did Leon Jenkins and the NAACP have to say about that?  Nothing!

This failure is mirrored in the complete collapse of minority communities all over the United States. The NAACP is little more than a political arm of the Democratic Party at this point in time. The Democratic Party is not providing requisite assistance to black America that has slowed the continually declining economic progress that was evident during the 60s and 70s.

I've experienced first-hand how the NAACP simply ignored civil rights violations going on within the city of Los Angeles for more than two decades. They even refused to acknowledge a United States Supreme Court decision was handed down in 1986 that affected the entire South Central Los Angeles community. My case, Preferred Communications vs the City of Los Angeles, was a major civil rights case that is still cited in numerous decisions until this very day. At no time in the past 30 years has the NAACP ever taken a position regarding this case. I believe that silence, when it comes to civil rights, is consent.

In my book Anatomy of a Hustle: Cable Comes to South Central LA I dedicate an entire chapter titled "The Myth of Black Leadership". I explain that the complete failure of civil rights organizations including the NAACP have led to the economic and moral decline within black communities throughout the nation. It takes leadership to provide the guidance to young men and women who are aspiring to participate in our society.  The NAACP is a complete and total failure over the last 3 decades. This is not surprising that they praise racists for their kind contributions. They are not alone because the politicians cover this inadequacy, but I don't have the same expectations of politicians that I do of a vaunted civil rights organizations.  The L.A. NAACP chose a “civil rights leader” who sold out to a racist.

The Comcast Merger-Hijacking the Internet

The war for net neutrality was fought before the Internet even existed. It was not a silent war, but one fought loudly, vocally and in the light of day; though few were able to see. The Internet, in its current state, which now requires broadband access for effective use is primarily in the control of cable television companies in the United States.

As the largest cable television provider in the United States, Comcast recognizes the danger that net neutrality is for their service. In order to protect its interests and declining revenues from cable television Comcast has emerged in a new process to hijack the Internet. The elimination of net neutrality is the hijacking.

The proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner cable would allow Comcast to control almost 50% of all broadband access in the United States. The effect of Comcast’s potential antitrust violations in this merger are merely a smokescreen to greater effect of Comcast's ability to take control of the Internet by eliminating net neutrality. The elimination of net neutrality is one of the most dangerous actions that can take place. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Is working with Comcast to eliminate net neutrality by allowing them to create different levels of service on the broadband system. Do not be fooled by the bait and switch tactics of focusing on antitrust when net neutrality is the big issue.

The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) is the lobbying trade organization for the cable television industry. As cable television's largest company, Comcast is the most influential member of this organization. At this point in time the NCTA is effectively a lobbying subsidiary of Comcast. The blatantly conflicted relationship between Comcast, the FCC and the NCTA would be a poor conspiracy theory except for the fact that it is so easily documented.

The current chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, is a former president of the NCTA. The current president of the NCTA, Michael Powell, is a former chairman of the FCC. The former president of the NCTA, Kyle McSlarrow, who was replaced by Michael Powell is now the president of Comcast/NBC Universal. It would be almost laughable if it was not so dangerous. This almost incestuous relationship is not for the benefit of the general public and cannot ever be.


The Internet has developed quite well without the FCC's interference up until this time. This proposal represents the end of net neutrality and the hijacking of the Internet by a single company. The development of cable television competition was virtually destroyed by the illegal licensing practices at the inception of cable television. The details of these illegal practices are examined in my book "Anatomy Of A Hustle: Cable Comes to South Central LA"

Under this proposal, Comcast would become the gatekeeper of the Internet as well as all video programming in the United States. The supposed protection that the FCC claims it will provide against abuse by cable television companies is clearly hollow.

There is a limited amount of broadband service available. The sale of a substantial portion of that access to large programmers such as Netflix and other large video streaming services can only lead to one inevitable result. Reduced broadband space for the average citizen to utilize. This limitation is a broad form of censorship. The censorship is exercised based upon unspecified criteria that will be determined by the unrestricted broadband operator is what is awaiting us after the merger.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Net neutrality must become the most To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Net neutrality must become the most important issue in the midterm elections for the Congress this year. Any politician that opposes net neutrality opposes the best interest of the citizens. This is something that will affect citizens regardless of their political persuasion and override every issue when there is no freedom to speak. We must question politicians that are seeking election regarding their position on net neutrality. Any change to the current circumstances will be the loss of net neutrality regardless of what the FCC says. The FCC wants to give you protection you won't need until they screw you.

(To learn more, visit anatomyofahustle.com)

The Comcast Merger Joke

The Comcast/Time Warner merger proposal should be looked at for what it truly is. It is nothing more than a bold greedy play to grab control of technology and political power for the enrichment of the few. The enrichment of the few can only come at the detriment of the many. This is a bold step forward for the ability of the 1% to consolidate their power. The mere insinuation that this proposed merger would somehow benefit the general public is laughable.


The largest two cable companies in the United States propose to create a new company that will control 35% of all cable-television households. In addition the combination would control approximately 50% of all high-speed broadband Internet access available in the United States. The attempt by the federal government to create the diversionary tactic of this as an antitrust issue is part of the joke.


Cable television as an independent industry is declining in its significance with the public and its profitability and its continued existence threatened by broadband. The true intention of Comcast as it pursues its policy is to have control and censorship over the Internet. The control of broadband and thereby their only true competitor for the next two decades will ensure their place as a competitor and a leader of the media marketplace. The further entrenchment of their position as gatekeeper of all information and programming will be solidified. Simple logic would indicate that where something is no longer neutral it has taken a position. That position is meant to benefit the person who owns it, thereby fees for use. The same people who turned your TV in a vast wasteland now want to censor your Internet.


Cable television companies and their huge trade organization, The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) have been major financial contributors to federal and local elected officials over the last 35 years. During this time they have been able to buy favorable legislation for their protection and to the detriment of the general public. Local governments, including the City of Los Angeles, which have spent tens of millions of dollars in order to protect monopolies the cable television companies were granted in violation of the U.S. Constitution.


In 1986 United States Supreme Court, in the case of Preferred Communications vs The City of Los Angeles ruled that granting monopoly access to public right of ways for cable television was a violation of the United States Constitution. The determination by the US Supreme Court would never be enforced, as cities would continue to provide protection for their large political contributors, the cable television industry. This refusal could only continue with the assistance and complicity of US District Court, which refused to enforce the Supreme Court decision. At the time of this ruling there was no broadband Internet access or concern about it.


Decades later as the Internet became a valuable tool in the democratization of media, cable television would be well positioned to once again become the dominant force as media gatekeeper. Broadband had not become an issue for a number of years after the creation of the Internet because the programming that utilizes broadband would not be developed for a number of years.


The real joke is the FCC pretense of regulation. Net neutrality issue is the real issue. The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, was the president of the NCTA, when they supervised one of the greatest feats of political corruption in the history of this nation. When he leaves the FCC will probably go to work for Comcast, or some other media conglomerate, as his predecessors have. In my book "Anatomy of a Hustle: Cable Comes to South Central LA" I detail exactly how the cable television industry came into existence in one of the largest cities in the United States. It is the story of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Preferred Communication vs the City of Los Angeles.


Not only does cable control the means of distribution, but they also own many of the channels that they require you to pay for even though you do not want them. This is called bundling. It is like the gas station forcing you to buy antifreeze in order to buy gasoline, even though you don't want it. The ability of independent programmers to access distribution media has been and will continue to be greatly compromised with the consolidation of that distribution media. Independent programming is the reason there is a First Amendment.

(Visit anatomyofahustle.com for more)