opinion
Comcast, FCC Too Cozy for Comfort
“challenging People to shape
a better future now”
b ernie f OsTer
Founder/Publisher
b Obbie D Ore f OsTer
executive editor
T eD b anks
advertising Manager
J erry f OsTer
account executive
L isa L Oving
news editor
b rian s TimsOn
reporter
D aviD k iDD
graphic Designer
m Onica J. f OsTer
Seattle office Coordinator
J uLie k eefe
s usan f rieD
Photographers
The Skanner Newspaper, established
in October 1975, is a weekly publica-
tion, published each Wednesday by
IMM Publications Inc.,
415 N. Killingsworth St.,
P.O. Box 5455, Portland, OR 97228.
Telephone (503) 285-5555.
E-mail: info@theskanner.com
World Wide Web site:
http://www.theskanner.com
Fax: (503) 285-2900
the Skanner is a member of the
National
Newspaper
Pub lishers
Association and West Coast Black Pub -
lishers Association.
All photos submitted become the
property of the Skanner. We are not re -
spon sible for lost or damaged photos
either solicited or unsolicited.
© 2011 the Skanner. ALL RIGHTS RE SERVED.
REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART
WITHOUT PERMISSION PROHIBITED.
knowing What’s
important can
change your Life!
Subscribe to The Skanner –
don’t miss an issue!
Please sign me up for:
q 1 year $74
q 2 year $140
q New Subscription
q Renewal
________________________
name
_________________
address
_________________
city
_________________
state
______
ZiP
________
Phone
Mail with check or money
order to: The Skanner
P.O. Box 5455
Portland, OR 97228
I
n January, the Federal
Co m mu n i c a t i o n s
Commission approved a
controversial deal allowing
telecommunications
giant
Comcast to buy broadcaster
NBC.
Last
week,
FCC
Commissioner Meredith Attwell
Baker, one of the strongest
advocates for the $13.7 billion
deal, announced she was leav-
ing the FCC for a top lobbying
job with Comcast—NBC. Talk
about a hit and run.
Here at The Skanner News,
it’s hard for us to believe that
the fix wasn’t in from the start.
It’s hard to believe that Attwell
Baker had no idea that she was
going to work for this company
within four months. We suspect
this was prearranged early in
the game.
Federal
Comm uni cations
Commissioners are supposed
to protect the interests of the
American public. They are
charged with upholding laws
designed to curb monopolies,
promote fair competition and
prevent industry abuses. That’s
why it matters when a commis-
sioner supports policy that ben-
efits a giant corporation, and
then moves into a highly-paid
position with that corporation.
Something here looks and
smells….
What’s to stop future FCC
Commissioners from doing
favors for the corporations?
After all, a few months down
f rOm THe
P ubLisHer
Bernie Foster
the line, they’ll be the next ones
in line for an industry lobbying
job.
Ms. Attwell Baker is hardly the
first person to skip through the
revolving door between a feder-
al agency and the industry it
Metropolitan Exposition and
Recreation
Commission
passed a rule that commis-
sioners cannot lobby for indus-
try companies for at least one
year after their service. I know
because I was one of the
Commissioners who made that
rule. And we are talking about
fairly small budget local gov-
ernment here. Not a national
agency with the power to
approve multi-billion dollar
deals.
The Comcast-NBC deal
struck many consumer advo-
cates as counter to the public
interest for several reasons.
Self-interest tied to corporate interests
makes one unfit to serve the public
regulates. Former FCC chair
Michael Powell now earns mil-
lions as the top lobbyist for
National Cable and Tele com -
muni cations Association, for
example. And similar sleazy
stories have emerged from the
FDA, the Department of the
Interior, the EPA and…the list
goes on.
It’s beyond time for Congress
to regulate the regulators. We
need a law that makes it illegal
for regulators to work for any
company they regulate for at
least two years.
Here
in
Oregon,
the
High-speed internet is now a
utility, as crucial to families,
businesses and communities
as gas or electricity. But as pre-
viously reported in The
Skanner News, a small group
of telecommunication compa-
nies (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon
and Time Warner Cable) own
most of the cables that deliver
this service. And in many parts
of the country consumers have
no choice of broadband
provider, because one compa-
ny with no competition serves
that region. Now imagine that
company also owns its own
content – as Comcast now
owns NBC. Do you really
believe that they won’t be
tempted to do anything at all to
prioritize NBC content over
competitor and independently
created content?
Ms. Atwell Baker couldn’t see
any problem. Instead she
argued that consumers would
see benefits from the Comcast
NBC merger. She said nothing
about going to work for
Comcast. Of course, she has a
right to her opinion. Diversity of
opinion is part of any democra-
cy. But as an FCC regulator,
she has a duty not to let the
prospect of a fat corporate pay-
check influence her vote.
Frankly, it is now hard to believe
she was not just voting the
industry ticket all the way along.
Apologists for this corrupt
system argue that it is the only
way to keep the brightest and
best in government. We say:
anyone whose self-interest is
tied to corporate interests is
unfit to serve the public.
Congress should act immedi-
ately to shut the revolving door.
Do you think Commissioner
Attwell Baker was too cozy with
Comcast when she voted in
their favor? Yes or No.
You can post your comments
on www.theskanner.com
Tuition Equity Will Make Oregon Stronger
I
magine you are the child of
hard-working parents. You par-
ticipate in school activities,
achieve academic distinction and
contribute to your local communi-
ty. Your dream is to continue your
education by going to college. But
through a simple twist of fate, you
are undocumented. Under current
Oregon law, you must pay out-of-
state tuition regardless of how
long you have attended school in
Oregon. With out-of-state fees as
much as three times the cost of in-
state tuition, college is out of the
question.
On March 29, 2011, the Oregon
State Senate voted to pass Senate
Bill 742 (Tuition Equity), biparti-
san legislation that will grant in-
state tuition to students regardless
of their immigration status. Under
the bill, students must attend
school in the U.S. for at least five
years, attend school in Oregon for
at least three concurrent years and
graduate from an Oregon high
school. The bill now moves on to
the State House for debate and
final vote.
Rick (not his real name), a stu-
dent at Mt. Hood Community
College (MHCC), offers insight
into why this measure is so impor-
tant. Rick and his mother immi-
grated to Oregon when he was 12.
He dreams of attending a four-year
school once he has completed his
two years at MHCC. He is uncer-
tain how he will manage with
costs so high. For now, Rick
intends to take one class at a time.
For many of Rick’s friends, how-
ever, this is not the case. As Rick
Page 4 The Portland and Seattle Skanner may 18, 2011
c OmmuniTy c OLLege
‘Ski’ Sygielski
said, “A lot of friends in high
school just give up. They know
they won’t be able to afford an
education. If there was some kind
of hope, they would be more
encouraged to complete high
Many experts have indicated that
the Tuition Equity bill would, in
fact, increase the revenue for state
universities, since it would open
enrollment to a larger group of stu-
dents.
There is also concern that grant-
ing tuition equity would cause our
public universities to be inundated
with undocumented students and
make admission for legal residents
Young, undocumented people
brought here as children deserve to
pay in-state tuition
school.”
A key argument against Tuition
Equity is that granting in-state
tuition to undocumented students
equates to a subsidy that would
more restrictive. According to the
National Immigration Law Center,
the experience of states that have
already passed similar measures
indicates this is not the case. What
... it would ensure that if students meet
the requirements for acceptance,
they would pay tuition comparable to
other residents. The bill would merely
provide equal access
cost the state unjustified expense.
The Tuition Equity bill would not
provide funding. Instead, it would
ensure that if students meet the
requirements for acceptance, they
would pay tuition comparable to
other residents. The bill would
merely provide equal access.
does happen, however, is that the
percentage of local students pursu-
ing college degrees increases. This
is good for the state.
We long ago recognized the
right to equal access to K-12 stu-
dents regardless of immigration
status (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.
202, 1982). Tuition Equity simply
extends this access by making
higher education more accessible
to
undocumented
students.
Oregon’s employment base stands
to become better educated and
more competitive, our universities
benefit through increased rev-
enues and our overall tax base
increases due to increased earning
potential. It is now our turn to fol-
low the lead of the 10 states which
have already enacted similar legis-
lation.
Last but not least, providing
tuition equity is simply the right
thing to do. The children of
Oregon’s undocumented residents
are not here out of choice. For
many, this is the only home they
have ever known. They are invest-
ed in our society and our lives. The
hundreds of students who made
their voices known as the Senate
debated the Tuition Equity bill
were not asking for a handout.
They were merely asking for an
opportunity to continue their edu-
cation so they can move a little
closer to fulfilling their dreams
and contributing to the state they
call home — in other words, to
help us all become a little better
off.
Please let your legislators know
that you support the Tuition
Equity bill. Ask them to vote “yes”
when it comes time for them to
make their voices heard on this
important legislation.
John J. ‘Ski’ Sygielski, Mt. hood
Community College