Biden Still Hasn't Picked An FCC Boss, But He Just Tagged A Comcast Lobbyist As Ambassador To Canada

from the priorities-priorities dept

Consumer groups have grown increasingly annoyed at the Biden administration's failure to pick a third Democratic Commissioner and permanent FCC boss six months into his term. After the rushed Trump appointment of unqualified Trump BFF Nathan Simington to the agency (as part of that dumb and now deceased plan to have the FCC regulate social media), the agency now sits gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners under interim FCC head Jessica Rosenworcel.

While the FCC can still putter along tackling its usual work on spectrum and device management, the gridlock means it can't do much of anything controversial, like reversing Trump-era attacks on basic telecom consumer protections, media consolidation rules, or the FCC's authority to hold telecom giants accountable for much of, well, anything. If you're a telecom giant like AT&T or Comcast, a gridlocked agency remains a policy gift.

It will take months to appoint and seat a third commissioner and permanent FCC boss. It will take additional months to get that person settled in place to even start working on serious policy proposals. In other words, by the time the FCC is fully staffed, a full year may have been wasted that could have been spent on tackling the not insubstantial problems in the telecom space. While Biden certainly has been aggressive on other fronts (appointing Lina Khan head of the FTC), fixing the mess in telecom clearly hasn't been a top priority.

What has been more of a priority? Appointing former Comcast lobbyist David Cohen to the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, apparently. Cohen held the very first fundraising dinner for Biden's Presidential campaign back in 2019, and has now been amply rewarded for his loyalty:

"Biden has nominated David Cohen, a former senior executive vice president at NBCUniversal owner Comcast, to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Canada. Cohen is currently a senior advisor to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts."

Comcast historically gets very angry when you call Cohen a lobbyist, despite the fact he spearheaded the company's lobbying and policy efforts for the better part of the last decade. After the U.S. updated its feeble lobbying rules in 2007 to require lobbyists to register if they spent any more than 20% of their time lobbying, Comcast simply called what Cohen did...something else. More specifically the company's "Chief Diversity Officer," despite Cohen's actual lack of any, you know, diversity. Cohen was a huge architect of gaining government approval of Comcast's massive 2011 merger with NBC Universal.

Making an aging telecom retiree and loyal fundraiser happy in his twilight years certainly isn't the end of the world. But it's still not a great look when you've prioritized rewarding telecom lobbyists over properly staffing the agency that oversees telecom.

Previous FCC boss Ajit Pai spent four years studying how the FCC worked as a Commissioner, then when appointed agency Chairman by Trump, set about using that knowledge to ruthlessly dismantle not just consumer protections, but state and federal oversight of telecom in general. Usually, Pai operated in perfect symmetry with large regional telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast, embracing some extremely ruthless behavior along the way. Reversing those policies requires a certain level of urgency from team Biden that so far really hasn't been particularly apparent.

How tough Biden will be on telecom remains an open question. While his executive order contained some interesting promises, most can't be accomplished without a properly staffed FCC, or an agency head with a backbone. I can still see things going either way here. I can see him appointing a tougher, Lina-Khan esque type interested in genuine reform. But I can also see him making a safe pick that chirps all the right notes (5G is great! damn that digital divide!) but, like so many in DC, isn't willing to truly acknowledge monopolization and corruption are the primary causes of U.S. telecom dysfunction.

Filed Under: ambassador, canada, competition, david cohen, fcc, joe biden, political favors, soft corruption

Biden Administration Poised To Give Comcast Lobbyist Canadian Ambassador Spot

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

While the Biden administration still hasn't fully staffed the gridlocked FCC, it does appear to be ready to reward a top Comcast lobbyist and key Biden fundraising ally with a cushy new post.

According to the Washington Post, the Biden administration appears poised to "probably" give top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen the position of Canadian Ambassador, with a planned announcement likely coming in May:

"David Cohen, a Comcast executive who hosted Biden’s first official 2020 presidential fundraising event, probably will be nominated as U.S. ambassador to Canada."

Cohen is, if you're unfamiliar, one of the architects of Comcast's relentless monopolistic domination of US telecom, steering the company through numerous power consolidating mergers while assuring regulators that Comcast's growing power was nothing to be concerned about. Granted time showcased it was very much something to be concerned about, as Comcast's steadily growing monopoly over broadband (especially at faster speeds) is directly responsible for soaring US broadband prices, spotty coverage, and historically terrible customer service courtesy of steadily-eroding competition.

Cohen was dubbed a "wonk rock star" by the Washington Post back in 2012 for selling regulators on the 2011 Comcast NBC Universal merger. This was largely done using Internet Essentials, a program that promises discounted broadband access to low-income families. The plan was criticized heavily at first for being regulator window dressing that was intentionally difficult to qualify for while offering substandard speeds, something only fixed by Comcast after annoyed parents in Philadelphia protested in the streets (protestors who believe the program doesn't do enough to offset Comcast's overall harm were still protesting last year).

Internet Essentials was extremely helpful as a way to advertise Comcast's boundless altruism, despite the fact Comcast's monopolization and mergermania was heavily responsible for unaffordable US internet access in the first place. As the program has been launched and relaunched a thousand times over, it has provided Comcast with a bottomless well of promotional material featuring Cohen posing over the desks of beaming children. Of course the program provided something else as well: lobbying cover for access to federal, state, and local lawmakers.

Under feeble US lobbying laws, if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying in DC, they have to register with the government as a lobbyist, detail their travel with lawmakers, and more fully outline their contributions to politicians and foundations. So to get around these restrictions, many companies simply call their lobbyists and policy wonks...something else. In Comcast's case, Cohen spent much of his time as the company's "Chief Diversity Officer." Around 2019 Comcast thankfully hired somebody genuinely diverse to be Chief Diversity Officer, and Cohen's role shifted to one of "counselor and adviser." Comcast has historically gotten mad at me for calling Cohen a lobbyist, despite the fact that lobbying has always clearly made up a huge percentage of his work.

Again, the news of Cohen's reward comes despite the fact the Biden team still hasn't appointed a third Democratic Commissioner (and possible permanent boss) at the FCC, leaving it mired in partisan gridlock after the rushed appointment of Trump ally Nathan Simington. Hopefully the FCC appointment comes soon, given that rewarding telecom lobbyists before you've gotten around to staffing your top telecom regulator probably won't be a great look for an administration hoping to get a vague but promising broadband agenda off the ground.

Filed Under: ambassadors, canada, david cohen, diversity, joe biden, lobbyists
Companies: comcast

Comcast-Owned MSNBC Blasted For 8 Minute 'News' Love Letter to Comcast

from the fluff-and-nonsense dept

Comcast-owned MSNBC this week took a bit of a beating for an eight-minute "news" segment that was effectively little more than a sappy love letter to their parent company. The segment featured top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, who years ago began calling himself the company's "Chief Diversity Officer" to tap dance around federal lobbying rules (Comcast yells at us whenever we point that out). The program, aired during the company's Morning Joe program, waxed poetic about Comcast's altruism, at one point using Al Sharpton to compare Comcast’s corporate volunteerism with Nelson Mandela’s lifetime of civil rights work:

Several news outlets were quick to point out this glorified Comcast ad also saw prominent air time from numerous other Comcast-owned media properties, once again highlighting the perils of mindless media consolidation:

"But MSNBC wasn’t alone in covering Comcast Cares Day. NBC affiliates across the nation “pitched in.” NBC Bay Area, for example, ran a PR–sounding segment that was a lot like all of the other ones. So did NBC 5 in Fort Worth, TX, NBC 10 in Philadelphia, NBC 4 in Los Angeles, NBC 5 in Chicago, and NBC Connecticut, to name a few. Other media outlets joined in, including ABC’s WTXL in Tallahassee, FL, The Denver Post, and The Tennessean, among others."

Those of us that track Comcast for a living have been highlighting Cohen and Comcast's disingenuous behavior on this front for several years now. While Comcast volunteer programs certainly can and do help people in some limited capacities, Cohen has perfected the act of using Comcast's minority and low-income advocacy as a grotesque lobbying weapon to perpetuate policies that actively harm the communities Comcast professes to be helping.

For example, Comcast routinely pays some less ethical minority advocacy groups to parrot policies that actively harm their constituents, whether that's supporting the death of net neutrality, the company's latest megamerger, or the elimination of privacy protections for consumers. And Jesse Jackson has been used on occasion to actively oppose things like more cable box competition. This cozy quid pro quo is never put explicitly in writing, letting Cohen and friends become breathlessly indignant when reporters point out the disingenuous, cash-compromised nature of these relationships.

It's a schtick larger media outlets are comically (perhaps intentionally) oblivious to, but one that has been immeasurably successful for Comcast and Cohen.

Cohen played the starring role in selling regulators on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal in 2011, crafting conditions it would later be discovered Comcast ignored at its leisure. Cohen's secret weapon during that transaction was Internet Essentials, a program that promised low-income households $10, 5 Mbps broadband for a limited time should they jump through a laundry list of conditions. The program was frequently criticized for being intentionally hard to qualify for, though it provided Cohen an endless sea of photo opportunities to help portray Comcast as a bottomless well of pure altruism.

Cohen's minority and low-income advocacy schtick was so effective, he ultimately nabbed the title of "Chief Diversity Officer" to help further advertise his selfless altruism. Of course that title also conveniently lets Cohen tap dance around flimsy federal lobbying rules, which require an employee register as a lobbyist if they spend more than 20% of their time lobbying for a single client during any three-month span. And again, when you point this out, I've found that Comcast tends to get really upset with you.

The reality is that Comcast would need to do a hell of a lot more volunteering and donating to counter the obvious harm most of the company's terrible policies have on the country. It's indisputable that the company's attacks on net neutrality and privacy protections will drive up costs and harm diverse media outlets and smaller businesses. Comcast's support of protectionist state laws also routinely undermine efforts to bring competition to under-served broadband markets, driving up costs for everybody in the internet ecosystem (but especially the downtrodden parts of the country Comcast professes to adore).

This is a company that has proven time and time again that it doesn't have your best interests at heart. But thanks to American M&A mania and our collective obliviousness to disinformation, the pretense that Comcast is a Robin-Hood-esque champion of the poor and downtrodden has proven immeasurably successful and profitable for what's arguably the least liked company in America.

Filed Under: al sharpton, altruism, corporate media, david cohen, lobbying, msnbc, nbc
Companies: comcast, msnbc, nbc

Comcast Thinks Having Basic Broadband Privacy Protections 'Irrational'

from the we're-angels dept

Last week the FCC announced that it would be imposing some relatively new basic privacy protections on broadband. While the full rules will be hashed out after extensive public and company input (meaning if anything they'll get weaker), FCC boss Tom Wheeler's proposal (pdf) is fairly basic: ISPs should alert customers when their data is stolen, ISPs should be totally transparent about what they're collecting, and ISPs should provide users with working opt-out tools for any data collection service the ISP employs. None of these requirements are particularly onerous, and most ISPs will find that they're already adhering to them.

Given that an informed and empowered customer that opts out of snoopvertsing means less money earned, it's no mystery that ISPs have been whining about the FCC's proposal. After all, as wireline and wireless subscriber growth has become saturated, companies like Comcast and Verizon have turned to advertising as their next great growth market (thus Verizon's $4.4 billion AOL buy).

Obviously Comcast can't just come right out and say it's solely worried about losing money, so top company lobbyist David Cohen (apparently the company hates it when I call him that) has coughed up a new company blog post in which Comcast tries to argue that having some basic, new broadband privacy rules is an "irrational" move that creates an "unjustified set of regulatory shackles." Shackles that would, apparently, prevent consumers from enjoying all of the marketing Comcast intends to throw at them:

"Beyond blocking ISPs from competing in the online advertising marketplace, the FCC proposal will have other spillover effects. One example of the extreme nature of the FCC’s proposal and how it would negatively impact competition and consumers relates to cross-marketing of our competitive products and services to existing ISP customers. Under the FCC proposal, Xfinity Internet customers could miss out on learning about lower prices for taking bundles of services like Xfinity Home Security. Today, consumers are benefitting from competition in these new and expanded services, and they expect to receive these offerings from their broadband provider. The proposed FCC’s rules would unjustifiably make that much more difficult."

That's really just an overlong, alternative way of saying that Comcast is worried they won't be able to upsell you as much unnecessary shit as they otherwise would. But again, with transparency and opt-out consent the cornerstones of the FCC's plan, the FCC has made it clear that there's really nothing that will prevent ISPs from upselling their own, or anybody else's services. Despite hysteria in the telecom sector there's no indication the FCC's panning anything more elaborate or "difficult," with the primary focus being letting consumers opt out -- with no hard focus on requiring consumers opt in (much preferred by many privacy advocates).

ISPs have been pushing funded studies for months stating privacy rules aren't necessary because ISPs don't really collect much about you (just flatly incorrect) and VPNs and encryption means consumers have tools to protect themselves already making further action unnecessary. But as studies like this one from Team Upturn have noted, ISPs collect an ocean of data on users via multiple technologies. Most Internet of Things and other household traffic isn't encrypted, and ISPs still track and monetize user behavior by studying DNS records and other network footprints.

Still, Cohen tries to pretend that there's no reason for the FCC to get involved in privacy because nothing bad has ever happened on the broadband privacy front:

"There is no evidence of any problem with ISP privacy and security practices: research published by the Harvard Business Review and the Pew Research Center shows that consumers trust their ISPs just as much, if not more, than other providers in the Internet ecosystem. And there have been very few ISP-related privacy or data security issues under the FTC regime, even while the FTC has taken numerous enforcement actions against others in the Internet ecosystem. "

Cohen has a short memory. You'll recall that one of the key reasons the FCC is even pursuing new broadband privacy rules was Verizon's abuse of so-called "stealth cookies," which involved embedding wireless user packets with unique header identifiers that let Verizon track consumers and build detailed online profiles. Verizon was using this tracking technology for three years before security analysts even noticed. Consumers were never informed. It took another six months of public pressure and an FCC investigation before Verizon allowed customers to opt out. The FTC never raised a finger, which is why you'll generally see ISPs argue for leaving some telecom enforcement in the hands of said agency.

Again, ISPs had spent the last decade arguing that a "self-regulatory regime" was all that was needed to protect consumer privacy -- but when push came to shove it simply couldn't do it. Between Verizon's stealth cookies and AT&T's decision to make opting out of snoopvertising a steep monthly premium, the lack of broadband competition has meant ISPs could consistently ignore customer privacy rights without repercussion. In an ideal, competitive market you might not need net neutrality or privacy rules, but as anybody held hostage by the nation's dynamic duopoly knows, that's just not the reality most broadband consumers live in.

Filed Under: broadband, david cohen, fcc, isp, privacy
Companies: comcast

Comcast Using Minority Astroturf Groups To Argue Cable Set Top Box Competition Hurts Diversity

from the selling-you-out dept

For years one of the greasier lobbying and PR tactics by the telecom industry has been the use of minority groups to parrot awful policy positions. Historically, such groups are happy to take financing from a company like Comcast, in exchange repeating whatever memos are thrust in their general direction, even if the policy being supported may dramatically hurt their constituents. The tactic of co-opting these groups helps build the illusion of broad support for awful policy, and was well documented during AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile, and Comcast's attempted takeover of Time Warner Cable.

The tactic was also a favorite among telecom lobbyists in their fight against net neutrality and Title II reclassification, with Comcast and AT&T paying a wide variety of purportedly pro-minority groups to argue that a level playing field and more consumer protections would somehow be horrible for minorities. Dozens of groups like the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) frequented telecom industry events, took telecom industry funding, and were happy to repeat industry claims that net neutrality was a vile and unnecessary evil.

Fast forward to last month, when the FCC announced it would be pushing a new program aimed at bringing competition to the stagnant and captive cable set top box market. The cable industry immediately began to cry, generating a tidal wave of hand-wringing complaints about how taking aim at this $20 billion captive revenue market would raise prices, hurt puppies, damage privacy, and otherwise destroy the known universe.

But buried among the laundry list of the industry's half-cooked claims was the repeated argument that having a competitive cable set top box market would somehow hurt diversity. How having the choice of more hardware and more content than ever could possibly hurt minorities is never made clear. But the claim quickly and magically began popping up in a laundry list of editorials all over the Internet and in major papers nationwide. All of these editorials neatly parrot the cable industry's position almost verbatim, yet few if any clearly highlight any ties to the industry.

Nearly as soon as the FCC program was announced the cable industry formed the "Future of TV Coalition," something it calls a "diverse group of programmers, content creators, civic groups and television providers" who've joined forces to "celebrate and promote the thriving innovation" going on in the cable industry. And mysteriously, most of the groups taking part are the same groups that helped telecoms fight net neutrality. And many of their letters to the FCC mysteriously argue that we should leave the incredibly innovative cable set top box market alone:

"Why adopt a radical new approach and put all this innovation at risk in a market that is innovating, changing and providing so many new options already? Given the significant concerns regarding these proposed rules, and the rapid innovation occurring in the marketplace, it would be unwise to implement sweeping changes to the system currently in place. We urge the FCC to abandon these proposed new rules and protect viewer choice and diverse programming for all communities.

Funny how this adoration of cable industry "innovation" so closely mirrors blog posts by cable's biggest lobby or by cable's least liked company. The beauty of these arrangements of course is that since telecom companies aren't dumb enough to put specific quid pro quo demands in writing, most of the groups involved can breathlessly insist the telecom money they're clearly taking in no way shapes their opinions, despite the fact they'll repeatedly come down on the anti-consumer side of tech policy debates time and time again. Companies like Comcast meanwhile, lead by its "Chief Diversity Officer" (read: top lobbyist David Cohen), can highlight these partnerships as entirely altruistic endeavors.

One of the fantasy scenarios many of these groups are pushing is that a company like Google will come in, "steal" the cable industry's hard work, and then somehow remove minority programming. This forced the FCC to issue a statement saying that the proposal simply takes existing programming and lineups and funnels it to new, potentially cheaper and better hardware, and doesn't impact programming and licensing agreements whatsoever:

"This proposal aims to introduce competition and innovation into the set top box market, finally giving consumers the choice of using devices and apps to access all of the programming they pay for. When it’s easier for content creators to reach consumers, through better interfaces, menus, search functions, and improved over-the-top integration, we would expect this to lead to more diverse programming accessed more easily — especially minority and independent programming. The proposal will have no impact on distribution and programming deals."

When it comes to the cable set top box market, consumers pay $20 billion in fees a year for outdated hardware that's often worth a tiny fraction of the money being coughed up. While you can certainly argue about the best route to fix this problem, the practice itself is indefensible. Any minority or purported consumer advocacy group defending this aggressive pummeling of a captive market is actively harming its purported constituents, who may just want to rethink their cash donations to organizations with a repeated history of being cable industry parrots for hire.

Filed Under: astroturf, chief diversity officer, competition, david cohen, diversity, fcc, minority groups, set top boxes
Companies: comcast, hispanic technology & telecommunications partnership, http

Comcast Keeps Scolding Me For Calling Its Top Lobbyist A Lobbyist

from the a-rose-by-any-other-name dept

Last summer I noted that Comcast's PR department pretty consistently now sends me snotty e-mail "corrections." Not about any of the thousands of articles Techdirt or I have written about the company's abysmal customer service, punitive usage caps, ridiculously high prices, or obnoxiously anti-competitive behavior mind you, but to scold me for one and only one thing: calling the company's top lobbyist a lobbyist.

You see, despite the fact that Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen spends the majority of his time trying to influence state and federal regulators (he was the lead salesman of the NBC and Time Warner Cable mergers), Comcast calls him the company's "Chief Diversity Officer." That's because updated 2007 lobbying reporting rules require that if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying in DC, they have to register with the government as a lobbyist, detail their travel with lawmakers, and more fully outline their contributions to politicians and their myriad foundations.

As a result, Cohen -- and thousands of other lobbyists -- simply started calling themselves something else. And ever since Comcast started complaining, I've of course felt compelled to refer to him as a lobbyist as often as possible. I did so again last week when I wrote a blog entry noting that Cohen saw a notable contract extension and pay raise despite his failure to get the company's Time Warner Cable deal approved. Not too surprisingly, Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice was quick to reach out and scold me, for what I believe is now the third time:

"I know I may be not worth asking, but could you use factual information in your pieces? It is factually incorrect to say that “David Cohen spend the lion’s share of his time pushing Comcast in policy circles just like any other lobbyist.” That is just not true. To be true, David would have to spend the lion’s share of his time in Washington, DC – which he doesn’t. It would have the be the lion’s share of his responsibilities which it isn’t. Your belittling of the serious time he devotes to his Chief Diversity Officer duties is insulting, it isn’t tap dancing around a legal rule. Our workforce is 59% diverse, our 2014 hires were 69% diverse, and David expends considerable time to his commitment as Chief Diversity officer."

And while the Comcast HR department's dedication to diversity is admirable, Cohen's primary claim to "diversity" fame is his creation of "Internet Essentials," a piece of regulator bait Cohen used to seal the NBC Universal deal to the FCC and DOJ. Crafted as a merger condition by Comcast itself, Internet Essentials is supposed to offer low-income users who qualify for the nation's school lunch program $10 broadband for a limited time. Of course when initially released, the poor people Cohen so adores actually protested on the streets of Philadelphia, arguing that the project was a PR stunt that, in reality, was hard to qualify and sign up for.

Cohen and Comcast use Internet Essentials as a public relations and lobbying weapon to highlight the company's incredible altruism at every conceivable opportunity. Cohen's cherub-esque visage can often be seen standing among smiling children at what's an endless series of PR junkets. That I doubt the purity of these efforts by arguably the least-liked company in America is most likely some kind of defect in my character, I'll be the first to admit.

But Fitzmaurice continued, lecturing me on the fact that Comcast actually did a wonderful job at adhering to the more than 150 flimsy NBC merger conditions, most of which Comcast itself created:

"Further, your continued insistence that Comcast hasn’t adhered to the more than 150 conditions of the NBCUniversal transaction by the FCC and the DOJ consent decree belies the facts. In the nearly 5 years since the transaction was concluded, the FCC has taken 1 action on a merger condition, and that was over 3 years ago. That means the FCC has not had enforcement issues with about 150 other conditions. That hardly seems like “failed utterly to adhere to merger conditions.” Other than on that one issue of standalone broadband marketing, which was resolved and the consent decree on that issue itself has expired, the FCC and the DOJ have not taken actions on violations of conditions or the consent decree."

And that's technically true. The only wrist slap Comcast got was a $600 million fine from the FCC for hiding a $50 a month standalone broadband option it had promised to offer. But the fact that the FCC couldn't be bothered to enforce the NBC merger conditions says more about the FCC than anything else. And indeed, the lion's share of the conditions Comcast pats itself on its back for adhering to were utterly hollow, including things like adding "1,500 more titles to Comcast’s on-demand offerings for children." Most of these show pony suggestions were suggested by Comcast because the company had already planned to accomplish them anyway as a matter of course, like expanding its broadband network to 400,000 additional homes.

Subsequent investigations found that Comcast violated the most meaningful conditions and was never held accountable for them, including promises not to meddle in the management of co-owned Hulu. And to reiterate, the company's star NBC merger condition was so "successful" it resulted in public protests in the streets of Philadelphia. And indeed, numerous news outlets reported that Comcast's failure to adhere to NBC Universal deal conditions played a major role in their rejection of the Time Warner Cable merger, causing regulators to even consider additional punishment beyond deal rejection. So yeah, factual information and all that.

After explaining this all to Comcast (again) I reminded the company I'm using the dictionary definition of the word lobbyist, and it may want to contact Random House and Merriam Webster with any future concerns. Still, I'm happy to use the powers of the Streisand effect and pen a blog post each and every time the company's PR representatives feel like scolding me for semantic bullshit. There's certainly a lot more to be said about the nation's utterly pathetic lobbying rules that let most lobbyists like Cohen tap dance over, under, and around political influence reporting requirements.

Filed Under: chief diversity officer, david cohen, influence, journalism, lobbyist
Companies: comcast

Comcast Really Wants Me To Stop Calling Their Top Lobbyist A 'Top Lobbyist'

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

Comcast executive David Cohen is, by dictionary definition, a lobbyist. And not just any lobbyist; a gushing profile piece by the Washington Post in 2012 called him a "wonk rock star" and the company's "secret weapon," who uses "his vast network of high-powered contacts" to help craft Comcast-friendly regulations and apply pressure on DC policy makers. You know, a lobbyist. Unless you're Comcast, which has now e-mailed me repeatedly to demand I stop calling him that.

After I mentioned that Cohen was hosting a $2,700 per plate fundraising dinner for Hillary Clinton last month, I received this e-mail from Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice on June 18:

"Karl – your piece today is offensive and inaccurate. David Cohen doesn’t pretend he’s not a lobbyist – he isn’t by the definition of the legal term – we keep very close records of his time and activities to make sure the law is complied with – to imply that we are not complying with the law with no evidence is irresponsible journalism."

You see, the legal DC definition of a lobbyist was beefed up slightly back in 2007, when the Lobbyist Disclosure Act was notably amended by the Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Those changes required that if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying, they have to register with the government as a lobbyist, detail their travel with lawmakers, and more fully outline their contributions to politicians and their myriad foundations. Comcast addressed these changes by simply calling Cohen something else.

Cohen's technical title ever since has been Senior Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation, though more recently the company has been calling him the company's "Chief Diversity Officer" with a big focus on "community investment":

"David L. Cohen is Senior Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation. David has a broad portfolio of responsibilities, including corporate communications, government and regulatory affairs, public affairs, legal affairs, corporate administration and community investment, and serves as senior counselor to the CEO. He also serves as Chief Diversity Officer for the company."

Cohen played the starring role in selling regulators on Comcast's acquisition of NBC Universal in 2011, crafting conditions it would later be discovered Comcast ignored at its leisure. Cohen's secret weapon during that transaction was Internet Essentials, a program that promised low-income households $10, 5 Mbps broadband for a limited time should they jump through a laundry list of conditions. The program was frequently criticized for being intentionally hard to qualify for, though it provided an endless sea of PR opportunities to help portray Comcast as an agent of pure altruism.

Cohen also spearheads Comcast's entirely-above board (and very common in telecom) practice of giving money to minority groups and organizations with the unwritten expectation that they parrot anti-consumer policy positions. These groups then sing the praises of Comcast's latest merger or sell their constituents downriver on issues like net neutrality, helping to create an artificial sound wall of support for Comcast policies, which, as you may have noticed in your travels, often don't benefit Comcast customers or the internet at large.

So while Cohen is clearly a lobbyist by dictionary definition or for anybody with optic nerves, he's not a lobbyist by legal definition. He's just a guy that really, really loves minority communities and helping the poor, and just happens to spend the lion's share of his time whispering in politicians' and regulators' ears. In fact, as Fitzmaurice was kind enough to illustrate in another e-mail to me on July 18, Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with lobbying whatsoever:

"While I know asking you to be accurate may be futile, David Cohen is not Comcast’s top lobbyist, in fact he is not a lobbyist at all. Lobbyist has a very specific legal definition, and David Cohen does not fit it. David has several different sections of the business which report up to him, only one of which is Government Affairs. The top lobbyist in Washington is Melissa Maxfield."

I responded by informing Fitzmaurice that I'm using the Random House definition of lobbyist, not Washington's intentionally flimsy, watered down definition:

NOUN

1. a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest; a member of a lobby.

I write a lot about Comcast. Without bragging (since frankly it's often unpleasant and I'd often rather be doing something else), I might write more about Comcast than potentially anyone on the internet. By and large my experiences with Comcast's public relations department have actually been very positive, and on the very rare instance where they contact me to let me know a data point or statistic is in error (two or three times in a decade, looking at my inbox archive), I'm happy to correct it. But this is curiously the first issue that the company has felt the need to repeatedly reach out to me on, suggesting it's a potentially sensitive subject for some strange reason.

So, out of respect for Comcast's integrity and this nation's great and unimpeachable legal apparatus, I've decided to acquiesce and start calling Cohen something different. I'm tossing around a number of potential titles. Funpants McGillicutty? Comcast's "Overlord of entirely-authentic-and-not-at-all-politically-motivated-altruism"? Doctor Schnitzel-Fuhrer? Surely readers have a few suggestions.

Filed Under: chief diversity officer, david cohen, lobbyist, pr
Companies: comcast

Comcast Lobbyist Admits It Helped Create Netflix By Refusing To Compete On Price

from the own-worst-enemy dept

Top Comcast Lobbyist (sorry, Chief Diversity Officer) David Cohen was a one-man disinformation firestorm during Comcast's doomed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Cohen has a nasty habit of spearheading greasy practices -- like paying minority groups to parrot bad public policy positions to create the illusion of diverse support -- then pretending to be outraged when these connections were highlighted. Cohen also amusingly declared that those opposed to the company's merger ambitions were ignorant and unreasonable, without a single supportable fact to be shared among them.

That's why it was pretty interesting to watch such a master of spin candidly acknowledge that Comcast has only itself to blame for Netflix's rise as an Internet video powerhouse. Calling Netflix the company's "ultimate frenemy" at a recent telecom conference, Cohen admitted that streaming services like Netflix were a self-inflicted gunshot wound, created in large part because the cable ecosystem charges way too much money for its services:

"While Cohen sees Netflix as a complement to Comcast’s cable offering, he acknowledges that streaming services, especially those that offer slimmer video packages like Sling TV and Sony PlayStation Vue, could potentially be more attractive to price-conscious consumers. "Part of this is a self-inflicted wound," Cohen said. “We have made video too expensive."

A cable or broadcast executive admitting they've refused to compete on price is a rare animal indeed, and even more rare from a legendary obfuscationist like Cohen. Normally, Comcast has downplayed their slow quarterly hemorrhaging of video subscribers, while Netflix, in contrast, added 3.3 million subscribers last quarter alone. Like most cable execs, the folks at Comcast are so used to a pampered duopoly, they see price competition as a vile alien abomination, justified in part by the millions of consumers that continue to pay an arm and a leg for bloated, over-priced lineups of unwatched channels.

These executives also honestly believe their inflexible legacy empires are able to out-innovate price competition by releasing abysmal "me too" products. Products like Comcast's recently launched and widely-ridiculed "Stream" platform, which is laden with so many caveats as to make it largely irrelevant in full competitive context.

Of course Cohen also got to the modern meat of the issue, reminding attendees at one point that no matter how large Netflix gets, it still needs to come through Comcast to get to its customers:

"Cohen added while some fear that more Netflix customers means less cable customers, he reminded the audience that reliable broadband is a crucial element of the streaming service. “Remember, you can’t get Netflix without broadband service,” Cohen said. “Those are 3 million customers of our broadband service."

And that's the rub. At the end of the day, Comcast still intends to grab its pound of flesh one way or the other, whether that's by forcing Netflix to pay direct interconnection fees, or by slowly expanding the company's usage cap and overage fee trials and hoping nobody notices. Either way, Comcast will continue to do absolutely everything in its power to avoid having to compete on price for as long as humanly possible. But as they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Filed Under: cable, competition, david cohen, price, streaming, tv
Companies: comcast, netflix