John Kerry favors deregulation...

[sfecap]

...as long as it benefits him and his wife.

The vote:

Telecommunications Bill - Conference Report

Bill Number: S 652
Issue: Telecommunications
Date: 02/01/1996
Sponsor:


Roll Call Number: 0008
Conference report adopted
Full Member List


Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

Pass telecommunications bill to decrease regulations and increase competition

S 652: The Telecommunications Act of 1996

Vote to adopt the conference report of a bill to promote competition and reduce regulation of the telecommunications industry. The bill eliminates many restrictions on cable rates, allows long distance and cable companies into the local phone service market, and increases the number of stations that individual media companies can own. It also requires television sets to include a device that can be used to block out material rated as offensively sexual or violent in nature, and institutes a fine and/or imprisonment for people who knowingly use telecommunications devices to harass or make obscene communications towards others, or to make obscene or indecent communications to minors, among other provisions.

(Conference report adopted 91-5 on 2/1/96)

Bill Status:
Bill Number: S 652 - 104th Congress (1995-96)
House Passage Vote: 10/12/95 - Outcome: Passed by Voice Vote
Senate Passage Vote: 06/15/95 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 02/01/96 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 02/01/96 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 02/08/96
Public Law Number: 104-104 110 Stat. 56

http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=789&can_id=S0421103


Voted YES on telecomm deregulation.

Deregulation of the telecommunications industry.
Status: Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 Y)91; N)5; NV)3

Reference: Conference Report on S. 625, the; Bill S. 652 ; vote number 1996-8 on Feb 1, 1996

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Infrastructure.htm


Kerry's telecommunications holdings:

Asset Information:
Total Asset Valuation

minimum maximum

$198,794,683 - $839,038,000

Top 5 Assets:

HEINZ H J CO $4,000,004 - $20,000,000
DEL MONTE FOODS CO $3,500,004 - $16,000,000
DF TEMPORARY INVESTMENT FUND (2) $3,000,004 - $12,000,000
UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS (1) $2,500,003 - $11,002,000
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC TELECOM SERVICES $2,000,002 - $10,000,000

Asset Category Breakdown:

Stocks or Bonds $173,867,611 - $734,449,000
General Investment $13,506,025 - $60,192,000
Real Estate $5,350,007 - $25,750,000
Other $1,877,011 - $6,884,000
Cash, Savings $3,144,027 - $6,662,000
Business Partnership $1,050,002 - $5,101,000

More information on Kerry's holdings:

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin

(Kerry is the second wealthiest Senator in the US Senate.)


WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 — Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center's research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.

(snip)

Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat's two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.

(snip)

Mintz, Levin advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. CTIA is the trade association of the wireless industry; its more than 320 members include carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA-affiliated companies and their employees have contributed at least $152,000 to Kerry. The amount includes contributions made to his presidential campaign and his previous election efforts, his political action committees and the 527 group that Kerry formed. Verizon employees donated close to a third of that amount ($45,400).

Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.

Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

2. And yet, back in 2000 he decided that the industry didn't live up to

its promises at the committee hearings. Both he and McCain said they lied in some areas. McCain talked about it during the GOP primary.

Kerry also filed a resolution last Sept. against the FCC and its favored treatment of media corporations.

We are TRUTHTELLERS. You are trying to convince people that Kerry is a "corrupt Washington insider" when he has exposed more govt. corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history. Shame on you for that disgusting tactic.

Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Title: Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 09/16/2003
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S11501
Sept. 16, 2003

Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition and localism. Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this standard.

The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a national network, independent voices are lost in the media

marketplace. Locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to local needs, interests and values than those stations owned and operated by national networks. Indeed many local stations are small businesses that drive innovative competition. A system of concentrated station ownership will trend toward nationalized programming aimed primarily at maximizing revenue with less concern for local interests and less room for competition.

The resolution before us today will also reverse the FCC's decision to significantly loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers within single markets. The cross-ownership rule is intended to increase or at least maintain the number of independent editorial voices in a community. This is especially important in smaller communities where citizens have fewer media operations covering local matters. While there is scant evidence that weakening this rule will result in significant economic benefit, leading academics and media experts have argued that doing so will dangerously reduce the venues for independent public discourse.

I am also concerned with the process by which the FCC conducted these proceedings. This media ownership rulemaking is among the most important the FCC has undertaken, and it has garnered unprecedented public interest. Despite this, the Commission moved forward with dramatic rule changes without first taking public comment on a specific proposal. The Commission's outreach was simply insufficient. All parties concerned would have been better served if the Commission published a specific proposal and then allowed for a period of public comment before promulgating any rule changes.

The Commission's first responsibility is to ensure diversity, competition and localism. The Commission has no responsibility to facilitate the business plans of the major networks or any other narrow economic interest. I strongly support the disapproval resolution before us today.·

[sfecap]

5. Gosh...where have we heard THAT before?

The Telecommunications industry didn't live up to it's promises...

bush didn't live up to his promises...

Gee...looks like a convenient excuse for Saint John.

And he filed a resolution against the FCC for favored media treatment? Wow! Saint John didnt seem too concerned when he voted to allow media companies to have greater market ownership...

Kerry is a self serving pol who does what benefits him both politically and financially.

[Rose Siding]

12. Maybe he's just a soft touch

Poor judge of character? A lamb among wolves? An easy mark? :shrug:

[Scott Lee]

10. Gee, then why didn't CashCow John get out of Fairpoint Inc.?

You know, to at least lessen the appearance of something fishy? He should have done better than Cheney did regarding Halliburton, but I guess he thought having tens of millions in other assets wasn't enough.

Let me tell you something about Kerry. He's slowly being unmasked as just another cronyist party hack Insider. There's some TRUTHTELLING for you.

[dsc]

13. funny you don't accept that line of reasoning

when we bring it up in regards to Dean. You are utterly unwilling to accept the idea that being in favor of electricity deregulation before California's deregulation imploded. Yet here, it is perfectly OK for Kerry to do the same thing.

[blm]

15. Because deregulation was a CORE principle of Dean's

throughout his career.

Kerry wants to fix the part of a telecommunications bill that failed. He doesn't have to change a core principle to do it, and isn't changing a core principle for a campaign tactic.

[dsc]

16. huh?

You have shown one, count it one, instance of Dean wanting deregulation (electricity) and we have shown one, count it one, instance of Kerry wanting it (telecommunications). Doesn't one equal one anymore?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Does one apple equal one orange?

[dsc]

28. For me a telepone is every bit as important as electricity

without a phone I can't get called in the morning. I don't get called in the morning I don't work. I don't work I don't get money. I don't get money I can't pay my bills. I don't pay my bills I have no electricity. Gee, I think that is pretty important don't you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. You asked if 1=1 and the answer is not always.

Sorry.

[sandnsea]

20. telecommunications worked, electricity didn't

That's one big difference. And as soon as Kerry saw that the media portion of this bill wasn't working, he just flat-out said so.

Dean flips around and pretends he didn't mean what he said, that he's being unfairly attacked or misrepresented. He did it again yesterday at the AARP forum. Still trying to pretend that he didn't say positive things about Medicare reform when Gingrich was proposing it. Still trying to pretend that he only supported the Domenici bill and still trying to pretend the Domenici bill was what Clinton passed.

I don't know why you don't see the difference, but it's clear to me.

[dsc]

29. and as soon as electricity deregualation was a proven failure

Dean stopped supporting it too. That seem pretty similar to me. BTW my cable bill and my phone bill are both higher now than they were before those were deregulated. Is that what you mean by working?

[sandnsea]

30. Mine aren't

My satellite bill is about the same and my local and long distance are cheaper. I'll call the cable company tomorrow and ask them.

All I want to know is what exactly Dean said about electricity deregulation. Why he supported it in the past and why he doesn't now. And most importantly, does he admit he supported it in the past, or does he say he was misquoted or misrepresented.

[dsc]

31. Remember what supporters say here isn't the same as what Dean says

to my knowledge, he hasn't addressed that issue (previous support of electricity deregulation at all). His actions suggest he wasn't a huge supporter of it since it didn't happen nor are there a lot of articles about him pushing it. Note I am not saying he said he didn't I am just saying that looking at what he did leads me to think he didn't support it much. I think it is clear why his opinion changed that would be a no brainer.

[sandnsea]

32. He clearly supported it

This is from 1998

"The governor has supported legislation allowing consumers to choose their own electric company. That proposal passed the Senate but stalled in the House."

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:06nNkve8KhYJ:www.state.vt.us/psd/vef/vef-pressrel.pdf+1998+governor+dean+restructuring&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

There's plenty of articles about Vermont electricity deregulation, called restructing in Vermont, some from 1996. The Senate bill, that Dean supported, was consistently blocked by the Legislature.

Does he admit he supported this back then? Why does he say he changed his mind? And 'California' isn't a good enough reason for a President.

[sandnsea]

4. My long distance is cheaper

Wireless phones are more available. The internet is delivered via phone, cable, satellite and wireless. Small companies have to be allowed access to the major corporation's fiber optic lines. This has done alot of good things and probably some bad things. Most legislation works out that way.

You like your wireless internet? Your cheap long distance? Thank Kerry.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

6. Kerry responsible for wireless internet and cheap long distance?

I'm not recommending that Kerry adopt your statement as a campaign slogan...LOL.

[sandnsea]

17. That's what the bill did

He voted for it. It created competition in the market, investment in the industry, growth of services at cheaper rates. I'd be glad to thank him for supporting this bill, and any other Senator who did the same. Just like I'd thank him for the Nurse Reinvestment Act that's going to help my daughter through nursing school. I believe in giving credit where credit's due, that's all.

[sfecap]

19. Here's what else it did....

Why Are My Cable Bills So High?


I. BACKGROUND:

To answer this question it is useful to review a summary of the history of cable TV rates and attempts by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate them. It is a case study in the influence of special interests, lobbyists and political contributions on public policy. In this case, the special interests of the cable television industry have triumphed over the public interest.

In most communities, cable TV companies have existed for at least the past twenty years. They existed in some places as long as fifty years ago, as a way to bring sharp, clear television pictures of local channels into homes that were in fringe reception areas. These initial entries of cable fed local programming later expanded to include the first few cable TV channels such as Home Box Office (HBO) and Cable News Network (CNN).


(snip)

IV. BACK FROM THE GRAVE - DEREGULATION:

Then in 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Reform Act, also known as the Telecom Act. The cable industry was instrumental in crafting some of its provisions. They once again raised the prospect that competition for them was "just around the corner"- this time from satellite companies such as DirecTV and also the huge local telephone companies who would now be allowed to offer cable TV competition, as they had been begging to do for years. In its infinite wisdom, Congress complied with cable's requests, and directed that on March 31, 1999 most cable rate regulation will end, whether or not there is competition in a given area.

Millions of dollars in political contributions to Congressional candidates by the cable industry paid off. Interestingly, and not coincidentally, this premature deregulation of the cable industry is scheduled to occur a comfortable number of months AFTER the November, 1998 elections!

Since the Telecom Act {which was purportedly written to allow telephone companies (both local and long distance) and cable companies to compete in each other's markets} was passed, cable TV rates have skyrocketed to four times the rate of inflation. Only 2 of the 5 Baby Bells (BellSouth and Ameritech) which promised to enter the video market have gone ahead with their plans. Pacific Bell in California was in the process of aggressively building cable operations in San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego, when it was acquired by SBC (Southwestern Bell) and ordered by SBC to halt its cable operation in San Jose, sell its wireless digital TV company in Los Angeles which had barely been deployed, and rip out millions of dollars of fiber optic cable which had been installed in San Diego. Local phone companies largely determined that there was more money in long distance for them and decided to leave cable alone.

V. TODAY's CABLE MARKET:

Today, five cable companies control 80% of the national cable TV market. The largest 2, TCI and Time Warner control 55% the cable market. And these 2 giants also own 8 of the 13 most poplular cable channels, and 20% of ALL cable channels! And along with other large cable companies they control more than 60 cable channels. Recently, cash flow at all major cable companies has been up significantly, and the cable industry is making billions of dollars a year from a new revenue stream: advertising. The FCC continues to allow your local cable company to raise rates by adding channels and passing on "external costs" to you. Some of these external costs include increased prices the operator pays for programming, even though the programmers are in large measure the cable companies themselves.

http://www.ucan.org/law_policy/catvhistory.html

[sandnsea]

21. Rates were always bad

I honestly don't know how much my cable rates are because I have satellite. But they were bad before deregulation anyway. My satellite rates are about the same.

Various industries didn't do everything they had planned. Other industries did things that they hadn't planned that proved beneficial to consumers. It says cable rates have risen, but like I say, I don't see it and it was awful before this bill anyway.

The one thing that is really bad about this bill is media ownership. The rest seems to me that it will eventually work out in the market, like phone rates and internet rates have.

[sfecap]

22. And making them worse is a good thing?

My cable rates (and Internet access) have risen dramatically.

The point is that deregulation has been supported by John Kerry in at least ONE instsnce.

[sandnsea]

25. He is not a protectionist candidate

He never has said he was. He believes in capitalism, as free as is possible, but restraints where necessary. The media ownership has proven problematic, he admits it. We're going to have to work harder at getting international regulations in trade agreements and getting them enforced, he admits it. But take Vietnam, in efforts to not have Vietnam turn into Cuba or N Korea, he prefers to work through trade and normalized relations. In the long run, that works faster and better than sanctions and antagonism. It's complex and complicated. That's why I prefer a candidate who has been consistent on these things and is straight-forward when something doesn't work out.

Dean isn't. It isn't about who's for deregulation and who isn't. It's about consistency and honesty about their position, and if something doesn't work out to boldly tell the truth about what precisely didn't work and what needs to be changed. Dean doesn't do that. He hedges and misrepresents his true position so you can't know what he really thinks.

And by the way, that Telecommunications Act also brought us the internet economy in a big way. There was money in there for schools, nonprofits, rural fiber optic lines and lots of other things. And I'll call my cable company tomorrow because our rates really were a nightmare before this thing, I haven't heard near the complaints in the last few years. I'm curious.

[sfecap]

26. And it brought Kerry a lot of money.

So...when Kerry changes his mind when something doesn't "work out", it's perfectly OK, but when Dean does the same thing it's "inconsistant".

Right.

I get it.

Only St. John can change his view.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Kerry is the same old pol that we've seen for years in DC. He does what is politically expedient and profitable for himself without regard for the consumer. Then he tapdances about how he was misled. It's bullshit.

[sandnsea]

27. What???

Rich people own lots of stock. In all kinds of companies. It's called a diversified portolio. These people are worth $600 million dollars and aren't going to risk their professional careers over $30 million dollars. Are you going to risk your income over stealing a pencil if it's against company policy? It makes about the same amount of sense.

Has Dean changed his mind on deregulation? If so, why? Because I have no idea.

And I've already told you. Kerry hasn't changed his general position that deregulation, done correctly, can be beneficial. He's been proven to be right in alot of areas. It's not right in media ownership and he said so. I suppose you think that eating is right, as long as the food is clean and not rotten. But if a certain food makes you break out in a rash, you stop eating it. Does that mean you've changed your original position that eating is right?

[Scott Lee]

11. Yes, and didn't he invent the internet too?

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. It's like starting a thread entitled "Dean favors war"

because he supported Gulf War I, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. lol

[Scott Lee]

9. Yes, he sniffs along behind Dean and steals all his ideas

Just like the Bush Aircraft carrier landing clip - that was Dean campaign idea first. Kerry rips it off. Dean stands up against the rule of unregulated big business and who is there like wild dog at the read door of a butcher shop, but John Kerry waiting to run with another unoriginal idea.

Hey John, do an imitation of someone with an idea of their own. Better yet, do an imitation of a guy quitting the race!

[blm]

14. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Kerry had the ad already filmed when Dean's campaign said they were going to use it, then they denied they were ever going to use it.

Kerry has been putting forth anti- big business and pro small business legislation for YEARS.

Your rants are based in the fairy tales you and others are spreading about Kerry.

Kerry has exposed more government corruption than ANY lawmaker in modern history.

Why don't you go study the biggest scandals and crimes against the constitution of the Reagan-Bush era? BCCI, IranContra, CIA drugrunning, illegal wars in Central America. Kerry uncovered, INVESTIGATED and exposed all those events. NOONE compares to that.

[sfecap]

18. How come Kerry never "investigated" war crimes in Viet Nam?

After all, he has admitted to violating the Geneva Conventions...

BTW...how many people went to jail as a result of Kerry's "investigations"?

[blm]

33. How many did Bush1 pardon to prevent jail?

Kerry didn't prosecute the cases. He was a Senator who UNCOVERED and INVESTIGATED and EXPOSED the crimes and the perpetrators. You expected him to prosecute the case, too?

You wouldn't suppose you're being a bit disingenuous there? You actually BLAME him because Bush pardoned those crooks? You blame Kerry because Ollie North's conviction was overturned on a technicality?

Kerry's efforts were fruitless or did we learn more about the inner workings of the BFEE through those efforts?

BCCI was forced to close. Why do you try to pretend Kerry is a corrupt villain when history and his record shows he has uncovered more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history? More than ALL the other candidates put together.

[sfecap]

35. Saint John!

Exposing corruption! More than any other human being in the hisory of the world!!

Leaping tall buildings!

Keeping the Earth from spinning out of it's orbit!

What would we do without him????

[mitchum]

24. Why do you support a centrist like Dean...

if you're such a "leftist"? I really want to know.