U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–744 PDF 2011

PROPOSED COMBINATION OF COMCAST 

AND NBC-UNIVERSAL 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 7, 2010 

Serial No. 111–138 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 7, 2010 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................ 2 

The Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 5 

The Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ...................................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Paula Madison, Executive Vice President, Diversity, NBC Universal 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

Mr. Samuel Kang, Managing Attorney, The Greenlining Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Mr. Alfred C. Liggins, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, Radio One 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 97 

Mr. Stanley E. Washington, Chairman and CEO, National Coalition of African American Owned Media 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 101 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 104 

Mr. Jim Weitkamp, Vice President, Communications Workers of America 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 112 

Mr. Will Griffin, President and COO, Hip Hop On Demand 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 114 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 119 

Mr. Allen S. Hammond, Phil and Bobbie Sanfilippo Professor of Law, Santa 

Clara University School of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 124 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 127 

Mr. Alex Nogales, President and CEO, National Hispanic Media Coalition 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 135 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 137 

Ms. Kathryn F. Galan, Executive Director, National Association of Latino 

Independent Producers 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 145 

Mr. Darnell M. Hunt, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los 

Angeles, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 147 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 149 

Page

IV 

Mr. Frank Washington, Chairman and CEO, Tower of Babel LLC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 158 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 160 

Ms. Suzanne de Passe, Co-Chair, de Passe Jones Entertainment 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 168 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 171 

(1) 

PROPOSED COMBINATION OF COMCAST 

AND NBC-UNIVERSAL 

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the California Science Center, The Donald P. Loker Conference Center, 700 

Exposition Park Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90037, the Honorable John 

Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Waters, Cohen, Chu and 

Gohmert. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Elisabeth Stein, Counsel; Travis Chapman, Counsel; Benjamin Staub, Professional Staff Member; and 

Stewart Jeffries, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will come 

to order. We welcome all of our witnesses and guests that are 

present. In many ways, this is a historic hearing, because the nature of this merger is unusual, in many respects, and I wanted to 

allow our distinguished Members of the Committee to get in a few 

comments before we start our discussion about this historic merger. 

There are several levels of inquiry. The first is the huge amount 

of combinations, take-overs, mergers, that have become a pattern 

over the last 30 years. There have been very little follow-up, the 

secondary response keeps going down, and there is an institutional 

crisis. And it didn’t just start with this proposal that is before us. 

And it didn’t just start, frankly, in the last Administration before 

this one. 

And so we are here to examine that phenomenon. 

Now the nature and the complexity of the proposal between NBC 

and Comcast now is so great, that FCC is hiring outside counsel 

to help them untangle this situation. And so I start off, my colleagues, and I am so happy that Judy Chu and Judge Gohmert, our 

senior Member of the Committee, Maxine Waters, Steven Cohen, 

are all here with us today. 

I start off with putting in the record a law review article on recent trends in U.S. merger enforcement by Debra Forenstein. The 

first sentence might give you a clue of the direction we are going 

in. 

‘‘The Federal Government has nearly dropped out of the antitrust 

enforcement business, leaving companies to mate as they wish.’’ 

And it goes on for some 20-some odd pages. 

2 

The other comment that I would like to put before you is the idea 

that this merger is ‘‘in the bag.’’ 

Chairmen and Members of the Committee, you know that everybody is for this merger. Just read the press releases and understand the great amount of support that is generated, and my 

friend, Magic Johnson—I am going to put his letter in the record— 

we were together with Mrs. Obama in Detroit, only the week before 

last. Many of my friends, in both sides of the corporate picture, are 

involved. 

So naturally, Judiciary has to hold some hearings. But for goodness sake, let’s get this over with and get on down to the business 

of forming a corporate instrument of such magnitude, that I’m not 

sure if anybody accurately knows where it is going. 

And so it is with that appropriate skepticism, that I call this 

hearing to order, and I want to thank all of the witnesses, some 

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven of you, 

for the preparation that you have done to be here. 

And we want to have a discussion. This is not a formal situation 

where we toss off statements prepared by you or someone else, and 

we have this exchange, and then we all fly back to our destinations. 

I think this is a historic moment in the economic life of this country, and to me—and I have talked with Waters and Cohen and 

Gohmert and Chu—there will be other hearings necessary, that 

this is not going to be solved in one giant hearing in Los Angeles 

and we go from there. 

Judge Louie Gohmert is a friend of the Committee, an expert, 

and one well-respected on both sides of the aisle, and I recognize 

him now. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman, and I do appreciate the 

hearing. It gives us the opportunity to examine, for a second time, 

the proposed combination to create one of the world’s largest entertainment companies. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned skepticism. The old saying I heard 

when I got to Washington, was that no matter how cynical you get, 

it is never enough to catch up. 

So anyway, I am finding there is some truth in that. But the 

combined company would own significant assets in video distribution, video production, movie production, and the emerging world 

of Internet video programming. 

And of course the combined company will control one of the largest news-gathering organizations in the world, NBC News. An important question that the Department of Justice must answer in reviewing mergers is whether the proposed transaction will lessen 

competition, raise prices and harm consumers. However, the merger is not completely typical of the mergers that we normally examine in this Committee, and that the Department of Justice usually 

reviews. 

Normally, we look at mergers between head-to-head competitors, 

such as Delta, Northwest, or XM and Sirius. 

Both Comcast and NBC Universal own some video production assets; however, a more compelling and harder question is whether 

a vertically-integrated company that has a significant hand in 

3 

video production and distribution can use its leverage in one area 

to raise prices in another. 

In other words, can the combined company use Comcast’s significant presence in cable distribution to limit its rivals access to 

NBC’s programming. 

Comcast argues that the FCC’s carriage rules prevent it from 

discriminating against its rivals in such a way. 

However, some have concerns that the FCC’s rules may not be 

as robust in that regard as Comcast suggests. 

It would seem that if the Department of Justice determines that 

competition remains robust for both video distribution and production after the merger, then the Department might approve the 

deal. Of course the Department is not the only entity that must review the proposed purchase. The FCC will review it to ensure that 

the merger is in the public interest. That catch-all phrase, in the 

public interest, includes such issues as localism and diversity, 

which I understand is the main purpose of the hearing today. 

And it is my understanding that a number of the witnesses were 

added it at the last minute, and so hopefully we will be able to 

have more notice in the future, so we can make them more diverse 

in their structure. But as always, Chairman, appreciate you and 

appreciate your effort to be fair in all things. So I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Maxine Waters and I have known each other before she was in the Congress. Of course my presence goes back to 

a presidential dispute in the 19th Century which I was—— [Laughter.] 

I think it was called the Hayes-Tilden controversy. So I am so 

pleased. She has worked in the civil rights movement, she has been 

a state legislator, an activist in every respect. We are honored to 

have her on the Committee. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your comments about how long we’ve known each 

other. I am 100 years old and you are 125, so—— [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for agreeing to organize this 

field hearing on Comcast-NBC merger. I am very pleased to welcome you and my colleagues to Los Angeles as we do our due diligence to further investigate and understand the implications of this 

massive merger, and what it could have on our already heavily-consolidated media market. 

Over the past couple of months, I have been active in advocating 

for transparency and an open process in the Federal Communications Commission’s review of this merger. 

I have been very pleased with the FCC’s leadership in response 

to our calls for an extension of the initial comment period and public hearings. 

Similarly, I hope the Department of Justice is conducting a laborintensive review, considering the impact this merger stands to have 

on competition and consumers. 

While I am not opposed to this merger, necessarily, I have long 

maintained that the Comcast-NBC merger raises serious questions 

and should not be rushed through an expedited review process. 

I also want to thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify today. 

As some will note, there are a few people who are missing from the 

panel, who were previously scheduled to attend. It is somewhat 

4 

troublesome, that many independent and minority programmers, 

producers, writers, and directors, have been afraid to voice their 

concerns for fear of blacklisting, or other forms of retaliation within 

their industries. 

Indeed, due to the deregulation, and Federal agencies 

rubberstamped approval of media mergers today, only five companies own the major broadcast networks. Ninety percent of the top 

50 cable networks produce three-quarters of all primetime programming, and control 70 percent of the primetime television market share. 

In 2007, minorities owned just 3.2 percent of the U.S. television 

stations, and 7 percent of the Nation’s full-powered radio stations, 

despite comprising more than 34 percent of the population. Today, 

Comcast Corporation has acquired massive reach and influence on 

its path to becoming the Nation’s largest cable company, whose 

first quarter profits this year reached $9.2 billion. In 2008, the company collected over $40.3 billion in revenue. 

Comcast owns cable franchises in 39 states. It has 23.9 million customers, 15.3 million high-speed Internet customers, and 7 million 

voice customers. 

Under the merger agreement, Comcast Corporation stands to 

gain majority ownership and control of NBC Universal’s two broadcast television networks, NBC and Telemundo, its 26 local ownedand-operated broadcast television stations, several national cable 

programming networks, a motion picture studio, an international 

theme park business, and NBC’s online content business. 

While both the FCC and DOJ have the statutory authority to review media mergers under our Federal antitrust laws, the FCC’s 

process allows for a more comprehensive public interest analysis. 

Factors considered to be in the public interest may include a 

deeply rooted preference for preserving and enhancing competition, 

accelerating private deployment of advanced services, promoting diversity of license holdings. Let me say that again. Diversity of license holdings, and generally managing the spectrum in the public 

interest. 

The FCC’s process incorporates the antitrust concerns that the 

DOJ must follow. Under the Clayton Act, the DOJ will evaluate 

whether the merger will substantially lessen competition or create 

a monopoly. Accordingly, Comcast has advanced various public interest commitment, pledging its dedication to preserve competition 

and improve minorities, and underserved populations, in all aspects of media programming, production and distribution. 

As I understand today, both Comcast and NBC have released a 

joint statement outlining their plans for corporate diversity and inclusion. While this may be a positive first step, I am anxious to 

learn more about the proposed plan and how it proposes to meaningfully involve and create opportunities for women and minorities 

in executive leadership, management, advertising and programming. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our 

panel of witnesses, so that they can help this Committee understand the scope of this merger. Their diverse views and perspectives will shed light on the type of considerations the DOJ must 

take into account while reviewing this merger. 

5 

It is my hope that the parties to this merger can find ways to 

mitigate the potential harm this deal could have on customers, 

competition, and minority communities’ access to quality and affordable broadband service. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying this has been an interesting experience. In opening up and expanding the comment period, and calling for public hearings, we have been deluged with 

nonprofit organizations, churches, civil rights organizations, all 

talking about their donations from Comcast. 

And while we take this opportunity to say to Comcast, we appreciate the donations to the nonprofit organizations, that has nothing 

to do with this competition and ownership that we are talking 

about today. So they should continue to give the 50 cents to the 

Boy Scouts. But we are talking about competition and ownership. 

So if there is anybody here today who wants to talk about how 

much money you have given to the NAACP, the Urban League, to 

Al Sharpton, to anybody else, this is not the place to do it. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much, because it was your efforts 

that persuaded the FCC to hold their own inquiries, and that they 

have announced that they will be starting in Chicago, and that 

there will be other hearings throughout the country. 

I turn now to Steven Cohen from Memphis, Tennessee, a wonderful person. We were working together with members of the Harry 

Belafonte family, before we even met, and he has been a wonderful 

and important addition to this Committee, and we recognize him 

now. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always an honor to 

be in your presence and that of Congressman Waters, who I learn 

so much from, and the other Members of the Committee as well. 

I am from Memphis, Tennessee, although I did go to high school 

in Pasadena, at the polytechnical school, in the era of Mike Garrett, but I am a Memphian, and there are a lot of connections between Memphis and Los Angeles. We gave you Pau Gasol. We 

loaned you Elvis, Cybil and Isaac. But you did us the great favor 

in Danny Thomas, and bringing the world’s greatest clinic and research facility for childhood cancers and childhood catastrophic illnesses to Memphis, St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, and we thank 

you for that. 

This is a very important issue and while most mergers are not, 

in reality, in the public interest, they are in the interest of the 

business and the executives, as we have seen in so many places in 

our society. 

Where we have had mergers of airlines and mergers of large 

scale, the consumer loses, and that is almost inevitable, the consumer loses, the idea of being in the public interest is a fact of Mr. 

Gohmert’s cynical perspective. And by the way, Congressman 

Gohmert, it was nice to hear you say robust. I just was waiting for 

public option. [Laughter.] 

There has been a lot written, and I have read a lot in the testimonies about what Comcast has done, or not done, in the way of 

minority programming and employment. 

One thing I am interested in hearing from the panelists is not 

simply what Comcast has done, and that is indeed important, but 

6 

what other cable companies have done, and how Comcast compares 

to others in the industry, how NBC compares to others in the industry, and if this is an industry-wide and a national problem, of 

if it is a Comcast problem, and if Comcast is doing better than the 

others, maybe we need to encourage the others to do better. 

And I think what Congressman Waters was getting to, something—and it is more her book than my book—about teaching am 

an to fish rather than giving him a fish. And that is so important, 

that if you give people opportunity then they can have a lot of benefits and pass them on, generationally. And that needs to happen. 

So I am here to listen, and see how Comcast and the cable industry, and the broadcast industry, overall, is doing in helping minorities, women, African Americans, Hispanics, etcetera, in getting an 

opportunity to participate in the great American Dream. I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing and for allowing me to 

attend. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Congresswoman Judy Chu is a replacement, in her own right, for Hilda Solis. She represents part 

of Los Angeles and environs. We were very pleased that she was 

assigned to this Committee. 

Dr. Judy Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for bringing 

this very, very important hearing to our area. There are many 

issues in the Comcast-NBC Universal merger. But for me, the primary issue is diversity. 

I noted with interest, facts that leapt out at me from Mr. Kang’s 

testimony, and that is the recent study by Children Now, which 

found that in the 8 to 9 p.m. television viewing family hour, it is 

the least ethnically diverse, with only one in eight programs having 

a mixed cast, and that this sends a highly-skewed message about 

diversity in America to viewers, especially children. 

And the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, which found 

that television programming was not representative of the Nation’s 

ethnic and racial diversity. They found that 40 percent of all 

primetime series had all-White characters, and 80 percent of all 

primetime series were White-themed, and that the lack of minorities on television is both disproportionate and unsettling, and does 

not reflect our Nation’s changing demographics. 

This is particularly at issue in California which is a majority/minority state, where 53 percent of the population here, and the issue 

about diversity is not just about programming, but it’s also about 

diversity in management and in contracting opportunities. 

I was shocked to read that today, five companies own the broadcast networks. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable networks produce 

three-quarters of all primetime programming and control 70 percent of the primetime television market share, and that these same 

companies own the Nation’s most popular newspapers, and over 85 

percent of the top twenty Internet news sites. 

This merger will consolidate the market even further, and so we 

are at a very critical juncture. Today, I would like to hear how the 

issues of diversity will be addressed and I look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, and we are so pleased to have Suzanne de Passe here with us, Frank Washington, Dr. Hunt, Darnell 

7 

Hunt of UCLA, Kathryn Galan, executive director of the National 

Association of Latino Independent Producers. The president of the 

National Hispanic Media Coalition, Alex Nogales. Professor Allen 

Hammond of the University of Santa Clara Law School. Mr. Will 

Griffin, the chief operating officer of Hip Hop On Demand, even 

though he went to Dartmouth. The vice president of the Communications Workers, Jim Weitkamp, is here. Stanley Washington, 

CEO of the National Coalition of African American Owned Media. 

Alfred Liggins, III, president and CEO of Radio One, and president of TV One. Attorney Samuel King, whose presentation and 

work I found very interesting, who is from the San Francisco Bay 

Area. 

And we will begin our testimony with Mrs. Paula Madison, the 

executive vice president for diversity at NBC Universal. She has 

been at GE for 18 years, and has been working at developing the 

programs and company culture that enable NBC to better reflect 

the makeup of its globally diverse customers. 

She was president and general manager of KNBC, NBC’s owned 

and operated station in Los Angeles, the first African American 

woman to become general manager at a network-owned station in 

a top five market, and we are delighted she came all the way from 

New York to do that, and we welcome you here to begin the testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF PAULA MADISON, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, DIVERSITY, NBC UNIVERSAL 

Ms. MADISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 

Conyers, Representative Waters, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, it is truly an honor to appear at this field hearing in 

a city that I love and call home. 

As the backyard to the media and entertainment industry, the 

core driver of jobs in Los Angeles area economy, it is an ideal setting for today’s discussion of the Comcast-NBCU joint venture. 

I also want to give special thanks to the Committee for choosing 

the California Science Center as the site for the field hearing. It 

is my home away from home and a place where I am proud to 

serve as chair of the board of directors. 

Whether through my family’s majority investments in the LA 

Sparks, our city’s beloved WNBA team, our Broadway Federal 

Bank, founded by the iconic Black architect, Paul Williams, or my 

board involvement with USC’s Annenberg School, the United Way 

of Greater Los Angeles, and the California African American Museum, which is located right next door, I am an engaged and committed member of our community. 

That same ethos has governed my more than two decades as an 

executive at GE and NBC Universal. My career at NBC began at 

WNBC, the New York City owned and operated station. I rose to 

the rank of vice president and news director, where I was honored 

to win a Peabody award for investigative journalism, before joining 

KNBC in Los Angeles, the number two market, as the Nation’s 

first African American female president and general manager. 

In that role, I experienced, firsthand, the challenges and opportunities that come with being a person of color in the media and entertainment business, and through the years, I learned, sometimes 

8 

the hard way, about the importance of identifying and grooming 

talent, meeting numbers, both budget- and ratings-wise, and navigating the precarious path up the corporate ladder. 

So when Jeff Zucker approached me, in 2007, to become the executive vice president for diversity at NBCU, I had a tough choice to 

make. I could stay as the president and general manager of what 

had become one of the company’s top-performing stations. Or I 

could take on a new challenge and help the next generation of diverse executives, entry-level, and otherwise, succeed in pursuing 

their dreams of making it in this business. 

Although I didn’t need to, I took that new challenge and sit here 

today, proud of my company and the leadership we have, and continue to show, in opening the doors of opportunity for those who 

want to pursue career paths, both in front of and behind the camera. 

It is also why I sit here today, excited about Comcast’s commitment to investing in NBCU for the future. 

My president and CEO, Jeff Zucker, and Brian Roberts, Comcast 

chairman and CEO, spent nearly 5 hours discussing the transaction with the full Judiciary Committee at a hearing in Washington, D.C., in February. 

Today, Comcast and NBCU have announced some new important, exciting and formal diversity commitments, that expand upon 

earlier commitments. Thee substantive joint commitments, attached in full to my written testimony, span a multitude of areas, 

ranging from workforce recruitment/career development, supplier 

diversity, media ownership, programming, and community investment partnerships. 

Among some of the more noteworthy commitments are Comcast 

adding two new independently-owned and operated cable networks 

to its system for each of the next 3 years, starting in 2011, with 

a pledge that at least half of the six new networks will have a substantial minority ownership interest. 

Establishing four new external diversity advisory councils to facilitate open communication on the development, monitoring and 

evaluation of the company’s diversity initiatives, and expanded 

video-on-demand offerings, with African American, Hispanic and 

Asian Pacific programming content. 

In closing, I would like to say that all of us who work in the 

media and entertainment sector understand, particularly in these 

difficult economic times, how very important investment is to the 

continued success and survival of our industry. 

Whether it’s local or national news programming, a blockbuster 

hit on broadcast television, or the big screen, quality content is expensive to produce. Comcast’s investment in NBC Universal will 

ensure that we continue creating compelling programming and 

bringing new jobs to Southern California. 

I understand that some Members of the Committee, and a number of my fellow witnesses, many of whom are long-time friends, 

have questions and concerns about the Comcast-NBC Universal 

joint venture. But as a 20-plus year veteran of NBCU, who continues to work in the industry because I believe in my company, 

I am confident that the commitments Comcast and NBC Universal 

have made will provide consumers with what they demand—more 

9 

engaging, compelling and diverse content, delivered to them in new 

and innovative ways, any time and anywhere they want. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of today’s hearing, 

and with me, I have over 230 letters from organizations in support 

of the Comcast-NBC Universal joint venture, that I would like to 

submit to the record. 

I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Madison follows:] 

10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAULA MADISON


PM-1.eps
11 


PM-2.eps
12 


PM-3.eps
13 


PM-4.eps
14 


PM-5.eps
15 


PM-6.eps
16 


PM-7.eps
17 


PM-8.eps
18 


PM-9.eps
19 


PM-10.eps
20 


PM-11.eps
21 


PM-12.eps
22 


PM-13.eps
23 


PM-14.eps
24 


PM-15.eps
25 


PM-16.eps
26 


PM-17.eps
27 


PM-18.eps
28 


PM-19.eps
29 


PM-20.eps
30 


PM-21.eps
31 


PM-22.eps
32 


PM-23.eps
33 


PM-24.eps
34 


PM-25.eps
35 


PM-26.eps
36 


PM-27.eps
37 


PM-28.eps
38 


PM-29.eps
39 


PM-30.eps
40 


PM-31.eps
41 


PM-32.eps
42 


PM-33.eps
43 


PM-34.eps
44 


PM-35.eps
45 


PM-36.eps
46 


PM-37.eps
47 


PM-38.eps
48 


PM-39.eps
49 


PM-40.eps
50 


PM-41.eps
51 


PM-42.eps
52 


PM-43.eps
53 


PM-44.eps
54 

Mr. CONYERS. There are no contributions or donations being 

made in those letters, are there? 

Ms. MADISON. Not at all. 


PM-45.eps
55 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, 230. I will have to take that under advisement, because if every witness submits a couple hundred letters, 

this will become the most referenced hearing in the congressional 

history. And so I think we are going to have to trim that number 

down a little bit. 

Ms. MADISON. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Our next witness is Samuel Kang, a lawyer, with 

a sort of modest bio, from San Francisco. A commissioner on Alameda County Parks Recreational Commission, and yet the preparation that you submitted to us was very moving to me. I want to 

congratulate you for it and welcome you to the hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL KANG, MANAGING ATTORNEY, 

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE 

Mr. KANG. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That says a lot, coming from you, a civil rights leader, and pioneer. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, it is indeed my 

honor and my pleasure to speak to you this morning. 

The Greenlining Institute is a nonprofit advocacy organization 

that seeks to protect consumer interests, while partnering with 

some of the largest companies in America, to better serve this 

country’s multiethnic and underserved communities. 

Although there are a myriad of issues and significant problems 

with this merger, I will limit my testimony to three key issues in 

the interest of time, and that is one, diversity in ownership, two, 

the impact on our democracy, and three, what a merger would 

mean for our economy. 

So over the last 20 years, media consolidation has diminished 

independent voices and source of information, particularly diverse 

voices. Unfortunately, the proposed merger does not seem to provide much to improve the situation, and as Congresswoman Waters 

and Chu have stated, the numbers just speak for themselves in 

terms of ownership. 

But the question is: What is the problem with the lack of minority ownership? Well, the answer is this. It has a direct correlation 

with the lack of minority programming. So what is Comcast’s role 

in this? Comcast may state that there is not a problem, and point 

to diversity success stories, like BET, TV One, and Oxygen. 

The reality is, that despite Comcast and NBCU’s substantial 

holdings, none of these channels is minority-owned. Many so-called 

minority stations are in fact owned by large media conglomerates. 

BET is owned by Viacom. Comcast holds a substantial ownership 

in TV One, and a large interest in Oxygen actually belongs to Time 

Warner. 

Comcast’s leadership might reveal some of the reasons for this 

deficiency. The company’s 13-member board of directors includes 

only one woman and one person of color. 

A report by the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility 

gave Comcast a failing grade on the diversity of its workforce. 

NBC, similarly, has a poor track record, with Ms. Madison aside. 

For example, NBC’s CEO, Jeff Zucker, admitted that even though 

NBC runs Telemundo, one of the largest Latino TV networks in the 

country, they have no Latinos on the board or executive team. This 

is quite disturbing. 

56 

Comcast and NBC both say they are serious about diversity, but 

the truth is, both struggle, when it comes to the number of minorities within their workforce and management who actually have the 

ability to hire or influence content. 

But why, exactly, is diverse programming such a vital issue? The 

answer is that diverse programming has a critical impact on the 

health of our democracy. 

In 2009, the American Economic Review, one of the leading economic journals in this country, published a ground breaking study 

that showed that Spanish language local television news can substantially boost Hispanic voter turnout. Hispanic voter turnout increased by as much as 5 to 10 percentage points in markets where 

Spanish language local television news was available. 

Local news in Spanish causes about one in five, one in five Spanish language news viewers, who had never voted before, to start 

voting. The results are real and they are significant. 

If you build it, they will come, and they will vote. 

Unfortunately, Comcast and NBCU have a poor track record of 

promoting minority perspective and preserving local content. This 

is most starkly demonstrated by NBC’s systematic dismantling of 

Spanish language stations after NBC took over Telemundo. 

For example, in December 2006, NBCU eliminated locally-produced Telemundo stations newscasts in seven markets. They were 

instead replaced with regional content transmitting from consolidated hubs. The markets that were gutted of its local programming 

include Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, San Jose, and Phoenix. The 

gutting consisted of terminating dozens of reporters, camera persons, production team members, and producers. These markets 

alone comprise five of the top ten Hispanic markets in the country. 

In response to audience outrage, NBCU brought back four local 

Telemundo newscasts in February 2010, Dallas, Houston, San Jose 

and Phoenix. However, these news casts rely on reports and images 

received from NBC News sources, not from locally-generated content, and only a smattering of content is locally produced, and the 

resources are still threadbare. 

Comcast has demonstrated a penchant to cut local content as 

well. In 2008, Comcast consolidated operations in Denver, Colorado, and gutted local coverage of nearby Colorado Springs. That 

same year, Comcast consolidated its East Coast operations, cutting 

300 positions, by combining six regions into four. 

In 2009, Comcast too a hatchet to New England Cable News, and 

most recently did it against to Sarasota and Fort Myers-Naples, in 

Florida. What is most disturbing about these practices is that both 

NBCU and Comcast seem proud about their track record. 

The proposed marriage of NBCU and Comcast seemingly is a 

union of two corporations that operate by remarkably similar 

modus operandi, and that is to gut, to cut, and to strut. 

The final point I would like to highlight is how Comcast, in this 

proposed merger, is likely to impact the economy. As the Nation’s 

largest cable company, and the Nation’s second-largest Internet 

service provider, Comcast employs and contracts with numerous 

business enterprises. 

57 

Therefore, the fact that Comcast has demonstrated, at best, a 

weak commitment to contracting with minority and women-owned 

businesses, is extremely concerning. 

The procurement of minority women and disabled veteran-owned 

businesses, otherwise known as supplier diversity, has been long 

led by two prominent leaders over the last several years. Specifically, Verizon and AT&T’s efforts in California have become national models of supplier diversity. 

Comcast has neither been transparent nor active in supplier di- versity. In 2009, Comcast spent over $315 million in outside procurement in California, less than 16 percent of that total, 16 percent, a paltry $48.5 million, were attributed to minority women and 

disabled veteran-owned business combined. 

Verizon and AT&T directly injected almost $600 million in diverse businesses in 2009 alone, most of it benefiting small businesses, and creating jobs in diverse communities in the process. In 

stark contrast, Comcast’s supplier diversity efforts are negligible, 

and yet, Comcast competes, head to head, against AT&T and 

Verizon. 

So when Comcast takes customers and revenues away from 

AT&T and Verizon, Comcast is siphoning away hundreds of millions of dollars from California’s diverse communities. As a result, 

this would take away much-needed jobs that otherwise would have 

been created. 

If Comcast is allowed to get bigger, and further proliferate their 

current business practices in California, the state’s diverse economies will be put in imminent danger. 

Mr. Chairman, the scenario that I am presenting is not merely 

theory. It is rooted in what Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has already confirmed. In a previous congressional hearing, Mr. Roberts 

all but assured job losses would directly result from the merger. All 

that he could promise was that the merger would lead to no massive layoffs. 

It is unacceptable, that when everyone is trying to figure out how 

to create jobs, Comcast’s best prognosis is no massive layoffs. But 

Comcast is only following its own MO, that is, to gut, to cut, and 

to strut. 

So how come there are such gaping deficiencies in Comcast’s application? A major reason is the lack of public input in the regulatory process. After today, Congress will have held five hearings 

on this landmark transaction. The FCC still has yet to hold one. 

The FCC took an adequate first step with the announcement of one 

event in Chicago. Unfortunately, the Chicago event is classified as 

a forum and not a hearing. 

I am encouraged by the prospect of more hearings, but they have 

to be a formalized and official public hearing, where the FCC, led 

by Chairman Genachowski, can gain input directly from members 

of the public. 

We have learned from the BP disaster, what can happen when 

there isn’t diligent and transparent regulatory scrutiny. The scrutiny must be on the front end, not an afterthought. I sincerely hope 

that this Administration’s regulatory scrutiny of the Comcast merger is more comprehensive than its regulatory scrutiny of offshore 

drilling. 

58 

Comprehensive hearings require public hearings. Otherwise, the 

consequences could be just as disastrous. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kang follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL KANG


Kang-1.eps
59 


Kang-2.eps
60 


Kang-3.eps
61 


Kang-4.eps
62 


Kang-5.eps
63 


Kang-6.eps
64 


Kang-7.eps
65 


Kang-8.eps
66 


Kang-9.eps
67 


Kang-10.eps
68 


Kang-11.eps
69 


Kang-12.eps
70 


Kang-13.eps
71 


Kang-14.eps
72 


Kang-15.eps
73 


Kang-16.eps
74 


Kang-17.eps
75 


Kang-18.eps
76 


Kang-19.eps
77 


Kang-20.eps
78 


Kang-21.eps
79 


Kang-22.eps
80 


Kang-23.eps
81 


Kang-24.eps
82 


Kang-25.eps
83 


Kang-26.eps
84 


Kang-27.eps
85 


Kang-28.eps
86 


Kang-29.eps
87 


Kang-30.eps
88 


Kang-31.eps
89 


Kang-32.eps
90 


Kang-33.eps
91 


Kang-34.eps
92 


Kang-35.eps
93 


Kang-36.eps
94 

Mr. CONYERS. Our next witness is Alfred Liggins, III, president 

and CEO of Radio One and TV One, and one of the largest radio 

broadcasting companies in urban radio. He has gone to a number 

of schools and universities, and then became chief operating officer 

at Radio One, served as the production assistant with CBS 


Kang-37.eps
95 

Records, the WOL AM account manager, and then general sales 

manager. 

Mr. Liggins helped launch TV One with the Comcast Corporation 

in 2003. We welcome you to the Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED C. LIGGINS, III, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RADIO ONE 

Mr. LIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Waters, and the 

other Members of the Committee. I wanted to clear up a few 

things, first, about Radio One and TV One, and our relationship 

and status as a minority company, minority-owned company. 

First of all, Radio One is minority supplier, with a minority supplier development council. Between my mother and myself, my 

mother, Cathy Hughes, we control 90 percent, actually 95 percent 

of all the voting classes of stock of Radio One. We also, even more 

importantly, control 40 percent of the economics of Radio One, 

which will probably, in time, go higher. 

But that 40 percent is more than Rupert Murdoch controls, economically, of Fox. It’s more than Sumner Redstone controls of 

Viacom, and Bill Gates controls of Microsoft. And nobody would 

argue whether or not they own their companies. And so when I 

hear that Radio One, because we are public, is not a minorityowned company, or owned by Cathy Hughes, I sometimes take offense at it because there is a very high bar set for us, for ownership. But we believe that bar is very high now and will continue 

to go higher. 

Radio One owns 37 percent of TV One, and through a series of 

transactions that will be announced shortly, over the next 12 to 18 

months, we will be extending that ownership from 37 percent up 

to 66 percent. So we are going to be substantially increasing the 

minority ownership of TV One, even though we already control the 

company now and are the single largest shareholder. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on the pending joint venture between Comcast and NBC Universal. There is 

one simple truth that should govern our thinking about the joint 

venture between Comcast and NBCU. 

General Electric, which has had a controlling share of NBCU 

since 1986, is selling its interest in NBCU. The acquiring company 

could be a partially-owned foreign firm, or one with little experience in television or management of far-flung assets. 

It could be a company that has no appreciation for the value of 

diversity, or no demonstrable track record in diversity, whatsoever. 

Happily, that will not be the case. GE has chosen to work with 

Comcast. There are some critics of the Comcast-NBCU deal. They 

generally argue that big is bad, and insist that this combination 

cannot possibly be good for those concerned about diversity or competition in media. 

I have an alternative view, based on my own personal experience 

with Comcast, at both the highest executive and operational level. 

Based on my 8-year relationship with Comcast, I can offer a personal testament to Comcast’s commitment to TV diversity. Eight 

years ago, I began to pitch the idea of a new cable television channel that would provide real entertainment and education to the African American community. 

96 

Television that assumed the audience’s intelligence instead of insulting it. Programming that would inspire, uplift and educate. 

Programming that would allow the African American community to 

see itself as it really is, but also would allow our fellow citizens to 

see us too, unfiltered. Our goal was to create the Nation’s only African American-owned, controlled and operated programming service, 

given that BET’s found had long ago sold off his network. 

For the most part, cable operators granted me polite audiences 

to pitch carriage on their systems, but then ultimately turned me 

down as occurs with most programmers, these days. There was one 

exception. Brian Roberts, Steve Burke, David Cohen, and the senior leadership team at Comcast, seemed to get it, right away. 

Comcast understood the value and importance of their African 

American customers and quickly agreed to become our major strategic partner. 

They gave us significant exposure on their cable systems, which 

helped to create momentum with advertisers. They also negotiated 

a deal that helped finance the network, made a sizeable cash investment, while allowing my team to retain significant ownership, 

even in excess of Comcast’s own ownership stake. 

They ceded management control and worked with me to allow a 

competitor of theirs, DirecTV, to also acquire an interest in the network, so the network could grow even further. 

And it was with great pride that we launched TV One on January 19, 2004, the day that the Nation paid tribute to Martin Luther 

King. 

Today is one of the Nation’s two major African American-oriented 

channels and the only one owned by African Americans. TV One 

now reaches more than 50 million homes by cable and satellite. We 

deliver a wealth of original programming designed to delight, inform, and intrigue millions of African American adults. 

By staying true to our original vision, we have expanded our 

viewership to reach adults of all races and creeds, so that they too 

can see us as we are, as ourselves. 

I think it’s significant that Comcast showed this commitment to 

diversity when its core business was in distribution rather than 

production of television, and now that they are joining forces with 

NBCU, they have committed, in writing, to do even more to promote diversity. 

Some may have concerns about GE’s stewardship of NBCU. That 

is not something for which Comcast should be held accountable for. 

Rather, that is something for which Comcast can be the solution. 

Because of my personal experience working with Comcast, I am 

confident, that if allowed to acquire NBCU, Comcast will look for 

opportunities to create managerial and content diversity. 

Mr. Chairman, I know the men and women of Comcast, as I 

know you do. I believe they are a good, solid company that has 

been, and will continue to be, responsible to the needs of our communities. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Liggins follows:] 

97 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALFRED C. LIGGINS, III 


ACL-1.eps
98 


ACL-2.eps
99 


ACL-3.eps
100 


ACL-4.eps
101 

Mr. CONYERS. Our next witness is Mr. Stanley Washington, 

president of the National Coalition on African American Owned 

Media. He was a regional vice president for American Express, 

worked for the publishing company, Dow Jones & Company, the 

Walter Kaitz Foundation, and is a graduate of Morehouse College, 

where my son attempted to stay in school, and has a degree in 

marketing. We welcome you to this proceedings. 

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY E. WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN AND 

CEO, NATIONAL COALITION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN OWNED 

MEDIA 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must 

admit, I am happy to be out of Morehouse myself. I would like to 

also say thank you to Congresswoman Waters and to the Committee. 

NCAAOM calls for a boycott of Comcast. The time has come for 

Comcast to understand that African Americans are no loner interested in living on the Comcast plantation. The National Coalition 

of African American Owned Media further denounces Comcast and 

its nonexistent carriage of 100 percent African American-owned 

channels on its nationwide platforms of approximately 24 million 

homes, and underscores its opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger, 

unless specific ownership conditions are enforced by the FCC and 

the DOJ. 

In a recent LA Times article dated April 27, I stated, for decades, 

Comcast has shut the door to widely-distributed, wholly-owned African American channels, and pension funds, by virtue of their investment in Comcast, are supporting apartheid right here in America. 

Comcast brings in approximately $3 billion per month, $36 billion per year, from nearly 24 million cable subscribers. Based on 

the large number of African American-populated cities which 

Comcast serves, we estimate there are millions of African American 

subscribers that contribute approximately 40 percent, or $15 billion 

of Comcast’s annual revenue. Based on the enormous support that 

the African American community has shown Comcast for over four 

decades, we find it unacceptable that none of the 250-plus channels 

that are offered on the Comcast platform are 100 percent African 

American owned and widely distributed on their nationwide platform. 

Further, in many of the U.S. cities where Comcast has a dominant share of the cable market, African Americans comprise a majority, or near majority of the population. 

For example, in Philadelphia, the city in which Comcast is 

headquartered, African Americans make up more than 43 percent 

of the city’s population. 

A little more than half of all the residents of Washington, D.C. 

are African American. In Detroit, eight out of ten residents are African American. Other Comcast markets with high concentrations 

of African American subscribers include Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Jackson, Mississippi, Memphis, New Orleans, 

Oakland, California, Pittsburgh, Raleigh-Durham, and many more. 

Nevertheless, the availability of African American wholly-owned 

media does not reflect these statistics. Indeed, not one of the netVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
102 

works on Comcast’s cable television platform is 100 percent African 

American owned and widely distributed. 

Even channels that are African American targeted content are 

not 100 percent owned by African American companies. Viacom 

owns BET and Comcast owns 33 percent of TV One. The proposed 

merger will perpetuate, or even worsen the lack of 100 percent African American-owned cable networks. 

The deal will reduce competition by permitting Comcast-NBCU 

to play favoritism to their massive portfolio of 44 owned cable networks, and more to be launched in the future, in lieu of 100 percent African American-owned channels which will never get widely 

distributed on the Comcast platform. 

So we have no opportunity to survive, or thrive, and to support 

these facts, please refer to the FCC carriage complaint filed on January 5, 2010, by the Tennis Channel against Comcast for this very 

reason. 

Additionally, Comcast was caught blocking and slowing down 

competing video content on their broadband platform, which recently resulted in a class action law suit against Comcast, and 

which they settled in the amount of $16 million for their deplorable 

behavior. 

These are just two examples of their anti-competitive conduct. 

Dr. Maya Angelou said it best. When someone shows you who 

they are, believe them the first time. 2009 compensation packages 

for Brian Roberts, chairman, and Steve Burke, chief operating officer of Comcast, were in excess of $35 million each. These two men, 

Brian Roberts and Steve Burke, paid themselves significantly more 

than what Comcast paid to wholly-owned African American media, 

collectively. Comcast spends approximately $7 billion a year on content from cable networks, and less than $2 million per year is allocated to 

wholly-owned African American networks. 

Matt Bond, Comcast executive vice president, Programming Content Acquisitions, should be subpoenaed to testify, under oath, as 

to how many African American-owned companies have been allowed to pitch him, or not pitch him, for carriage distribution 

agreements. 

How many African American-owned companies have been consistently denied such opportunities? Clearly, the answer is disturbing, given the lack of 100 percent owned African American 

cable networks, widely distributed, on the Comcast platform. 

And it is not for lack of trying. Businessman Alvin James, who 

actually is sitting here with me today, right behind me, along with 

Marlin Jackson of the Jackson Five, attorney Willie Gary, heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield, baseball icon Cecil Fielder, 

raised in excess of $60 million to fund a 100 percent African American-owned network called the Black Family Channel. 

Instead of Comcast ensuring that the Black Family Channel succeeded, they exploited these African American entrepreneurs, by 

charging them millions of dollars in unnecessary launch fees. 

We ask, if Comcast did not support a network called the Black 

Family Channel, then why should Black families support Comcast? 

I had a letter sent to Brian Roberts dated April 9, 2010, stating my 

position, and requesting a meeting to resolve this urgent issue. 

103 

On May 12, I introduced myself to Brian Roberts at the NCTA 

cable show in Los Angeles and requested a meeting with Mr. Roberts about these issues. Unfortunately, the meeting request was denied. 

If this is their conduct while they’re trying to secure approval for 

the largest media acquisition in history, how do we think they are 

going to act when they get approved? 

The time has come for Comcast to understand that African 

Americans are no longer interested in living on the Comcast plantation. Until Comcast does business with African American-owned 

media in a significant way, we are going to boycott, and campaign, 

to have African American families and supporters disconnect their 

services immediately. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Washington follows:] 

104 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY E. WASHINGTON


SEW-1.eps
105 


SEW-2.eps
106 


SEW-3.eps
107 


SEW-4.eps
108 


SEW-5.eps
109 


SEW-6.eps
110 


SEW-7.eps
111 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Jim Weitkamp, vice president of the Communications Workers. He has been with them a long time, became 

part of the CWA staff in 1988 as the director for Southern California, and has been a leader in the workers’ right protection activities. We welcome you. 


SEW-8.eps
112 

TESTIMONY OF JIM WEITKAMP, VICE PRESIDENT, 

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. WEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim 

Weitkamp. I am vice president for CWA District 9, which represents 66,000 employees in California, Nevada, and Hawaii. Nationally, CWA represents more than 700,000 employees, including 

workers at Comcast and NBC Universal. 

So I believe I can provide a unique perspective on the impact of 

this transaction on workers and the industry. 

My testimony will focus on three areas. First, the impact of this 

combination on jobs. Second, how the proposed merger will aggravate current anti-competitive behavior in the cable industry. And 

third, the problems that will result in the emerging Internet video 

marketplace. 

The bottom line is this. The public must be protected from the 

significant harms created by a combination of such unprecedented 

scale. 

A Comcast-NBC combination will lead to the loss of good jobs. 

Comcast-NBC debt will increase by approximately $8 billion after 

this transaction, and to pay for this debt, the company will have 

two choices. Cut jobs or raise cable prices. Either way, consumers 

and workers lose. 

In addition to job loss, the combination will depress labor standards. Comcast has a terrible track record of aggressive action to 

eliminate worker organization at companies that it acquires. As a 

result, Comcast wages and benefits trail those at unionized telecom 

companies by about one-third. This has a considerable impact on 

minority workers who comprise about one-third of the workforce in 

this sector. 

In 2002, Comcast acquired AT&T broadband. At the time, CWA 

represented about 5,000 cable employees, nationally, and about a 

thousand, here, in California, including units in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Modesto, Fresno, and the Bay Area. 

Comcast executives reassured the CWA leadership that they 

would respect their employees’ right to a union voice. 

Well, I can tell you what a Comcast commitment means. After 

Comcast took over AT&T broadband, a senior vice president of the 

company, in Oregon, announced we’re going to wage war directly 

to certify CWA. And that’s precisely what Comcast did. 

In Fresno, Modesto, Sacramento and Los Angeles, Comcast delayed bargaining for more than 18 months, denied workers wage 

and benefit improvements that they provided to non-union employees, and supported decertification elections. 

Across the country, Comcast refused to reach agreement on a 

first contract in sixteen or the organized units that it acquired from 

AT&T. 

In the San Francisco Bay Area, where CWA has represented 

cable workers for many years, Comcast initiated decertification 

elections as recently as 3 years ago. The workers elected to keep 

union representation, and we are now bargaining with Comcast 

over a new contract. 

But even here, Comcast has attempted to get around the union 

by shifting about half of its work to non-union lower-wage employVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
113 

ees. Where workers try to form a union, Comcast has fired and retaliated against union supporters. 

Two years ago, Comcast waged an aggressive campaign against 

employees in San Jose who sought union representation with CWA. 

The company scheduled weekly mandatory meetings to spread 

their anti-union message. In one of those meetings, a Comcast 

manager told the workers that anyone passing out union cards is 

like spam in his computer and he kills spam. 

In contrast, collective bargaining at NBC Universal dates back to 

the 1930’s. Our NABET affiliate represents broadcast technicians 

at NBC, and although we are currently in difficult negotiations 

with NBC, and have been without a contract for over a year, the 

bottom line is that NBC workers have a collective voice through 

their union, a right that Comcast denies to their employees. 

Let me now turn to the anti-competitive issues associated with 

this transaction. There is already too little competition in the video 

marketplace. Cable rates have grown at three times the rate of inflation. This merger would provide Comcast-NBC with added incentive, an ability to engage in anti-competitive practices that would 

increase cable rates. 

After the merger, Comcast will own NBC’s premier programming. It will have the ability to bundle its less-desirable cable 

channels with must-have NBC programming. This forced bundling 

will raise other video providers’ costs, which translates into higher 

cable rates for consumers. 

Today, some companies are trying to compete with the incumbent cable providers. They are investing significant resources to 

build their networks. This merger would provide Comcast-NBC 

with the incentive and ability to raise the prices it charges new entrants for must-have NBC and sports programming, effectively 

blocking or limiting competition, investment, and jobs that accompany those efforts. 

The third area of concern involves the online video market. The 

Internet allows consumers to access video content of their choice, 

unmediated by the prepackaged bundles of the cable company. 

The Comcast-NBC merger has the potential to bring this to a 

halt. A combined Comcast-NBC could limit consumers’ online access to NBC content, or it could charge consumers higher prices to 

access that content, unless they are cable subscribers. This is the 

TV everywhere model, that Comcast and NBC have already begun 

to deploy, which forces Internet customers to buy cable packages in 

order to see content online. 

These actions protect the cable channel business platform at the 

expense of new video entrants, and devalue the broadband investment of competitive companies. The end result is that companies 

will invest less in broadband deployment, put less fiber in the 

ground, and hire fewer people. 

In summary, the Comcast-NBC merger’s potential to limit 

growth, investment, and jobs, is not in the public interest. Federal 

regulators cannot pass this merger without carefully considering 

the significant impact emerging companies will have on video competition, choice, and jobs. 

114 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today 

and I ask that my written records be put, placed into the record. 

Mr. CONYERS. We will now hear from Mr. Will Griffin. What a 

mixed background you have here. You graduated from Dartmouth 

College, and the you went to Harvard for your law degree. You are 

the president and chief operating officer of Hip Hop On Demand, 

and yet you served in executive positions with Goldman Sachs, 

which you have not removed from your resume yet. And McKinsey 

& Company, the largest—what is it that they do?—in the country, 

and you have worked for the News Corporation which owns Fox. 

Now I can’t hardly wait to hear your testimony, and we welcome 

you to the Committee proceedings. 

TESTIMONY OF WILL GRIFFIN, PRESIDENT AND COO, 

HIP HOP ON DEMAND 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Waters, and Members of the Committee. Well, how I got from Ivy 

League to hip hop can be explained by the fact that I am from 

Texas, where, unfortunately, John Carter is my representative, and 

no matter how much schooling I get, it can’t smooth out my rough 

edges. So that pretty much explains that. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and by way of background, I have seen the inner workings of most of the major media 

companies. So while in law school, my faculty adviser was Deputy 

Commerce Secretary Dennis Hightower, who was the first African 

American president of Walt Disney Television. As the director of 

the Harvard Consultation Project, I was advised by Motown Chairman Clarence Avant who opened the door of access to practically 

all the CEOs, and that gave me my start in the media industry. 

So you can blame him for part of it. 

Subsequently, at McKinsey & Company’s Entertainment and 

Media Group, I worked on projects at Time Warner during its postmerger integration with Turner, and later joined News Corp. in the 

Strategy and Marketing Group. 

For the past 10 years, I have been an entrepreneur, an African 

American media producing film with Reuben Cannon, Bishop TD 

Jakes, and ultimately, running a film and television production 

company in conjunction with Stan Lathan and Russell Simmons, 

where, 5 years ago, we created and launched Hip Hop On Demand 

on Comcast. 

Those experiences have led me to support this joint venture with 

Comcast, as the controlling partner, for two overwhelming reasons. 

One, despite the testimony, Comcast actually has the best infrastructure of inclusion to build upon in the media industry, and second, African American consumers and policy makers have more potential leverage over Comcast than any other media company. 

I don’t come to this conclusion lightly, because there is no doubt 

that the history of African Americans and media consolidation creates a visceral, negative reaction to any merger or consolidation. 

When I watched Congresswoman Waters’ hearings on the financial services industry and the lack of diversity, I applaud. When I 

see you come out to the hip hop summits, I know your heart is in 

115 

the right place, and you are connected to the issues in the community. 

Because I remember sitting in my dorm room, in 1992, when Bill 

Cosby expressed his desire to purchase NBC, a network he turned 

around, and was told that it was not for sale. It begged the existential question: Why? Many African Americans remember when Fox 

launched with a focus on African American programming. They 

had iconic shows like Queen Latifah’s Living Single, Martin, Roc, 

New York Undercover. 

Then, through a series of acquisitions, mergers, stock swaps and 

expansion, into Fox News, the company has morphed into the monstrosity that we see today. 

From Queen Latifah to Glenn Beck. Why? 

More recently, Viacom’s UPN and Time Warner’s the WB 

merged, and the first casualties were the African American 

shows—Girlfriends, Eve, All Of Us, Everybody Hates Chris—that 

made up the bulk of their line-up. Why? 

Here is my answer. Because advertisers have only been willing 

to pay for a limited amount of African American impressions, and 

they will not pay for every African American view generated. It is 

why African American icons like Ebony/Jet are in decline. That 

should be the subject of future hearings, and I was delighted to 

hear you say that you will have more hearings on these issues, because if we are to remove the primary barrier to growth and sustainability of minority media companies, your intervention and 

oversight of the advertising industry is sorely needed. 

This is true of my own experience with Hip Hop On Demand. At 

about the same time we launched on Comcast, there other African 

American channels also entered into long-term distribution agreements, Vibe OnDemand, Quincy Jones III’s channel and TV One. 

Two of the other companies quickly folded, despite a long-term distribution contract, because they were not able to secure advertisers. 

Fortunately, we had General Motors, The Coca Cola Company, 

and Reebok as charter sponsors. Then foreign-owned Adidas acquired Reebok and zeroed out the African American marketing 

budget. GM experienced their problems, came to Congress to bail 

them out, and returned to profitability, and they have not come 

back to our channel, despite the fact that we have experienced 

viewership growth in each and every quarter. 

If my company was paid for every one of the 500 million impressions that we generated, I could have made my own run at NBC. 

The root of the problem is this. Advertisers’ unwillingness to allocate minority marketing budgets in proportion to viewership and 

ratings. 

Which brings me to why I support this transaction. Comcast has 

the best infrastructure of inclusion to build upon in the media industry. Some of the very systems at the core of the Comcast media 

empire were actually birthed by African American media owners 

through some of your legislative efforts. 

The Washington, D.C. cable system, and Chicago cable systems 

were founded by Bob Johnson with funding from Herb Wilkins of 

Syncom, with pension fund money that you lobbied to get on their 

behalf, and I liken this corporate family tree to Thomas Jefferson/ 

116 

Sally Hemmings descendants. It is in your DNA. You might as well 

embrace it. 

I believe they have. In its official response to this Committee’s 

questionnaire, Comcast has quantified thousands of minorities in 

management positions and its tens of thousands of minority employees. Moreover, in each of the last 5 years, that number has continued to grow at a rate more than Whites in its corporate structure. 

Now I read attorney Kang’s testimony. I thought it was brilliant 

and well put-together. However, on the data, I believe there is a 

problem. There are 24,000 African Americans out of 90,000 employees. It would be virtually impossible for 24,000 African Americans 

to show up anywhere and have someone not notice it. 

I believe that they have, the growth rate is strong, and the minority composition is vastly superior to any other media company. 

And I think it bears knowing that it is eons ahead of the advertising, telecommunications and financial services industry. 

That context is extremely important, because I would like to 

highlight some examples of having African Americans in leadership 

positions, has been invaluable to me as an African American media 

owner. 

When we launched with three other African American channels, 

it was because of Comcast Corporate Vice President Payne Brown, 

came to dozens of African Americans in the creative community, to 

educate us on video-on-demand platform and the investment 

Comcast was making to become the industry leader. 

When we saw the ability to get distribution and programming directly to our core viewers, we were one of the few who actually 

raised capital, in our case from Syncom and Pacesetter Capital, 

and we secured advertisers to pursue the opportunity. Once on the 

platform, we began to market our channel, get support from the African American general managers who run the cable systems in 

Chicago, D.C., Houston, South Florida, and the entire Western region, are all run by African Americans, and as part of our ongoing 

process of making viewers aware of our channel, we have supplied 

information to Comcast customer services teams, who are largely 

African American, and supervised by an African American senior 

VP. It certainly helps when explaining our channel to subscribers. 

The result is that according to a study by Starcom Media Group, 

African Americans are more than twice as likely to use video-ondemand than any other demographic. 

Finally, when our channel had trouble securing sponsors, 

Comcast has packaged our channel, along with some of their properties, and was able to secure sponsors for us, which subsequently 

came to us directly. 

They have also served as our syndicator and secured distribution 

for us on Cox, Insight, Bresnan and other cable systems, almost 

doubling our reach. 

Now Congressman Cohen asked the question, how does Comcast 

compare to other cable operators? CableVision is the worst, on the 

record. You can’t serve Harlem, Brooklyn, Queens, and not have 

any interest whatsoever in putting on African programming. Awful. 

Time Warner’s difficult. 

117 

We talked to every cable operator, and kind a like Alfred’s point, 

Comcast was the only one who opened the door, and then were 

willing to walk us into other cable operators, despite the fact that 

they have absolutely zero equity participation in our company. 

Brings me to my second reason for supporting the transaction. 

African American consumers and policy makers have more potential leverage over Comcast than any other media company. Now I 

don’t know how to characterize the attempt to exercise their leverage through an announced boycott today, but I think it’s problematic, for many reasons. 

But as a result of its origins in the urban population centers, the 

bulk of Comcast’s early and current subscribers are African Americans. The estimates range from 20 to 25 percent of the subscriber 

base. 

If it fails to live up to its commitments to add more independent 

channels, promote African Americans into leadership positions, and 

allow minority media owners to purchase assets they divest, consumers could be mobilized and have a direct impact by switching 

service providers. 

This is superior to the leverage over General Electric at the moment, where we can only affect their through shareholders, pension 

funds, etcetera. Their leverage over Comcast is direct. It’s also 

more immediate and direct than over any other media company 

and network. 

A second layer of leverage, unique to Comcast, is that in each of 

its markets, Comcast must get its franchises renewed, and many 

of the major markets are run by African American and Hispanic 

representatives, the city councils, directors of cable franchising 

commissions, at both the state and local levels. In Michigan, it is 

at the state level. 

This leverage is effective when combined with the Hispanic influence at state and local level in the Western and Southern regions. 

Now some have called for Congress and the FCC to exercise regulatory leverage at the Federal level, by mandating that Comcast set 

aside 25 channels for African American media owners, defined as 

100 percent African American owned. 

It is not that the demand is too high. It is that the demand is 

unworkable. If you define African American media ownership at 

100 percent, that undercuts the decades-long work that Congressman Waters and Congress have fought for for years, namely, getting public pension funds to invest in minority asset managers, 

who, in turn, invest in minority firms like Radio One and Hip Hop 

On Demand. 

By definition, taking money from pension funds would make our 

companies not African American owned. That standard cannot be 

adopted because it would reverse decades-long work to get us into 

the capital markets. And although we control the voting equity, in 

our case, almost all of the equity, we are still not considered African American owned by some. This definition is untenable. It may 

explain why we have not received an invitation, a call, an e-mail, 

or even a Facebook friend request to join the Coalition of African 

American Media Owners. 

The definition creates a coalition that is so exclusive, that there 

is nobody there. The idea that the company that Cathy Hughes 

118 

founded, and she and Alfred Liggins built, that reaches tens of millions of African Americans each day through Tom Joyner, Roland 

Martin, and thousands of African American employees, is not 

‘‘Black enough,’’ almost disqualifies someone from a serious discussion of African American media ownership. 

This line of racial purity in public policy almost cost us a chance 

at history. I submit that President Obama is Black enough, and so 

is TV One, and so is Hip Hop On Demand. 

The proposed myopic approach also tends to measure African 

American media ownership with a protractor, when what is really 

needed is a compass. The True North is heading in the direction 

of greater distribution and access on more platforms, increased 

leadership inside media companies, and combining our influence to 

secure our fair share of advertising dollars. 

In conclusion, True North is also exercising our potential leverage by staying connected to our viewers and communities, and 

working together to develop the next generation of African American media owners to travel along the path that we blaze today. 

For all the reasons stated above, I believe the proposed Comcast 

joint venture is a step in the right direction. Thank you.. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:] 

119 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILL GRIFFIN


WG-1.eps
120 


WG-2.eps
121 


WG-3.eps
122 


WG-4.eps
123 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Without objection, the Chair will be allowed to revise out of his introductory statement of you any remarks that might be considered snide or cynical, of any kind, at all, 

now that you have explained how you came to be what you are. 

We are very grateful that you are here. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Professor of University of Santa Clara Law School, 

Allen Hammond, and the former president of the Alliance For PubVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

WG-5.eps
124 

lic Technology, past chair of the AT&T Telecommunications Consumer Advisory Panel. We welcome you to the hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN S. HAMMOND, PHIL AND BOBBIE SANFILIPPO PROFESSOR OF LAW, SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Waters, and distinguished Committee Members. I am going 

to talk, very briefly, about this merger. As you know, the FCC is 

considering the merger of Comcast and NBC, and I think there are 

potential dangers for minority ownership. I would like to identify 

those. 

Studies have shown that minority ownership of broadcast stations has enhanced diversity of news and public affairs programming provided to ethnic, minority and majority communities. Despite this fact, the FCC—— 

Ms. WATERS. Excuse me. Would you pull the microphone a little 

bit closer. 

Mr. HAMMOND. A little closer. 

Ms. WATERS. And speak a little bit louder. Yes. 

Mr. HAMMOND. Thank you. I am sorry about that. 

Despite this fact, the FCC has too often failed to take this valuable contribution into account when formulating its multiple and 

cross-ownership policies. 

For instance, the Third Circuit Court, in issuing its stay of the 

commission’s ownership rules, in its decision, Prometheus Radio 

Project v. FCC, recognized that the commission had failed to account for the impact of its policies on minority ownership. 

Historically, the FCC has not given sustained serious consideration to that impact, allowing greater concentration of ownership 

and therefore having an adverse impact on small minority and 

women-owned broadcasters. 

A study conducted for the FCC by myself, and others, was initiated in response to the court’s stay. That study found that the commission’s relaxation of the duopoly rule had no favorable impact on 

minority and women-owned commercial stations. And the reason 

that that is important will become clear in a moment, but I liken 

the situation with Duopoly Rules on to what we are proposing to 

do now with the merger of NBC and Comcast. 

For instance, the study found that from 1999 to 2006, the relaxation of the duopoly rule did not appear to have any positive impact on minority or female ownership of television stations. 

Specifically, the majority of broadcast group owners who benefited from the relaxation of the TV duopoly rule were the largest 

top 25 group broadcast owners, based on revenue, national market 

reach and/or the number of stations owned. 

As of 2005, they accounted for 83 of the 109 duopolies identified. 

Across all markets in which minority-owned television stations operated between 1999 and 2006—by the way, I should stop and say 

the only reason that this data only goes from 1999 to 2006 is because prior to that, the FCC collected no statistics on minority 

ownership, despite the fact that the minority ownership policy was 

in place since 1978. 

125 

So across all markets in which minority-owned television stations 

operated between 1999 and 2006, the number of minority-owned 

television stations dropped by 27 percent. 

Within markets entered and/or occupied by TV duopolies, the 

number of minority-owned stations dropped by more than 39 percent. By contrast, in non-duopoly markets, the number of minorityowned stations dropped by 10 percent. 

When National Broadcast Group owners became duopoly station 

owners as well, they were able to exercise some control over access 

to programming, and advertising dollars within specific markets. 

The net result of increased multiple ownership with local markets, coupled with the substantial national ownership, is an increase in duopoly owner control over market access to programming and ad dollars. 

The impact on stand-alone broadcasters, like minority owners, 

was that they found it more difficult to compete as they could not 

offer the same packages, or package deals with volume discounts 

for advertising across multiple stations in the markets. 

Less revenue meant less revenue for staff, less money for programming, which could have an adverse impact on diversity of programming, which is what minority-owned stations have been able 

to provide. To a greater extent, the majority-owned stations. 

The increase in demand generated by relaxing the ownership 

rules could also adversely affect minority broadcast stations seeking to acquire more desirable properties. 

For instance, soaring station prices bid up by the demand due to 

the relaxation of these multiple ownership rules in radio put minority outlets in double jeopardy. They couldn’t afford to trade up 

to better facilities in their markets, and the stations against which 

they were competing were rapidly becoming parts of the large 

broadcast groups, capable of bringing significant economies of scale 

to market. 

And this is a paraphrase of a quote from Pierre Sutton, which 

was also agreed to by Amancio Suarez, who was then the secretary 

and treasurer of the American Hispanic Owned Radio Stations. 

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, the commission is obligated to 

perform quadrennial reviews regarding the media ownership, to determine whether or not its rules serve the public interest. 

The commission’s reviews are crucial and during these reviews 

they should examine the policies on diversity and media ownership 

and begin compiling statistics on minority and women-owned 

broadcast stations. 

The commission cannot know how its changing policies on media 

ownership affect minorities and women until it starts compiling 

and analyzing its own statistics and data. 

It cannot know the impact of the Comcast-NBC merger on minority ownership, unless it has this data. 

So this is especially important with regard to the disputed merger of Comcast and NBC. The commission is considering this merger 

before it has completed its 2010 quadrennial review, and before it 

has examined the current state of media ownership in America. 

The commission has not begun to compile its own statistics on 

competition, localism, and diversity, and cannot know how the 

126 

merger of such powerful media corporations will affect competition 

among single-station broadcast owners and local media outlets. 

Similar to the experience of the aftermath of the duopoly rule relaxation, the Comcast-NBC merger would eliminate head-to-head 

competition in the 11 major markets where NBC owns broadcast 

stations and Comcast operates cable franchises. These markets currently account for almost 25 percent of the U.S. TV households. 

Each of these markets would lose a competitor for local and political advertising. This could lead to a significant decline in competition in local advertising markets and excessive domination by the 

merged company. 

As a result, advertisers would lose an alternative outlet, but 

meanwhile, other local broadcasts, particularly small, independent 

ones, already facing ad revenue declines in an economic downturn, 

would be unable to offer package deals and volume discounts for 

advertising across multiple channels, the way that a merged 

Comcast and NBC could. 

These stand-alone stations would have less money to produce 

local news and hire staff. In order to remain competitive, these 

broadcasters would have to fire staff and reduce production of local 

news and information, or consolidate in order to compensate for 

market share loss to the merged company. This result could adversely affect local diversity as well. 

Finally, the merger would prompt other requests for similar 

mergers as other media players seek to keep pace with ComcastNBC’s economies of scale, in the same manner that the lax local 

market agreement policies and the duopoly relaxation caused increased consolidation. 

Stand-alone stations, like minority-owned facilities, will have to 

weather yet another wave of consolidation, and as a result, will 

have to cut costs and may, as a result of doing so, reduce diversity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammond follows:] 

127 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN S. HAMMOND


ASH-1.eps
128 


ASH-2.eps
129 


ASH-3.eps
130 


ASH-4.eps
131 


ASH-5.eps
132 


ASH-6.eps
133 


ASH-7.eps
134 


ASH-8.eps
135 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, before you move to the next witness, 

we have Mr. Mike Davis, assemblyman, that is in the audience 

today, and I want to make sure I announce the correct caucus that 

you are chairing. It is the Entertainment and Sports Caucus of the 

California state assembly. Welcome, Mr. Davis. We are in your district. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Our next witness it the Emmy award winning television producer Alex Nogales, who is president of the National 

Hispanic Media Coalition and has been tireless in promoting and 

advocating on behalf of the under-represented voices in the industry. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF ALEX NOGALES, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA COALITION 

Mr. NOGALES. Thank you very much, Congressman Conyers, and 

the rest of your congressmen and congresswomen, for allowing me 

to speak here today. 

I have a long version and a short version of my testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. Shorter is always better than longer. 

Mr. NOGALES. I was going to say that you have the long version. 

I will read you the short version. The bottom line, you will see, is 

one and the same. 

NHMC has a long history of holding the media accountable to 

the public. We also have an intimate past with Comcast and NBC 

Universal. 

Congressmen, congresswomen, there are many reasons why distinguished individuals and organizations are against this joint venture, and NHMC’s reasons in media transactions are already going 

to be based, first and foremost, on diversity concerns. 

Diversity in employment, governance, procurement, programming, minority media ownership, and philanthropy. 

NHMC is not against this joint venture, providing, and only providing, that strong verifiable and enforceable conditions are imposed and agreed to by Comcast. This is a gigantic deal, one of 

such enormous proportions, that it is sure to bring about more 

media consolidation. 

For the first time in our history, a cable giant, Comcast, will not 

only have dissemination of content but also own the content of a 

major film studio and television, broadcast and cable networks. 

NBC has a relatively fair record with the diversity initiatives I 

mentioned earlier. Comcast does not. In the year 2000, the MultiEthnic Media Coalition signed diversity memorandums of understanding, MOUs, with ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. 

The progress at the networks has been incremental but we are 

a long way from where we started. And now for Comcast. Its diversity record, as I said before, is spotty. NHMC’s direct involvement 

with Comcast began in 2005, at the time of the Adelphia/Time 

Warner/Comcast license transfer. 

The National Latino Media Council, of which NHMC is a member, had a heated discussion with Comcast over its diversity record 

regarding Latinos. Shortly thereafter, Comcast released a report of 

its diversity numbers and efforts, promising, along the way, to include more Latinos in its employment ranks. 

136 

The report said little, as it gave percentages, but failed to provide 

aggregate data, making it impossible to analyze diversity performance. In July 2005, NHMC filed a petition to deny the transfer of 

Adelphia Communications’ licenses to Comcast. NHMC asked that 

the transfer be designated for hearings and have conditions imposed. 

In November of that same year, it was also announced that 

Comcast and the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility, 

HACR, formed the Comprehensive Multi-Year Diversity Partnership. This brings us to the present. 

In December 2009, HACR released a corporate inclusion index, 

reporting the diversity performance of 34 Fortune 100 companies, 

including Comcast. The index rates companies on a 100 point scale 

based on four diversity criteria. 

Comcast received only 50 points out of one hundred. Only three 

companies score worse, one of which was General Electric. 

Comcast, as I indicated, does not have a great diversity record, 

but the past is the past, and we can only concentrate on the 

present and the future. This is a gigantic deal, and if Comcast 

wants our support, it must agree to conditions. 

NHMC is part of a six Latino organization team negotiating an 

MOU with Comcast. We are very close to agreeing on all the diversity initiatives. For NHMC, the most important initiative is media 

ownership. 

We are not asking, any of us, for a give-away. Latinos currently 

make up 15 percent of the U.S. population, and with the current 

census, that percentage is expected to rise to 17 percent. African 

Americans are expected to hit 15, and the Asian Pacific Americans 

5 percent. Combined, these three groups will make up from 35 to 

37 percent of the national population. 

Allow me to give you some other numbers. In 2008, Comcast 

earned over $34.3 billion in revenue. NBC earned $16.9 billion. 

Comcast reaches one in four cable subscribers and its service territory covers 52 percent of all ethnic able households. 

NBC owns 25 local television stations, and the National Broadcast Network reaches 99 percent of U.S. homes with television sets. 

And I am not even referring to the affiliates. That is a couple of 

hundred more. 

In other words, an incredible amount of revenue that a combined 

Comcast-NBC Universal powerhouse will earn, if this deal is approved, will come from communities of color. 

It is therefore reasonable to expect that people of color should 

also share in the prosperity by having their own minority-owned 

and operated, or has been described here, have substantial ownership of those bodies, and that they should carry, Comcast should 

carry and distribute all of their cable systems, in all of their cable 

systems. 

We hope you agree. This body has a say in approving the joint 

venture. We ask that it insist on the diversity initiatives discussed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nogales follows:] 

137 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEX NOGALES


AN-1.eps
138 


AN-2.eps
139 


AN-3.eps
140 


AN-4.eps
141 


AN-5.eps
142 


AN-6.eps
143 


AN-7.eps
144 

Mr. CONYERS. Ms. Kathryn Galan has created the Latino Producers Academy, the Latino Writers Lab, the Latino Media Market, 

the latino Media resource Guide, and was a production vice president at Walt Disney Studios before she became the executive director of the National Association of Latino Independent producers. 

We welcome you. 


AN-8.eps
145 

TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN F. GALAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS 

Ms. GALAN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers, Representative Waters, and the other Members of the House Judiciary Committee. I 

appreciate your time and attention to this significant proposal, the 

greater concentration of power, influence and outreach, into a single media entity that would result from the merger of Comcast and 

NBC Universal. 

I am the executive director of the National Association of Latino 

Independent Producers, a national arts, nonprofit organization, 

that represents the community of Latino media professionals. For 

11 years, NALIP has worked to promote the advancement, development and funding of Latino and Latino film and media arts in all 

genres. 

Our constituency is quite broad. It includes Latino and Latina 

producers, directors, writers, and crew, that create media content. 

Our community of professionals work in film, in public and commercial television, and in news media. They make feature films, 

television series and documentaries. They fill executive positions in 

media companies and they advocate for more representation of 

Latinos everywhere that you see media. 

A further conglomeration of power in the media industry concerns my constituency on two fronts. The first concern has been articulated here and arises from history. When the decision making 

and economic power of our business is more concentrated, the decrease in competition directly impacts content creators. It has led 

to fewer opportunities for Latino production companies, distributors, media entrepreneurs, station and channel owners and suppliers, as well as content producers and media artists. 

The past 15 years have been marked by a series of acquisitions, 

mergers and partnerships, that have greatly decreased the number 

of independent buyers or employers for creative content. 

This has also centralized the nexuses of opinion and information, 

putting greater power in the hands of few. 

The second concern, however, arises not from history but from 

the reality of the present. I am here today primarily to provide you 

with the information that is most troubling to the Latino media 

community, the lack of representation of Latinos across the broad 

spectrum of the media landscape. 

I would like to bring these facts to your attention because we believe, at NALIP, and throughout our constituency, that change will 

only come around these issues of diversity and representation in 

film, on television, and that the decision making levels of a media 

corporation like the proposed Comcast-Universal NBC, if specific 

concrete, generous, and even aggressive commitments are made to 

hire and promote Latinos and other executives of color, to develop 

and produce the material of Latino producers, writers and directors, and to invest in the next generation of minority managers and 

artists, so that we can’t sit here, 5 or 10 years from now, providing 

this Committee with the same disturbing statistics. 

I do not need to remind the Committee of the impact and influence of media. We look to creative content to educate and entertain, to acculturate and to serve as our ambassador to the world. 

146 

The media industry is a very lucrative one, that employs a significant workforce, and one that generates considerable profits, not 

just in a year when product is produced, but its digital assets for 

many, many years in the future. 

A benchmark of a rich and thriving democracy is diverse and 

representative media. Latinos do represent 15 percent of the national population. However, when considered in terms of age demographics, Latinos represent 24 percent of all Americans under the 

age of 30, with a median age of 27.7, the most sought-after and valuable demographic to advertisers, as well as the most avid moviegoers. 

So today, nearly one out of every four Americans is a Latino in 

the most desirable age demographic for media companies. Yet the 

status of Latinos in the entertainment industry lags far behind 

that of other ethnic minority groups and other protected classes. 

At this time, there is only one Latino senior executive, that is to 

say, president, senior vice president, vice president, director or 

manager, in any of the major or minor/major theatrical motion picture companies like Universal or Universal Focus, in the departments of development or production, marketing, publicity or acquisitions. 

There is stronger representation in the television industry, including CBS President Nina Tassler, and newly-appointed NBC VP 

of drama development, Lourdes Diaz. But the programming of 

Latino-themed or Latino-created films in television is scant. 

In the past decade, all four major broadcast networks have made 

important strides, as Alex indicated, in increasing diversity. More 

actors of color are on the air, particularly as ensemble players. 

Progress has been slower in areas that, arguably, could have the 

great impact, writing and producing. White males have always 

dominated the entertainment industry, and that continues to be 

largely the case. 

The Directors Guild report, and other analyses of independent 

production, estimate that only 2 to 3 percent of directors in film 

and television are Latino. Only 3 to 5 percent of writers, 5 to 7 percent of roles and characters are Latino. 

NALIP has advocated for more images by and about Latinos for 

11 years, and gathered metrics alongside the guilds, unions, and 

other advocacy organizations. There are small relative improvements, but the Writers Guild of America, for example, notes in 

their 2009 Hollywood Writers Report, which was written, in part, 

by Dr. Hunt, that minority writing and earning percentages have 

been frozen since 1999. 

Lower-income consumers of media over-index as viewers of public 

and free broadcast media. Here, it is critical to have a broad, balanced representation of Latinos as well. Unfortunately, in recent 

years, fewer hours by producer, directors of color have made it to 

broadcast. There have also been fewer resources available in the 

sectors that support nonfiction programming, which include documentaries that reflect the communities and concerns of the Latino 

population, and has made it more difficult for independent Latino 

and native producers to develop and deliver new work. 

According to a 2009 report on women and minorities by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, where the vast majority of U.S. 

147 

documentaries receive funding and broadcast, under 19 percent of 

their programs feature minorities, any minorities, down from 25 

percent 10 years ago, and less than 7 percent of minority program 

is seen in primetime. 

As Comcast and NBC Universal ask to take an even greater 

share of the media real estate, we ask that they play an even 

stronger role in the diversity efforts of the entertainment industry. 

The long-term struggle for accurate portrayals and economic inclusion of people of color is an initiative with far-reaching social 

and cultural consequences. Given the significant deficiencies and 

the representation of racial minorities in their employment ranks, 

including their content creators and suppliers, we ask that 

Comcast, NBC Universal articulate a plan to address this plan before they receive the community support in moving forward. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Darnell Hunt received his doctorate in sociology from UCLA. He has written a number of books on the subjects relating to media, race and cultural studies, and we are proud 

to have you here today. 

TESTIMONY OF DARNELL M. HUNT, PROFESSOR OF 

SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Chairman Conyers, Representative Waters, and other Members of the Committee. 

I am a sociologist who was invited to comment on the state of 

diversity in the Hollywood industry as background for today’s discussion about the proposed merger. 

For nearly 20 years, I have worked to better understand the 

state of diversity in the Hollywood entertainment industry. I have 

collaborated with both industry insiders, such as the WGA, the 

Writers Guild of America, and the Screen Actors Guild, and community advocates, such as the NAACP, to generate reports on the 

Hollywood industry aimed at documenting patterns in minority employment, access and earnings. 

These experiences, over nearly two decades, have given me firsthand knowledge about the state of diversity in the Hollywood creative community. In a world where neither race nor gender matters, we would observe a Hollywood industry where minorities and 

women participate at rates comparable to their share of the general 

population. 

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. Our world is one 

in which race and gender continue to play profound roles in the 

choices people make. These categories tend to define the risks we 

are willing to take to pursue our dreams. They also motivate our 

tendency to feel more comfortable working with those who seem 

similar to ourselves. 

These realities are particularly salient in the Hollywood industry. It is a highly competitive industry, dependent upon creative 

talent, freedom of expression, and more than a fair share of good 

luck. It is also a profoundly insular industry, that White males 

have traditionally dominated, where employment opportunities rest 

squarely on personal networks largely defined by race and gender. 

148 

Indeed, if we consider the latest available statistics, we see that 

we have made little progress, if any, on the Hollywood diversity 

front, despite the continuing diversification of the American population. 

In 2007, minorities accounted for about a third of the American 

population, or 34 percent, but only 9 percent of its employed television writers and 6 percent of its employed film writers. That is 

all minorities combined. In other words, minorities were under-represented among employed television and film writers by factors of 

nearly four and six, respectively. 

Meanwhile, women writers continue to lag behind their male 

counterparts, accounting for only about 28 percent of employed television writers and 18 percent of employed film writers, under-representation by factors of nearly two and three, respectively. 

Now although there is relatively little research available regarding diversity among Hollywood directors, a recent study by the Directors Guild of America found that White males, who, as a group, 

comprise only about 33 percent of the U.S. population, directed 80 

percent of the episodes in the top 40 television shows during the 

2004-2005 season. 

An anecdotal observation suggests the state of diversity within 

the directing corps is even more troubling in film. 

While at first glance, the numbers appear to be better in front 

of the camera, when we look more closely, we see a similar pattern 

of under-employment and exclusion among minority actors. 

That is, although the White share of all television and theatrical 

roles in 2008, 72.5 percent, was only marginally greater than the 

White share of the population, 67 percent, when we look at the 

most important leading roles, we see that White dominance was 

more pronounced. 

Here, Whites accounted for 76 percent of the roles and minorities 

combined for only 24 percent. And these figures are consistent with 

other studies, noting that White characters tend to dominate, not 

only in terms of the on-screen population, but also in terms of time 

on the screen. 

Minority characters, by contrast, are typically relegated to being 

the coworkers and/or friends of the more prominent White characters, the characters around whom stories usually revolve. 

In short, my experience has convinced me that business as usual 

in the industry is wholly inadequate for addressing the stagnation 

in Hollywood diversity that we see today. 

A new paradigm is needed that understands diversity as a public 

good, and a sure bet for the bottom line. This new paradigm would 

move beyond symbolic pronouncements and token gestures. It 

would establish realistic goals that the industry can agree upon, 

reasonable timetables, and effective mechanisms for an industry 

truly committed to catching up with a changing America. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt follows:] 

149 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARNELL M. HUNT


Hunt-1.eps
150 


Hunt-2.eps
151 


Hunt-3.eps
152 


Hunt-4.eps
153 


Hunt-5.eps
154 


Hunt-6.eps
155 


Hunt-7.eps
156 


Hunt-8.eps
157 


Hunt-9.eps
158 

Mr. CONYERS. Frank Washington, Cornell University graduate. 

Yale University Law School. Carter administration, with President 

Carter administration, with the Domestic Policy Council. Later became deputy chief of the Federal Communications Commission. He 

did not work with Kevin Martin, who is present here at this hearing, and later became vice president of Time Mirror Company. He 

also served as president and CEO of System Integrators, here, in 

California. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

TOWER OF BABEL LLC 

Mr. FRANK WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Waters, other Members of the Committee. I am here today to 

relate my experience with Comcast, what it portends for program 

diversity and service to minority audiences, and, as a consequence, 

why I support the Comcast-GE joint venture. 

I have had a long history with minority participation in media. 

This includes my invention of the minority tax certificate while in 

the Carter White House and at the Federal Communications Commission. The certificate did more to foster minority ownership of 

broadcast and cable media than anything else before or since. 

My focus today, however, is on my experience with Comcast in 

the role of founder and CEO of an ethnic language television service called Crossings TV. Crossings reaches 2 million ethnic language people in the Central Valley of California and New York City 

on Time Warner cable. 

The inspiration for Crossings came from Comcast. In 2003, the 

senior Comcast executive then overseeing Northern California, 

pointed out that there was a large Russian language population in 

Sacramento for whom no local, in-language TV services were available. 

I separately determined that there was a similar lack of service 

to a variety of other, mostly Asian language groups, including 

Hmong, Lao, Vietnamese, Chinese, South Asian and Filipino. At 

the time, I was also a part-owner of a full power television station 

in Seattle that offered a multi-language service. 

Thus I knew that the ethnic populations in the immediate Sacramento area were not large enough, in terms of population or potential ad revenue, to support the acquisition of a full power TV 

station, even if one were available. 

So I devised a different approach, based upon buying a lower 

power TV station at a small fraction of the cost. To compensate for 

the much lower over-the-air coverage area, I sought carriage on the 

Comcast-owned cable system in Sacramento. But I faced a challenge. There was, and is, no Government requirement for low 

power TV stations to be carried by cable. 

A further complication was that a private equity firm, interested 

in investing in my venture, would only do so if we had cable carriage. Quite simply, without Comcast, there would have been no 

Crossings TV. 

In 2004, we approached Comcast in Sacramento, which by then 

was under a different executive from the one who gave me the idea. 

He quickly grasped what we were proposing and said he wanted 

to carry out service throughout the Sacramento area. This would 

159 

give us several times the coverage of our low power over-the-air 

signal. 

My mid 2005, we had a signed agreement. What is more, we approached Comcast a number of months later about also being carried in Stockton, near Sacramento. To our pleasure, they not only 

agreed but suggested that Crossings also be distributed throughout 

the entire Central Valley, including Fresno, Chico, Modesto, Stockton, Yuba City, Marysville, as well as Sacramento. 

We had been on Comcast in these areas since 2006. We are currently engaged in discussions with Comcast regarding other markets. 

The question is why. Why did Comcast do this? Comcast is 

known for its fair but tough-minded business approach. Based on 

this, we came to the table with a well-thought-out business plan 

and an executive team with demonstrable ability to execute it. We 

made the case that much of the Comcast growth opportunity, in its 

mostly urban markets, was likely to come from minority audiences. 

Comcast decided to carry Crossings because it meant a unique 

need and because it was based on a sound business premise. Crossings has unique local programming that draws ethnic subscribers 

who might sign up for ethnic language pay tiers. 

Comcast has made diverse programming a priority because it 

sees the value in growing its business. This is Adam Smith’s invisible hand operating at its best, motivating a large, well-run company, to cater to under-served audiences because it benefits 

Comcast shareholders. This is what America is all about. 

That said, Comcast should be acknowledged for realizing the 

power and the promise of this country’s ethnic communities. Not 

every media company does. 

My experience with the minority tax certificate and the absence 

of minority-owned media alternatives suggests that too often, companies either willfully ignore, or incompetently overlook the business opportunity represented by this country’s minorities. Comcast 

appears to be a strong exception in this regard. 

All this suggests that Comcast and NBCU together will create a 

media company more sensitive to the needs and interests of minorities than most. That is why I support their joint venture. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Washington follows:] 

160 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK WASHINGTON


FW-1.eps
161 


FW-2.eps
162 


FW-3.eps
163 


FW-4.eps
164 


FW-5.eps
165 


FW-6.eps
166 


FW-7.eps
167 

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the Chairman for giving me 

the opportunity to introduce a woman I greatly admire. Ms. Suzanne de Passe, the CEO of the de Passe Jones Entertainment, and 

the first female African American to be nominated for an Academy 

Award for screen writing. Ms. de Passe was a force that signed, deVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

FW-8.eps
168 

veloped, and coached the Jackson Five, among other leading 

Motown recording artists. 

She was also the executive producer for various ministries, including Lonesome Dove, Buffalo Girls, Streets of Laredo, and Dead 

Man’s Walk. Ms. de Passe’s production of Motown 25, and Motown 

Returns To The Apollo, both won her Emmy awards. Additionally, 

in 1990, Ms. de Passe was inducted into the Black Film Makers 

Hall of Fame. 

Additionally, Ms. de Passe and her partner, Madison Jones, are 

producing a feature length film on Dr. Martin Luther King with 

Dreamworks and Steven Spielberg. I wish I could go into all of her 

credits. I cannot possibly do that. We don’t have enough time. Let 

me just conclude by saying she is one of the most respected, the 

most honored, in this business, and we are so delighted that she 

joins us today with testimony. Welcome, Suzanne de Passe. 

TESTIMONY OF SUZANNE de PASSE, CO-CHAIR, 

de PASSE JONES ENTERTAINMENT 

Ms. DE PASSE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Waters, and Chairman Conyers, Members of the Judiciary 

Committee. I am so pleased to have the opportunity to be here 

today regarding the proposed merger of NBC Universal and 

Comcast. 

My entrance into the Hollywood entertainment industry was 

unique. I had the benefit of being on the executive staff of Mr. 

Barry Gordy, founder and chairman of Motown records. It was 

under the protective umbrella provided by Mr. Gordy and Motown, 

that I was able to gain my sea legs in what is commonly referred 

to as the business. 

When I moved into television and film as president of Motown 

Productions, I realized that I was, indeed, in a very unique position. 

I also began to realize that the barrier to entry into mainstream 

Hollywood was daunting, at best, for everyone, and exceptionally so 

for minorities. 

When I speak of minorities, I am referring to African Americans, 

Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and women, among others. 

However, my professional experience comes from general market 

and African American content. So those are the areas I will address today. 

Also, while there are myriad issues with respect to this merger, 

my focus today will be on how the merger might affect the African 

American entertainment and media professional, especially the creative production community. 

Over the years, I have witnessed the consolidation of content and 

distribution, and entertainment and media, has done to significantly slow down and diminish opportunities for minority professionals, rather than accelerate and increase them. What has happened to the likes of the Cosby Show, Fresh Prince of Bel Air, the 

Jamie Fox Show, In Living Color, Living Single, Girlfriends, Sister 

Sister, Moesha, A Different world, the Jeffersons, Martin, Soul 

Food, and Sanford & Son? 

What has happened? We have gone backwards. The question is 

why. With very few exceptions, the same networks that broadcast 

169 

those shows now only seem to offer a minority cast member, here 

and there. Where is the business? Granted, the economics of the 

television industry have changed dramatically over the years. 

Much less expensive reality programming has taken the place of 

many scripted shows, which now appear to be coming back. However, the most recent network announcements for the fall, for the 

coming fall season, have once again been disappointing with respect to minority involvement, both in front of and behind the camera. 

Today, when we walk into a movie studio, network or cable meeting to pitch a project, we already know that we are going to be required to give up all ownership in exchange for reduced fees, and 

the likely possibility of being fired off the project, without cause, 

at the discretion of the studio or network. 

In other words, we bring a hit project, retain no ownership, lose 

control of the intellectual property, get paid less, likely generate 

significant revenue for the studio or network, and end up getting 

bounced out the door, with no further participation in the ongoing 

success. 

In business, the greatest decision making factor is the power to 

say yes. In our business, we call that greenlight power. At present, 

greenlight authority in mainstream entertainment rests with a 

rarified group of executives. They have the power to say yes, in television and film. 

Despite our collective experience and success, Black executives 

have never had greenlight power at a major studio or network. 

Most of us have had such difficulty getting to yes, that we have 

had to make the word no our vitamin. 

Only the most dedicated, resilient and determined individuals 

are cut out for this relentless dance of rejection. All professionals 

in our business share the experience of rejection, regardless of 

color. But just imagine what it must be like for the minorities in 

Hollywood, who are almost always relegated to minority theme content, which is now almost nonexistent, a strong incentive to grow 

African American media ownership. 

And it must be noted that we are not just skilled at creating and 

producing Black or minority programs. In my own case, an epic 8 

hour miniseries about the Old West, entitled Lonesome Dove, that 

I found, nurtured and produced, was nominated for 18 Emmys, 

won seven, a Golden Globe, and Peabody Award. And yet the number one question from the press was: What is a Black woman doing 

producing a Western? 

I would be willing to bet that no one ever asked my friends, 

Marcy Carsey or Tom Warner, what they were doing producing the 

Cosby Show. It has been proven, time and time again, that doing 

business with minorities is good business. 

While this proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal represents for many yet another door closing, it also presents the opportunity for doors to open. This powerful combination of content 

and distribution can further raise the barrier to minority participation, or become a bridge to an historic new opportunity for inclusion. 

Comcast has both the financial and distribution resources to use 

this opportunity to create meaningful and institutional change in 

170 

a system that has proven it will not do so on its own. Hollywood 

is a place of dreams, and I believe that all of Hollywood will embrace a solution that will give minority executives, producers, writers, directors, and other professionals the opportunity to make 

their dreams come true, while they positively impact the bottom 

line. 

Simply said, we need greenlight power, the power to say yes. I 

was invited here today to give my opinion on the NBC-Comcast 

merger, and if I think it is a positive thing for minorities. My answer today is this can be a historic moment for minorities, but only 

if Comcast decides to take the leadership position among all other 

media giants, and make meaningful, lasting, comprehensive and 

institutional change. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. de Passe follows:] 

171 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUZANNE DE PASSE


Passe-1.eps
172 


Passe-2.eps
173 


Passe-3.eps
174 

Mr. CONYERS. Judge Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might ask, normally, we have the 5 minute rule, and obviously the lights wasn’t 

working. I think there was one speaker out of twelve that stayed 


Passe-4.eps
175 

within 5 minutes. Just from a structural standpoint, since we have 

12 witnesses, and I’m asking, would it be possible, maybe, to have 

us each have 10 minutes, since there are so many witnesses? 

Mr. CONYERS. Judge Gohmert, you can have as much time as you 

desire. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think everybody would storm out, if that happened, but anyway, it is about opportunities, and that would forestall too many, I am afraid. 

I really appreciate the witnesses’ perspectives and input, and it 

was pointed out to me, earlier, that I am the minority on this panel 

today, and so I appreciate your indulgence with me. 

But I am really struggling with this, and my friend from Tennessee brought up a public option. Unfortunately, the last Administration, and this Administration, both have bought into this thing, 

that some entities can get too big to fail, and my feeling was, if 

something is too big to fail, we need to let it fail so it won’t ever 

be that too big to fail again, and we should have done that with 

AIG, and Goldman Sachs, and whoever. Let them reorganize. 

And so I want to be careful, as we do what we should be doing, 

not picking winners and losers, but making sure that there is opportunity out there, and that people are playing by the rules, and 

playing fair, rather than us get involved as a Government, telling, 

you know, people what they have to do. 

And so I really have been struck by some of the interesting observations. And one of the things, in going through the material in 

preparation for the hearing, I noted that there are some who would 

like to require NBC to divest its 32 percent stake in Hulu-you 

know, it is an Internet video provider—within 1 year of acquiring 

the network, and I am doing what we were trained as lawyers not 

to do, not to ask a question you don’t know the answer to. 

But I really am curious: What would be the purpose of requiring 

NBC to divest of the 32 percent ownership in Hulu? For anyone 

that might have an answer. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Competition. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Somebody in the audience was answering. And I 

realize we want competition, and that’s one of the concerns I think 

all of us have, is making sure there is adequate competition. Anybody on the panel have a comment on this? 

Mr. LIGGINS. I have got a comment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LIGGINS. I mean, I think that Hulu was actually brought together by, you know, NBC and a couple other big content providers, to actually compete with the Internet and YouTube. So 

Hulu actually is the competition, if you will, because the fact that 

you have Google, YouTube, the Internet, creates a wealth of opportunities to zip video all around the Internet and for people to get 

it in various forms, whether they pay for some of it or they don’t. 

So Hulu, in my view, is actually the new start-up competitive entrant, and if you take 32 percent out of that, what you then now 

have is a service that is less competitive with YouTube, because 

they don’t have the NBC Universal content. And if you want a competitor to Google and YouTube, you have to, I think, look at the 

consortium that Hulu’s put together and leave it intact, and let it 

compete, because, you know, Google, YouTube, is considerably more 

176 

massive in terms of its reach and scale than anything Hulu could 

ever be. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And, you know, I’ve gone to Hulu some, in looking 

for things in the past, and it does seem to be an alternative, but 

I legitimately was not sure what effect that would have to force 

NBC out of that. 

And, you know, from my standpoint, wanting competition, I have 

wondered, well, why don’t we just let, you know, the American people decide what they like the best, and what they don’t, and that 

dictates, without the Government coming in and saying you have 

to have so many with this color faces in this show, and this color 

faces in ownership, and just let the market decide what they want 

to see. 

And, you know, as a kid, I think of my first six LPs. Three of 

them were Bill Cosby. I mean, the guy was fabulous. I didn’t recall 

him having a interest in buying NBC. Man, would that have been 

wonderful. 

But I note that Comcast had mentioned, and CEO Brian Roberts 

had mentioned that customers will be able to program their 

Comcast set-top boxes remotely, using the latest gadget, the Apple 

iPad, and I just got one for my wife and she absolutely loves it. 

But I am wondering, that raises another issue, and I realize we 

don’t have a witness from Comcast, but I’m curious, as we are looking at these exclusivity relationships, is there one developing there 

between Comcast and Apple, that may make it an even bigger entity? 

Ms. MADISON. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Ms. MADISON. Maybe I can address that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Please. 

Ms. MADISON. I am actually speaking on behalf of—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. NBC. 

Ms. MADISON. NBC Universal, and the new NBC Universal, post 

the deal close. We are in the business of competing with not only 

other networks and broadcasters, but also any content creator out 

there, whether that content creator be a Hulu, or be Google, or be 

iPad. So for us, the important aspect of this dynamic and competitive marketplace is that we are trying to get our content out in 

front of as many people as possible. 

So for us, as NBC Universal, we are interested in getting into 

business with any content creators who are doing to develop, deliver to us quality products. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I appreciate that. But is there any exclusivity 

in the agreement—— 

Ms. MADISON. There is none. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. Without Apple? None; okay. 

Ms. MADISON. There is none. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But one of the things that my eyes have been 

opened to is I want to see people make their own choices, let them, 

you know, decide which programs they want to watch, and of 

course that dictates which advertisers pay the most for. 

One of the things I have heard here, today, that I wasn’t familiar 

with, not being in entertainment, is whether or not the door is open 

to those groups that have this fantastic show, that never makes it 

177 

to the air, so we never find out that the public would have loved 

it, everybody would have watched, if the door had been open. 

And so that seems to me to be the area we really need to concentrate, and I am not sure how we go about doing that. And one 

of the things I appreciate about you, Chairman, is we’ve done, done 

more oversight hearings that I recall in my first 2 years, and that 

is what we need to be doing, rather than getting involved and actually being a participant. 

But I would be open to any suggestions about how the Government, in that overseeing role, can make sure that the opportunities 

are there, so that people can make the best choices, and I would 

be open to anybody’s comment now, or in the future, if you have 

further thoughts, what we could do to make sure, just the opportunity to come sell a show that America could have the chance to 

enjoy. 

Mr. NOGALES. This is a very, very lucrative business. Nobody 

wants to let go of it. So you fire, hire, your boyfriends, your 

girlfriends, and so forth. And if you see the incestuous nature of 

the business, you see that that’s precisely the case. The prejudicial 

treatment of people of color in Hollywood is legendary. Nobody 

wants to share in the wealth. Nobody wants to know what the 

other person has to say, if you are a minority. 

Arizona didn’t just happen. It happened because we are excluded, 

number one, and—bear with me. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I don’t want to get into the Arizona law, because 

for people that read it, they say it is not as stringent as the Federal 

law. But, see, I guess that is why I was surprised, and, and it 

makes sense, about the closed doors being the problem, is because—exactly what you said. 

Since you know people want to make money, then why wouldn’t 

they put on the best show they possibly could, and then you find 

out what you’re talking about, there’s so many faces that haven’t 

been allowed through the door to make those presentations, and 

that is what I am wanting to get at, is how we go about making 

sure that the opportunities are there, not that you get your show 

on but that you have the opportunity. 

And that is what I really want to try to figure out, how we—— 

Mr. NOGALES. It is not going to happen without conditions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without what? 

Mr. NOGALES. Conditions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. Okay. What kind of conditions? 

Mr. NOGALES. In a big acquisition like this, diversity, diversity 

conditions. NBC didn’t get to where they are just because. It would 

have gone on the merry road and never hired people of color, if it 

hadn’t been for the MOU that was signed 10 years ago. 

Now we are not solving the problem here, but at least you have 

a lot more people in place that are being trained, that are being 

mentored, who will pull other people of color in. Because our stories are wonderful. but you can’t get them in front of people that 

don’t respond to them. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You said an incestuous relationship among those 

involved. 

Mr. NOGALES. Well, it is also something else. You know, they 

have a lot in common. We want to hire those individuals that are 

178 

like us. It is very natural. The problem is that when you do that, 

you have exclusion, and the moment you have exclusion, the rest 

of us don’t get the opt to get in. 

We are just as talented, we are just as wonderful story tellers as 

anybody else. But if you don’t have the opportunity, you can’t put 

it on the air. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Judge Gohmert, can I make a comment as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Washington. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Thank you. I look to add to Alex’s 

comments, our good friends at the Hispanic Media Coalition. You 

know, the primary challenge today, in the industry, is that it is not 

a free market environment. The cable industry, and the broadcast 

industries, are really predicated on a few individuals who are making all of the decisions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. That is what we are hearing, and that is 

why I am asking, how do you—— 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. And I think that Alex is absolutely 

correct. You know, at the end of the day, someone has to, the FCC 

has to step in and put very specific ownership conditions on this 

merger. 

I mean, if you ask the question, the fundamental question, Does 

the Comcast-NBCU merger further the FCC’s goal for African 

American and diversity ownership, the answer is no. There are no 

specific conditions, there is no specific desire that Comcast has indicated, put, put that in place. It was stated earlier, that the, that 

our coalition, you know, is challenging TV One because they are 

not Black enough. 

The truth of the matter is the issue isn’t if Alfred’s company is 

Black enough. It is not independent enough. You know, the challenge is that Comcast owns a part of TV One. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you don’t want to be prejudiced against 

Alfred’s company just because you don’t think he is Black enough. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. No, you know, actually, actually, actually—actually, I must admit, I have had a great conversation 

with Alex, other than I, other than the fact I was dismayed, that 

I found out he is a Celtics fan. It has been good. It has been a good 

discussion. 

But, you know, I think, you know, there have been a number of 

people, witnesses, that have been indicating that Comcast has been 

doing great by them. They have been doing a wonderful job advancing our business. 

Well, that is because they are in business with Comcast. You 

know, the statement was made earlier, that there is no one from 

Comcast testifying today. Actually, there are a number of people 

from Comcast testifying today, and they, and they are as, as effectively—— [Applause.] 

And they are as effectively as they can, trying to communicate 

that Comcast has been a good citizen. Mr. Cohen asked: How does 

Comcast rate in reference to the rest a the industry? Well, it was 

suggested by Mr. Griffin that they are not the worst. Well, I think 

it is the opposite. Of course they are the worst, because they are 

the biggest, because they are the market leader, because they have 

179 

a responsibility to the industry to set the tone and the direction of 

where the entire industry should go. At—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, but if there are people who are minorities, 

working with Comcast, wouldn’t you expect them to come forward? 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Well, here is a good question. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I mean, I am not sure if I like this deal or not, 

but I certainly would expect, that if Comcast has minorities, they 

are going to step forward and say don’t mess over my company, it 

is doing fine by me. I mean—— 

Ms. MADISON. Mr. Gohmert, may I give you some facts? 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Well, let me—— 

Ms. MADISON. May I give you some facts? 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Let me just make one comment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I have used more than my time and the 

Chairman has been very—— 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. If I can make one more comment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I think the question is, we have 

heard again from a number of individuals that have said our company is doing well, but what happened to the Black Family Channel, which had been in business for 6 years, 25 million subscribers? 

And when they decided that they would not give Comcast distribution, Comcast turned around and did a deal with our, our good 

friend over here, TV One, and systematically started to push them 

out of the business. 

And they did that again because they had a vested interest, from 

a competitive, a anti-competitive, in the success of TV one over the 

Black Family Channel. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah, that—— 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. What I am suggesting is that there 

is a pattern, an ongoing pattern of predatory behavior that is based 

on their dominance, their desire to control and own, as they move 

forward. 

And when we hear that there is not an ability to greenlight 

projects, that is because at the end of the day, we don’t have the 

control, the ownership, on our own, to push those projects through. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I just want to make sure, if there are other—I 

don’t know how there could be another Bill Cosby, but if there are 

other Cosby shows out there, where you have a man and a woman 

that are married, they are smart, their kids love them, they love 

the kids—man, I would like to see those again. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I love Ms. de—— 

Ms. MADISON. It is premiering on NBC this fall. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I love Ms. de Passe’s comments, because Bill Cosby owned 42 percent of his show. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. And that is what is missing in industry. You know, the question was asked, what happened to the Jeffersons? What happened to Different World? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah; right. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. You know where they are? They are 

on TV One. That is what happened to them. 

Mr. LIGGINS. And just a little color on the whole Black Family 

Channel situation. One, I know a lot about it, because Black FamVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
180 

ily Channel launched before TV One did. They actually did have 

Comcast distribution in Price George’s County, and Washington, 

other, other, a number of other places. Willie Gary is a dear friend 

of our family’s. I looked at doing things with him, with his channel, 

a number of times, as I was trying to get in the door. 

The ultimate demise of the Black Family Channel, in my view, 

was it wasn’t set up for success as a cable network from the very 

beginning that it was put together. We spent $130 million launching TV One. $130 million. I put up 

seventy-six of it. Willie and his partners were funding this out of 

their pocket. They have a lot of money but unless you’re funding 

it with a big public company, bankroll, as opposed to your own personal bankroll, you run out of patience when things don’t go as fast 

as you think they are. 

It took us 51⁄2 years to make money, and we went through almost 

all that hundred and thirty. So, in the end, they did actually have 

distribution. They just couldn’t outrun the advertising catching up, 

the ratings catching up. It takes more than $60 million to put one 

a these cable networks together. We had $130 million and a whole media platform with radio stations and Internet sites supporting it, and ultimately, that was the 

difference between our success and their failure. 

And ultimately, what happened with the Black Family Channel 

is they ended up combining it with the Gospel Music Network, and 

the Gospel Music Network wanted Black Family Channel’s distribution. So they had distribution. They just didn’t have a business model set up for them to succeed. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. What the Black Family Channel 

couldn’t outrun was Comcast’s desire to push them out of the business. As a shareholder in Radio One, my question to Alfred would 

be, why would they spend $75 million, 40 percent of TV One, and 

allow Comcast to spend $10 million for 33 percent, unless the goal 

was to expand them through distribution? The reality is when the 

Black Family Channel decided not to allow Comcast to own, to 

have equity in their channel, the support started to wane. 

Now all the other comments about how things are run behind the 

scenes, the truth of the matter is the revenue is so significant in 

channel ownership—right? TV One is generating somewhere 

around 6 cents per subscriber on 25 million subscribers, per month. 

Where the Black Family Channel, when they were asked to come 

on to the platform, as Alfred has indicated, the Black Family Channel was told you’re going to have to pay a launch fee of $1.50 per 

subscriber to come, to come on our platform. 

The truth of the matter is the environment, because there is not 

true free market corrective action program—you know, all we are 

really arguing for is the ability to compete fairly on a level playing 

field. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what I would like to see. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Right. And at the end of the day, 

again, I applaud—this is, this is—this discussion, you know, Alfred 

and I disagree on their level of independence; right? Them being 

a wholly-owned African American channel. I will concede it. 

The issue is, even if they count, we have one African American 

wholly-owned channel in the entire industry. And it is appalling. 

181 

Ms. MADISON. And Comcast does recognize that this is an industry-wide issue. This is not just limited to Comcast. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. But Comcast has the most subscribers. 

Ms. MADISON. All right. But let me just state some facts. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I apologize. Go ahead, Paula. 

Ms. MADISON. Okay. So the facts are that as you probably have 

seen, hopefully in the commitments, that the NBC UniversalComcast group have put together, includes that beginning next 

year, there would be the launch, annually, of minority-owned channels. So exactly what you are asking for—or I should say not exactly, because the threshold that you have set for 100 percent African American owned, means that there can’t be any equity partners, and that is just not the way business is done today. 

So there would have to be investors. You would have to go out 

and seek money, so that what happened to Willie Gary, and others, 

where they ran out of their own money, coming out of their own 

pockets, does not happen. 

So in Comcast’s commitments, beginning in 2011, every year, for 

the next 3 years, there would be two independently-owned stations 

launched, cable networks launched, not owned by Comcast, not 

having Comcast investments, but independently owned. 

The other thing that I would like to make sure that we are talking about, cause on the one hand we were talking about ownership. 

On the other hand we were talking about creative executives. 

And inside the world of creative executives, every one of us in 

this room, including some of my fellow folks on this panel, knows 

that yes, it is an industry-wide problem. Suzanne de Passe is accurate. Greenlighting, and having th ability in the hands of diverse 

people to greenlight, has been a problem, historically, in this, in 

this industry. Again, the commitments that Comcast has made, 

and NBC Universal has made, means that we have made specific 

steps that are cited in those commitments as to how we will grow 

and groom, and put into place presidents, executive vice presidents, 

senior vice presidents, who are running divisions, and some of the 

folks, frankly, who are with NBC Universal and Telemundo are 

present today. 

The last point I would like to make is that when we talked about 

executives, Telemundo, which NBC bought in the mid 2000’s, presently has 85 percent of its senior executives, its executive teams 

are Latino. 

When we were first bought Telemundo, about a third were 

Latino. So we have increased. The other thing I would say is that 

NBC Universal’s board of directors presently is comprised of 15 

people. Four of us are racially diverse and five of us are female. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that, if 

possible. I mean, I want to make just two points. And I know that 

Congresswoman Waters, and Conyers, understand this. Radio One 

is a three decades-old project. That was political, social, economic, 

cultural. It wasn’t just born overnight. The idea that, you know, 

they showed up and then a baseball player, a lawyer, a singer, and 

a boxer, decide they want to start a cable channel. You cannot compare those two things. 

182 

It was just better set up to be successful. And the idea that you 

can’t study successes, I think the idea is we had a successful relationship with Comcast, and we are still alive and relevant in the 

industry to talk about it. The idea that you can’t study successes 

is ridiculous. 

Now to your point about what the core problem in the industry 

is, and, you know, you are a Texas guy; right? Right? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I know I sound like I am from New York. But 

yeah, I am from Texas. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, you can probably get this. My family, from 

Washington County, I think you probably get this. Two farmers 

raised a 100 head a cattle. One goes down to the slaughterhouse. 

One gets paid for a 100 head a cattle. Another gets paid for 50 

head a cattle. That is the entertainment business. That is why 

these companies are not successful. 

We can have great shows, we can generate viewers, but at the 

end of the day, when we go to the advertiser, we’re not getting 

paid, dollar for dollar, for every impression that we generate. That 

is the root of the problem. 

You know, we could debate all day about—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So how do we address that? That is—— 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Well, let me just—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, let Mr. Griffin finish. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, I think the way that you address it, and some 

groups have tried to address it outside of Government. You know, 

there is not a natural regulatory home for the advertising industry 

in media spending. 

And I think that kind a has been falling in the gray areas, and 

when people see big media, they hope on the bogeyman of the distributor, or they hop on Hollywood, not enough Black films, and 

then they don’t focus on where the money is, which is why Willie 

Sutton said he robbed banks, cause that is where the money is. All 

these companies want to get money from advertisers, and you have 

to hold hearings and pull the advertisers in front. You can lay out 

Mr. Washington’s proposal. 

You could say if Comcast agreed to 25 African American channels, which, among the top 100 advertisers, who—how much would 

you commit to advertise on each of these channels for African 

Americans? Who will sign up? If—if the advertisers say, hey, I will 

sign up. Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson say, hey, we will commit 

10-, 15, $20 million to that. Now your problem is with Comcast. 

If they say, well, come back when the channels are launched, I 

have to see the programming, I need to know the distribution, I 

need to know who is in the cast, and it is contingent upon a bunch 

of other things, then you realize your problem is with the advertiser. 

I submit to you, based on, based on my time and experience, that 

what you will find is no advertiser will commit to any of these 

channels. Perhaps, you know, he wants Comcast to commit to 25 

channels. 

One advertiser who says, in a letter, who will submit it, 

Comcast-not to get in a battle of letters—but they have got hundreds of letters. One advertiser, the right one, who says, hey, you 

launch that, we are advertising—— 

183 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. What I would like to just comment, 

on top of this is—and again, I apologize, cause I’m not from Texas, 

I am from Los Angeles—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. And the only thing I know about 

cows is why buy one when you can get the milk free? And that is 

part of the channels that we have in this industry. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is good. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. And I think that it is surprising to 

me that Mr. Griffin, who is on a second carriage tier for Comcast, 

would suggest—and I assume you are suggesting—that you would 

not rather be on a widely-distributed tier that you own. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am on 100 percent of Video On Demand—— 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. But you are not on the most widelydistributed tier that they offer. You are saying that—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am on the most widely-distributed Video On Demand tier that there is. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. No, but video demand is not the most 

widely-distributed tier within Comcast. 

Mr. LIGGINS. But that is the business he is in. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me make a comment. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Oh, no, no, I’m not—I’m not—let me 

just—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me just make one main point. I realize, you 

know, based on my experience, what it takes to be successful in 

some businesses, and I realize I didn’t have a hip pocket with $150 

million to launch a linear channel. That is what it takes. Your efforts, over the years, advertisers—that is what it takes to build 

that type of company. For the type of company that we want to 

build, we come out ahead. But we are cash and carry. We do a 

share. We want the money, upfront. So when we got on Comcast, 

we had the opportunity to go out, sell, pre-sell advertisers, buy programming at a certain cost, and we were profitable from day one. 

That is the reason why we are on Video On Demand. We think 

it is an opportunity to talk directly to consumers, profitably. It 

sounded like a good proposition, and we have been doing it for 5 

years. That is the reason why we are on that tier. We are 100 percent distributed on Video On Demand. We have never been 

dropped from a home. We have been expanded to other cable operators through the deal. That is just a fact. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. And I think that is a excellent fact. 

Our point is that there are many, first of all, there are many African American entrepreneurs, who today run 100 percent owned 

media businesses. I think Tyler Perry would take exception, to note 

that there is a belief that there is an impossibility to do that. 

Byron Allen, who owns Entertainment Studios, has six channels 

up on the Verizon network right now, for over a year. 

The thought that African Americans, like everyone else, can’t finance on their own, and to suggest that we should be relegated to 

only having to finance through venture capital is counterproductive 

to the growth of our community, and it is insulting to—— 

Ms. MADISON. I am glad you brought up, Byron Allen because I 

would like to say that when I was general manager at KNBC in 

Los Angeles, and he didn’t get distribution anywhere in this marVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
184 

ket, I broadcast two of his programs on a barter deal. That was 

NBC. That was not me personally. That was NBC. So we have, in 

fact, assisted independent programmers to get—and by the way, in 

order for him to sell his product, he had to be able to demonstrate 

that he had support in a certain percentage of the U.S. population. 

And we got him there. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I think it is wonderful that Comcast 

and NBCU today, on the day of this hearing, have announced they 

are going to give two channels—I’m sorry—three channels, over the 

next 3 years, to African Americans. And they are going to do that 

to a substantial group of minority investors. 

The challenge with that is it is not enough. It is crumbs, and 

they know it is crumbs. Alex is absolutely correct. And by the way, 

not just 25 channels for African Americans. Twenty-five channels 

for Hispanics, 25 channels for Asians. Comcast today has 252, 500 

channels throughout their platform in various marketplaces. It is 

dumbfounding to me, that we are sitting here, and we think it is 

acceptable that Comcast is willing to have a conversation about diversity, and the one, most meaningful conversation in diversity is 

ownership, and they think that three channels for the entire minority segment—and by the way, that includes so many derivatives of 

populations, that it is hard for me to count—that that is acceptable 

to our community. It is not. [Applause.] 

Ms. MADISON. What it is, Stan, and again, I will sit here and tell 

you that this is an industry-wide problem. But what I also say to 

you is no one else has made this kind of commitment in the past 

or present. So it is a start and we stated that it is a base, not a 

ceiling. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Is a low base. 

Ms. MADISON. So what I would just ask you to consider is, is 

there not a way to begin conversations with Comcast and NBC 

Universal, in order to use this to grow whatever the commitment 

is, if possible? But if what is happening is, before we even get out 

the door, you are pooh-poohing it, saying that it is in effect worthless, then what we are saying is that there is a business community out there, and there is an audience out there, that we recognize and understand is looking to see itself not only in business but 

on the air. 

And based upon, without question, a lot of conversations that 

have arisen as a result of this acquisition, we came together and 

said these are the things that we want to put on the table. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. This has been tremendously interesting. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I identify myself. I am the Chairman of this 

Committee and I am running this Committee. Now that we have 

got that established, I would like you all to know that Judge 

Gohmert is not from New York. We want to clear that up while we 

are at it. 

And the third thing is it should be made clear that Judge 

Gohmert has asked all the questions and elicited all the answers, 

so that none of us have anything else to do. 

I want to—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, actually, you know, I usually spend most of 

my time talking myself. But this is an area I don’t know that much 

185 

about. So it has been immensely interesting to hear the different 

responses. I appreciate your patience. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. I want to turn, now, to our marvelous 

host, Maxine Waters. Give her a round of applause, please. [Applause.] 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get started, let 

me thank Mr. Gohmert for being here. I would also like to thank 

you for the way that you have come with an open mind, raising relevant questions, and not assuming anything but trying to get answers. And why do I do this? 

Mr. Gohmert is from the opposite side of the aisle and we find 

ourselves in quite different positions. Philosophically, we often 

come from different places. Mr. Gohmert does not always, most of 

the time doesn’t even agree with the Chairman. He is very articulate. He is extremely bright, well-read, with a lot of experience, and 

for him to come here, in this manner today, really does speak to 

the need to understand this merger and what it is all about. Thank 

you. Give him a big round of applause. [Applause.] 

And I would certainly like to thank the Chairman. You know, 

John Conyers is an international icon. He talked about how long 

we have known each other. But this is a man whose life has been 

dedicated to civil rights and social justice. 

This is a man who has put himself on the line for all of the major 

issues relative to not only this kind of merger, and dealing with 

FCC, but he is constantly dealing with issues in the Justice Department. He is constantly dealing with issues about intellectual 

property. He is constantly dealing with the tough issues of our 

time, and he talks about applauding me. 

This man should have a standing ovation for the work that he 

has done over the years, and I am going to stand. [Applause.] 

Mr. CONYERS. The check is in the mail. 

Ms. WATERS. Now I want you to know that what we are doing 

today is not normally how we do these hearings in Washington, 

D.C., but because the Chairman is in charge, he gets to do what 

he thinks needs to be done. 

The kind of interaction that you just heard, the back and forth 

conversations, you don’t get this in Washington, D.C. I am so 

pleased about this. I was enjoying, so much, the exchange, that I 

wanted it to go on even longer but I guess we can’t be here all day. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity. 

Let me start with a little bit of background. Let me just say to 

Ms. Madison and others in the room, you are in a complex in what 

is viewed as South Los Angeles. This is a complex that I know an 

awful lot about because I served in the California state legislature 

with what is known as Subcommittee 4. There have been attempts 

to dismantle this complex. They wanted to turn the famous rose 

garden into a parking lot. They wanted to get rid of all of the minority security guards when the Olympics was here in Los Angeles, 

and they wanted to choke this existence by denying it the resources 

and the funds that were needed. 

Because I was Chair of Sub 4, this was in my jurisdiction, I 

didn’t let any of that happen. We fought them—— [Applause.] 

And under my direction, we started the reorganizing and the revamping of this entire complex. It is such an important complex, 

186 

in the middle of this community, where our school children come, 

where we have the opportunity to have open space and events, and 

all of that. So we had to fight very hard in order to maintain this 

important complex. 

And I am just delighted that you are here today. Why do I give 

you that background? I give you that background because some of 

us are in the constant struggle for justice and equality in everything that we do. Most people don’t have a clue about what it is 

we do constantly and what we have done in our careers. 

Even today, for this complex, we make sure that Mr. Jeffrey Rudolph, when he comes to Washington, D.C., who’s run this complex 

for many years, gets access to the earmarks that we have in order 

to keep the expansion going and the development. 

Now having said that, just as one example, we are doing this in 

many ways, with many issues all over this country. Serving on the 

Financial Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I am 

oftentimes in touch with and contacted by various entities in this 

country, where I hear about all of the problems. 

Ebony magazine is in trouble. We may lose it. And we are contacted. What can you help us do to save Ebony magazine? Inner 

City Broadcasting almost got shut down. GE and Goldman Sachs 

were calling in the loans. 

I can’t tell you all what all happened to save it, because again, 

they will want to investigate me. 

But we saved Inner City Broadcasting when GE and Goldman 

Sachs wanted to call in those loans, and it has worked out. 

But let me tell you, all of NABOB, our minority radio stations, 

all of NNPA, our Black newspapers, our minority banks, our automobile dealers—we have lost 50 percent of them, just in the past 

few years. Our minority banks cannot get capital investment in 

order to basically stay in compliance with the requirements to be 

able to operate. 

I got a call, just a few weeks ago, that they were calling in the 

loan on Dr. J’s golf course down in the Atlanta area. And it goes 

on and on and on. And while I am telling you about much of this 

which is basically African American, the same thing is happening 

with Latinos. 

As a matter of fact, many of the Latino organizations had not 

reached the level of participation of African American organizations, and yet their opportunities are being denied, and it is systemic exclusion. 

You understand what I’m saying? Systemic exclusion. When I 

first got involved in this Comcast issue, it was because some organization said we are trying to get the FCC to extend the comment 

period, and they said no, they won’t listen to us. And so I had to 

develop a piece of legislation that I filed, immediately, got John 

Conyers and everybody, 46 other people to join with me, and send 

it over to the FCC. And of course when you file it, it is a piece of 

formal legislation and you have a significant number of members 

who will agree with you, they stop and they listen, and they opened 

up the comment period for another 45 days, and that gives us an 

opportunity. [Applause.] 

And we thought, well, you know, that is just part of it. We need 

some more hearings. And so now, we are at the point where not 

187 

only are they talking about hearings, and John, we had better take 

a look at what shape and form those hearings will take. But the 

Chairman of this Committee is saying, in addition to that, we are 

going to continue these hearings, and we will perhaps have to go 

into New York and we have to go—maybe we will go right into 

Pennsylvania, the backyard of Comcast, and do some of these hearings. 

But we are going to continue to go. So I appreciate all of those 

who are here today. And let me just say, to some of you who are 

here today, and you are representing Comcast or NBC, and that 

may be your job, or you may have gotten some advantage from it— 

let me tell you, you are going to do better because we are doing 

what we are doing. Do you understand? [Applause.] 

I have understood, all of my career, that oftentimes, when people 

were taking the opposite position from me, because of what I was 

doing, I was creating their opportunity to get more respect in the 

industries that they were defending. Okay? [Applause.] 

So do what you have to do, but know and understand, because 

of what we are doing, NBC and Comcast are talking about what 

they now would like to do. Would they be doing this, if we weren’t 

doing this? What we are doing? I don’t think so. We didn’t hear 

from them prior to the expansion of the comment period, that they 

were thinking about opening up opportunities, that they had a 

plan, and they asked, one of them asked a question, Why are you 

just doing this to us? Why don’t you look at some of these other 

media giants? You are before us, asking for a merger now. You give 

us an opportunity to raise these questions. And that is why. 

Because you want the FCC and the Department of Justice to rule 

in your favor, and so you give us the opportunity to raise a lot of 

questions about who you are, and what you do. 

Now having said that, because the Chairman is so generous with 

the time, I want to take your attention to a recent study by Brandeis University. I kind of alluded to 

some of those organizations and businesses that are contacting 

us about their problems. 

What is the Brandeis study all about? Let me tell you what the 

headline reads. 

Study shows Blacks will never gain wealth parity with Whites 

under the current system. The other headline says—I will find it 

here in a moment. 

A $95,000 question: Why are Whites five times richer than 

Blacks in the United States? 

The conclusion is basically this. The gap between Black and 

White household wealth quadrupled from 1984 to 2007, totally discrediting the conventional wisdom that the U.S. is slowly and fitfully moving toward racial equality, or some rough economic parity 

between the races. 

Like most American myths, it is a direct opposite of the truth. 

When measured, over decades, Blacks are being propelled economically downward relative to Whites, at quickening speed, according 

to a new study by Brandeis University. The gap between Black and 

White households ballooned during the 23 year study period, as 

White families went from a median of about 22,000 in wealth to 

100,000, a gain of 78,000 in the same period. 

188 

Black house wealth inched up from a base of 2000 per family to 

only five thousand dollars. The sweat and toil of an entire generation had netted Black families only $3,000 additional dollars, while 

White families emerge from the period with a net worth of 100 

grand, that can be used to send a couple of kids to college, make 

investments, help out other family members, or continue to the 

larger White community. 

The typical Black family has no such options. The Brandeis 

study conducted by the university’s Institute on Assets and Social 

Policy shows that upper-income Blacks fell even further behind 

their White peers than lower-income Blacks. 

During the survey period, higher-income Blacks saw their wealth 

drop from 25,000 to just 18,000, while their White counterparts’ 

wealth soared to $240,000. 

And what is happening? Whites are both collectively privileged 

and capable of bestowing an endless system of privileges on each 

other, while Blacks are deliberately positioned outside of the 

stream, and are preyed upon, as a group, by powerful financial 

sources that profit from the wealth differential. 

I will not go any further with that, because that says it all. That 

talks about why we are here today. That talks about the fact that 

we have a potential merger, a huge merger, perhaps the biggest 

media merger in the history of this country, with the potential to 

deal with this economic exclusion that we all can agree to. 

There is no way that anybody can sit here and think it is all 

right for there to be one African American-owned network, in essence, by Comcast. [Applause.] 

So when I was contacted after I got involved in this, I got a call 

from somebody at Comcast, and they said, What do you want? I 

certainly didn’t know enough about the industry to start to talk 

about what the response should be. But I started to think about 

it, and I said, well, one of the things we have discovered is that 

the programming is such that Blacks are really excluded from having the kinds of shows and programming that Ms. de Passe alluded 

to or talked about. 

So I started to talk, well, why don’t you do this. I know all of 

these directors and producers, and African American and Latino. 

Why don’t you set up a situation where at least they can come and 

present their treatments, and you have credible people inside the 

industry who would listen, and say, well, here’s some good stuff. 

And I wanted to do that because NBC, in the hearing, had said we 

just can’t find any good product. We can’t find any good programming. 

We had Jeff Zucker in front of our Committee. I said, well, let 

me help you find some good programming. 

But the fact of the matter is this. Not only do we have the systematic exclusion, and now we have an opportunity to do something about it. We have to make this work, or the Brandeis study 

will continue to be worse. 

So when they called me and asked me what I wanted, I started 

to talk about doing that kind of thing, and the representative said 

no, I am talking about what do you want. 

And I want you to know that it is easy for Members of Congress 

to have those kind of conversations about What do you want? But 

189 

is just so happens that John Conyers and I, and Gohmert, and perhaps everybody on this panel, have lived long enough to understand—it is not about taking care of me or us. It is about taking 

care, of being fair to everybody. It is about opening up opportunities. Look. I have some friends on this panel. Cathy Hughes is one 

of my dearest friends in life. 

But this is not about Cathy. She is rich. She is going to be all 

right. This is not about Suzanne. Suzanne is a talented woman, 

and even if she gets turned down, she is so brilliant, until finally, 

you know, she is going to have to work hard, perhaps at it, but 

they are going to have to let her in. And on and on and on. This 

is about generations now, and generations to come. This is about 

a Brandeis study, and if we are so selfish to be concerned about 

ourselves, we aren’t worth our soul. [Applause.] 

And let me just say this. Again, we have worked long enough at 

this, we have enough self-confidence to look Comcast in the eye, 

NBC in the eye, and say Not this time. Not this time. 

And this goes for all of the institutions of our society that are responsible for this kind of exclusion. Much of this can be solved 

through public policy. Much of what we have to do means utilizing 

our power and our authority to break up this exclusion. I respect 

all of those who represent the companies. I respect those who have 

the designations of diversity. 

I don’t know what you think it means. I don’t understand how, 

quite, you see your positions. If you can’t tell me how many dollars 

are being spent with minorities in contracting, and every aspect of 

the business, if you can’t tell me how many major executives making crucial decisions you have, then I don’t know what you are 

talking about. 

If you are telling me how many janitors you are hiring, how 

many clerks you are hiring, that is not good enough. We know that 

we can always get some numbers at that lower level. 

So having said that, let’s just understand each other. This is 

about ownership. This is about programming. This is about executive management. This is about advertising. [Applause.] 

And again, let me reiterate, it is not about donations to the 

NAACP, the Urban League. Who else is, who else is, who else? It 

is good. Keep on donating. They need the money. But that does not 

do what we need to have done in opening up these opportunities 

where there is systemic exclusion, which keeps our communities 

and our people poor, and keep them from being able to gather the 

kind of wealth that they should be able to accumulate in America. 

Having said that, one or two questions, cause I have used my 

time, and more than my time, to give you my take on all of this. 

NBC, how many of the executive producers for your 2010 fall 

line-up are minorities? 

Ms. MADISON. Congresswoman Waters, we have, in the 2010 

line-up, for scripted shows, five out of 18 shows, Law & Order LA, 

Law & Order SVU, Love Bites, The Office, and Outlaw, have seven 

diverse co-executive producers. 

Ms. WATERS. How many of the executive producers for your 2010 

fall line-up are minorities? I want to ask you again so we will be 

on the same wavelength about what I am asking. 

Ms. MADISON. There are seven. 

190 

Ms. WATERS. You have seven executive producers. Is that what 

you are telling me? 

Ms. MADISON. These are diverse co-executive producers. 

Ms. WATERS. No. Well, okay. Explain it again. 

Ms. MADISON. Okay. Five of the 18 shows, and the leadership 

roles in the television, in these television series are executive producers, co-executive producers. Of the 18 shows we have, five of 

them, Law & Order LA, Law & Order SVU, Love Bites, The Office, 

and Outlaw, have, among them, seven diverse co-executive producers. So five of 18 shows has seven co’s. And then on our reality 

shows—— 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

Ms. MADISON. That’s scripted. On our reality shows—I’m sorry. 

On our cable shows, there are four diverse executive producers and 

co-executive producers on USA and SciFi. 

Ms. WATERS. All right. Let’s see if we are on the same wavelength here. The Event. You have two minorities in supporting 

roles, no executive producers. Is that right? 

Ms. MADISON. The Event, we have Blair Underwood as the president of—— 

Ms. WATERS. As an executive producer? 

Ms. MADISON. No. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Ms. MADISON. I am sorry. 

Ms. WATERS. If you would, please, if you call a name, I know 

Blair Underwood is in The Event. 

Ms. MADISON. He is a lead on The Event. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Ms. MADISON. He plays the President of the United States. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Do you have an executive producer on The 

Event? 

Ms. MADISON. We do not have an executive—but we are still 

staffing the shows. We do not—— 

Ms. WATERS. So you are looking for an African American or 

Latino executive producer? 

Ms. MADISON. We are still—— [Laughter.] 

Ms. WATERS. Are there any African American executive producers types in the audience? Are there any Latino executive producers in the audience? Do you know of any African American and 

Latino or Asian executive producers? 

Ms. MADISON. Congresswoman, we know of some, and the ones 

who are on the shows, we—— 

Ms. WATERS. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. 

Ms. MADISON. We hired them on those shows. 

Ms. WATERS. But you don’t have them on this one. I want to 

know whether or not you can get the word out and help them. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. [Speaking from un-miked location.] 

Ms. WATERS. I can’t hear. Stand up. 

Ms. MADISON. He’s an executive vice president at NBC. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. We do have Jim Wong, Jay Wong. He’s a 

very experienced—I have to admit, I don’t know, exactly, his titles. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. A senior role. 

191 

Ms. WATERS. You all get the word out that they are looking. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. [Speaking from un-miked location.] 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. Now I am told, because my staff really had to 

get involved in a lot of research, they say that co-executive producers are not show-runners. What does that mean, Suzanne? 

Ms. DE PASSE. Well, a show-runner is the person who is actually 

most senior on the production and is chartered with the responsibility of delivering the show every week, you know, with their 

team. But they are the most senior of all of the producers, and just 

by way of information, very often, the co-executive producer, producer, supervising producer, there are lots of designated titles on 

a series, scripted show, that are accorded to writers, who also perform in some level of production. But it is like a bonus credit for 

writers to gain, because they are in training to become show-runners. 

And so the truth is that you start as a story editor, you start in 

the writer’s room, and you work your way up and you work your 

way up, and it is a very difficult level to achieve, to become a showrunner, and the notion that the co-executive producer role is as 

senior as the show-runner is just not true. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. All right. 

Ms. MADISON. The show-runner is largely responsible for the 

budget. The show-runner is an executive producer but not all executive producers are show-runners, Congresswoman. 

Ms. DE PASSE. Correct. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. You have another show, Chase, where you 

have one minority in a supporting role and no executive producers. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. We have two. Sorry. We have two minorities 

that play such a role. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. So you have two. No executive producers; is 

that right? 

Ms. MADISON. There is no executive producer but—— 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Then you have Undercovers. You have two 

minorities in a lead role, and no executive producers; is that right? 

Ms. MADISON. In Undercovers, which again is still being 

staffed—— 

Ms. WATERS. But the fact of—— 

Ms. MADISON. Boris Kodjoe and Gugu Mbatha-Raw are the stars 

of the show. Two Black people are the stars, and a co-star, who 

portrays her sister, is also Black. 

Ms. WATERS. And Undercovers—I want to make sure what I am 

saying is correct. There are two minorities in lead roles and no executive producers. Is that a correct statement? 

Ms. MADISON. That is correct, presently. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. You have Outsource where you have three 

minorities in supporting roles and no executive producers; is that 

correct? 

Ms. MADISON. I believe we have five minorities in the ensemble, 

in the cast, and I don’t believe there are any executive producers. 

Oh. I’m sorry. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. [Speaking from un-miked location.] 

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry. I can’t hear you. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. [Speaking from un-miked location.] 

Ms. MADISON. That is Grace Wu. She is the head of Casting. 

192 

Ms. WATERS. Suzanne, they have three minorities in supporting 

roles, ensemble cast. Are we talking about the same thing? 

Ms. DE PASSE. Yes. I mean, listen, as hard as it is to get a job 

today doing anything, this is not a bad thing for them to be having 

diverse cast members. This is good; you know? 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Ms. DE PASSE. This is very good. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Ms. DE PASSE. But I think the thing that we are trying to figure 

out is, when we say minority, for purposes of where I think you are 

going, it would be great to know how diverse. In other words—— 

Ms. MADISON. They are racial minorities. We are not counting 

women. 

Ms. DE PASSE. Pardon me? 

Ms. MADISON. They are racial minorities. We are not counting 

women. 

Ms. WATERS. But what she is asking is, would you tell us what 

those racial minorities are. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Mostly South Asian. 

Ms. WATERS. I can’t hear you. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. They are South Asian actors. 

Ms. WATERS. South Asian. Okay. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. [Speaking from un-miked location.] 

Ms. WATERS. That is an outsource. All South Asian? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. And executive producers, none. Is that right? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. That is correct. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. That is correct. Let’s move on. Love Bites. No 

minority leads, one Asian American in a supporting role and no executive producers. Is that right? 

Ms. MADISON. That’s—— 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. It’s—I’m sorry. I’m sorry. 

Ms. WATERS. Who are you? [Laughter.] 

You keep jumping up. 

Ms. MADISON. He is an executive vice president. 

Mr. SANDERS. My name is Bernie Sanders. I am the executive 

vice president of Current Programming. I recently was in Development at NBC as a senior role. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. 

Mr. SANDERS. Love Bites, just for clarification, is a show much 

like Love American Style. So there is a guest cast coming in and 

out. The more we talk about the guest cast that was invited into 

that pilot episode, it is highly diverse. But in terms of series 

regulars, you are correct. We only have two series regular roles and 

both—neither of those roles are diverse. 

Ms. WATERS. And you have no executive producer? 

Mr. SANDERS. Correct. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Let’s move on. School Pride. Two minorities 

in ensemble supporting roles, no executive producers; is that correct? Come on. You jumped up on everything else. [Laughter.] 

Is that right? 

Mr. SANDERS. I cover scripted shows so I—— 

Ms. WATERS. I just thought you knew everything. Okay. All 

right. Okay. Paula, is that correct? 

193 

Ms. MADISON. That is a reality show, and it is a make-over of 

inner city schools. There are two co-hosts, and coming in and out 

of the co-host role, I believe there are, there is diversity. It was designed that way, so that there is diversity, depending upon which 

school we are looking at and when. 

Ms. WATERS. You have two minorities in ensemble supporting 

roles and no executive producers. Is that a correct statement? 

Ms. MADISON. That could be in the pilot—— 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. All right. 

Ms. MADISON [continuing]. But not necessarily in the series. 

Ms. WATERS. Outlaw. One minority lead and no executive producers. Is that right? Jimmy Smits and no executive producers; 

right? 

Ms. MADISON. Outlaw has a co-executive producer who is diverse. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. And then we also have a co-lead, David 

Ramsey, who is African American, who’s Jimmy Smits’ partner on 

the show. 

Ms. MADISON. Jimmy Smits is the lead. 

T3 

Ms. WATERS. Is that considered a lead role? 

Ms. MADISON. Yes. He plays a Supreme Court justice, just retired. 

Ms. WATERS. So you have one Latino and one Black, and no executive producer. But you have something called co-executive producer; is that correct? 

Ms. MADISON. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. How many people are in the show? Describe to me 

what would be the total numbers—— 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Of the series? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. There are five series regulars on the show. 

Ms. WATERS. Five regulars? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Five regulars, and two of them are diverse. 

Ms. WATERS. And? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Pardon me? 

Ms. WATERS. How many, totally, in all of the shows? How many 

people? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER [continuing]. Cast members? 

Ms. WATERS. I can’t hear you. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. I’m sorry. I guess I’m not clear what the 

question was. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay, and I’m not clear either, except to say that 

you are casting five consistent roles but you are also casting, what 

do they call them? walk-ons and others who participate in this series. Is that right? How many, totally, including the ones who may 

be doing one show, two show, walk-on, one time, whatever. How 

many altogether? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. It varies. I can say for a show like Love 

Bites, which we will be casting, mostly guest cast every week, 

there’ll probably be up to six to eight guest leads per episode, once 

we start production on that. 

For a show like Outlaw, in the pilot there were probably—well, 

there were—— 

Ms. MADISON. Five. 

194 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. There were actually two guest leads, actually, both of them African American actors. It took place in Philadelphia. So—— 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. I think I get the picture. 

The Cape. Two minorities in supporting roles; no executive producers. 

Ms. MADISON. That sounds correct. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. Friends With Benefits. One person of color; 

no executive producers. Is that correct? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. We are, just to speak on the casting front, 

we are in process of—there are five series regulars. One is diverse. 

We’ll be casting two of the actors and one of them will absolutely 

be diverse. So the number of diverse actors will be increased in the 

series. 

Ms. WATERS. Okay. But for right now, what we know about it is 

one person of color and no executive producers. Is that right? 

Ms. MADISON. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. All right. And Perfect Couples. Of course no couples 

of color. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. There is one. 

Ms. WATERS. One. What ethnic group? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. She’s Asian American. 

Ms. WATERS. African American. Okay. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Asian American. 

Ms. WATERS. Asian American. Okay. All right. Harry’s Law. One 

minority in a supporting role; is that correct? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. In the pilot, yes, but we are recasting the 

show, so we’ll have more of an update—— 

Ms. WATERS. They are recasting you all. 

The Paul Reiser Show. Three minorities in supporting roles. I 

just wanted to go through that, so that we could just get kind of 

an understanding of what is happening. 

When Ms. de Passe alluded to the Bill Cosby Show, Moesha, 

Girlfriends-we don’t have any of that anymore, do we? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

Ms. WATERS. We don’t have any of that; right? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. No. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. No. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. No. 

Ms. WATERS. I take personal offense to that. I really liked 

Girlfriends. [Applause.] 

Okay. And let me just ask a bottom-line question. Are there any 

Black or Latino show-runners in NBC primetime? Where is that 

gentleman that knows so much? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. The answer to your question is no. 

Ms. WATERS. That is all you have to say? You don’t have any. 

Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 

I had lots more questions for Comcast, but maybe in the discussion 

that you and others will lead us in, some of those will come up. I 

really appreciate you for your generosity and time. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. Give Maxine Waters a round of applause, please. 

[Applause.] 

195 

I am now pleased to introduce to you, but many of you know her 

already because she is from the LA area as congresswoman, the 

first Chinese American woman in Congress in history. Judy Chu. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. CHU. Thank you for that gracious introduction. I wanted to 

follow up on the responses. This is a very large document, a very 

detailed document called Responses of Comcast Corporation and 

NBC Universal to Questions Submitted by Several Members of the 

United States House of Representatives. 

And first, I wanted to address the issue of diversity and ethnic 

cable packages, and programming. You talk about the fact that 

Comcast supports African American, Hispanic and API, Asian Pacific Island programming. And I have a concern about whether this 

diverse programming will primarily be in premium packages, premium packages that cost more, and whether that is exclusionary 

of many people in our community. 

Like, for instance, you refer to a Hispanic cable package in your 

response. How much more does that cost? 

Ms. MADISON. Congresswoman Chu, the question specifically 

about Comcast cable packaging, the price packaging, I would have 

to take back to Comcast for answers. I was primarily here to talk 

about the new NBC Universal. 

Ms. CHU. So nobody is here from Comcast to talk about any of 

these very important diverse—— 

Ms. MADISON. There are people here from Comcast. They weren’t 

prepared to testify, however. 

Ms. CHU. Well—— 

Ms. WATERS. I’m sorry. 

Ms. MADISON. We can get those answers for you. 

Ms. WATERS. If the gentlewoman would yield one more time. You 

did ask if there was anybody here responding to a request from 

this Committee, from Comcast, to testify. I want the record to be 

clear. Is that what you asked? 

Ms. CHU. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. And what response did you get? 

Ms. CHU. Nobody is here to testify on this, even though there is 

a very, very thick document that is supposedly the response to us 

on these issues that we raise pertaining to diversity and this whole 

merger issue. 

Ms. MADISON. So if I could answer it this way. When your Committee had the hearings in February, in Washington, the question 

specifically around Comcast, Brian Roberts, we thought, was the 

witness, the appropriate witness at the time. 

Then there were a number of questions that were put to Comcast 

and NBC Universal by the FCC, which were just submitted, the 

answers to which were just submitted, in writing. 

To the extent that there are more questions about Comcast pricing, I would be more than happy to take those questions back to 

Mr. Roberts, but he did address those in the Committee hearing in 

February. 

Ms. CHU. I don’t think they were addressed, because the responses here raise more questions. 

Ms. MADISON. Then, for the record, I will be happy to take your 

questions back and get responses from Comcast. 

196 

Ms. WATERS. May I ask the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you said 

we would have more questions. Ms. Chu, if you don’t mind. Is it 

possible that you have the power to subpoena responses from anyone that is unresponsive? Do you have that power? 

Mr. CONYERS. Who? Me? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes. Is it possible that, at some point in time, you 

could make a decision—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we would never consider anything like that; 

no. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. Who are you? 

Mr. BROWN. My name is Payne Brown. I am vice president of 

Comcast. While we did not have somebody on the panel, we’re certainly here, not hiding. With regard the Congresswoman’s specific 

question, I am happy to get back to you the pricing of those packages. 

Ms. CHU. Well, then I am going to make a statement, and basically say what my concern is. Basically, in your response to us, you 

refer to these cable packages, but we know that certain packages 

that you have actually cost different community members more. 

For instance, the Asian American On Demand package, like their 

Bollywood package, costs 12.99 a month, and the Filipino package 

costs 7.99 a month. So I have great concern that these packages, 

what you call diverse programming, are actually going to cost the 

community more. And there is a situation here where Comcast operated a network called AZN, which offered a diverse array of programming for Asian communities. 

Then Comcast stated that AZN was unsustainable and that there 

wasn’t sufficient demand. But considering the fact that there are 

5 million Asian Americans in California, you would think that 

there would be sufficient demand. 

So the question was availability. Was AZN only offered with premium cable packages? And we already know that it costs a lot to 

have a premium package, in some areas, $127, and it is really a 

luxury. And so if that is what is going to be the definition of diverse programming, that is not acceptable. 

Mr. BROWN. If I may. And in response with regards to the price 

point on the packages, I can address specifically AZN. It was not 

a part of the premium package. 

Ms. CHU. Then when you follow through with a plan to increase 

the number of diverse and independent programming, will the new 

programs be part of Comcast non-premium cable packages? 

Mr. BROWN. The channels which are referenced in in our files 

would be two channels a year for 3 years, six channels. It is not 

contemplated that those will be part of premium packages. 

Ms. CHU. Well, then that brings up the adding to, you know, this 

idea of adding two new independently-owned and operated channels each year for 3 years. Again, we could have more diverse programming coming through them. But is Comcast committing to the 

net addition of two new independently-owned channels per year, or 

are you simply replacing eliminated channels? 

Mr. BROWN. No, we are not, it was not contemplated, be replacing eliminated channels. Those are additional channels, added to 

the ones—— 

197 

Ms. CHU. And do you commit to adding the independent channels 

to your most highly-penetrated tiers? 

Mr. BROWN. We have not made distribution commitments, other 

than to say to say that there will be different new channels but 

they are not assigned to a specific tier. 

Ms. CHU. Then I will also raise a concern, which is the question 

of whether there would be any blocking, or otherwise diminishment 

of broadband subscribers’ access to such competitive online content, 

and whether there might be an online pay wall that would be required by Comcast subscriptors for access, such as some kind of 

payment that they would have to pay, for those who were watching 

Hulu, an extra payment for accessing this kind of content. That 

would be counterproductive. 

Then Comcast and NBC stated that, in your response to us, so 

maybe both of you, or either of you could answer this, which is that 

you will collectively produce an additional 1000 hours per year of 

local news and information programming. 

But this was not included in a specific commitment. Is this going 

to be a part of a binding commitment? 

Mr. BROWN. That was in the FCC filing. 

Ms. MADISON. Yes. It was in the FCC filing. Yes. 

Ms. CHU. So it is going to be part of a binding commitment. And 

how will these hours be allocated? 

Ms. MADISON. Congresswoman, I think that that is part of the 

process. We see them as local news and information. So depending 

upon the various communities, and what the various communities 

would therefore be looking for, we would produce that kind of content that is local. 

Ms. CHU. And will this commitment continue year after year, or 

only during the first post-merger year? 

Ms. MADISON. I actually don’t know. 

Mr. BROWN. We will continueMs. MADISON. The commitment is for 3 years but we will continue. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. And then finally, you know, this issue of supplier diversity data is extremely important, I think. Is Comcast 

willing to disclose supplier diversity data and partner with community groups who will monitor Comcast and the joint venture’s ongoing commitment to supplier diversity? 

Ms. MADISON. Yes. That is part of the relationship, for example, 

the various diversity councils, the conversations that have been 

going on with Alex Nogales. that is one of the points of the MOU. 

Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. And in the document that we released 

about other diversity commitments, we are creating diversity councils, both African American, Asian and Hispanic community, and 

supplier personnel which will be reviewed with those councils. 

Ms. MADISON. With an eye toward getting assistance from the 

members of the various organizations with whom we would be 

partnering. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. MADISON. Thank you. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Ms. de Passe. 

198 

Ms. DE PASSE. Yeah. I, for the record, just wanted to clarify 

something about the show-runner situation, because I think it 

should be noted that part of the internship to developmental process that as how-runner goes through, or a prospective show-runner 

goes through, is not only something that allows them to develop 

their craft—this is a practice sport. What we do is a practice sport. 

Like a tennis serve. You can’t get better at it unless you do it. 

And for people to understand that it is not about a job. It is 

about a career. It is about a continuity of jobs. And when the sitcom basically went away, and the shows that I was talking about 

went away, many of the people who were developing as show-runners, or people, African Americans, in particular, who had become 

show-runners, lost the opportunity to have that continuity, and 

therefore, are now back to looking for jobs. 

And it is also true that, you know, a half-hour situation comedy, 

which we call multi-camera shows, basically went out of fashion for 

a while. They are starting to come back a little bit. And so that is 

a good thing for many of our show-runners of color. 

But it is absolutely true that we need to understand that whether it is an actor, or a crew member, or a writer, or an executive 

producer, or a developing show-runner, it is about a continuity. It 

is not about a one-time thing. That is not how you build anything, 

and you can never get the credibility to be in demand, or to be 

hired, because being a show-runner is a very, very, very important 

job, a very tough job, and networks care more about who it is than 

what it is. 

And they want to know that that person knows who to deliver 

a show, run a show, deal with a budget, as Paula said, and it is 

vital, absolutely vital, that when we talk about this, we look at the 

opportunity for continuity, not just a job. 

Mr. CONYERS. Steve Cohen comes out of a background that might 

surprise someone, because he is connected to Harry Belafonte and 

his family. So he is not without some knowledge of the rudiments 

of the industry and we yield to him for his questions or comments. 

Mr. COHEN. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me 

the opportunity to speak after you have had a standing ovation. 

Congressman Waters has had an Oscar-winning type questioning 

session and a standing ovation. Congressman Gohmert fell into an 

unbelievable colloquy they never heard before in Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. Chu has left. You know, I think this hearing has been successful, and what it is about, it is like an Impressionist painting, 

and the painting has been presented, and the colors are out there, 

and it has achieved its purpose. So I don’t know that there is that 

much more that we could add. 

But one thing I thought, I understand the need for the hearing 

and the need for more opportunities for minorities. The report from 

the Brandeis university is just indicative of something that the 

Chairman has worked on for so many years, and Congressman Waters has too, and it has been a part of my work, and that is trying 

to see that we do have fairness and justice and equity in our country, which we have not had, even though the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution claimed we did. 

199 

We are getting to be a more perfect union. We still suffer from 

vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow, and we passed a resolution in 

the House, the 110th Congress, to say we rectify those lingering 

consequences, and we need to do that. And that is the primary reason why I think the Brandeis study is there. And the separation 

in income. 

The separation of income of all peoples, Black and White, has become greater and greater and greater over the last decade, and a 

lot of it is the Bush tax cuts. 

But there are other reasons for it as well, and opportunities that 

haven’t been presented. And this is just a part of it, and it’s a great 

opportunity—I don’t know who mentioned it, maybe it was Mr. 

Washington—that there are so many African American customers 

of Comcast, and of cable, and it is a place where pricing is equal, 

although you could choose different packages, that African Americans do participate in a manner that does dictate that there is 

more responsiveness to the African American community at large, 

than you might have in some other areas. 

Because you can buy a Brioni suit, or you can buy another suit, 

but you can only buy one Comcast package, more or less. I know 

you get Basic Comcast, you get Comcast plus do-dads. But basically 

it is quite similar, and there is not that much difference, and there 

is a whole lot of African American participation in there. So there 

is a need, and I think it has been shown well. 

One thing I find that is sad, and I understand the need for more 

programming, and more show-runners, and more jobs, and all 

those things—but what is sad is that Congressman Gohmert and 

I were big fans of the Bill Cosby Show, and we watched it, because 

in that time, long ago and far, far away place, there were just three 

stations, and they didn’t have names like Hulu and Gugu. They 

were acronyms. They were alphabetical names. 

And so people watched the Bill Cosby Show. If you were White, 

you saw Bill Cosby. But if you are going to end up with all these 

channels, and you are going to have these channels Mr. Washington talks about, which is commendable for programming and all 

that, African American channel, it is not going to be seen by everybody. 

And we are getting in the country too striated, where all we do 

see what we want to see. We see the Hispanic channel if we are 

Hispanic. Or the Asian channel if we are Asian. Or the Africa—but 

when you had three channels, you all had to kind a watch, you 

know, each other, and it brought our country together. 

And I am afraid part of what cable is doing is doing too much 

to keep us separate, and in our own little world, and not coming 

together. 

So I would hope that Ms. Madison would see to it that NBC, 

which still has a large following, even though there are these other 

stations, networks, does do more in diversity, cause that does give 

a picture to America of people that they don’t often come in contact 

with. 

A question was asked about Meet The Press and the Sunday 

talk-shows, and I know you have had Congressman Ford, Jr. on 

there, and you had somebody else on recently who you had to tell 

200 

people who he was. I mean, he was a very bright, intelligent man, 

but nobody knew him. You had to give his vitae at the show. 

And I mentioned to you Julian Bond, and others have mentioned 

Mfume. There are people of the NAACP who are the people who 

should be out there on Meet The Press, advocating the African 

American perspective, who do it in an honest and just way, with 

a history of doing it, that should be on those shows. [Applause.] 

Mr. LIGGINS. I would like to make a plug, because we, at TV 

One, actually created a show called Washington Watch, about five 

or 6 months ago, hosted by Roland Martin of CNN, for just that 

purpose. It comes on Sundays at 11 a.m. and then it is reaired at 

5 p.m., and the, you know, kickoff guest was Joe Biden, and we run 

everybody that we can get, who is African American or has constituents that are affected, that are constituents that are African 

Americans, or run programs, government-oriented programs that 

affect African Americans. I invite you all to watch it. 

But we lose money on it, we put it on the air because it was the 

right thing to do, and it has been on for quite some time, and it 

is done out of the Comcast studios across from Capitol Hill, and Roland is a great host, and I think it covers the base that Meet The 

Press doesn’t, so—— 

Mr. COHEN. And Roland’s great, but I think, you know, Meet The 

Press gets into everybody’s living room. 

Mr. LIGGINS. Fair enough. 

Mr. COHEN. And that is why it is important to have that perspective, which is missing, and it has been missing. And I am not saying that my friend, the Texas Christian, Bob Schieffer, does any 

better on his show. 

Mr. LIGGINS. Right. 

Mr. COHEN. You know, it is not there. And I want to thank you. 

You said something about some gigantic or great deal. I thank you 

for not thinking about Joe Biden. I was afraid you were going to 

get there. Better use of adjectives. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. Mr. Cohen, can I make a clarifying 

comment, if I could? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. What I’d like to just clarify, in my 

comments earlier, in reference to the condition that we are requiring, or requesting, for 25 channels. To your point, what we really 

are advocating isn’t 25 BETs or TV Ones. What we are saying is 

African Americans, and Hispanics, and Asians, should have the 

ability to own and operate a multitude of thematic type of programming that would exist in the marketplace. 

Mr. COHEN. And you are proper to correct me on that, cause you 

are right, cause you could produce and have African American ownership of some stupid reality shows too. I mean, that is not something that only Caucasians could do. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. We want the same right. We want 

the same right. 

Mr. COHEN. But you are right. Our Western cowboy shows, or 

whatever. But I really think Mr. Griffin made a good point that, 

you know, Jimmy The Greek talked about other people’s money, 

use OPM. I don’t know why it takes a 100 percent African American-owned company. Better to have 51 percent. Let 49 percent 

201 

suckers give you money and you run it. That seems like a great 

deal. 

Mr. STANLEY WASHINGTON. I think the notion, though, that gets 

missed is, particularly when we talk about cable ownership, is that 

the revenue model is secure enough for an owner, if they are being 

treated freely and they are being given competitive subscriber fees 

to compete. When Ted Turner launched his channel, when he 

launched his network, he was selling Ginsu knives over his network. 

The notion that you must have advertising commitment to 

launch is not correct. If you are treated equally on the platform, 

and Comcast, and others, give you what you are worth to compete 

in their marketplace, there is plenty of opportunity to sustain yourself in the overall scheme of how you operate. 

And I think that there are. I really do. I think that there are. 

You know, a real estate investor in acquiring Miramax. Right. 

There are plenty of people outside of the industry, as well as in, 

that have the capability, the financing and the ownership, at a 100 

percent, to come in and operate and run these channels, if in a free 

market environment they are being treated and allowed to operate 

freely. 

Mr. LIGGINS. Congressman, I just want to add, cause I think this 

is where African Americans, in general, do themselves a disservice. 

The misnomer, that you can have a 100 percent ownership of any 

large company, is just that. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. 

Mr. LIGGINS. It is not economically possible. It costs us $75 million a year to run TV One. Seventy-five. And it is good quality programming. If you want to spend $7 million a year, you are not 

going to be proud of what is on the screen. So we need to get away 

from this thing, that if it is not a 100 percent African Americanowned, or 80 percent African American-owned, that it doesn’t qualify as African American-owned, cause then you will never come up 

with any true quality African American-owned companies. 

And I mentioned it before. Nobody doubts that Bill Gates owns 

Microsoft, or Rupert Murdoch owns Fox. Or Sumner Redstone owns 

Viacom. So why should that fall back on African Americans in 

terms of their value—— 

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second, please, before you—— 

Mr. COHEN. Surely. Yield. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just say that I attempted to talk about our 

role and our responsibility in trying to open up opportunities in all 

sectors of our society, and I want you to know, to that end, we are 

concerned about Wall Street, and whether or not Wall Street is investing in these opportunities. I heard the discussion about Bill 

Cosby and Bill called me, and I talked to him about the fact that 

he wanted very much to acquire NBC, but Goldman Sachs and the 

rest of them said no. They would not help to finance him, despite 

the fact he was really making NBC at the time. 

So to that end, on the Financial Services Committee, in the Wall 

Street reform legislation that will be in conference starting next 

week, we have some amendments that I put in, that would create 

the Offices of Minority Inclusion in all of our financial services ofVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Feb 11, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\060710\56744.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
202 

fices, including, you know, FDIC, the Treasury, SEC, everywhere, 

so that we can begin to address these issues of institutional exclusion, and get our Government not only organized to take a look at 

what is going on but be able to do public policy that would help 

to correct it. 

So we recognize what you are saying, Mr. Washington, but we 

also recognize that equity investment is extremely important to the 

way we do business in this society, and that it is very difficult to 

do it without it. Even though we do have a few rich people, they 

don’t usually put their total amount of funds at risk in order to advance a business where the whole thing is at risk. 

So we are looking at that aspect of it also. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome, and I think Mr. Washington 

sought recognition. 

Mr. FRANK WASHINGTON. The other Mr. Washington. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Washington, the elder. 

Mr. FRANK WASHINGTON. I am not sure I accept that, but I will 

take it any way I can get it. 

Mr. COHEN. Pliny, the Elder, in mind. [Laughter.] 

Mr. FRANK WASHINGTON. A couple of things I think that Congresswoman Waters, and you, Mr. Cohen, spoke to, I think are very 

important to help focus this discussion. The minority tax certificate, as I mentioned, was the most effective device for inciting minority ownership. 

The reason why it worked, because it was a marketplace sensitive approach. My experience with Congress, quite honestly, in 

terms of mergers, was my attempt to buy Viacom’s cable system 10 

years ago, and that little incursion resulted not only in my deal 

being retroactively killed, but also in the end of the tax certificate. 

So, you know, one of the things, I think you all sit in a very important position, and it is sometimes easy to forget that nobody is 

prescient, nobody’s omniscient. 

The marketplace really, I think, is going to be the answer to a 

lot of this stuff. So I mean, whatever solutions, whatever decides 

you look to, and Congressman Waters, I think your focus on 

sources of equity is probably the highest priority here, because at 

the end of the day, all of us entrepreneurs, I mean, you know, our 

ideas are only bounded by the money and the capital that we can 

get to support them. 

But anyway, I think the important thing to remember is the 

marketplace, really, is going to what, is going to what determines 

this. 

This merger, in a way, I think is being prompted, as we watch 

in a landscape where newspapers are being turned upside down by 

the same kind of fears, coming from disruptive technologies and 

services. 

There may be a guy sitting in the back of the room that is going 

to create the next Facebook. I mean, we just don’t know. I have a 

service called blackbird.com, which it is a Black-oriented browser, 

that basically pulls all the information together on to a browser 

that sits on your computer. You know, we have 300,000 subscribers. Who knows, you know, who is going to determine this? 

But I would just caution, and pray, that you try to recognize 

that, like the rest of us mortals, you can’t know what is going to 

203 

happen. So whatever approach you come up with is one that allows 

and facilitates the marketplace, as opposed to trying to apply some 

sort of rigid approach that, in my experience, when that has been 

done, it causes things, in many cases, that really are counterproductive, so—— 

Mr. COHEN. The gentleman back here that Congressman Waters 

said knew all the answers. Could you answer a question. I don’t 

watch a lot of television, really. I watch sports, and I watch, I try 

to watch Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, but Comcast put 

them on 81 instead of 48, so it is harder to find it. Kind of like taking Radio Free Europe out of the Soviet Union. [Laughter.] 

What is Friends With Benefits about? [Laughter.] 

Mr. SANDERS. It is about what it sounds like. 

Mr. COHEN. I have got to watch that show. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you all very, very much. First, I would like 

to again thank my Chairman, and the Members of the Judiciary 

Committee who showed up today, to be a part of this most important discussion. 

Secondly, I would like to thank all of the panelists for your contribution. I would like to say for those panelists who have ideas 

about how we could do some corrections in this industry, don’t wait 

until we find you, call us, and help us to be able to create good public policy, based on your knowledge and your experience. That is 

how we get good public policy. 

If we are left to do it as best we can, we are going to do what 

we know how to do. You may not like what we do. So if you want 

us to do what you think makes a lot of sense, you have got to call 

us and help us out. I want to thank some of the people who have 

been in this struggle for so long, whether we are talking about organized labor or we are talking about greenlining, or these other 

panelists who are here today representing the intellectual point of 

view, based on the work that they do. 

We really are appreciative for your participation. My Chairman 

not only asked me to thank all of you but to let you know that we 

shall continue in our efforts to learn more about this merger and 

to make sure that we dissect the commitments that are being 

made, and we will also have the opportunity to forge what we 

think are legitimate responses based on the information that we 

are learning. 

So Mr. Chairman, I think with that, I will give you the microphone to adjourn this Committee, and once again, we thank you all 

for your participation today. 

This Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ