Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole

Files and McCain Letter Show Effort to Keep Loophole

The New York Times
By STEPHEN LABATON
February 23, 2008

In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.

The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.

At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain denounced an article in The New York Times that described concerns by top advisers a decade ago about his ties to Ms. Iseman, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay. He said he never had any discussions with his advisers about Ms. Iseman and never did any favors for any lobbyist.

One of the McCain campaign’s statements about his dealings with Ms. Iseman was challenged by news accounts on Friday. In discussing letters he wrote regulators about a deal involving another of Ms. Iseman’s clients, Lowell W. Paxson, the campaign had said the senator had never spoken to her or anyone from the company. But Mr. McCain acknowledged in a 2002 deposition that he had sent the letters after meeting with Mr. Paxson.

On Glencairn, the campaign said Mr. McCain’s efforts to retain the loophole were not done at Ms. Iseman’s request. It said Mr. McCain was merely directing the commission to “not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent.” Mr. McCain wrote in the letters that a 1996 law, the telecommunications act, required the loophole; a legal opinion by the staff of the commission took the opposite view.

A review of the record, including agency records now at the National Archives and interviews with participants, shows that Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, played a significant role in killing the plan to eliminate the loophole. His actions followed requests by Ms. Iseman and lobbyists at other broadcasting companies, according to lobbying records and Congressional aides.

Over the years, Mr. McCain has taken varying positions on broadcast ownership issues. He has supported the relaxation of the ownership rules, but he has also been sharply critical of rules that permit too much concentration of ownership in a single market.

By November 1998, the F.C.C. was planning to strike down broadcasting marketing agreements, a potentially ruinous development for Glencairn. But after receiving Mr. McCain’s Dec. 1 letter, it put off consideration of the issue.

“To the extent the F.C.C. shows itself incapable of following Congressional intent,” the letter said, “these issues will become part of our overall review of the commission’s functions and structure during the next session of Congress.”

The letter, sent from Mr. McCain’s office by his staff at the commerce committee, was also signed by Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana and chairman of a communications subcommittee. It was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period.

It was the only letter that contained a suggestion that a failure to act would result in the possible overhaul of the agency.

The letter said that “as a leading participant in the passage of the 1996 Act, I have a very clear understanding” of the law’s intent and why it required the ownership loophole to be preserved. Mr. McCain was one of five senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the act. He has also been an outspoken critic of it.

While other companies also complained to Congress about the plan to close the loophole, the issue was particularly important to Sinclair because it had more marketing agreements than any in the nation. For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.

Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.

“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.”

The campaign said that Mr. McCain never spoke with Ms. Iseman about the issue, but that she did speak to his staff about it. Mr. Edwards and Mr. McCain met on July 20, 1999, according to the campaign.

After the commission postponed consideration of the issue, Mr. McCain signed a second letter to the agency on Dec. 7, 1998, in support of local marketing agreements, and a third one on Feb. 11, 1999. The third letter was signed by four other lawmakers. Ultimately, the F.C.C. loosened the rules to permit a company to own two television stations in some markets.

The letters Mr. McCain wrote to the commission in the Paxson matter were sent in late 1999 and prompted the agency’s chairman to chastise him for interfering in a licensing matter. The incident embarrassed Mr. McCain, then making his first presidential run, because Mr. Paxson was a campaign contributor and fund-raiser.

While the campaign said Thursday that Mr. McCain never spoke to anyone from Paxson or Ms. Iseman’s lobbying firm before sending those letters to the commission, an article posted Friday on Newsweek’s Web site said Mr. McCain had previously acknowledged first speaking to Mr. Paxson. Recounting that conversation, Mr. McCain testified in the deposition, “I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act.”

The Washington Post reported Friday on its Web site that Mr. Paxson acknowledged in an interview that he had met with Mr. McCain to discuss the letters before they were sent and that Ms. Iseman was probably at the meeting.

In three interviews with The Times since December, Mr. Paxson has provided varying accounts about the letters. In the first, he said Ms. Iseman was involved in the drafting of them and had lobbied Mr. McCain. He later said he could not recall who had been involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087%0A

Is Cox Communications too cheap to follow government regulations?

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
Cox Communications, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .) File No. EB-04-SD-051
Facility ID #s 002295 & 004818 . . . . .)
Community Unit ID #s AZ0109 . . . . . . )
AZ0110, AZ0148, AZ0176, . . . . . . . . . .)
AZ0273 and AZ0878 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .) NOV No. V20043294001
Maricopa County, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .)


NOTICE OF VIOLATION


Released: September
13, 2004


By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:

1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. From February 10 through 13, 2004, an agent from the
Commission's San Diego Office inspected the Emergency Alert
System (``EAS'') equipment and logs at the following cable
system headend locations operated by Cox Communications,
Inc.:

Site Address

Bell 1550 W. Deer Valley Rd.,
Phoenix, AZ
East Mesa 4437 E. Holmes Ave., Mesa, AZ
Fowler 6610 Van Buren St., Phoenix,
AZ
McDowell 3008 E. McDowell Rd., Phoenix,
AZ
Peoria 9534 W. Peoria Ave., Peoria,
AZ
Scottsdale North 28213 N. 64th St., Scottsdale,
AZ

The agent observed the following violation:

47 C.F.R. § 11.52(d): ``Broadcast stations and
cable systems and wireless cable systems must
monitor two EAS sources. The monitoring
assignments of each broadcast station, cable system
and wireless cable system are specified in the State
EAS Plan and FCC Mapbook. They are developed in
accordance with FCC monitoring priorities.'' Cox
Communications, Inc. had the capability to monitor
two EAS sources but failed to monitor the local LP-1
station. According to the local EAS plan for the
Phoenix, AZ area (Maricopa County, Arizona), the
designated LP-1 station is KTAR(AM), Phoenix,
Arizona.

3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of the
licensee. All replies and documentation sent in response to
this Notice should be marked with the File No. and NOV No.
specified above, and mailed to the following address:

Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111

4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.,
1550 Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027.

5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION




William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau


_________________________

147 C.F.R. § 1.89.

247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

Cox Communications FCC violation--poaching on government wavelengths

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-259163A1.html

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of )
)
Cox Communications, Inc. ) File No. EB-05-SD-
101
)
Physical System ID # 006623 )
)
Casa Grande, Arizona ) NOV No.
V20053294005
)
)

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Released: June 2,
2005

By the District Director, San Diego Office, Western Region,
Enforcement Bureau:

1. This is a Notice of Violation ("Notice") issued
pursuant to Section 1.89 of the Commission's Rules,1 to Cox
Communications, Inc., the operator of a cable television
system in Casa Grande, Arizona.

2. On May 12, 2005, an agent from the Commission's San
Diego Office inspected the cable system operated by Cox
Communications, Inc. in Casa Grande, Arizona, and observed
the following violation:

a. 47 C.F.R. § 76.612(a): ``All cable television
systems which operate in
the frequency bands 108-137 and 225-400 MHz ...
must operate at frequencies offset from certain
frequencies which may be used by aeronautical
radio services operated by Commission licensees or
by the United States Government.'' In this
instance, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 45 measured 349.2971 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 349.2875 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
9.6 kHz from the nearest permitted offset channel,
which exceeds the allowable tolerance by 4.6 kHz.
Also, the visual carrier frequency of cable
channel 51 measured 385.3008 MHz. The nearest
permitted offset channel is 385.3125 MHz. This
cable channel was measured with a difference of
11.7 kHz from the nearest permitted offset
channel, which exceeds the allowable tolerance by
6.7 kHz.

3. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended,2 and Section 1.89 of the Commission's
Rules, Cox Communications, Inc., must submit a written
statement concerning this matter within 20 days of release
of this Notice. The response must fully explain each
violation, must contain a statement of the specific
action(s) taken to correct each violation and preclude
recurrence, and should include a time line for completion of
pending corrective action(s). The response must be complete
in itself and signed by a principal or officer of Cox
Communications, Inc. All replies and documentation sent in
response to this Notice should be marked with the File No.
and NOV No. specified above, and mailed to the following
address:

Federal Communications Commission
San Diego Office
4542 Ruffner Street, Suite 370
San Diego, California 92111

4. This Notice shall be sent to Cox Communications, Inc.
of Casa Grande, Arizona at its address of record.

5. The Privacy Act of 19743 requires that we advise you
that the Commission will use all relevant material
information before it, including any information disclosed
in your reply, to determine what, if any, enforcement action
is required to ensure compliance. Any false statement made
knowingly and willfully in reply to this Notice is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the
U.S. Code.4


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION




William R. Zears Jr.
District Director
San Diego Office
Western Region
Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

147 C.F.R. § 1.89.

247 U.S.C. § 308(b).
3P.L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).
418 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.