March 21st, 2016 at 11:54 am
CFIF TechNotes: WSJ Hits FCC’s Set-Top Box Scheme in “Government by Google”
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

In recent weeks we’ve highlighted a destructive new initiative by the Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose a one-size-fits-all regulation forcing cable TV set-top boxes to become artificially compatible with third-party devices.  Translation:  in the ever-evolving home entertainment market, where cable companies themselves are already moving from traditional cable boxes toward devices owned by individual consumers, the FCC remains mired in a 1990s mindset and wants to regulate accordingly.  The FCC’s inexplicable proposal would freeze in place a technological state that is already outdated.

Check that.  Perhaps the FCC’s behavior isn’t so inexplicable at all.

This morning, The Wall Street Journal editorial board highlights many of the concerns that we and others address, but notes in “Government by Google” that crony capitalism constitutes the underlying foundation of the initiative:

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed rules that would force television providers to create a universal cable-box adapter.  This would hand over shows to companies – TiVo, Google – that would peddle programming as their own…

The new rule amounts to government-sponsored piracy in allowing TiVo and Google to broadcast programs that providers pay to distribute.  Google wouldn’t have to abide by carriage agreements or pay licensing fees, which is one reason content creators are pushing back.  The stealing would no doubt violate copyright.  Some 30 members of the Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying the rule would relegate minority programming to channels rarely visited by viewers.  Google prodded the supposedly independent FCC in 2014 to bust open cable boxes, and Chairman Wheeler followed orders.  The tech giant wants to sell ads against poached content, mowing over cable commercials and crushing advertising competitors.”

The federal government can’t be trusted to control our healthcare industry, our free speech rights, our children’s educational options, our Second Amendment rights and so on.  Why would control over our home entertainment choices or the constantly-advancing telecommunications industry somehow be any different?

The Journal concludes by noting another ominous element:  the Obama Administration’s mad rush to impose the remainder of its to-do list as the sun sets on its tenure:

The FCC rejected a similar proposal in 2010, but now the Democratic majority seems committed to ramming it through before President Obama leaves office.  Mr. Wheeler has already done great harm to his reputation by taking direction from the White House to regulate the Internet.  He’ll do even more damage if he does the cable-box bidding of Google.”

Well said.  Fortunately, a bipartisan Congressional consensus, the creative community, consumer groups and other elements stand ready to stop the FCC’s scheme at the legislative, judicial and regulatory levels.  Its up to the American electorate justifiably disgusted by crony capitalism and stifling federal overregulation to support them.


March 21st, 2016 at 8:44 am
March Madness and Sports Betting
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

In an interview with CFIF, Jonathan Wood, Staff Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, discusses the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, as well as the constitutional questions surrounding the state by state discrimination in sports betting laws.

Listen to the interview here.



March 16th, 2016 at 11:38 am
Merrick Garland and the Second Amendment
Posted by Jeff Mazzella Print

President Obama officially nominated DC Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  The president dedicated a considerable amount of time during his announcement speech to make the case that Judge Garland is a “consensus” nominee.

But who is Judge Garland and how does he view the U.S. Constitution?

While much will be written and analyzed about Judge Garland and his judicial record in the coming days and weeks, Carrie Severino, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Counsel and Policy Director at the Judicial Crisis Network, provides some insight to help answer that question.  In a piece for National Review’s Bench Memos titled “The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland,” Severino wrote last week:

Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling. He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Consensus nominee?  You decide.


March 16th, 2016 at 10:19 am
AP: Obama to Nominate Judge Merrick Garland to U.S. Supreme Court
Posted by Jeff Mazzella Print

Several news sources, including the Associated Press, are reporting that President Obama will nominate Judge Merrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

From the AP piece:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, congressional sources said Wednesday. …

Garland is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices. …

Congressional sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama had not yet announced his choice. …

Obama planned to introduce his pick at 11 a.m. in the White House Rose Garden.


March 16th, 2016 at 7:54 am
Hear No Evil, See No Evil
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.


March 14th, 2016 at 2:58 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Show Lineup
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Nathan Nascimento, Senior Policy Advisor at Freedom Partners – Obamacare’s Skyrocketing Costs;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy – FCC’s Foray into ISP Privacy Regulation;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Ambassador Francis Rooney, Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See and Author of “The Global Vatican” – Continuing Threat Posed by ISIS and Islamic Extremism;

5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT:  Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance – Stop Work Orders to States in Wake of SCOTUS Ruling on Obama’s Clean Power Plan;

5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT:  Quin Hillyer, Contributing Editor of National Review, a Senior Editor for The American Spectator, and a nationally recognized political expert – Florida’s Primary; and

5:45 CDT/6:45 pm CDT:  Jonathon Wood, Staff Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation – Sports Betting.

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.


March 12th, 2016 at 10:09 pm
Tell Representative Rob Bishop to Say No to Obama’s “Super Restructuring” Bailout of Puerto Rico
Posted by Jeff Mazzella Print
The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) today launched a radio advertisement in Utah warning against the dangers posed by the Obama Administration’s “Super Restructuring” proposal for Puerto Rico.

Right now, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) is considering the creation of an unprecedented restructuring regime to address Puerto Rico’s debt crisis. This restructuring mechanism, proposed by the Obama Administration, goes far beyond the authority that states possess under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by allowing Puerto Rico to stiff bondholders who now enjoy constitutional guarantees of repayment in favor of bailing out government pensions.

Such a blatant and dangerous violation of Puerto Rico’s Constitution is neither a credible nor conservative solution to the Puerto Rican debt crisis.

As multiple governors have noted in letters to Congress, the precedent set by such a “Super Restructuring” regime would have major consequences for states, including Utah. Borrowing costs would skyrocket for state governments, harming their ability to finance critical services and infrastructure projects, and the value of retirement funds that hold Puerto Rico and other guaranteed state bonds would plummet.

Perhaps even more alarming: If enacted by Congress, this plan could pave the way for a series of Puerto Rico-like events to occur across the country. If Congress demonstrates a willingness to rewrite bankruptcy rules to bail them out, high-spending, debt-ridden states will be even less likely to cut spending and balance their budgets.

CFIF’s radio ad urges all Utahns to call Representative Bishop’s office at (801) 625–0107 and tell him to protect taxpayers and bondholders by saying “no” to the Obama Administration’s “Super Restructuring” bailout of Puerto Rico’s bloated, irresponsible government.


March 11th, 2016 at 11:28 pm
Patent Litigation Reform Is Not “Patent Reform”
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

In the accelerating debate over patent litigation reform legislation, opponents continue to mischaracterize it as “patent reform,” as if the bill would somehow reorder the system by which patents are granted, the duration of protection and so on.

Whether deliberate or simply careless, that’s simply untrue.

Patent litigation reform legislation, including the Innovation Act that we at CFIF most strongly favor, would reform how patents are litigated, not our patent system itself.  And as Dana Rao, Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Intellectual Property and Litigation at Adobe Systems, details in The Hill, patent litigation abuse remains a serious problem:

The numbers are in.  And they aren’t good.  Patent trolls filed 3,604 suits in 2015, making it the second busiest year on record for abusive patent litigation.  And if anyone had any doubt about the merit of those suits, the busiest filing day last year, by far, came one day before a court rule permitting vague complaints was set to expire.  A record 212 patent infringement lawsuits were filed on November 30.  That is nearly 18 times as many as a normal day.  What kind of patent holder would scramble to file a suit to take advantage of this rule?  A patent holder who knew their suit had no merit.  These recent numbers reveal that court decisions and rule changes do not discourage abuse of our patent system.  In the current system, trolls continue to bring frivolous suits in sympathetic courtrooms around the country.  Only legislation will change these dynamics.”

The Innovation Act addresses that critical need for reform.

The Innovation Act targets patent litigation abuse by:  (1)  Forcing frivolous litigants who can’t demonstrate to the court that their “position and conduct … were reasonably justified in law and fact, or that special circumstances (such as severe economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust”;  (2)  Changing pleading standards so that parties must state their allegations with greater clarity and specificity, instead of relying upon vague and summary allegations that offer little insight into the nature of their claims;  (3)  Reforming the pretrial discovery process (witness depositions, document requests, etc.) in order to reduce the oppressive burdens currently imposed on parties, often as a tactic to drive innocent parties to settle rather than vindicate their rights;  and (4)  Bringing greater transparency regarding true ownership of disputed patents.

Notice what the Innovation Act does not do:  overhaul the patent system itself.  Which is one reason why the bill passed by an overwhelming and bipartisan 325-91 vote in the last Congress.

So why do opponents continue to mischaracterize it as “patent reform?”  Only they possess the certainty of their own minds to explain, but one suspects that it’s a ploy to frighten those of us who support strong intellectual property (IP) protections.  But CFIF takes a backseat to no one in advocating strong IP protections, and we would not support any bill that threatened to undermine them.

Whatever their motivations or confusion, however, it’s important that elected officials, policy analysts and everyday Americans remain clear that patent litigation reform should not be confused with “patent reform.”


March 10th, 2016 at 8:16 pm
Mississippi Should Not Gamble With Taxpayer Dollars
Posted by Jeff Mazzella Print

Five things Mississippi taxpayers should know and worry about the Gulf Coast “Fiber Optic Ring”

1)  A new plan proposes to use a portion of Mississippi’s British Petroleum (BP) oil spill settlement to build a government-owned broadband network in South Mississippi. The network or “Fiber Ring” would, in theory, connect a dozen Gulf Coast cities across three counties. Local officials estimate that it could cost over $100 million.

2)  So far, the state has promised $5 million of the BP funds towards the Fiber Ring, though it is not a fiscally sound proposal.  In fact, there’s no indication of where the additional $95 million needed to finance this project will come from, but taxpayers will likely foot the bill.

3)  Government-owned networks rarely succeed, and residents already have access to high-speed Internet provided by private companies. Competing with the private sector will only force taxpayers to subsidize a costly failure.  Private Internet Service Providers (ISPs) already bring high-speed broadband to 97 percent of Harrison County residents, according to BroadbandNow.com.

4)  When the government enters a broadband market, prices for consumers do not decrease.  In fact, government-owned broadband networks have been found to charge consumers more than private firms, for similar services.

5)  Other regions have tried (and failed) at building and running government-owned broadband networks.  Here’s a look at some of the results:

Burlington Telecom, VT
Burlington Telecom was started in 2008 to provide telecommunications services to the citizens of Burlington, VT.  The network floundered, and by 2014, it owed $33.5 million to Citibank.  The city reached a final settlement in which it agreed to pay about a third of what was owed, and turned to the private sector for help financing the settlement.

Memphis Networx, TN
Memphis Networx was started as a public-private partnership by Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division (MLGW) in 1999.  By 2007, the network had failed and MLGW sold Networx to Colorado holding company Communications Infrastructure Investments for $11.5 million after losing about $28 million in public funds on the venture.

UTOPIA, UT
UTOPIA was started in 2002 to provide Internet services to 11 cities in Utah.  The network’s initial capital investment was $135 million, and by 2014 the debt had climbed to $500 million.  The cities involved have been looking for a private buyer to take over their network for several years.

CDE Lightband, TN
CDE Lightband was started in 2007 with a $16 million loan from the Clarksville Electric Power Board’s electric division to its broadband division.  In 2009, the utility was approved to take an additional $4.5 million in loans to finance the network, leaving taxpayers and utility ratepayers on the hook for the debt.

Help CFIF spread the word.  Email this link to your colleagues, friends and family members in Mississippi and/or share it on social media.  To download a copy of CFIF’s educational fact sheet about the Gulf Coast “Fiber Optic Ring,” click here (.pdf).


March 10th, 2016 at 1:01 pm
Open Letter to Canadian Prime Minister: Protect Intellectual Property
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

In an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, CFIF joined a coalition of free-market organizations imploring him to promote an environment supportive of intellectual property (IP):

We the undersigned companies and organizations write to urge you to promote a public policy environment in Canada that supports innovation and intellectual property (IP).  Canada has a history of one of the most well-developed environments for promoting advancement of the arts and business through the defense of intellectual property rights, but we are concerned about current developments. Canada has begun to lag behind other developed nations in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights, even though scholarly research shows that more than ever, the protection of such rights are key drivers for a country’s economic growth.

The letter proceeds to detail the value of IP to both the Canadian and American economies in terms of employment, investment, exports, research & development, consumer products and higher income jobs.

In addition, the letter alerts the Prime Minister to emerging threats to IP rights in Canada, including the proposed “promise doctrine.”  That misguided and potentially dangerous proposal would essentially require inventors to see into the future and itemize the various utilities of an innovation when filing patent applications.  Not only  are such predictions impossible to accurately foresee, but they add uncertainty that threatens to stifle innovative efforts and investment for fear of no future reward due to bureaucratic whim.  That is particularly true in the lifesaving pharmaceutical industry, where the effects are already being felt, as the letter details.  The promise doctrine also contravenes NAFTA, WTO rules and international IP norms.

Because Canada remains America’s most important trading partner, we therefore ask Prime Minister Trudeau to remain vigilant in protecting Canadian IP rights and resist ongoing efforts to undermine them.

In addition to CFIF , other organizations joining the letter include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the Small  Business & Entrepreneurship Council, American Commitment, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), Frontiers of Freedom, Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), the National Center for Policy Analysis, Digital Liberty and the Property Rights Alliance.

The full letter, which was organized by the Property Rights Alliance, can be read here (.pdf)


March 10th, 2016 at 11:56 am
Ramirez Cartoon: ObamaCare Bust
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.


March 9th, 2016 at 10:41 am
Quotable: Thomas Sowell on Income Inequality Obsession
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

From Thomas Sowell, in his latest commentary entitled “Random Thoughts”:

Here is a trick question:  What percentage of American households have incomes in the top 10 percent?  Answer:  51 percent of American households are in the top 10 percent at some point in the course of a lifetime – usually in their older years.  Those who want us to envy and resent the top 10 percent are urging half of us to envy and resent ourselves.”


March 7th, 2016 at 11:52 am
WSJ’s Crovitz: Emails Expose Obama Administration Illegality in Pushing Internet Regulation
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

On this day in 1876, twenty-nine-year-old Alexander Graham Bell received a patent for inventing the telephone.

Now 140 years later, the Obama Administration continues its counterproductive and legally dubious effort to regulate the Internet as if it were little more than an old-fashioned telephone service of the Bell variety.  CFIF and other free-market groups have consistently opposed that effort, and courts have repeatedly rebuked the Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) various schemes to impose it.

Today, The Wall Street Journal’s “Information Age” columnist Gordon Crovitz details how a Senate committee has discovered evidence that the Obama Administration’s behavior in attempting to regulate the Internet as an old-fashioned utility violated the law.  In fact, even FCC regulators expressed shock at the degree to which their administrative independence was disregarded:

FCC staffers cited nine areas in which the last-minute change violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires advance public notice of significant regulatory changes.  Agency staffers noted ’substantial litigation risk.’  A media aide warned:  ’Need more on why we no longer think record is thin in some places.’  These emails are a step-by-step display of the destruction of the independence of a regulatory agency…  Mr. Obama’s edict resulted in 400 pages of slapdash regulations the agency’s own chief economist dismissed as an ‘economics-free zone.’”

Here’s why it matters in the real world, in terms of economics and innovation:  Crovitz notes that in just one year since Obama’s edict was imposed, “regulatory uncertainty has led to a collapse in investment in broadband.”  As CFIF has also detailed, he is correct in that unfortunate observation.

On a more encouraging note, however, Obama’s latest attempt to regulate the Internet in ObamaCare fashion is back before the same appellate court that has twice rebuked it on this issue.  As Crovitz wryly observes, “The Senate report should make fascinating reading for the federal appellate judges considering whether to invalidate the regulations…  The appeals court has plenty of evidence proving White House meddling with a supposedly independent agency.”

For the good of American consumers and continuing Internet innovation, we certainly hope so.


March 6th, 2016 at 5:43 pm
Video: Defeating Cyberthieves
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

With cybercrime on the rise, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses why cybertheft of America’s intellectual property should be a kitchen table issue for all of us as it damages the broader economy and costs jobs.


March 1st, 2016 at 10:56 am
Podcast: Exposing the Truth About the FCC’s Proposed Video Set Top Box Rule
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

In an interview with CFIF, Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow at The Free State Foundation, discusses what is wrong with the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rule to “unlock set top boxes,” how it is going to impact programming and why the government should not be allowed to pick winners and losers.

Listen to the interview here.



March 1st, 2016 at 10:51 am
Ramirez Cartoon: The Scarecrow
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.


February 23rd, 2016 at 2:37 pm
Pretrial Discovery Reform: An Undervalued Benefit of Patent Litigation Reform Legislation
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

In the matter of much-needed patent litigation reform legislation before Congress, provisions targeting abuse of the pretrial discovery process constitute an underemphasized but critical component.

“Discovery,” for those who haven’t suffered the misfortune of practicing law or being sucked into litigation at some point in their lives, refers to the process by which litigating parties obtain relevant documents and information from opposing parties.  Typical methods of discovery include depositions (out-of-court testimony under oath), document requests, interrogatories and requests for admission (to obtain evidence and narrow the scope of questions to be litigated).

As anyone who has participated in the discovery process probably learned, it can become extremely burdensome in terms of time, money and logistical tedium.  Indeed, that’s why some parties abuse discovery in order to drive opposing parties toward settlement or withdrawal, even when those parties actually maintain the superior legal position.  Discovery abuse increases nuisance value and can be exploited as a tactic to harass and intimidate other parties.

Patent litigation is particularly subject to discovery abuse, because the issues litigated are typically complex, document-intensive and within the knowledge of enormous numbers of people.

For that reason, the discovery reform provisions of broader patent litigation reform are especially valuable.  The Innovation Act, which passed by a bipartisan 325 to 91 vote in the House of Representatives, moves toward a system in which discovery is limited to necessary information rather than endless fishing expeditions that lawyers exploit as a negotiating and intimidation tactic.

Importantly, however, the Innovation Act preserves important caveats to its reforms to preserve the interests of justice.  First, it explicitly allows that, “In special circumstances that would make denial of discovery a manifest injustice, the court may permit discovery, in addition to the discovery authorized under subsection (a), as necessary to prevent manifest injustice.”  Second, the Innovation Act allows that, “The parties may voluntarily consent to be excluded, in whole or in part, from the limitation of discovery provided under subsection (a) if at least one plaintiff and one defendant enter into a signed stipulation, to be filed with and signed by the court.”

Thus, the Innovation Act’s important discovery reform provisions can be superseded by court order or voluntary agreement of the parties.

Who could object to that common-sense reform?

Frivolous litigants and their attorneys, that’s who.  Reform of the pretrial discovery process would mean that such vexatious litigants would be less able to extract surrender or settlement from parties unwilling to subject themselves and their companies to the crushing burdens of discovery.  Any party acting in good faith, however, would obviously have nothing to fear.


February 22nd, 2016 at 3:59 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Show Lineup
Posted by CFIF Staff Print
Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT: Andrew M. Grossman, Partner at Baker Hostetler, Washington, DC office: President Obama’s Clean Power Plan;
4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society: Vacancy on the Supreme Court and his latest book, “Liberty’s Nemesis: The Unchecked Expansion of the State”;
4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT: Gus Hurwitz, Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: Apple Debate and Encryption;
5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT: Seth Cooper, Senior Fellow at The Free State Foundation: FCC and Proposed Tech Mandates; and
5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT: Tim Lee, CFIF’s Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs: Hot Issues of the Week — Politics, Intellectual Property, and SCOTUS.

Listen live on the Internet here.  Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

February 19th, 2016 at 12:06 pm
DISH Back on the Attack as it Continues to Lose Customers
Posted by Timothy Lee Print

In recent weeks we’ve highlighted the unfortunate way in which Dish Network repeatedly resorts to crony capitalism to serve its own interest, and now we apparently have another manifestation.

You may have heard that a coalition called Stop Mega Cable, led by Dish Network, is leading a campaign to defeat the merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner Cable.  Today we received a clue about what’s behind the company’s opposition.

At the close of 2015, Dish reported a year-over-year decline of 81,000 customers, a poor showing made worse when one considers that the company augmented its numbers by including Sling TV customers.  Specifically, in the third quarter DISH announced it lost 23,000 customers, but the number was actually closer to 180,000 once Sling TV subscribers are excluded.

Clearly, DISH is losing its traditional TV customer base.  But instead of finding innovative ways to regain its standing, the company is speaking out against current and future competitors.  Dish is already losing tens of thousands of customers per month, and it would likely face even more challenges once New Charter enters the market.

Consequently, Stop Mega Cable works to limit consumer choice in order to benefit Dish. Any attempt to manipulate the industry should be met with skepticism, and the Charter/Time Warner Cable merger should be scrutinized on its own merits.


February 19th, 2016 at 10:42 am
Tweet Post: Fast Tool for Election Results and Commentary
Posted by CFIF Staff Print

Reminder to CFIF Freedom Line blog readers:  When following debate performances, election results, or other breaking news stories of significant interest to conservatives and libertarians, our Tweet Post is a remarkable tool for real-time information, analysis and perspective.  Featuring a who’s who of commentary and news analysis, it is generally faster and more up-to-date than any other source.  Try it.  We guarantee you will like it.

To use, click here or on the homepage Tweet Post logo.  To learn more, click here.