Mediacom vs. Sinclair - the public fight continues

Mediacom, the cable company, and Sinclair, the TV conglomerate, are fighting in public again, just as they did three years ago. Mediacom is claiming on their website that Sinclair is trying to gouge its cable TV customers by overcharging the provider for the right to include its affiliate stations in its cable line-up.

A 3-year agreement between Mediacom and Sinclair ends December 31st and negotiations for a new agreement appear to have stalled over transmission consent fees.

HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING HERE?

For a little perspective, on its website, Mediacom puts the demand amount at "millions", but neither party will provide a specific amount. AP reports puts the number of affected cable subscribers at 700,000 -- 400,000 of whom are in Iowa.

Let's do some rough guesswork. If Sinclair is demanding Mediacom fork over $5 Million a year, that's about 60 cents per month per cable customer. $5 M divided by 700,000 divided by 12 months. If 100 non-premium channels each charged 60 cents a month for every subscriber, that's about $60 in consent fees per cable viewer every month.

Consider also that Sinclair as more than $1 Billion in debt, nearly half of which is coming due in the next year and a half.

What strikes me in this battle is the utter lack of transparency on each party. What was the old rate? What's the new rate being demanded? What percentage of an increase would that represent? Neither are willing to have an honest debate out in the open.

Viewers who will be affected by losing a channel can complain to the cities' cable franchise liaisons and the bickering parties.

Santorum in Iowa

In political circles, being seen in Iowa is synonymous with a Presidential bid. Arriving at the Clear Channel Radio studios in Des Moines cements that notion.

When Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) sat down with Jan Mickelson (WHO Radio), the question had to be asked. [Watch Windows Media]

Santorum also told a story of when he introduced the "Life Amendment" to No Child Left Behind and how he gained unwitting support from democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy. [Watch Windows Media]

Few Presidential contenders escape the Mickelson program escape without being asked to defend their stance on abortion and whether Roe v Wade is settled law. [Watch Windows Media]

Minimum wage increase generates anti-Obama buzz

Minimum wage is one of those touchy-feely Democratic issues that is supposed to take care of those who are mistreated by their thrifty employers, the same issue that is detested by Republicans, claiming it stifles small businesses and increases unemployment.

But in discussions about minimum wage, you hear few pundits compare minimum wage to a nominal 3% inflation rate (see chart right, showing 29 years of minimum wage vs. the 3% inflation curve).

In 2007, congress created the most recent amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that resulted in this month's wage boost, however some are blaming the current administration for hurting small businesses through an increase put in place before the election.

If you look at minimum wage since 1980 -- when conservative Republican Ronald Reagan was elected President -- and plot where it should have tracked (through conservative economic incentives designed to produce growth in American industry), it always seems to trail inflation and economic growth by a significantly margin; the US Congress has to make substantial corrections to boost it toward, but never up to, a nominal inflation rate.

Health care workers and agricultural producers are barely getting by, if at all, and corporate CEOs are making tremendous gains.

Why is it that top-end wages have skyrocketed while those of the real laborers have declined or stagnated? In the land of opportunity, this is symbolic of the way opportunity tends to shift toward the wealthy and away from the actual producers and this is yet another example.

In 20 of the past 29 years, you hoped that Republicans would have used their power for the good of main street America, but instead have lined the pockets of their most important constituents; big business lobbyists and their crony political action organizations.