Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cable Lobbyist Tom Wheeler Confirmed As New FCC Chief

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the jealous-of-australian-data-caps dept.

Communications 242

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Senate confirmed Tuesday the nomination of a new chairman to the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler is a former investor and head of telecommunications industry groups. President Barack Obama said, when announcing Wheeler as his choice in May, that 'for more than 30 years, Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives.'"

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

thank you sir (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45281839)

may i have another?

Re:thank you sir (5, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45281943)

Yes, your next one will be delivered sometime between 2-8PM next Wednesday, please be at your house that entire time.

Re:thank you sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282827)

may i have another?

Obummer brings us more "hope and change". Though you'll likely have little change left in your pockets when he's done.

In b4 some doofus liberal tries to claim I voted for Retard W. Bush, am a conservatard or that I vote Rethuglican.

Net Neutrality gone in .... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 10 months ago | (#45282901)

3, 2, 1.....

Faster than you could download "Gone in 60 seconds"!

LOLBAMA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45281865)


 

Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45281889)

The 'bundle' will be with us for a long, long time.

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (5, Funny)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45281933)

If you like your cable plan, you can keep your cable plan.

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (4, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 10 months ago | (#45282213)

Strange, I just got a letter from my provider saying my current plan doesn't meet Federal minimum requirements and they can't legally offer it anymore...

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (5, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#45282337)

I just got a letter saying that I have to pay a fee for not subscribing to a cable television plan...

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282365)

But the Federal Government could never levy a fine for simply NOT signing up for a particular privately-offered service, that's unconstitutional!

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (5, Funny)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45282437)

Every time you say you don't believe the fine is really a tax, a fairy dies.

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282541)

Meanwhile at WBC:

"Fines are not a tax....fines are not a tax....fines are not a tax..."

Re: Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282387)

And I got a letter saying they're adding x new channels I won' t watch,but I'm expected to pay for, also they're capping my bandwidth because I'm using too much downloading media I do want.

Re:Good luck seeing a la carte anytime soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282985)

OK. That right there is why "Funny" posts deserve karma too.

Dare to Hope (5, Insightful)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 10 months ago | (#45281895)

Dare to Hope; Prepare to be Disappointed.

Re:Dare to Hope (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#45282157)

Dare to be cynical; prepare for pleasant surprises.

Re:Dare to Hope (3, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | about 10 months ago | (#45282303)

Dare to be cynical; prepare to get exactly what you expected.

Re:Dare to Hope (2)

zidium (2550286) | about 10 months ago | (#45282433)

What pleasant surprises have you gotten during Obama's administration? Or heck, even Bush's?!

There. That's an almost-14 year period to choose from. List!

Re:Dare to Hope (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 10 months ago | (#45282473)

No third world war.

I think your problem is that you didn't dare to be cynical enough.

Re:Dare to Hope (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 10 months ago | (#45282525)

Nah, I still think there's PLENTY of time for a 3rd world war.

IN FACT, the cynical me says they haven't started it yet JUST so they can 1) make more weapons, 2) let more countries (*cough* Iran *cough* NKorea) develop even more nukes, and 3) draw even more countries into the fray.

Re:Dare to Hope (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 10 months ago | (#45282545)

OH and I bet that in the 22nd Century, they'll teach that World War 3 started with the Twin Towers being knocked down and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan -> Iraq -> Iran (unofficial) -> Pakistan -> Sudan -> Syria -> on and on around we go.

Re:Dare to Hope (5, Insightful)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 10 months ago | (#45282651)

Hey now... we were promised transparency by the Precedent, and we got it! All the corruption is completely out in the open now!

Re:Dare to Hope (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 10 months ago | (#45282813)

I like icebergs, they're like floating snow cones.

Re:Dare to Hope (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 10 months ago | (#45282933)

Hey now... we were promised transparency by the Precedent, and we got it! All the corruption is completely out in the open now!

That's unprecedented.

FCC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45281905)

Federal Cable Conflict of interest.

Sounds about right. Ugh, get ready for new price-gouging, option-limiting legislation.

Regulatory capture (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45281951)

Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Federal Communications Commission

Legal scholars have pointed to the possibility that federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been captured by media conglomerates. Peter Schuck of Yale Law School has argued that the FCC is subject to capture by the media industries' leaders and therefore reinforce the operation of corporate cartels in a form of "corporate socialism" that serves to "regressively tax consumers, impoverish small firms, inhibit new entry, stifle innovation, and diminish consumer choice". The FCC selectively granted communications licenses to some radio and television stations in a process that excludes other citizens and little stations from having access to the public.

Michael K. Powell, who served on the FCC for eight years and was chairman for four, was appointed president and chief executive officer of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a lobby group. As of April 25, 2011, he will be the chief lobbyist and the industry's liaison with Congress, the White House, the FCC and other federal agencies. Meredith Attwell Baker was one of the FCC commissioners who approved a controversial merger between NBC Universal and Comcast. Four months later, she announced her resignation from the FCC to join Comcast's Washington, D.C. lobbying office. Legally, she is prevented from lobbying anyone at the FCC for two years and an agreement made by Comcast with the FCC as a condition of approving the merger will ban her from lobbying any executive branch agency for life. Nonetheless, Craig Aaron, of Free Press, who opposed the merger, complained that "the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows" and said public policy would continue to suffer from the "continuously revolving door at the FCC".

Re:Regulatory capture (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282005)

This is why a lot of people say it's better to do government operations as close to the people as possible. That is, if it can be done at a city level, do it at a city level. If it can be done at a state level, do it at a state level. Only a few things should be done at the national level.

The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted (or rather, if some town gets corrupted, it doesn't affect people outside that town).

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45282083)

And you think regulating radio interference could be done at a state level without massive consequences?

Re:Regulatory capture (2)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45282305)

And you think regulating radio interference could be done at a state level without massive consequences?

I can't speak for the earlier poster, but standards could be set at the federal level and regulated at state level. So yes, I do think that could be done.

I don't see a lot of issues from the current approach aside from regulation of rather pointless things like naughty words and the aforementioned regulatory capture.

Re:Regulatory capture (3, Informative)

n1ywb (555767) | about 10 months ago | (#45282571)

Frequency coordination is already done at the state level to a certain degree. Vermont Public Radio, for example, hired a guy and bought expensive software to perform propagation prediction so they could buy up as many frequencies as possible for low power translaters beating out the other stations (of which there aren't very many this being Vermont).

A close associate of mine is the amateur radio frequency coordinator for the state of Vermont. He's responsible for coordinating repeater frequencies in conjuction with his counterparts in other states (and Candada) as necessary.

In general all licensed radio users are required to meet certain requirements WRT not interfering with other licensed users so while they fight over bandwidth there is also necessarily some cooperation, especially on the local level, b/c most frequencies above 30mhz do not typically propagate very far (except during solar cycle maximae, like we're in now; 10m is open!)

None of this really has anything to do with the fact that an industry shill is sitting in "the big chair".

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 10 months ago | (#45282625)

I can't speak for the earlier poster, but standards could be set at the federal level and regulated at state level. So yes, I do think that could be done.

Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

khallow (566160) | about 10 months ago | (#45282731)

Because states *love* implementing federal standards, as the Obamacare rollout clearly shows.

And if that aspect of Obamacare hadn't been found unconstitutional, those states would be implementing that particular "standard" at considerable expense.

But OTOH implementing standards for radio frequency use is a valid exercise of the Commerce clause and thus it doesn't matter if those states like it or not.

Re:Regulatory capture (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282331)

The FCC we have now isn't very good, so I'm open to exploring alternatives.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45282607)

Yes, but EM radiation doesn't respect state borders. It doesn't matter how hard you wish for the theory to work, the practice demands a broader scope. It's part of why broadcasts were one of the first things [europa.eu] the EU started regulating when Europe started economically uniting.

Being opposed to censorship because "public airwaves" is a weak concept is fine. Thinking you can just ditch the structure because your political philosophy says you can is, well, silly.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282955)

Thinking you can just ditch the structure because your political philosophy says you can is, well, silly.

Just as silly as closing your mind to alternatives because......I don't know why you are closing your mind.

I can think of a few potentially workable alternatives......another poster already replied to you with one that might work, and is worth thinking about. Not being open to alternatives is, well, silly.

Re:Regulatory capture (2)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 10 months ago | (#45282143)

You'd have a better chance doing it centrally. Problem is, this central agency is already bought and paid for.

Re:Regulatory capture (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282311)

Problem is, this central agency is already bought and paid for.

At risk of pointing out the obvious, that's a good part of why you don't have a chance of doing it centrally.

You think it sounds easier centrally, because you think, "If I were in charge, we could........." but you are not in charge, and good luck getting a non-corrupt person in charge and keeping him there. Do you REALLY think you have a chance of getting a less-corrupt president than Obama in the next election?

However, if your goal is to get a less-corrupt mayor......that is a lot more achievable for someone like you.

Re:Regulatory capture (1, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | about 10 months ago | (#45282527)

Central agencies do stuff all over the planet, and do them well, unless you contention is that Americans are inherently less honest. If corruption is a problem, the risk of corruption doesn't change, but now you have companies having to do 50 times to work in order to comply. It makes no sense to do it otherwise.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

FreeUser (11483) | about 10 months ago | (#45282195)

This is why a lot of people say it's better to do government operations as close to the people as possible. That is, if it can be done at a city level, do it at a city level. If it can be done at a state level, do it at a state level. Only a few things should be done at the national level.

The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted (or rather, if some town gets corrupted, it doesn't affect people outside that town).

That's great in theory, but in practice it often doesn't work that way. Local and state governments are often far more corrupt than the federal government. Illiinois has had several of its former governors go to jail, and I don't really need to comment on the corruption Chicago is known for. What is less well known is the rampant corruption in places like Normal, IL, East St. Louis, IL, etc. Other states [businessinsider.com] have similar issues, some far worse than Illinois and Chicago, and many if not most far worse than the corruption we see at the federal level (though I admint, with the NSA surveillance state, FCC corporatist revolving door, and a supreme court acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of our corporate masters, this may be changing).

Re:Regulatory capture (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282275)

Please re-read the last sentence

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45282663)

And let's not even talk about the 'tiny town where sheriff Cletus is the law, and only his cousins and the high school football team are above it' problem.

Not much of a regulatory capture issue, since there just isn't much on the table; but small-scale governance offers some thrilling opportunities for misgovernance according to humanity's oldest tribal atavisms...

Re:Regulatory capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282401)

People say it, but it's a bad idea. Corruption goes UP the nearer you go to local levels. It's much easier to hide corruption when there are fewer eyes and oversight involved.

It's also trivial for powerful outside interests to wield influence if power is more local. Divide and conquer. You don't need to buy the state when you can simply buy Bigtown and Cityville and control a majority of the influence.

Re:Regulatory capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282951)

But it's much easier to "vote with ones' feet" in those cases.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 10 months ago | (#45282685)

The farther things get from the people, the easier it is for them to be corrupted

I draw this statement into question given that the corruption problem basically starts at the city level (franchise agreements, etc.) and metastasizes up from there.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282913)

If corruption is local, it's your own fault. At least, you have a lot more power to change things in a town of 300,000 than in a country of 300,000,000.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 10 months ago | (#45282787)

Unfortunately the isolation of consequences really doesn't work that way. The Butterfly Effect [wikipedia.org] is very much in play. If ignoring the neighbors didn't ruin the neighborhood I would very much be in favor of sitting back, laughing at and otherwise enjoying the plight of fools.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#45282895)

You don't have enough power to control your neighbors and make them good. That is true whether power is at the federal level or at the local level. Fortunately, the tea party doesn't have power to control you, either.

Re:Regulatory capture (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 10 months ago | (#45282225)

"Regulatory capture", what a nice sounding name for Graft [wikipedia.org] : ", a form of political corruption, is the unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain."

I guess that is what you have to call corruption and graft now it is so common/the norm amongst our ruling elites. Brings new meaning to the phrase "politically correct"...

Re:Regulatory capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282379)

Citizen, "regulatory capture" is the new politically correct way of naming graft - to a politicians face at least.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45282817)

Not entirely: "Regulatory capture" is the term for a process (often a complex, multi-channel one) where a regulated sector comes to exert control over the relevant regulatory body.

'Graft', and its utility for rewarding... cooperative... officials is one technique; but a variety of other factors come into play: if most of the perceived expertise about an industry works in that industry, regulatory job openings tend to be filled by people who have expertise; but also have personal and past professional connections with the people they are supposed to be regulating. Outright bribery is crass and generally illegal (unless it's a campaign contribution, of course) so that isn't preferred; but 'revolving door' hiring mechanisms are pretty effective.

Regulatory capture may also be more coercive (the tobacco industry's showdown with the FDA is perhaps the prototypical example): if there are (or if sympathetic congresscritters can add) any chinks in the regulatory legislation, the ability to drag the would-be-regulator into court for a few years every time they propose to touch just about anything, and the willingness to do so, can really scare a comparatively weak body, especially if their historical mandate (and internal talent pool) is more about techie-nerd stuff like RF interference or foodborne pathogens, rather than high-pressure courtroom work against hostile "Product defense consultants".

This is not to excuse old-school Tammany Hall Machine and slipping-the-officer-a-$20-with-your-license-and-registration style corruption; but if your model of regulatory capture (and your attempts to halt it) relies on nice, visible, bagmen and suitcases full of cash as being the conduits of influence, it will fail.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45282259)

It's the most sure-fire way to make sure that the outcomes of elections don't really matter.

Re:Regulatory capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282349)

Seeing as going totally off topic is the new fad on /.,
Let's start questioning: "Is Greed is destroying the only inhabitable place in the known Multiverse?" and the simultaneous question, "wasn't that Hitler's argument?"
What I mean, the dude kinda convinced an entire nation to make first strikes against seemingly innocuous nations, RIGHT after they just had their asses handed to them in WW1.
How the fuck does that even happen without a rock solid argument? keel ze juuz isn't even a fucking argument at all, it's an impulse.
Milgram this, Ashe that, blah blah blah, you are going to fucking die from starvation from food crop failure from chaotic atmosphere.
When will people declare they've had enough of this masturbatory bullshit from the world's decision makers?
When seven billion people are doing whatever they consider necessary to not starve to death? There simply wouldn't be a civilization existing to "save civilization" at that point.

Re:Regulatory capture (1)

TopherC (412335) | about 10 months ago | (#45282693)

This claim (regulatory capture) would be possible to argue against if only internet access in the US were cheaper or as cheap as it is in other countries without subsidies. We know [slashdot.org] that's not true, therefore we have a market (and government) failure. Case closed.

Re:Regulatory capture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282833)

Please start a change.org or whatever the hell it is petition to get a request for comment for this shit. It is the most blatantly obvious form of corruption in our government today.

Very dramatic changes (3, Insightful)

chromas (1085949) | about 10 months ago | (#45281961)

Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives

Changes? Like putting speed bumps on the highway?

Barratry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282037)

Another crony appointee getting paid off for campaign contributions.

Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner rescue (5, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 10 months ago | (#45282045)

You know a government is corrupt when they don't even bother to hide it anymore.

Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282391)

First I laughed. Then I cried when I realized this wasn't a joke but reality.

Re:Like Wile E Coyote named head of Roadrunner res (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#45282891)

Are you not glad that all of those crazy conspiracy theorists were just "crazy conspiracy theorists"? Sarcasm aside, while nothing is currently changing at least myself and others can say "Told ya so!" and watch more and more of the reality we were telling you about unfold.

For everyone now learning how bad reality really is, it may be worth making your own shiny new hat! [zapatopi.net]

Hu?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282089)

How is this not a conflict on interest?? What a stupid thing to do.

Hope and change! (2)

cogeek (2425448) | about 10 months ago | (#45282131)

At least we won't have to worry about any more lobbyists in Washington under this administration.

from TFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282165)

Republican Senator Ted Cruz earlier on Tuesday said he had removed a hold on Wheeler's nomination after the nominee reassured him during a meeting that regulation of campaign funding disclosures, without Congressional action, was "not a priority."

In other words, Cruz was concerned that this guy might increase regulations on politicians seeking re-election. Once he was assured that was not the case, Cruz had no problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC.

Thanks, Tea Party!

Re:from TFA (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45282385)

I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he was the only one to show any concern that this appointee might use his power for political purposes. Considering the choice, its not a stretch, whether you agree with his position or not. And to be fair, Neither Obama or any other senator, Democratic or Republican "had any problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC" either.

No lack of knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282173)

Of the industry for solving the lack of concurrency of internet service provides in US.

yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282221)

So Barry now has a minion running the FCC. That should go well.

Come here donor to my greatness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282239)

Please accept this position for all past and all future help you will give my Campaign. Feel free to take the pen and whatever else you can find that isn't nailed down tightly. If you do find something nailed down you want, feel free to write some guidelines that will allow the removal of said fasteners. Feel free to use the FISA court to hide any transference of ownership, or anything else you'd like, for the sake of getting those Commie socialist terror subjects!!

'/sargasm'

700 MHz LTE :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282245)

My wireless carrier is Verizon Wireless, and my phone is on the 700 MHz LTE band. I wonder how long until Tommy decides to lift the open access / semi-net-neutrality clauses on the spectrum. Sure, that would be helping cellular carriers and not cable, but the whole industry is basically in collusion against consumers, in the interests of greater profit. The one extremely unusual exception to this is when the analog TV spectrum was sold for 4G wireless in 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction#Google_involvement

I'm sure this guy would much sooner gain the approval, cooperation, and $$$ of cellular carriers by getting rid of this pro-consumer contract, than to actually stick up for something that benefits consumers. Then he can say that he's equally the friend of all large telecoms companies, not just cable.

Can't believe I voted for the guy who nominated Mr. Wheeler for his position.

weeee... (1)

GrimShady (2714901) | about 10 months ago | (#45282251)

Hope and Change.... woohoo!!!!!!!

It all makes perfect sense! (2)

fredrated (639554) | about 10 months ago | (#45282283)

Next up, we put bank robbers in charge of bank security, because who has more experience with bank security than bank robbers?

Re:It all makes perfect sense! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282355)

The biggest bank robbers are the C?O executives, and they are in charge of bank security.

Re:It all makes perfect sense! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#45282655)

Executives are there to execute business strategy. They should be present in business; their interference with government regulations is questionable, although hiring these people for their expertise is justifiable.

Consider however in a business, you require some form of top-down authority. Now you have a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, and Chief Executive Officer (i.e. Executive of Executives, the guy who decides we need a CFO and CIO and CTO). Now your business deals in a lot of Internet stuff, but you don't have a CTO or CISO. So people at the bottom complaining about the business leveraging technology horribly or about poor information security practices don't have a voice up at the executive level. We're buying things--Executives are into this--and peering with new networks.

Someone decides we need information security, and the CEO decides to hire a CISO.

Now when the executives meet and discuss the business strategy, the CISO starts injecting that the business relies on functional Internet services. The CISO starts complaining that we peered with a network that doesn't meet the business' non-existent security standards, and that the network is so fucked up that it's probably compromised and probably now allows hoards of botnet hackers to suck credit card information out of their supposedly PCI3 compliant financial systems. The CISO starts slamming his fist on the table in the boardroom screaming about the unbelievable amount of unacceptable risk and legal liability the business is exposed to, and how the business strategy is racing forward with reckless abandon and not integrating these critical aspects of their business needs into the business strategy and actions.

That's what Executives do. When there's an executive missing that the business needs, stuff becomes really shitty for the business, its customers, and its employees. Hell, some businesses have Chief Ethics Officers just so there's someone there to not allow them to sell customer information to scammers with the protective shielding of some legal loophole that dispels all liability (or because there's Ethics Regulation in their business--it's either voluntary or forced).

Re:It all makes perfect sense! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#45282517)

That's kind of the point. Who does know about the needs of the communications industry? These regulatory industries have to deal with making rules to facilitate business strategy--that means they have to protect the interests of both small and large businesses. They need to know not about just engineering concerns, but also executive-level management concerns.

How do you do that?

Re:It all makes perfect sense! (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 10 months ago | (#45282661)

That already happened in 2005, no, seriously ;-(

Fox elected to guard henhouse, news at 11 (on Fox) (3, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45282293)

All these revelations and new about the fcc, nsa, tsa, etc etc all serve to hammer home the same point: rules are for suckers, rules are for idiots, rules are for everyone else.

As you as you reach a certain level of power, you ascend into a special clique where the only rules that matter are those that pertain to that clique. So break and bend the laws of the land, yes fine, but heaven help you if you transgress the pre-existing power matrix, that you commit some unforgivable faux pas at the dinner party, because then fuck you.

I know all this - I've known it for years: the world is a dirty place filled with filthy, corrupt, disgusting characters where morals and regulations and laws are put in place largely to maintain order, not justice. And yet stories like this still never fail to fill me with an indescribable loathing.

Re:Fox elected to guard henhouse, news at 11 (on F (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45282523)

I really like the way you out that. It's not about "the rich" vs everyone else, because if you're not a part of a powerful clique, your wealth won't help you, and if you know the right people, went to the right schools, and can be useful, wealth will flow your way as a beneficiary of the corruption.

Obligitory Star Wars reference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282327)

Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

So.. Anyone objecting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282339)

Well, the FCC is fucked in the near term. Not that it's been really great recently anyway. The FCC seems pretty impotent, and rubber stamp whatever the media industry wants. And yes, the media industry wants strange, inconsistent, byzantine rules regarding censorship. (Creates barriers to entry for small upstarts)

Are the republican raising hell about this appointment? No? Didn't think so.

Meet The New Boss (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 10 months ago | (#45282341)

Same as the old boss.

Really we should just move the capitol to someplace like Iowa and start fresh.

Re:Meet The New Boss (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45282363)

Have you been to Iowa? Sure don't smell fresh.

Re:Meet The New Boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282375)

move it to Canada, well give you our politicians in return :)

Obligitory Obi-Wan quote (1)

Al Dunsmuir (758685) | about 10 months ago | (#45282417)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Hope and Change (1)

lowkster (546516) | about 10 months ago | (#45282441)

Ah, I must have misread the slogan. It was Hope for Change.

This can't possibly be an accurate report. (5, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | about 10 months ago | (#45282463)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this whatsoever. I distinctly remember our president campaigning on an end to the revolving door of industry lobbyists and executives to head political positions and vice versa.

A little googling later . . . : https://www.opensecrets.org/obama/rev.php [opensecrets.org]

Oh. Well, then. . .

Re:This can't possibly be an accurate report. (2)

GlennC (96879) | about 10 months ago | (#45282907)

He did remove the revolving door....

and replaced it with an automatic sliding one.

Revolving doors are so 20th Century!

Almost as bad (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45282495)

As being able to mod-up your own comments on Slashdot. I said almost

And once again ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#45282497)

We appoint the fox to guard the hen-house.

Expect a wave of business-friendly rules coming out of the FCC as he writes in everything he's ever lobbied for.

Maybe Bernie Madoff could be considered to chair the SEC next?

ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282501)

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... i love it, and this in now way shape or form conflict of interest, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

We the people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282505)

We the people hereby declare the FCC to be invalid.

Stay tuned for more on KCUF, the 100 Watt beacon of unlicensed truth in the Bay Area.

Re:We the people (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 10 months ago | (#45282619)

Wouldn't matter if it were a 1000 Watt beacon. This is a land where no one listens to the radio.

Okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282535)

I'll just leave this here... http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Guillotine

Did he get a waiver to serve? (5, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 10 months ago | (#45282539)

Obama said that he would not allow lobbyists to server in government posts, but he put in a waiver procedure that permits it. Did this person go through that waiver procedure?
FYI: Politifact information about the lobbyist promise [politifact.com] . There haven't been any updates there regarding this position.

Thud! (5, Funny)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#45282563)

The sound of the Last Obama Fan On Slashdot's forehead hitting the desk.

Another lobbyist? (5, Informative)

Biosci777 (2785273) | about 10 months ago | (#45282599)

This president promised he would boot the lobbyists; that they would not have access to his administration. The FCC appointment is only the latest evidence that that promise is broken. Conor McGrath wrote in the Journal of Public Affairs in September that Obama employs 119 (make that 120 now) former lobbyists.

Wow. If I fall off the wagon and break my promise, I'm like any other human. But when I do it over and over again with no sign of regret or shame, that's different. That's a matter of character, and you would be right to be slow to trust me in other areas.

You Know, . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282615)

Obama promised "change" but didn;t specify that we woudl like it.

A new clause needed for "public service" (4, Insightful)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | about 10 months ago | (#45282671)

Institute something modeled after the standard non-compete clause used by industry; except it would prevent any individual from holding a government position which directly regulates, affects or promotes the same sector or type of business they left the private sector for, to become a public servant.

Conversely, once leaving public service, the individual would be enjoined from contacting officials on behalf of, promoting, lobbying or attempting to influence legislation for any business or industry, for a period of three years.

A perfect clause would prevent someone from taking a job in any industry, after lobbying on its behalf, for a period of five years.

Which would stop crap like this [newsmax.com] .

Cable News anchors ask. (3, Informative)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 10 months ago | (#45282719)

Tom has been at the forefront of some of the very dramatic changes that we've seen in the way we communicate and how we live our lives.

Taking inspiration from Jon Stewart's commentary last night about the recent trend in cable news (namely CNN) anchor questions:
I'll ask, "Is this a good thing or bad thing?"

Cruz holds up FCC nominee.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282761)

Cruz holds up FCC nominee. Demands relaxed political ad donor to disclosure requirements

Is the way the article should read.

And Rand Paul is going to hold up Yellens nomination so we can recount all the Gold in Fort Knox.

You go GOP, That'll help the economy.

Hope and Change! (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45282837)

After bailing out car companies and banks, paying off Wall Street, and making sure that people have to pay vastly inflated prices to health insurers under ACA, and after shoving many billions in the hands of energy companies (green and otherwise), I guess Obama is now turning his laser sharp crony-capitalist intellect towards screwing over the American people with another all time favorite: telecommunications.

We the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45282849)

Is it too late to start a 'we the people' petition against this? At least to try to force some accountability in such a 'choice'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>