Slashdot Mirror
GAO Report Slams FCC
eldavojohn writes "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made a report available today that was requested a year ago by a Democratic senator that finds the Federal Communications Commissions has been favoring lobbyists a little too much. 'The report says that some people at the commission warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote. Typically, the commission chairman circulates an item for vote three weeks before a meeting. Under the rules of the FCC, meeting agendas are published one week before a vote is scheduled. Once the agenda is published lobbying is banned. The report says that the two-week window allows lobbyist plenty of time to "maximize their impact."'"
Working hand in hand to screw the citizenry over.
The GAO obviously feels like they are not transparent, as the report indicates. How bout some actual accountability from the Government Accountability Office now? What are they going to do about it?
Besides hurting their feelings
Walk with Music;
Any amount of favoring lobbyists is a problem. I'm not saying lobbyists can't exist. But the (idealized) purpose of a lobbyist is to bring pertinent information and arguments to the attention of political officials. They should have no political influence beyond the persuasiveness of their arguments and the truthfulness of the data they present.
Perhaps I'm getting overly agitated by a simple little comment... but I am troubled by the fact that people increasingly accept that lobbyists will be able to influence the democratic process, and that their influence has to be balanced against other influences (e.g. voter opinion). This is not how it should be! Lobbyists should have no influence per se. As I said, the only thing that should matter is valid arguments about what is best for the populace.
If big business wants it, it's obviously good for the American people! The market has spoken!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
C'mon, what a chance to use "Microsoft Works" and you let it slip.
I wonder if there's a slot in standup comedy for IT-related jokes...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actual report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071046.pdf
Report Summary http://gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-1046
Telecommunications: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information
GAO-07-1046 September 6, 2007
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 34 pages)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established that FCC should promote competition and reduce regulation to secure lower prices and higher-quality services for American consumers. FCC implements its policy aims through rulemaking, whereby the agency notifies the public of a proposed rule and provides an opportunity for the public to participate in the rule's development. These rulemakings are documented within a public docket that contains the rulemaking record. In response to a congressional request on FCC rulemaking, GAO (1) described FCC's rulemaking process; (2) determined, for specific rulemakings, the extent to which FCC followed its process; and (3) identified factors that contributed to some dockets and rulemakings remaining open. GAO reviewed recent FCC rules, interviewed FCC officials and stakeholders, and conducted case studies of rulemakings.
FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by law, with several opportunities for public participation. FCC generally begins the process by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and establishing a docket to gather information submitted by the public or developed within FCC to support the proposed rule. Outside parties may meet with FCC officials but must file a disclosure in the docket, called an ex parte filing, that includes any new data or arguments presented at the meeting. FCC analyzes information in the docket and drafts a final rule for the commission to adopt. The FCC chairman decides which rules the commission will consider and whether to adopt them by vote at a public meeting or by circulating them to each commissioner for approval. Stakeholders unsatisfied with a rule may file a petition for reconsideration with the commission or petition for review in federal court. FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case studies of completed rulemakings that GAO reviewed, but several stakeholders had access to nonpublic information. Specifically, each of the four rulemakings included steps as required by law and opportunities for public participation. Within the case studies, most ex parte filings complied with FCC rules. However, in the case studies and in discussions with other stakeholders that regularly participate in FCC rulemakings, multiple stakeholders generally knew when the commission scheduled votes on proposed rules well before FCC notified the public. FCC rules prohibit disclosing this information outside of FCC. Other stakeholders said that they cannot learn when rules are scheduled for a vote until FCC releases the public meeting agenda, at which time FCC rules prohibit stakeholders from lobbying FCC. As a result, stakeholders with advance information about which rules are scheduled for a vote would know when it is most effective to lobby FCC, while stakeholders without this information would not. The complexity and number of rulemakings within a docket and the priority the commission places on a rulemaking contribute to dockets and rulemakings remaining open. The commission determines when to open and close a docket and which rulemakings are a priority; therefore, the commission determines how a docket and rulemaking progress. Dockets and the rulemakings within them may remain open because the dockets are broad and include multiple rulemakings, or because the commission has not yet voted to close the dockets even though they include completed rules. Within dockets, some rule
Fuck the FCC: http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
This isn't surprising to someone who pays only a minimal amount of attention to the decisions and reasoning presented by the FCC. The people at the top of this government department do nice things for their friends (telcos mainly) and in turn they get nice cushy jobs when they get done with their tenure at the FCC.
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
I used to like "Microsoft Works" as an oxymoron, but after receiving an invitation from Microsoft to hear about "Microsoft Business Intelligence", I couldn't resist.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I don't necessarily see that as an oxymoron. They basically do have to have some kind of "business intelligence", or they would've gone out of biz by now. I mean, it's not like their products are so incredibly awesome that they practically sell themselves...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Verizon FIOS and the 'disconnecting copper' claims. FCC looks the other way.
Broadband over Power Line and all the resultant RF interference... FCC manipulates measurement techniques, breaks it's own rules... Even international organizations say BPL causes excessive RF interference. FCC looks the other way. FCC brought to court.
Who do you suppose "lobbyists" represent? Aliens from Mars?
"Lobbyist" is just a short way to say "a representative of a group of citizens who all have some common interest and pool their money to hire someone to let elected officials know how they feel (and will vote)." Business groups (like oil companies) have lobbyists, and so do unions (like the UAW, CWA, or AFL-CIO), and so do consumer groups, environmental groups, senior citizens' groups, animal breeder groups, Jewish groups, Muslim and evangelist groups, pro- and anti-immigration groups, pro- and anti-gun control groups, PETA and cattle ranchers, et cetera and so forth.
Or are you thinking "citizens" means only those folks who have no "business" interests at all? Folks without a job, who own nothing? Teenagers living in mom's basement?
In the real adult world, we all have economic interests. If we're employed in the radio industry -- making radios, selling radios, selling products on radio shows, hosting radio shows, reporting on the news, et cetera and so forth -- or if we make use of the radio industry -- we listen to radio shows and watch TV, or we use cell phones -- then we have opinions about how the FCC should regulate use of the airwaves. Almost certainly conflicting opinions.
Do you feel those opinions should not be presented forcefully to the government bureaucrats who make decisions affecting our interests? Should we just wait around, silent and respectful, while our betters on the FCC tell us what's good for us? Should every one of us who wants to be heard be forced to take time off from work to fly out to Washington to testify every time the FCC holds hearings (every four weeks, maybe)? Or does it sound kinda' reasonable and economical if a bunch of us with similar interests and opinions might hire some good talker to go to Washington and make our case for us on a regular basis? Which is what lobbying is.
Maybe what you're doing, in the hysterical spirit of the times, is confusing lobbying ("speaking up about what you want to your elected officials") with corruption (bribing elected officials). They're not the same. For one thing, the latter is a crime. For another, it's inherently anti-democratic, whereas there's very little more democratic than groups of citizens vying for influence through their freely chosen representatives (i.e. those evil lobbyists).
The problem? The problem is they aren't hearing everyone's opinions -- they announce the rules to specific lobbyists two weeks earlier than they announce it to the general public, and when they announce it to the public, they prohibit further lobbying. This is favouritism in every sense. Either allow all parties to lobby during those first two weeks, or allow no one to.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Really, there ought to be prosecutions involved. This is malfeasance in office, maybe influence peddling, I don't know. Can any lawyers enlighten us as to what kinds of illegality might be involved here, if any?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The American Radio Relay League (ham radio national org) is suing the FCC in Federal Court over its overt bias towards Broadband-Over-Power-Line systems. Apparently technical details mean nothing these days. Its all politics and lobbying. See www.arrl.org for details
I also agree with you in theory. The special caveat in this instance is that while complaints to the FCC are rising on the order of 100-fold, over 99% of them come from one ultra-conservative lobbying group
Lobbyist groups aren't a de facto evil. Just usually. And specifically in this case.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I've worked in radio for several years now and I was never really bothered by FCC regulations until I started researching the commission for a paper for school. They have so many biased, unnecessary, and out-dated codes it's ridiculous. I'm not surprised there's any sort of bribery or leaning going on.
If The FCC were a private corporation it would have been broken up as a Monopoly LONG ago.
[/war] "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players."
Is it just me, or has the GAO been a bright ray of honesty and objectivity in a government that otherwise continuously erodes our respect?
While we're at it: Fuck the MPAA
The difference here is that everyone knows that Congress is open to lobbying all the time. It seems some people at the FCC have been telling just their friends about upcoming decisions, so only their friends get to make suggestions.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
NAB needs to be disbanded, Clearchannel needs to reap what they sow by being decimated by the satellite offerings. You know that free radio has problems when you can drive people quickly to the pay channels.
Not just the NAB, but the FCC also needs to be banned. The FCC and it's predecessors were created in an era of airwave scarcity. Now however there isn't the scarcity there once was.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Most of your waking life you spend working, not on vacation, being a producer, not a consumer.
Unless you're a workaholic or sleepaholic you're wrong. With 168 hours in a week if you sleep 8 hours a day that leaves 112 hours. Fulltime work in the US is 40 hours. That leaves 62 hours you don't work That's enough tyme for two fulltime jobs.
It's far more traumatic to lose your job, or become disabled and unable to work
I certainly know that. More than 10 years ago I was hit in an accident that left me with a permanent disability and one of the things that has bothered me the most is not being active, including not working or taking classes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The most powerful lobbies are, pretty much by definition, those that represent the largest number of citizens from the broadest possible coalition of interests groups. Why do you suppose government is very solicitous of organizations like the AARP?
HAH! so Dick Cheney's Enrgy Taskforce listened to consumer, environmental, and science groups but not the petroleum industry? WRONG! About all they listened to was the petroleum, natural gas, and nuclear industries.
FalconShould there be a Law?
BS!!! Freedom of Speech was guarantied expressly, though not only, for political speech.
Let's see the FCC bring back restrictions on the ownership of stations, require most to be locally owned, require no financial ties to news, political and public affairs programming, and restrictions on the type and amount of advertising carried.
Wrong again. Instead of adding FCC regulations, let's get rid of the FCC all to together. The FCC and it's predecessors were created in an era of scarcity of airwaves. With today's technology there is little scarcity. Allow whomever wants to to start a radio station. You allow that and you'll see a lot of radio stations pop up, most having a specific interest. Instead of having a few stations of classical, country, jazz, and rock you could have one specializing in New Orleans and another in Chicago Jazz. A country station could specialize in pop country while another plays bluegrass, another Western, and a third Zygo. One city could have a dozen different microstations.
And the spectrum they're taking from us with the shutdown of NTSC should be allocated based strictly on the public good, not commercial interests or auction proceeds.
See above.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How bout some actual accountability from the Government Accountability Office now? What are they going to do about it?
The GAO doesn't have the authority to change anything. All they can do is investigate for Congress then congress has to debate the issue and try to pass a bill.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sky high phone bills? All I have is a cellphone. My bill for it is lower than the bill I had when I had a landline phone. And that doesn't count long distance calls, with the landline phone I had to pay for long distance however my cellphone plan covers them, I pay no more for long distance than I do local calls.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It could be argued that the rules should be more relaxed and consumer friendly but if not for the FCC the airwaves would be chaos.. consider any system where the largest power could drown out anyone else's signal.
Beyond a point no matter how much power a radio station has it's signal will be drowned out by competitors's signals. About all that's gained by increasing power is increasing distance but even then there are limits, shortwaves go further than longer waves. The only way any broadcaster would be able to make money broadcasting is if they voluntarily come to an agreement with other broadcasters. "I agree to broadcast at frequency X1 with a power of Y1 at location Z1 if you agree to broadcast at X2, Y2, and Z2." Anything else is nothing more than an arms races which will bankrupt all.
I for one am glad my cell phone doesn't need to overpower other signal sources and can use the lowest possible transmission power wich results in better battery lives.
The same thing can be done with other broadcasts, radio, tv, even WiMAX. Imagine being able to pickup a wireless broadband connection with a laptop just as easily as your cellphone finds a signal.
FalconShould there be a Law?
...as long as the FCC is staffed with smart, intelligent individuals, why shouldn't they have a chance to hear everyone's opinion before they meet to discuss the topic. The extra time is useful for those who want to study the arguments and opinions of the lobbyists, and check the facts and logic behind them.
The problem is is not everyone has the amount of tyme in which they can talk to the FCC. Those favored by being given info two weeks earlier than everyone else have a distinct advantage.
FalconShould there be a Law?