Slashdot Mirror
Julius Genachowski To Head FCC
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US President-elect, Barack Obama, has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. This appears to bode well for a forward-looking (or at least clued) Internet policy, since Genachowski is credited with running Obama's internet-based election campaign, and, according to 'Fierce Telecom,' 'has an impressive record working with technology and communications companies: He was Chief of Business Operations at InterActiveCorp; he's co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures, which currently backs 11 internet-based start-ups, and he's also served on the boards of numerous technology and new media companies, including The Motley Fool, Web.com, Truveo, and Rapt'."
after all those years of telco induced horror, good news from u.s. government regarding internet at last.
Read radical news here
Does his appointment know who our base are belong to?
I love having a presidential nerd. ;)
All we want to do is eat your brains.
With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Instead of having single individuals be in charge of huge chunks of policy, are we not now technologically mature enough to have an open process whereby everyone can participate as they please?
You, and the no-doubt +5 Insightful modding to follow will lead to crushed expectations.
1. This poor bloke doesn't stand a chance against the telco's lobbying. His years running VC are not comparable to years running government, defending attacks from the Telcos and Cable Co's.
2. Government changes very slowly. This is part of the human condition more than anything else. One guy, even with the temporary backing of an Administration doesn't have much to work with.
3. The political system we have will create a great deal of friction preventing it from changing. Telco's and cable co's will screw this guy out of a job if he runs too far afield of their goals to capture the media distribution market.
Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Just imagine if someone in the Bush administration had acted like this.
Wouldn't you be screaming bloody murder? Wouldn't you be demanding an investigation into what was being hidden?
What's the difference?
The FCC is probably the least competent of all our federal government's departments right now. Have you ever filed an FCC complaint? I have (against a toll-free RespOrg, and then against another one when the owner of the number in question moved). When you file a complaint, the response is a form letter telling you the FCC cannot do anything. And then when you call the FCC for more information on how they came to that conclusion you wait for half an hour on hold before someone tells you they can't do anything, either; and they won't tell you if you can find out who read your complaint (if it was read at all).
Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment. So any sentient being will likely be an improvement.
The FCC is so frustrating I went to go stand in line at the DMV afterwards because I wanted to feel like I accomplished something that day.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Wait, competent people from the startup-world with real success are "extreme leftists" but Bush's pick of fucking lawyer with no tech business experience is "good business sense?" Get off it already, no one but the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber believes these talking points.
I'm pretty sure that's the previous head of the FCC. Or his hat, anyway.
Blank until
I'd rather have someone who didn't spend their life in management making decisions about how the internet should work. And that's all this guy has... Funding, venture capital, management. So he's great at money! Good--I'm sure he'll make a bunch of businesses very rich. But does he know what TCP/IP is? Does he understand what makes effective QoS policy? How about the difference between bandwidth and latency or (shudder) the OSI 7 layer [burrito] model of networking? Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?
This guy will be head of the FCC. Isn't that organization also very much about engineering, not just policy. If the FCC has become a policy-making organization and left its engineering roots, well how shall I say -- "Houston, we have a problem." And yes, the comparison to NASA I think is fitting, given it was another engineering-based governmental body that later become all about policies and management and has now sent two shuttles smashing into the ground because of it.
Change we can believe in. Heh--Yeah. Right. Looks like more of the same to me.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
How about Obama surprise everyone by doing something radical like announcing that he is going to make the FCC's only responsibility the licensing of spectrum and enforcement of (future?) federal cable and telecom franchising laws?
Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
Respect the Constitution
I'm sure none of his companies will directly benefit from his appointment.
Graduated from Columbia College and Harvard magna cum laude, was a senior official in the FCC, was on the board of directors for various companies, some utilizing the internet heavily (expedia.com), and was part of the working group that created Obama's technology and innovation plan. That's hardly what you portrayed, that he's a purely political pick without any credentials.
On a perusal of Common Sense Media's site, it seems that they offer ratings and tools for parents to help parents control what their kids watch. Oh the horrors! I can see how that's super-left-wing *eye roll*. A private org focusing on parental responsibility is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd like to see from an FCC official.
In summary, I see nothing here that would suggest that he was a bad pick, and on the contrary, by your own link, he seems to be a good pick. I get it: you don't like Obama. But the amount of spin you're throwing into this is intellectually dishonest at best.
I believe he was speaking about a different Obama appointee, Carolyn Browner.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
I nominate...Slashdot!
You guys are all giving each other high fives over Obama's FCC pick, and what you do not get is that commercially, he's going to be a very strong IP guy and a lot of you are going to be disappointed in that.
Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?
I see a lot of media companies that did Obama a lot of favors, and Obama's bill for them is coming due. I would expect to see an Obama administration have -stricter- regulation than Bush's administration ever did, all to protect the big city newspapers, publishing houses, record companies, movie studios and other enterprises that form the economic backbone of what we would call the "liberal economy". I would expect to see increased liability on telcos for copyrighted content, a federal bureacracy to handle copyright claims, greater pressure on the rest of the world to get on board, and what's France going to do, when their own newspapers, movie studios, and more, are telling them to do the same thing. Bush had to sell out to Exxon and Halliburton, but Obama is a sellout to Time Warner and the New York Times. Every President, regardless of political party, has a business constituency that they whore out too, and in Obama's case, its the publishing industry. Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.
This is my sig.
Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment.
It occurred to me after writing that rant that if a lobster were indeed in charge of the FCC, it could then be the Federal Crustacean Commission.
Thank you, and don't forget to tip your server.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You have a dim view of this. How is it that I see the link you posted of his biography entirely different than you?
Harvard Law grad, with honors. Not everyone can say this. Might be a friend of Obama's but doesn't necessarily exclude him from being qualified.
Your statement on clerking is off the mark. My wife clerked for two judges, both of them pretty conservative guys, one at the district level and one on the circuit level (my wife, btw, is not even close to being a conservative). Clerking for any judge is a competitive position, usually sought after by hundreds of applicants. Clerking for the USSC is a highly sought after position and a huge honor. Wouldn't serving for a conservative and a liberal judge at least show an ability to work across the aisle? Plus, having clerking experience really can pay off to know how the court thinks and what they demand in terms of what arguments make the grade.
Did you skip over the part about Barry Diller and IAC? You know Barry, the guy who helped start Fox Broadcasting? His involvement with Common Sense Media seems somewhat balanced out with some of the other companies who's boards he has served on.
Of course you skipped right over the part where it said he previously worked for the FCC as General Council and all, denoting a level of experience with the organization he's being appointed.
The ultimate judge of this guy will be the positions he takes and the moves the FCC make during his reign, but to say that he only got this because he was Obama's buddy (which he is) and that he's not qualified (he's far more qualified than the last few FCC chairs we've had) is missing the forest for the trees.
Sorry, but, you know, this whole hippy thing of nudity is love and violence is evil is just stupid.
Nudity has nothing to do with love. Sticking your dick into some slut's snatch and gushing it around until she says she loves you doesn't do anything for the country at all. Unless she decides she's up for breeding some good old babies for Jesus, otherwise, it's useless.
On the other hand, violence is plenty useful. It can get you more oil, access at the bargaining table with the great powers, AND, most of all, it can get your more broads to ram that fuckstick of yours into.
I know what Jesus said and all, but, the reality is different. If you want to be a big pussy and wish you had a girlfriend, value nudity. But, if you want to have tons of oil and power, then be violent, as you'll get tons of pussy to boot, and, they'll all be cranking out your genetic destiny in the form of children.
Who would you rather be, Ghandi, living impoversished in a tent, and getting shot in the end by some punk. Or, would you rather be Ghengis Khan, with an empire the size of Asia and the Middle East, tons of loot, and more women than you can name colors?
This is my sig.
Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do you have any more information on how those 5000 stations became 5? Not saying its not true, but just I never heard of it, since I don't live in America, but I'm interested in reading more about it. "Media-channel ownership" doesn't tell me much in google.
A long time ago I gave my email to register on this site and poke around.
I have since been receiving more traffic from motley fool than the mplayer mailing list in digest form.
I have requested removal from their lists to no avail.
I'm glad to see there is now a high profile target I can torpedo with lawsuits.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I despise Common Sense Media. Their email opt-out system is broken. I've had to twice threaten them with the CAN SPAM act to get off their mailing list. The first time, they took me off... and then I magically reappeared on it six months later.
All we want to do is eat your brains.
There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.
Aside from low-level appointments to things like HUD and the EPA, this is pretty much backwards. The major positions are being filled by some moderate Democrats (with Napolitano and Richardson being the only thing to approach "extreme left-wingers"), some independents, and some Republicans.
More than half of the major defense, foreign affairs, and economic appointees served in significant positions in Republican administrations (mainly under George W. Bush and/or Ronald Reagan)
Of the "big 3" cabinet positions, 2 are Bush appointees:
Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton (D). Leftie, but hardly extremist.
Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates (R). Republican, Bush cabinet member
Secretary of Treasury: Timothy Geithner (I). Generally conservative. Bush appointed him chairman of the New York Fed.
Of the "next 2", one's a Reagan appointee:
Attorney General: Eric Holder (D). A moderate Democrat, Holder is a Reagan appointee (Superior court) most famous for prosecuting Dan Rostenkowski (D).
Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson (D). Somewhat of a leftie.
Other major appointments
The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker
The other major defense names are 4-star general Jim Jones (recipient of multiple Bush administration appointments and special Middle East envoy under Condaleeza Rice) and Arizona Gov Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano, Richardson, and Hillary Clinton are the 3 most "leftie" of the major appointees.
The other 6 (Gates, Geithner, Holder, Summers, Volcker, and Jones) are all significant Reagan/Bush adminstration figures.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
No, he was making a statement about all the Obama cabinet appointees. A laughably dumb statement Obamas cabinet.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Having a venture capitalist in any appointed position in what is supposed to be a representative democracy does not strike me as very wise. Whose interests exactly do we expect such a person to represent? Certainly not mine nor those of any of my friends and family....
There's nothing hysterical or half mad about what I said at all. All I said was that Obama was beholden to media interests. They are going to want some concessions from him, and they are going to get them.
1. Web startups like to have patents of their own, to get venture capital.
2. Liberal economy means exactly what I said. The problem is the USA is a liberal economy with mercantile trading partners, except that instead of holding gold, they hold dollars and treasury bills.
3. Net neutrality isn't bad, but, you'll get other regulation as well. Right off the wheel, we have states looking to get internet sales taxes, the dems want to squelch conservative content, and the publishing houses want greater tracability to try and crush internet theft. Those are all issues advocated by the people that put Obama into the white house and they are going to want a return on their political investment.
4. Well, again, "better than Bush" is a subjective term. You have to go by industry and some industries did well under him, and others did not so well. If you worked in commodities, or other "red state" industries, you did rather well. Similarly, owing more towards an ideological bias against regulation than anything else, the open source movement, and software industry as a whole, did rather well under the Bush administration. On the other hand, if you worked in media, government or traditionally blue state service industries - like banking or wall street, you got screwed. It's the same deal with Obama. Strip away the rhetoric and there are clearly industries to align with in his administration. Favor products that support copyright, environmental stuff, renewable fuels, and you'll be in good shape. In my case, that means write for Windows and buy stock in biodiesel companies. Go Obama.
This is my sig.
conservatives in your level of extremism are dubbed as extremists in even turkey, and shunned ?
you would really love islamist extremists. they really do talk and act like you do. eggs in a basket.
Read radical news here
Eric Holder was Janet Reno's right hand man that went on a rampage against all forms of private firearms ownership. If anti-individual rights zealots like that are "moderate democrats", I'd hate to see the true lefties.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have any faith in the righties either, we're pretty much screwed either way, because both halves are hopping on the fascism train.
The FCC, huh. I have an idea ... how about we appoint a goddamn communications engineer? At least someone with a degree in electronics, RF, microwave tech, networking, something. I'd like to see an individual in this position who isn't yet another MBA-type with political obligations who doesn't grasp either the fundamentals of communications technology, or, perhaps even more importantly, its potential. I mean, we don't need another Esther Dyson clone (look how well that turned out.) Someone who lives in a area that is underserved by the incumbent communications providers would also be a plus.
The FCC wields an awful lot of power, and it's been exercised rather irresponsibly as of late.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.
Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)
Yes. And that would probably be a good thing for everyone concerned. And if nobody gets mod points ... we get to watch I Love Lucy re-runs instead.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside
As I understand it, not as many kids can play outside when higher population density forces families into apartments rather than separate houses. And parents are afraid to send their children into public parks alone for fear of kidnapping; more people per square km means more criminals.
There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.
So much for people who thought he was "honest" or "centrist."
The left is apoplectic right now because most of the truly powerful cabinet picks are centrists, or in some cases, even center right. Obama is getting the occasional doctranaire liberal for a post, but most of them are minor cabinet positions in the great scheme of things. Look at the lefty blogs and message boards, and they're quite pissed at Obama, and feel like he betrayed them. And maybe he did. Maybe he told them what they wanted to hear, and planned on being a centrist all along, as that's the likliest path to a second term. If he came in with both socialist-guns a'blazin, that would validate what Republicans were afraid of. He's been pretty smart in steering clear of that so far, to the anguish of many of his fervent supporters. Re-appointing Gates to SecDef was not only very smart, it felt like a dagger in the back of his anti-war supporters. Now he's even talking about delaying the closing of Gitmo.
People like Carol Browner may or may not be some kind of crypto-commie, but right now it looks like her "climate czar" position will be all sound and fury, with little substance. With the economy in the dumps, I just don't see Obama being stupid enough to let her or anyone else start shutting down factories and energy plants.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.
The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are both on record as stating that it should be re-instated. So are powerful colleagues Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Barney Frank, and Charles Schumer. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has stated in October that he plans to draft legislation to this effect
in the new Congressional term.
Will they actually do it? Or succeed? Probably not. Barrack Obama has changed his mind and now opposes reinstating it, and after some polls showed that voters were overwhelmingly against it. And political pundits now say that Reid and Pelosi will probably try to block such measures from even coming to a vote... they don't want to give the GOP any ammunition on this.
So, we're probably safe. But to claim that no one wants to do it or that no one is advocating it is patently absurd.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
And if nobody gets mod points ... we get to watch I Love Lucy re-runs instead.
If the Slashdot crowd is the only one that gets mod points does that mean there won't be anything on TV besides Mythbusters, Office Space and cult movies with racial epithets in the title?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Eric Holder was Janet Reno's right hand man that went on a rampage against all forms of private firearms ownership.
Holder filed an amicus brief in support of DC's right to regulate gun ownership in DC vs. Heller. That's clearly a liberal position, but it's also far from going on a rampage against all forms of private gun ownership.
He also supports closing Gitmo.
Those positions are well within the mainstream wing of the Democratic platform. You can disagree with them (and I do disagree with the stance on gun control), but trying to paint him (or any of the nominees for major cabinet/advisory positions) as "extreme left wingers" is completely polemical.
I'm not saying he's a staunch conservative. He's very far from being some crazy lefty. The guy's career in public service started with a Ronald Reagan appointment to Superior Court.
The media consensus has been similar, whether you look at FOX News or the Washington Post or sources ideologically in between.
FOX News wrote: "Barack Obama's Cabinet lineup, completed Friday with a month to spare, sends a signal that the fresh-faced president-elect will lean on experienced hands and moderate voices to steer the nation through turbulent times."
CBS's Bob Schieffer wrote "...a lot of people said this is going to be a very extremist president and all that, that he's a very liberal Democrat, but as we have seen in appointment after appointment, he's hewing to the center. He's picking a bunch of flaming moderates here".
Politico wrote "President-elect Barack Obama spent the campaign fighting the notion that he's an unabashed liberal. Now he can point to Exhibit A: a Cabinet that's a middle-of-the-roader's dream".
The Washington Post wrote: "But many of Obama's other picks reflect his apparent preference for practical-minded centrists who have straddled big policy debates rather than staking out the strongest pro-reform positions. Their reputations as moderates have won Obama plaudits from even some Republicans"
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Opinions on the second ammendment are rather diverse, even on slashdot. Being anti-gun does not an "anti-invidual rights zealot" nor an "extreme left", even by the standards of the US where extreme left would be most countries conservative parties, make. You might clarify them as anti-gun, and not like them for those reasons, but being anti-gun is not exactly extreme, even if you disagree with it.
Maybe they restored from backup.
Or maybe they need a competent administrator. I'm sure you know just the person for the job, right?
How about the other side?
And what about the other, other side. While I'm not in favor of it, there could always be a push to create a Federalized Linux distribution by using a tax on broadband to pay for it. If you payed for your broadband, you might have to kick in an extra $2 a month but you would basically allow something like a corporation for public computing to form up and make Linux. Instead of the GPL then, you would just have the work be in public domain.
As developers, we tend to be Aspberger's like focused on immediate and specific issues, but really, as soon as people in the government start to actually do something, you need to remember, anything can happen.
This is my sig.
Sounds like a good idea, actually!
"That report was BS, everybody knows they faked the moon landing. -1 troll"
"It's not censorship, if you don't like it, you can just change your filters settings for tits from -1 to +1"
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker
Note that Volcker was first appointed by Carter.
But then again, I could be wrong.
I'm confused. How are "Star Wars", "Serenity" and "The Matrix" racial epithets?
I just checked what you said. He clerked for the D.C. Circuit and for two justices on the SCOTUS. You want to know why?
Because those are three of the most prestigious positions in the world for a young lawyer to have. Any one of those, especially either of the two SCOTUS jobs, practically guarantees that your first year after that job you can make $600K walking on to any law firm in the country. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit sees every important case arising out of the federal government. It's fascinating and important work. I'd hope that anyone with a moderate amount of interest in having a good job can understand the appeal of doing things that matter on a wide scale. All of his three clerkships were this type of job.
And you can't make any sort of "poitical" pattern out of the clerks, either: Brennan and Souter are practically on different sides of the world, politically. At least, at the time Genachowski clerked for them, Souter was still on the right.
And as for the "schoolchum of Obama" reference, the man went to Harvard and served on HLR at the same time as Obama. Obama has first-hand knowledge that the man is extremely gifted; experience that dates back to the late 80s and early 90s.
And the guy was a high-ranking official in the FCC in the 90s. It's not like he doesn't have the pedigree: prior relevant experience, prestigious education, and an obvious intellect (you don't get any of those clerkships without being in the top 1% of all students graduating from Tier 1 law schools, which shows you know how to at least get very high grades).
Note that I know nothing about his politics whatsoever. I'm merely refuting your uninformed accusations that somehow this guy cannot possibly be qualified for his position by any stretch of the imagination.
the problem is, when enough members of the society adopts a certain behavior pattern, that pattern gets stronger and stronger, and also affects those within the group too.
simple breakdown :
as more and more punks accept your proposal of badass heaven as a viable way of life, the application of power does not stop with those outside the group. people who follow the path of 'power' do not sit around a round table and distribute the spoils like good samaritans. the ones who are more powerful think they deserve and can take more, and a power struggle ensues. it goes on until all the participants think that they are on the highest level of power structure as they can get, and only then the system can work. and when it does, its a very inefficient system - more effort is spent in preserving the power structure than applying that power to outside sources for profit and gain. and since gains are unevenly distributed from top to bottom, the synergy that abundance creates does not happen.
as an example you can observe the current supposedly free market environment in united states. even though there are regulations, the power is aggregated by a few big groups that have increasingly more and more power, and eventually every other lesser group becomes an underdog. and these groups spend more cash for mergers, acquisitions, deals, licenses, buying laws, defending markets than they actually invest. result is, through a lot of side causes, and some last resort actions, the decline of us as an economy in contrast to europe, india and china, and the current economic crisis.
as can be understood from the example, such groups eventually kill themselves. OR, turn about.
the case of mutually beneficial, freedom and sharing based concepts is an easy one to talk about. you are living in apartments/houses in 21st century luxury, just because these thoughts have taken foothold, and a totally weak specie of hominoid monkeys have started to take care of their weak regardless of anything, and therefore have been able to develop skills that were not immediately needed for survival at that point in time, but later proved big technological advancements.
add to that the fact that throughout the course of history, it has been the more democratical, equalitarian, socially conscious, mutually beneficial relations-seeking groups and societies making big strides and achieving great things both for themselves and others, you can see the big picture. greek democracy, despite living in barren islands with little resources and little population, have bested and outlived many big empires that threatened them. same goes for republic of venice, dutch republic for centuries, and britains emerging as a big country from an obscure island through implementation of human rights and societal justice, and eventually the emergence of united states from a mere colony to a big nation.
all these have bested all kinds of badass wannabee, hardliner countries that threatened them.
of course, not that you were serious about what you were saying. its evident that you are being sarcastic, for noone can be that stupid.
Read radical news here