Slashdot Mirror


Conflict of Interest May Taint DTV Delay Proposal

Anonymous writes "Ars Technica has discovered that one of the Obama transition team members advising on the digital TV transition has a conflict of interest that would benefit WiMAX carrier Clearwire over Verizon. 'Barack Obama's call to delay the DTV transition would affect not only millions of analog TV viewers, but also powerful companies with a vested interest in the changeover date — including at least one with an executive on Obama's transition team.'"

31 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Impressive... by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...Obama's not even in office yet and he's already got the beginnings of a corruption scandal going. I think this is a new record!

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Impressive... by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At my work, I'm actually not allowed to have a vested interest in a competitor. But I guess government advisory boards can favor different companies if they want, based on vested interests of their advisory board members...

      If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)

    2. Re:Impressive... by johnsonav · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Merely having a conflict of interests is not unethical.

      But when that conflict of interest results in government policy which favors those interests, at the expense of competitors, that's potentially unethical. Of such things, corruption scandals are made.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    3. Re:Impressive... by philspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If so, that would be yet another reason governments tend to run worse than private enterprises. :)

      So we have one example of where private enterprise bans conflicting interests and one where government also bans conflicts of interest, but it sounds like that may have been compromised.

      Not to say that government as good as private enterprise or better, but that's some shady logic you're using to for a general indictment of government.

    4. Re:Impressive... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are certain sectors where conflicts of interest are unavoidable. Financial Investing and Politics are two them. The general remedy in these situations is full disclosure rather than suffer a chain of recuses every time you try to get something done. With full disclosure, at least the opposition can frame your decisions properly and decide whether or not they are motivated by personal interest.

      That's why Cheney received only a minimal amount of heat for his Haliburton connection. Everyone knew up front what his interests were and had ample opportunity to question his motives.

    5. Re:Impressive... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny, I seem to remember the massive calls for Cheney's head because he was the CEO of Halliburton prior to being elected VP (of course, by that time he had stepped down and divested all shares of that company). All in the name of "conflict of interest"...

      The rules work differently depending on which party's partisans happen to have the most mod points when such comments are made.......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Impressive... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, there is a difference between a company and a government. A company inherently operates in a particular sector. They have a fairly well-defined scope so it's reasonably easy to pick out who their direct competitors are, who their partners are, and what companies they have no particular link to.

      High-level government officials and teams, however, inherently have some level of influence over every imaginable sector/industry. Which means that the chance of a conflict-of-interest arising becomes much higher (if you pick a random economic sector, and you have a group of 10 people, there's a good chance that one of those people will gain or lose in some way depending on decisions made; whether it be because of owning stock, having a family member employed by that industry, etc.).

      That having been said, government officials should absolutely be held to a very high standard on conflict-of-interest cases. The appropriate action here would be for that particular Obama team member to recuse himself from any decision-making related to that particular issue. He can remain active in other aspects of planning, but should absolutely not touch anything related to this conflict-of-interest (and the planning/execution should be done in a transparent way so that the public can be confident that he wasn't involved).

    7. Re:Impressive... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Probably something to do with the fact that the Congressional Research Services investigated and discovered he still had:
      • deferred salary, tied to earnings
      • retained stock options, available for exercise after he stepped down
      • a 401(k) account which had investments in Halliburton

      and had been found that his statements that he had removed financial ties to himself and Halliburton to be "steeped in loopholes and legalese and avoidance".

      You were saying?

    8. Re:Impressive... by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is a new record!

      No, the record was when Rush Limbaugh christened the Obama recession two days after Obama was ELECTED.

    9. Re:Impressive... by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted against Obama, because I think his political views are nonsense. Even so, I would never claim that this was corruption. Any appointee is going to have a history, investments, and contacts in their related field, because that's pretty much why they're being appointed in the first place. All this means is that proper procedures and disclosures need to be followed in order to ensure that corruption doesn't happen.

    10. Re:Impressive... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      The rules work differently depending on which party's partisans happen to have the most mod points when such comments are made.......

      The analogy between the situations is pretty weak.

      1) Was Obama ever president of Clearwire? No. Some guy lobbying Obama (not even in his administration) is an executive v.p. of Clearwire.
      2) Is the Obama administration going to give Clearwire billions of dollars? No. It's going to make a decision that arstechnica argues might help Clearwire by delaying a competitor.
      3) Did Clearwire overcharge the government $1 Billion in "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career" according to a govt. contract officer with 20 years of experience? No. (It's not even possible, since Clearwire isn't getting a payoff from taxpayers).

      So equating the two situations only shows that your judgement is clouded by partisanship.

    11. Re:Impressive... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does the name "Rupert Murdoch" ring a bell?

      In 2003 he owned over 175 newspapers, and every single one of them were pushing pro-Iraq Invasion editorials.

      The media is STILL pussy footing Bush. Just a few days ago he said that it was "unfortunate" that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Talk about the most self-centered and retarded things to say. We are extremely fortunate that there were no WMDs found. If they had been found that would mean that 1) There are/were people in Iraq with the knowledge to make them again, and 2) That there are likely more of them in different storage facilities or being off loaded on the black market.

      To call it "unfortunate" that we destroyed a country and killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions more, is a grievous understatement.

      The only reason why it is "unfortunate" is because it will forever tarnish Bush's record in the history books.

      Yet the media just sweeps away the statement. The guy makes a statement showing that his primary concern is his legacy, not the security of the country, nor the millions of people affected by the war.

      Not that I'm a sunshine-daisy Obama optimist. He strikes me as more of a centrist republicrat than a lefty liberal. But taking over after Bush, he'll be hard pressed to do worse.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    12. Re:Impressive... by Tanktalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a rabid right-winger, who dislikes the issues Obama stands for, I have to disagree on the remedy. In my mind, it's both. Disclosure, but participation in the discussion. And no voting (actual say) on the decision. Allow the rest of the team (and citizens in general) to know his background, but recognise that though there may be a vested interest, he may actually be an expert in the field. Making such a decision without people who actually care (vested interest) and are technical experts in a field is pretty much about as stupid as making the same decision and letting the vested interest (especially an economic interest) run roughshod over the process.

      By all means, bring in the experts. Just don't let the ones who will financially benefit actually vote on the outcome.

      And I say this without regard to political party.

  2. Same-ole, same-ole by oakleeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to the new regime, which will probably end up as corrupt as the old regime. Two of his appointees are already under fire for questionable activities in their past. The most recent being the Treasury appointee who owed back IRS taxes.

  3. I'm probably naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But wouldn't it be more surprising if a team advising on the use of airwaves had no members with ties to companies who use airwaves?

  4. an old adage by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. As complicated as politics are and as interconnected as this world is, there's bound to be things that are overlooked. Of course, if you or I were becoming president, we wouldn't make such mistakes, eh?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. Misdiagnosing stupidity as malice by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for rooting out scandals and Truth, Justice, and The American Way, but when you run the government, you can either pick people who've done things, or who you really like. And people who have done things will have prior relationships with other people, organizations, and businesses.

    Let's judge POTUS on what he does, not on what his contacts or their contacts might want.

    Delaying the deadline is a dumb idea. We make deadlines so everybody can plan the switch. This transition has been planned for a long time. It's been heavily advertised. The switch will be painful for lots of poor folks who can't afford new equipment or who are bedridden and can't go shopping, but delaying the transition won't change that cold reality.

    Keep the train on schedule, Obama.

  6. So... by evil_aar0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We've already ruled out the possibility that there _might_ just be a consumer-beneficial reason for pushing back the changeover date? I mean, because it's political, it _has_ to be so someone or some company can game the system and reap megabucks?

    --
    Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
  7. Not really a transisiton team member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having RTFA...

    Salemme is not actually an adviser to Obama. He met with Senator Rockefeller and Tom Wheeler (one of Obama's many advisers) last week. He also donated some money to the Obama campaign. That appears to be the sum total of his involvement. Not very compelling evidence that he is behind the policy, if you ask me.

    The assertion that he is a transition team member appears to be outright false.

  8. Re:Delays my ass by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who haven't switched over yet probably won't ever do it, so just make the damn cut-over and wait for the inevitable news stories about people being left without TV. These stories are going to happen whether you make the switch now or 10 years from now, so just do it already.

    The people that haven't done anything about this switch by now must never actually watch their TV, since we've been subjected to crawls about it for more than a year on every broadcast channel, so they won't care anyway. Either that or they've just been too lazy, in which case the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.

    Just get this crap over and done with so we can move on already.

  9. Re:Who released the hounds by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Odd how this is the sort of post that pops up when it's a problem with the budding Obama administration but not so much when it has anything to do with Bush...

    Mod disclaimer - I don't support one more than the other. I think just about any politician that's done what it takes to get to the presidency is bound to be a shyster.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  10. Re:So? by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Specifically, many consumers are still unaware of the changeover, or believe that they will need a new television or cable/satellite provider to continue receiving service."

    Are you kidding me? For the small percentage that don't have cable / satellite, how could you possibly miss the unending (and extremely irritating) ads on all the main broadcasting stations about the change, how to know if you'll need to get a converter box, where to get one, how to get a discount / free one, and where to find more information if you still have questions? Anyone who's still unaware or confused about things has something seriously wrong with them to have missed out on this for the last year or else never uses a TV and as such it doesn't affect them anyways.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  11. Welcome to Chicago Politics by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Funny

    The "C" in Chicago stands for "Corruption".

  12. Re:Conflict of Interest by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah. It's terrible when political officials in high positions make decisions that conflict with their real world corporate jobs. *coughcheneyhalliburtoncough*

    What's the relevance of bringing up Cheney in this manner? Surely your argument isn't that the Bush Administration did it so now the Obama Administration should do it as well?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  13. Re:OT : Why cancel analog? by Leto-II · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can anyone educate me on why a mandated cutting analog is a requirement of DTV?

    The spectrum that analog TV uses was sold off so that companies like Verizon could use it for a new wireless network service. Can't really do that while analog TV broadcasts are still using the spectrum.

    --
    Do not anger the worm.
  14. Re:Who released the hounds by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cynicism and complaint are the resorts of losers and followers.

    Actually I'd make the argument that as Americans we are supposed to have a healthy amount of skepticism/cynicism towards our Government. As far as complaining goes, that was written into the 1st amendment ("petition the Government for a redress of grievances") as I recall.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  15. Re:Welcome to Politics by johnsonav · · Score: 4, Funny

    The "C" in politics stands for "Corruption".

    Fixed that for you

    But, in Chicago, its a capital "C".

    --
    ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
  16. Re:OT : Why cancel analog? by sesshomaru · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know that seems counterintuitive, but the answer is ultimately fairly simple if you look at the politics behind the DTV switch. A while back, the US government (Clinton Era) decided to sell off the public airwaves to various companies. Of course, in order for these companies to take control of these airwaves and use them for cellphones and what-have-you the analog signal had to be cleared from the airwaves.

    The only reason the government was able to do this was with a partially funded mandate, which was to force all analog signal consumers and all analog signal broadcasters to switch to a digital signal. The reason why that would work because in theory you could compress the same number of broadcast stations into the smaller remaining bandwith, provided that they were digitally encoded signals that would be decoded by a digital reciever.

    So, the answer to your question is this, this isn't about DTV. This is about a problem that the government created of having sold the analog spectrum that is currently being used for analog TV broadcasts to companies that want to use something else. The government believes that a DTV switchover is the solution to this problem, so they are trying to get the majority of consumers and broadcasters to switch to DTV as soon as possible. That's why they are giving away coupons from the Commerce Department, and running ADs that say "you must switch to DTV."

    I also believe that a lot of retailers were hoping that the confusion created in non-technical users regarding DTV was going to drive HD-TV sales, but that's a totally seperate issue.

    Of course, the economy doesn't look quite the same now as it did when this switchover was originally mandated for 2009, and that's probably the real reason why there is talk of delaying the changeover.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  17. Re:Who released the hounds by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Odd how this is the sort of post that pops up when it's a problem with the budding Obama administration but not so much when it has anything to do with Bush...

    Well I'm not going to defend the OP, since I am cynical and I see no reason to defend Obama from the completely true accusation that he is a politician. Nor am I going to defend a conflict of interest.

    But the simple fact is that the scale we're talking about, Bush vs Obama, is ridiculously different. Some low level advisor might get a temporary benefit from a suggestion Obama made regarding delaying DTV switchover, a relatively minor issue. Bush's vice president's former company was handed multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts (where in most cases the claim that this was because only halliburton could do it were flat wrong), to the point of even outsourcing our military's kitchens to this company. That's a conflict of interest that concerns me. If this was Bush, then it'd be his FCC chairman or Secretary of Commerce that was a VP for Verizon, who'd have already been given an exclusive contract for government wifi.

    Bush's administration had plenty of minor conflicts of interest of around this level that I really never gave a rats ass about. They suck, but they're largely unavoidable. The difference is basically how important and high up these conflicts go, and how blatantly and severely they direct policy. We'll see how things turn out with the new guy, but right now just looking at the Cabinet-level picks Obama is no Bush and saying that is not inherently 'bias'.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  18. Re:Delays my ass by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the only way they're going to actually get a converter is if they get kicked in the pants sufficiently hard by, let's say, having their TV stations go dark.

    Honest question here: is the plan actually to have the stations go completely dark at the switchover date?

    Wouldn't it make more sense to have those channels broadcast a continuously looped message that explains in detail how to switch over to digital TV? The message could be maintained for a month, say, after which time the channels would truly go dark to free up the bandwidth. Otherwise people who were not paying much attention will just think their TV is broken.

    Even better would be a multi-stage approach; starting with occasional advisory ads and text-overlays (which I guess they are doing now?), then have every commercial replaced with an advisory, then have a perpetual "this channel will stop functioning soon!" overlay on the channel, then a continually looped message explaining the switchover, and finally the channels go dark.

    I know that they "shouldn't have to" beat people over the head with this information--but the fact is that many people are probably still not aware that the switchover is going to happen, and could probably use some more insistent messages.

  19. Let's say what you are saying is true by unassimilatible · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Cheney, who made millions at Haliburton, left the private sector for a $175K job simply to further enrich himself, at the expense of American blood and treasure (It's OK to make this devastating claim about Cheney, "but don't question a liberal's patriotism!!!!"). Not because, as a man who spent the vast majority of his life as a public servant, he wanted to help guide the country.

    Nope, Darth Vader came to the VP office to make money. Let me get the chronology correct here.

    1) Leave incredibly profitable private sector job to Become VP, knowing there would be a 9/11 leading to the concern over WMD and that Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions or IAEA inspections, that we would thus invade Iraq, and that Haliburton would become the military's main civilian infrastructure contractor.
    2) Invade Iraq
    3) ????
    4) Haliburton chosen as main contractor by US military
    5) Profit.

    In other words, even if you impugn the man's character and motives, you still have to give him the foresight to predict all of this, as well as some shred of evidence that he actually influenced the contract selection process of the US Military. To date, there is no evidence - and a mound of contrary evidence - that Cheney had influence over Haliburton being chosen.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you