Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist
An anonymous reader writes "Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the FCC Commissioners, is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for Comcast-NBC, just four months after approving their merger deal. She refused to put any significant conditions on the merger, saying that the deal would 'bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.' Comcast has released an official statement saying that, 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.'"
Maybe before she leaves she can put the stamp of approval on AT&T / T-Mobile as a fallback.
Revolving door. Enough said. Honestly, I'm tired of caring about it. Action will only happen when people begin to truly feel the effects. Logic is lost on the masses.
According to the people who wrote the US Constitution, consolidated power == tyranny.
Progressives have a lot to answer for.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
So, how many of her corrupt little lackeys are going with her?
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Get a high level position in Congress, White House, any agency and get guaranteed a super high paying lobbyist job. How terrible public service is!
Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Care to share any and all correspondence between you and Comcast/NBC during the merger review, Ms. Baker? Not that I'm suggesting you would ever trade your vote for a cushy job, just to put any unfortunate rumors to rest, you see...
Yeah, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
Now where did I leave my pitchfork and torch?
They either come from Corporations (which means they are biased in favor of their former boss) or they know that the job will eventually lead from government to a cushy corporate position, if they just brown nose enough (hand down the right decisions).
I still think the FCC's decision to allow Internet Devices to broadcast over top existing TV channels demonstrates they care more about pleasing their once-or-future bosses (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ATT, etc), even if it means blocking consumers ability to watch free TV.
FCC == corporate tool.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
This just screams of conflict of interest, and big time pay off...
Odd for a lobbyist to say something like "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms", which confirms they believe there is a potential for abuses. A statement like that practically begs for someone to ask what these benefits are exactly, that she was able to even make such a statement.
Ice Cream has no bones.
I thought there was a law against this.... Don't you have to wait two or so years before you can do this???
That is how the banking industry about brought the U.S down
If by 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.' they mean that she accepts bribes, er, a job offer from the people she JUST granted a favor to, then, YES.
I quit my job as a geological surveyor for Exxon bought a plot of desert land with absolutely no significance what so ever and then out of coincidence am rounding up investors for a business that's just so happened to be named Black Gold LLC. Nope no conflict of interest ever existed here.
Government is corrupt like crazy (see also all the D- Reps from places like Alaska or Louisiana protesting abolition of tax-breaks for big oil...). No news, really. They should actually have titles like Comcast Commissioner (FCC), or Rapiscan Secretary of Homeland Security (looking at you, Chertoff). At least it would make the situation clearer. Nothing to see here, move along.
>>>Progressives have a lot to answer for.
They don't care. For them this part of the Constitution does not exist. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of this part: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And State Constitutions?
They don't even read them.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Federal regulator does a good turn for a big corporation who "just happens" to throw a plum job that regulator's way just long enough later to claim it's not quid-pro-quo with a straight face. Par for the course.
I guess it might be news if she left public service to work somewhere OTHER THAN for a company she did a favor for. ..
Translation: Meredith's dedication to serving us during her tenure as FCC Commissioner, and her willingness to betray every principle, ethical or moral, makes her a perfect fit for our corporate atmosphere, much as a piece of shit makes a perfect fit for a septic tank. We look forward to long years of benefiting from her betrayal of the American people.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
... than an FDA member leaving to work for Monsanto.
When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA.
Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.
LBJ much?
It's a sad testimonial to the lopsided state of our nation's political system when we need non-compete clauses for elected and appointed officials to prevent them from leaping to the Dark Side immediately after their terms end.
The kickbacks for IOC chairs and board members are in the billions.
But, yeah, this is pretty darned corrupt. Figures.
Hint: Corporations are not, and never will be, People.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The next sound you hear will be bunch of grandstanding Senators investigating her. Give it a week, 10 days tops.
This is plain and simple fraud.
"Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills." - means we bought the bitch a long time ago, we just are now taking possession.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Progressives have nothing to answer for this. She failed to use federal government power to block a merger. She didn't use power that she should have.
...you would all do the same if you could, and you know it.
Can we just accept the fact that they're all corrupt, and simply require that politicians publish their price, and who's pocket they're in so that the general public can try to buy a few?!
Why do progressive have to answer for a Republican FCC commissioner?
In 2009, Baker joined the FCC as one of two Republicans on the five-person commission.
Because Mechanical Turk is cheap.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
According to the people who wrote the US Constitution, consolidated power == tyranny.
Progressives have a lot to answer for.
What does this have to do with progressives?
?
Horseshit. When states overstep that clause, they get their expectations reset by the other clauses. Too bad for them. Good for the nation.
Progressives have a lot to answer for.
As long as the citizenry believe that one party or the other are too blame then the citizens are just useful idiots. Conservatives like to consolidate power too, it's just you probably happen to agree with their reasons for doing it so it's ok. It's those lousy progressives. Also, in this particular instance it was the lack of using that consolidated power that is the problem.
Of this part: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sort of like the "right to privacy" that we are told by the right doesn't exist because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it?
... so they put a ring on it.
Simply put, the FCC should not exist.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
The funny thing is that this person is a conservative Republican with such choice quotes as:
“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.
Yep, that sounds very much like a progressive to me. Oh wait...
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
As for the merger, corporations exist because government CREATED them (the incorporation license). Every merger has to be approved or denied by the licensor (the government). In fact the government could revoke the license and terminate a corporation whenever it felt like it.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
ask for an investigation. also, the attorney general.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
really, the IOC chairs all became billionaires over night?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
Yes, let's ignore the last 50 years of US politics and post such a lame comeback.
Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.
And a choice quote from Baker:
“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.
She is by no means a "progressive".
Shouldn't lobbying be Illegal ?
Don't you listen to Rush Limbaugh? This is all part of evil plan set in motion by Bill Clinton and carried out by his minions. The Republican former FCC commissioner was a progressive sleeper agent.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
BTW your comeback is about as lame as saying "Democrats are segregationists" which purposefully ignores decades of political shifting that went on within the political parties. Seriously, lame trolling is lame.
Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
more their families, their relatives companies, their relatives foundations, the construction firms their brother-in-law owns ...
Pretty much, though.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
For Immediate release
Comcast-NBC announced today that Meredith Attwell Baker is joining the company as a lobbyist.
In our previous professional dealings, the company has found Attwell Baker to be wide open to hard and long discussions. Though faced with difficult positions, Attwell Baker was always flexible and willing to prod new and unexplored avenues. The drippings of our mutual efforts leave a permanent mark on the fabric of America and its citizens.
Comcast-NBC will introduce Attwell Baker Thursday morning. Just as soon as she cleans her chin.
OK, I'll bite. How would you solve the inevitable frequency anarchy if the FCC didn't regulate it? Or are you cool with it if I decide to step all over your cell connection with my homebuilt widget that operates on the same frequency at about 2,000 watts?
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
How can you make lobbying illegal? Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job, so you can really ban lobbying. I think what you mean is lobbyists should be arrested because of all the shady, back room stuff they seem to do. I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough laws and regulations, so much as it is that the stakes are so high that no punitive measures are grave enough to discourage people from engaging in these kinds of activities. The only real solution is to not consolidate so much power and authority in one place. That would limit the scope of abuses, and it would reduce the rewards of engaging in this kind of behavior (which should reduce the number of people willing to participate in it).
No courtesy of calling it rain, etc.
Or jigolo. all of them. its as simple as that. disgusting.
Read radical news here
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."
What's really funny is that the people who want the government involved in everything are the same who act outraged when the inevitable corruption follows.
Two giant media corporations merging, more homogeneity on the airwaves, and the former head of the FCC is now working for them. And no one anywhere sees a potential flaw in this? When did the USA turn into the USSR?
More details in the link.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington
Simple. Start a witch-hunt against these "relationships" in "Washington" that continue to deal with her after this news broke. Make sure that everyone that does as much as returns a phone call from Meredith gets thoroughly investigated in the press. Without these shady behind closed doors "relationships" she is of null value.
Let me get this straight. A president can get impeached over a blow job... but buddy-buddy underhandedness between corporations and the government goes on regularly and nothing gets done about it? What's crazier is that the American public knows all about it and just watches on like it's a TV show. It's not as if the biggest problems (like Goldman Sachs' personal branch of government) are hidden under a rug still.
How this continues to go on without mass protests against both the major parties defies belief. Sorry to be blunt, but the American public (because the government ain't doing anything) is overdue for getting its shit together if something is to be done about it.
oh, actually bribery is already illegal.
too bad the 'rule of law' doesnt apply to the friends of the powerful.
Meredith Attwell Baker was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on June 25, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Attwell_Baker
The revolution will now most certainly not be televised. Keep whining on /. and waiting for a Jesus.
do you think there should be no regulation? there is a reason the FDA was created; people were dying from bad products being sold.
in China there's no FDA - instead they take the guy pointing out the baby-milk scandal and put him in prison for several years.
(Zhao Lianhai).
I think he means that progressives desire to consolidate power in the federal government. Of course, where he is confused is that he doesn't seem to think that conservatives desire to do the same.
By law, government officials are prohibited from personally lobbying their former agencies, depending upon the circumstances, for at least a year or two. Believe or not (considering the conspiracy theories rampant on slashdot, I guess "not"), this is something that is taken very seriously.
Oh, by the way, where do you think a former FCC Commissioner will land after they leave government employment? A milk cooperative? Manager of a McDonalds?
FYI -- as 1 of the 2 Republicans (as opposed to the 3 Democrats), her power was greatly diminished.
QUIT VOTING REPUBLICRAT
If you are still under the delusion the United States has "two political parties" you're stupid. We have one political party in power with two sudo oppositional sides both of which are owned by different sets of corporations. It is obvious who owned this politician. If you think your politician isn't owned by a company or two and you vote Republicrat you're stupid.
More government regulation is the problem, not the solution, I don't really care where you're looking.
You want corporations to have less power? The only way to remove power from corporations is to remove it from the government, there really isn't much of a dividing line anymore. The corporations that are the most regulated are the ones that have the most government protection against new competition. Corporate power and government power are the same thing.
If you vote Democrat OR Republican you are part of the problem, not the solution.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Perhaps oaths of office should be expanded to include morality that might extend into situations like this. It's one thing to be fired in a changing of the guard and go back to work in industry but this sounds too much like an overt payoff. There should be changes to the law that allow business deals like this to be reevaluated.
The bigger companies get the smaller people become. I propose we set a maximum limit on corporations, anything larger can't do business in our country.
At first, I thought this was some sort of joke. Then I read the article. Our country is fucked.
Who would have thought that unelected, unaccountable regulators would ever abuse the system for personal gain?
What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter.
Nice, except for that one part. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate. How exactly is that decided again? State by state? Radio waves cross state lines, clearly putting them under federal regulation (something that would actually fall under the commerce clause). Whether it's the commerce department or a department created specifically for communications like the FCC it's still a top down approach.
More details in the link.
Fascinating. Simply amazing. Selling the airwaves PERMANENTLY. No regulation other than "you own that much of the spectrum".
Nobody could buy up the bandwidth to prevent competition? One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong. Someone doesn't need to buy it all to have a monopoly. All they need to do is buy all the spectrum of the appropriate kind in the limited geographic area and they'd have a lock on that medium for that area. One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other. A sues B, B countersues, both own what they own, neither is "at fault". Both are using their property in the manner authorized by their purchase agreement.
A buys a TV channel in LA. B buys a TV channel in LA. B decides he likes a new technology for doing TV so he switches. Viewers in LA now need TWO different TVs to watch those two channels, because nobody is there to tell manufacturers they need to support both. Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply, so two isn't the upper limit on incompatible uses.
The TV I buy has spurious emissions that blanket the other channels. All my neighbors get interference. They have to HIRE someone to come find the source, and then they have to SUE me to get me to shut the TV off. Lawyers make out like bandits.
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too. They have to HIRE someone to come find me, and then they have to SUE me to get me to stop. They can't arrest me, there are no regulations! (And yes, that link is explicit in saying that lawsuits are how the issues are resolved.)
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular. After a while, everyone figures out that the use of cellular at those specific frequencies is interfering with the public safety users. What to do? The owners own the spectrum. You can't rescind the "license" because there is no license. You can't force anyone to move, they own the spectrum. (And if you think this is far-fetched, google for "nextel" and "rebanding".)
No, I'm sorry. The FCC still has a purpose. It may not have a right or reason to do some of the things it does, but that doesn't mean the baby needs to go out with the bathwater.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature? HF radio frequencies travel around the globe.
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
Yet what happens when the "Right to Privacy" collides with the actual right to freedom of speech. answer? Look at the UK and the gag orders put on the media by the courts to protect the wealthy s privacy (and their misdeeds which can be embarrassing).
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
She wasn't a progressive but a statist. And yes, you can have Republican statist but getting rid of them is one of the reasons why we have the tea parties.
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
I'm sorry, did you BUY the frequencies you are using, or are you just using them anyway? Just how does one split up the WI-FI frequencies into geographically-relevant sized pieces so that people can buy the frequencies they use?
And what happens when you move? I'm sorry, your neighbor owns the WI-FI frequencies for this part of the block, you don't get to use any. Wait, you're on the fiftieth floor of an apartment building and he's on the second? Hmmm. Multiple sales of frequencies based on VERTICAL separation. What a cash cow for the government.
By the way, make sure you sell the next tenant the frequencies so he can use his WI-FI when he moves in.
Then you get to worry about someone using his frequencies in a way that is incompatible with your use. Only then.
By the way, what government agency is responsible for doing this splitting up by region and allocating bandwidths to chunks of spectrum? We'll have to create one. Maybe call it "Federal" because it is a federal agency. Then something about "communications" because it deals with communications. Not sure what other words might apply...
Dated, but a good article. I smell a libertarian here, so I guess you'll agree that this was always about power rather than the public. Certainly at this point in time there are few resources that are as abundant as bandwidth. Not much reason there for heavy regulation or a natural monopoly.
On the other hand, just because someone says something is a right, doesn't mean it is a right, enumerated or not.
Truely - American Corporations are The Evil Empire.
Because Obama appointed those two Republicans. And though Obama is by no means a progressive, progressives nonetheless voted for him.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
Isn't this why the FOA was created? You should be able to file a few requests to start digging into the nature of the relationship...
This is why government should be as 'open sourced' as possible. I don't think that a DOJ investigation needs to be opened every time someone leaves public office, since people who are involved in a given aspect of government are going to gravitate towards the same sort of work in the private sector. However, the system should be transparent enough that anyone who is suspicious of things like this can easily poke around for evidence of a conflict of interest.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Look at the UK and the gag orders put on the media by the courts to protect the wealthy s privacy (and their misdeeds which can be embarrassing).
And that has what exactly to do with the United States Constitution? Not saying it isn't true, but it's not all that relevant. If I remember correctly Truth isn't a liable/slander legal defense in the UK. I seem to recall that, indeed the law there is written to protect the important from being "embarrassed" publicly by their actions. (Someone from the UK want to comment on that?).
I worked contract at Comcast. They have 'secret' budgets to pay people outside of Comcast, shadow company. These guys are shady.
Many Republicans, a minority of them, are "progressives".
In contrast, most Democrats are "progressives".
Democrat progressivism dates back far before Teddy Roosevelt; through William Jennings Bryan it has continued unabated to the present day.
Progressivism is a political theory characterized by increasing government power, hatred of the rich, corruption of education and crippling of the individual. It is in essence indistinguishable from socialism, and its actual goal is power.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I've mailed off my complaint letter to the USDOJ (and echoed it in an email) ... have you?
That's sort of one-dimensional thinking. Without the FCC, you are right, there would be no FCC review. There might not even be a review at all. That is not the same thing as meaning that the public interest would not be served. An FCC or even a government review at all is merely a means to an end. The fact that it has been the chosen means to an end for so long means that it has become part of the background. That is not the same as meaning it is the only possible solution.
You are assuming that things like company towns and stores and oppressive corporate control in general is something that would happen by default without government regulation. Sure, the government can step in, but the government also makes all sorts of monopolies possible that wouldn't have been to begin with. Control over public lands for the first robber barons, the railroad titans, was given to them by the government itself, for dirt cheap. Yet, we still expect the government to always have the little guy's interests in mind, for some reason.
Sure, an external force opposing greed has its uses, but honestly, how long can it last before it is compromised and even makes things worse? How do you find people with sufficient experience and skills to regulate an industry? From within the industry, of course. There is nothing about government that gives people the ability to regulate that which they are inexperienced at to begin with. That's one of the reasons that government regulation that is at all effective becomes easily compromised. The revolving door isn't an abuse... it's the only reason government regulation works at all! The only reason it doesn't become immediately corrupt is because there are actually ethical people out there who are willing to put aside their industry sympathies and work to regulate legitimately. There is nothing about the regulatory system that means that this will continue to be the case.
So, consider the "Bad Old Days" that you are alluding to and compare them to today. The only real difference I see is that the corporations are much, much bigger and certainly no less powerful. And they are abusing and taking advantage of even more people than they ever have before, and all under the watch of the government regulators.
You know what stops the corporations? The public actually starting to care about specific abuses. That's the only time you start seeing regulators start to care at all. Half the time, the regulators actually mitigate the damage to the corporations by creating compromises where the corps always seem to come out ahead in the end.
I'm not saying that I am necessarily in favor of abolishing government regulation totally, but I really think that the general public needs to understand that our choice of how we deal with corporate abuse engenders the specific abuses that we read, including what is being alluded to with this article. We might also want to consider that there may be other possibilities for safeguarding the public interest other than constantly turning to the government and expecting them to enforce it. They will certainly do it if you ask, but doesn't mean they are the best people to do it.
History, as written by progressives who misrepresent it and the ignorant who don't understand it, confuses the effects of governmental regulation with increasing wealth which make more safety affordable.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Privacy is a right. What do you think it means to be secure in your person, papers, and effects? If they're all public that's not very secure.
If a band is crowded I doubt anyone is going to make a device that uses it. The industry is also pretty good at making standards, the FCC has nothing to do with those.
In what goddamn universe has this person not been arrested, given this prima facie evidence of corruption, bribery and defrauding the public?
Both of your replies were excellent. I wish I could have modded them both up.
Campaign finance had speech issues, and I agree that it was messed up.
What kind of reform can we pass that won't trample on our rights to freely assemble and publish; but will also end this kind of nonsense?
Let's say we made no prior association with a company working in the field being regulated as a condition of hire.
The argument against that is that there would be no expertise. This can be got around by hiring fresh-out-of-school, and having the agency train them.
The next stipulation is where rights issues come into play more I think. forfeiture of the right to work at a company involved with the industry being regulated, as a condition of joining the agency
Aside from the fact that many candidates would not want to commit to government employment for the rest of their lives, there's also the problem of the extent to which this kind of thing tramples on their right to work. It's just as evil as the non-competes that companies try to make us techies sign. I really wouldn't want to impose it on anybody.
You could limit that last restriction by imposing it only on those who will be making the actual decision--executive level beurocrats. That might make it less burdensome, since by the time you're an exec you're usually up in age and not giving up too much future employment opportunity.
I'm still not sure we can do it Constitutionally though. I'm more sure that it'll never happen even if it can be done within the framework. Corporations have too much power now. It'll take a much angrier populace, and a real leader like Theodore Roosevelt to turn us away from this kind of thing.
As far as I can tell, that figure was pulled out of the author's ass. Equally your rebuttal. A little bit of googling reveals it is at least on the order of hundreds of billions.
In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money. The people voted with their wallets (well, eyeballs). If you, as a concerned citizen, see someone buying up the spectrum in a way you don't like, then you should pony up your own dough and make a bid. Or you could start broadcasting on the web, or some other hitherto unknown technology, and render all that TV spectrum they purchased worthless, and they'd be bankrupt. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.
That was addressed in the link:
Standards only come about via government dictat? USB, HDMI, 33 1/3 rpm records... ? If a bureaucrat doesn't think of it, it can't exist?
I'd say that is akin to trespassing. The link may say lawsuits only, but I can see a criminal case similar to trespass.
Sounds like someone fucked up the auction, then.
Even if that were true, I'd like to see where among the enumerated powers Congress gets the authority for even creating or continuing the FCC.
Good question! Who regulates it now?
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
> Odd for a lobbyist to say something like "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms", which confirms they believe there is a potential for abuses.
She said that while she still worked for the FCC.
You are assuming that things like company towns and stores and oppressive corporate control in general is something that would happen by default without government regulation.
Why wouldn't they be? Unregulated monopolies are a great business model! (They just generally suck for everyone but the owners of the company) And why would it matter if "the public actually starts to care about specific abuses" if the government has no regulatory power to do anything about them?
viva-la -revolution
time for a change .
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
18 USC 207 puts restrictions on lobbying by past public officials. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure whether it applies in this case, but it seems like it does.
For times like this God gave us tar and feathers.
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
I have contacted both of my senators and my representative. I urge all other US citizens to do the same.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
How's it feel to be a fucking retard? TR was the last liberal Republican president. The parties began switching positions about the time of FDR, and this was completed either by the time of McCarthyism or when the Dixiecrats left the Dems to become Republicans because they wanted to continue being racist, and the national Dems weren't having it.
Look, I know Internet Libertarians aren't known for being grounded in reality, commodore64_love, but really.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I'll ask you the same question: how's it feel to be a fucking retard?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
But Obama *appointed* her, didn't he?
I don't understand. Was this another example of his "post-partisanship"? http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/04/the-adventures-of-middle-man/
At least that leaves McDowell as the only commissioner left who suggests that the FCC should be sued back into the stone age whenever the FCC decides, that it maybe, might consider to think about doing anything. Not that it matters, it is all theater anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairperson. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
Yes. Yes it does.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
"What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter."
Yeah, I loved that one too. Talk about overcrowding the courts. Someone starts fooling around on my frequency. So I sue them and win and they stop. Then someone else decides to start fooling around on my frequency. Now I have to sue the new guy too. Pretty soon I'm in court more often than most lawyers, and meanwhile until the lawsuit is decided I can't use my frequency. Tough shit, you might say, if I'm a television station, but what if I'm the fire department?
"The FCC shouldn't exist" is the call of the obnoxious anti-gubmint anarchist. Nothing more.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Can we organize an email campaign to her, copying the media? Is it even worth it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money."
Cause absolutely no one who owns a station STARTED with any money, it was only accrued through them being the most successful station. You're advocating hard for letting those with money do whatever they want to those without.
the problem is Congress. We should not ban corporate lobbying anymore than we ban lobbying from any group. What we should is reform the election system so that it does not take millions and millions of dollars to become an elected official. This is the inroad that all the money has. This is how corporations, unions, and special interest groups, get control of Congress. They buy the campaigns. They can do this because we don't have limits on how much a campaign cost.
Three methods.
One method would be to set a financial limit on how much a campaign for a specific office can be spent. This includes putting costs on volunteer work as well. We have the very real chance of a billion dollar campaign for the office of the President in 2012. You think Wall Street is going to give up what they (and yes they won it) in 2008? Like hell.
Yet at the same time it will require reigning in all these new shadow groups that Congress writes into law like the 527 groups. Simple attempts by Congress to allow their buddies to keep them in office while dodging all the restrictions they attempt to place on those who attempt to keep them out.
The second method
Term limits. One term in Senate and three in the House.
The third
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and go back to having state legislators appoint their Senators.
Who contributes money is not a problem, its how much and why it is of such influence. It has such influence because you can nearly buy an election (sometimes that fails) and once in your nearly there forever.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
These cocksuckers don't even try to be subtle any more.
Meaning they will have to dicussion doing Comcast's bidding over a four-star lunch instead.
Bingo. The premise that the right to privacy isn't in the constitution is false.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
And idiot pieces of shit confuse reality for their ignorant dreams when they think companies would spend money on safety if they did not have to.
2. Create a mega network for the worst managed sinkhole of ancient technology in history.
3. Profit$$$$$$$$
I think she is brilliant on a business level. She's already screwed over the customers of Comcast and NBCU. Now she's going to screw over the tax payers by soliciting for funds to patch the sinking ship. Meanwhile she rakes in dumpster loads of cash while she shovels what remains of her morales out the door.
Ban corporate political donations. Set a cap on individual political donations to 1000$. Make tough laws for electoral fraud, and enforce them.
All your problems are solved.
Good luck getting the politicians who receive millions of dollars in "donations" to agree to that.
I put quotes around donations because I believe at a certain threshold they cease to be about supporting a political group and their bid for election because they have similar ideals, and more about a BRIBE from special interest groups so that their ideals and agenda with become part of the parties to do list.
We don't even have a government in this country any more. What we have is a corpse which, by some form of political necromancy, is animated by the will and power of our corporations.
To say that she left the employment of the government to work for a corporation doesn't exactly depict what's happening. It's more like she works for Comcast but temporarily had a post at their branch office in the FCC.
I consider our previous president (Bush) and his Republican-majority Congress to be progressives.
Is that recent enough for you?
Even now the so-called "tea party" Republicans are just a small minority. The Republicans in charge are still pushing forward with a progressive, "ignore the constitution as if it doesn't exist" agenda.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
See subject line. Blows my mind, it's worse than I've ever seen in 47++ yrs. of existence here (and the same from MY elders as well, who have more life experience than I have... they tell me the same also). It's a sad statement on human affairs and a testament to the old adage of "absolute power corrupts absolutely". I don't understand these people "at the top", I really truly don't. I mean, either TOTAL sociopaths are what make it there, or they lack any higher human qualities along with their peers, because if anyone has the power to make a better world, it's the folks "at the top". Seems they are only out to make it worse for others and better for themselves only. That only goes so far, until the entire show shits the bed though.
It's not an absolute defense in the U.S., either. If the information is private and the person is a private citizen, you can still get into trouble for invasion of privacy.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I don't know about federal law, but the state law were I live forbids a state official from taking a job with a company they regulate until they've been gone from their state job for at least two years.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad