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.'"
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."
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"
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.