Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

President Obama To Nominate Cable and Wireless Lobbyist To Head FCC

Posted by Soulskill on from the break-out-the-tinfoil-hats dept.

symbolset writes "The Wall Street Journal and others are reporting that longtime telecomm lobbyist Tom Wheeler will be nominated to head the Federal Communications Commission. According to the LA Times: 'Wheeler is a former president of the National Cable Television Assn. and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Assn. Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "As someone who has known Tom for years, I believe that he will be an independent, proactive chairman," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."'"

49 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Yep, typical by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really wish the alternatives in the recent elections weren't more in bed with corporate interests.

    1. Re:Yep, typical by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you expect? This is the same party that gave us the DMCA.

    2. Re:Yep, typical by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back up further: what do you expect of politics in general? Money buys influence in any government, no matter what form it takes. The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money. You can argue about this party or that party, or the number of parties, or term limits, or democracy even, but in any organization where the citizens don't care, you'll get money buying rules. Parties aren't going to do the job of the public for the public.

      Actually, you can generalize that last part as well. No one is going to do any job you want them to do unless you keep on them or they have their own interests in doing it. Politicians aren't going to have our interests at heart unless you threaten to kick them out if they don't. And we're not doing that.

    3. Re:Yep, typical by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      That's what I've been preaching for the last few months. Politicians listen to money, because the people don't take the time to make them listen.

      My own state is an example of this. We contacted a democrat and had him vote against the recent gun control legislation. Did he do this because we asked him to? Did he do this because the NRA promised him big checks? Only time will tell. But at least in this instance, he voted what I can only assume is the will of the loudest people. (I also believe in my southern state, they are the largest voting block put together) Write your Senators, your Reps, your President. You may not have voted for them, but they still need to listen to your concerns.

      Corporations have money, yes, but they can't vote. Only the people can vote, and if they do, politicians will listen.

      --
      21st Century Renaissance Man
    4. Re:Yep, typical by emaname · · Score: 2

      Well said, interkin3tic!!! Well said!!!

      That is one of the most succinct descriptions of our current political system that I've read to date (other than "politicians suck"). In fact, all we have left is "political theater."

      I've been suggesting that we start an "abstain campaign(TM)" (Note I TM'd that). Make a point of going to the polls, but write in your nomination/vote. However, write in something like "These candidates are not worthy of my vote. My vote is too precious to throw away. I abstain." This is primarily meant for the state or national elections, not necessarily local stuff.

      I would like to think if enough people did this, the politicians would get a clear vote of "no confidence" from the population. It's another way of saying, "We know you guys don't represent us anymore. We know you're going to do whatever your corporate owners want you to do. So we see no point in wasting our votes on you."

      Even the threat of something like this happening might bring greater focus to the big money corruption in politics. If we choose not to participate, it suggests we don't need politicians anymore. It says to the whole world that "we the people" know our system has been hijacked; the US "democracy" is broken/perverted. At least we as citizens won't appear ignorant and gullible to the rest of the world.

      The fact a person takes the time to go to the polls and submit a vote demonstrates their desire/willingness to participate in the political process. But the write-in expresses the sense of futility.

      Maybe another approach would be to write in your own nominee. Let's all write in TJ Max, or Sears, or McDonalds. Now I think of this, I do kind of like Culver's butter burgers. They would be my write in. After all, corporations are people, too. So let's elect one to be president.

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  2. The revolving door continues to spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

    Seriously?

    1. Re:The revolving door continues to spin by PPH · · Score: 2

      Trouble is, we are the ones that get hit in the ass by it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. wolf in sheep skin shoes by zlives · · Score: 4, Funny

    in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

    1. Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Death won't stop him from voting, why should it stop him from holding office?

    2. Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      How would that be bad? He gave his patients what they wanted. People trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else, with their strange notions of your life not being yours to end when you feel like it, that's not who I would want in charge of health services.

  4. Third parties by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You must not have been paying attention. There were many third party candidates who were not on the corporate payroll.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Third parties by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The most viable third party, the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform. The lack of money in that regard seems to just be and artifact of their lack of electoral potential.

    2. Re:Third parties by claytongulick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a common misunderstanding/misperception. The Libertarians vehemently oppose corporate welfare and public/private partnerships. What you're calling "pro-corporate" is really not true - they believe that in general, the market should be left alone, regulation minimized and clear separation between companies and government should exist. They are deeply suspicious of things like the military-industrial complex.

      The Libertarians believe that a person has a right to the fruit of their own labors, and that people should be free from burdensome regulation and oppressive government manipulation of markets. This is not "pro corporate" this is "pro human". They also believe that just as a person should be free to succeed, they should be free to fail. The libertarians are passionately opposed to "bail outs" and "stimulus" government corporate welfare programs.

      Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    3. Re:Third parties by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform.

      Nope. Libertarians are pro-market. The Ruling Party is pro-corporations, and does all it can to help their cronies exclude competition.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Third parties by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

      And then the Libertarian would rebrand himself a Republican and run as that.

      Plus, it wouldn't matter anyway - after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:Third parties by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Believing each individual has an inalienable right to the fruit of their own labour does not equal believing that capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labour. The difference should be obvious to anyone that can read English.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:Third parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is it "pro human" to let someone die of an easily-treatable health condition just because they previously depleted their savings and can't work while disabled?

    7. Re:Third parties by Yakasha · · Score: 3, Informative

      as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

      You're confusing "minimal" with "no" regulation. Very different words.

    8. Re:Third parties by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that doesn't fit the Leftwing view that anything different from their limited view is 100% wrong, therefore deserves to be mocked and exaggerated.

      I've started parroting their techniques back at them. They make exaggerated claims about things they don't understand, I make exaggerated claims about what they believe. "All Liberals believe government should tell people how much they should make, and should pick the winners and losers through the body politic. And government should punish the successful and reward failue. Fair share is 'code' for punish the rich."

      You can see hints of this in the GP post "The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours." Punish the wealthy, because they stole it all from the poor. If they only realized how ridiculous their view actually comes across. They make Sarah Palin look like a genius. (another technique, equate them with being more stupid than those they mock)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Third parties by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am a libertarian and I don't support the military, industrial, media complex. I support proper accountability for corporations by holding their senior officers and corporate boards personally liable for corporate sponsored crimes. Additionally, I support being able to pull ill gotten gains from private trusts as well. Change the laws so that those running these non-person entities are held responsible for corporate sponsored crimes, and you'll see a change in corporate culture. You don't have to destroy corporations to keep them accountable, you just have to change who is accountable for when corporations do illegal acts. Right now, nobody is accountable.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Third parties by claytongulick · · Score: 2

      The wonderful thing about a free society is that no one works by force (unlike statist governements).

      If a consenting adult chooses to engage in a mutually beneficial contract and sell his time and service to another for an agreed upon compensation, that hardly fits your example of "capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labor".

      The fact that a voluntary system of rewards, employment, creation, production and business opportunity is a superior system to leftist/statist "work for the common good" scheme should be obvious to anyone that can read English - because those that can read English should have read Animal Farm at some point.

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    11. Re:Third parties by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why Libertarians are hated so much by both sides. The corps run both the R's and D's and use social issues to divide the population into these two camps. Divide and conquer works today as it always has. Blacks against Whites, Gay against Straight, Religious versus Atheists, etc. You'll notice shit like the patriot act gets full bipartisan support though. When will people wake up? I think only when they get hungry. As long as the bread and circus acts keep going it will never change.

    12. Re:Third parties by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You fail to see that corporations use government regulations to control the market to their exclusive benefit and kill any competition. There is no free market capitalism and has not been for decades.

    13. Re:Third parties by jcr · · Score: 2

      every "libertarian" out there would basically set up a kingdom of corporate power.

      Dude, we're already living in a kingdom of corporate power. The Libertarians are the party that's trying to end that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Third parties by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      Do you believe easily treatable conditions would cost as much as they do in a libertarian society with no government enforced monopolies, compared to what we have right now in a world run by drug patents and with the AMA artificially limiting the number of doctors we have?

    15. Re:Third parties by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      Regulation to big corporations is like the briar patch to Brer Rabbit.

      "Oh no Mr Government! Don't pass any more regulations!"

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/timothy-p.-carney-mattel-exempted-from-toy-safety-law-it-helped-write/article/36618

      Oh look, one of the biggest players exempted from toy safety laws that they wanted implemented. Of course, small companies need to spend a fortune to comply.

    16. Re:Third parties by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      I'm a bit of a "lefty", I see the libitarians in the same light as the flower power crowd of my youth, the libitarians and not all free love and peace but their core philosophical assumption stated in its simplest from is the same as that of a "flower child", ie: people will "play nice"if you remove the umpire. The problem of course, is that all available evidence from the last few millenia points to the opposite outcome.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Third parties by Arker · · Score: 2

      You misunderstand. No one thinks people will play nice if you remove the umpire.

      We think that if the umpires job is very strictly and tightly defined and if he does his own job and lets the players do theirs, then the game will work out better all around.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    18. Re:Third parties by saleenS281 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also believe that corporations wouldn't pollute the water supply because it's bad for everyone to have polluted water, so we don't need the EPA. Or that companies won't create things like the mortgage bubble because bad investments are bad for the entire market - a la Alan Greenspan, so we don't need banking oversite.

      Reality has shown their beliefs are absolute trash when put into practice. Greedy assholes will always be greedy assholes and they tend not to care what happens to anyone that isn't them, right at this moment.

  5. Conflict of interest by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't even pass the sniff test with regards to conflict of interest. Obama is as much of a tool of industry as W ever was, his entire populist election campaign of 2008 was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. Seriously, look at industry after industry and you will see Obama acting fundamentally the same. How many bankers are in jail for the collapse of the economy, etc, etc?

    1. Re:Conflict of interest by zlives · · Score: 2

      hey at least the republicans will filibuster this

    2. Re:Conflict of interest by Krojack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every President that gets elected to a second term stop giving a shit. It's the home stretch to pad their pockets and spend paradise on a beach.

    3. Re:Conflict of interest by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Neil Macbride, former Business Software Alliance general counsel and vice president was appointed US Attorney shortly after President Obama's first inauguration - probably at the behest of his former boss Vice President Joe Biden. Since then he has been a tireless bulldog as the US Government's enforcement arm of the MPAA and RIAA - notably in the case of Kim Dotcom's Megaupload in New Zealand, which is now bordering on an international incident.

      Darned right it doesn't pass the sniff test.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:Conflict of interest by WGFCrafty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? Every one? Must have missed FDRs slacking the second time round cause he got a third.

  6. More of the same... by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good thing we didn't elect that mean ol' corporate guy, Romney, eh? Keep electing Democrats hoping that they will be different than Republicans, and don't you DARE 'waste' your vote on anything other than an (R) or a (D)!

    1. Re:More of the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The more votes a third party gets, the more the Rs and Ds try to copy their policies in order to win those votes back. Better to change position on a few topics then let another party gain good media attention. The third parties see that someone cares about them and they keep on fighting for their principles. Your vote does more than you think it did.

      Thank you for voting for a different party.

  7. The end of Google Fiber? by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No doubt he can be counted upon to be reasonable with this startup that's challenging his former employers.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  8. This is nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite the promises made by President Obama, there are plenty of lobbyists with jobs in government, hired on his watch. What's one more? What difference does it make?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-lobbyists-inside-the-obamas-administration?op=1

  9. Re:Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

    I am sure Salt Marsh would be a great public servant

    --
    Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
  10. Re:Wow... by kwbauer · · Score: 2

    Probably but it isn't conflicting with any of his interests so why should he care?

  11. Bring back Teddy by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money.

    Or when you have an honest man for a president who truly does place the public good above his own greed. The only two examples I can think of offhand are George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt.

    Obama is just as corrupt as Bush, he is a team player.

    1. Re:Bring back Teddy by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I enjoy reading Revolutionary War history, and apparently, he was held in incredibly high esteem by his contemporaries. He may not have been perfect, but he was certainly principled, and took his *CONSTITUTIONAL* responsibilities seriously.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Bring back Teddy by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He made mistakes in his youth. Everybody does. His selflessness was damn clear in the way he conducted himself commanding the Continental Army. Throughout the early years of the war he was undersupplied and outgunned, suffered defeat after defeat, wintered in brutal conditions, and yet stood firm with his men through every grueling trial year after year at the constant risk of his own life. It was this record that enabled him to bring the entire Newburgh Conspiracy to an end with one sentence and move an entire room full of bitter military veterans to tears.

      He was as human as any, but his near-saint status is not unearned, and those would claim it was are likely oblivious to what he really did with his life.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  12. Re:I believe that he will be an independent by chromas · · Score: 2

    Goddammit, Loch Ness monster; I ain't gonna give you no tree fiddy!

  13. All is not lost by symbolset · · Score: 5, Informative

    Part of the vetting process for this means taking down your blog. Fortunately the Wayback Machine is our friend. I haven't read the whole blog yet, but this article about SOPA seems to indicate Mr. Wheeler might not be entirely clueless.

    Hat tip to Slate's Emma Roller, who found it.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  14. Fucking hell... by FuzzNugget · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Privately run prisons, rubber stamping patent office, one-sided antagonistic copyright, violent take downs of non-violent civil offenders who pissed off corporations, multi-million dollar salaried revolving door jobs for politicians who fucked the public in the ass to do their corporate buddies a favor, hiring former corporate cronies as regulators so they can continue doing corporate favors... Why don't we just save ourselves the trouble by dropping the pretenses and officially handing all government duties to private corporations?

  15. It is time to choose your party by Spykk · · Score: 3, Informative

    This event is the punctuation mark on a diatribe that should have convinced you to vote third party. Voting for a Democrat or a Republican is WASTING your vote. The published views of a party are meaningless when their actions are entirely self-serving. If you don't think that your countries laws should be dictated by corporations that view you as a commodity then it is your patriotic duty to vote for someone, ANYONE, who is not beholden to one side of the corporate coin or the other.

  16. News like this by th3rmite · · Score: 2

    This is why I drink.

  17. Re:With one difference... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Obama is not a war monger like 'W'. He is more like Bush Sr.

    What, precisely, makes you think that CIA Death Squad manager George Herbert Walker Bush is not a war monger?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"